The Sony A7Rii

heartyfisher

Now that the Sony A7Rii can AF better than Canon using canon lenses isn't is a matter of time there will be a version that can AF using Nikkor lenses ? from what I am hearing many Canon shooter are jumping ship!

fat_fingers

yes but we are "jumping the ship" in Nikon direction
I tell you why i moved to Nikon. Canon midrange i was interested in is 6D - one, yes one cross type focus point and numerous other crippled features. Where i am Canon 6D is more expensive than Nikon D750. Canon DR is soo behind Nikon it's not even funny anymore. Canon is really scabby with features.
One thing Canon has superior to Nikon is its updated range of pro - red ring lenses. That is all good for high end professional but not really big concern for me.

Sony has its own fair share of issues on previous Sony A7R , leaked light, shutter issues. AF accuracy isn’t perfect, metering is a big problem.
And i personally did not like grain in high ISO images on Sony A7R.
Battery life is another big issue for me
Maybe they fix it it all but i doubt it very much

PB_PM

Now that the Sony A7Rii can AF better than Canon using canon lenses isn't is a matter of time there will be a version that can AF using Nikkor lenses ? from what I am hearing many Canon shooter are jumping ship!

The only reason Canon lenses work is because Metabones and others have hacked Canon's firmware to work with the FE mount bodies via their third party adapter. There seems to be no move on Metabones parts to get Nikon lenses working. Part of the reason stated is that only "E" lenses have a electronic aperture, so G lenses are apparently problematic.

BabaGanoush

I just sold my D800, although I kept all of my Nikon lenses I was thinking about replacing the D800 with a D810, then decided to wait until the end of the year to see whether Nikon released a mirrorless camera. If they don't, I'll buy a D810. In the meantime, I'll be ordering the new A7R M2 along with a couple of the new Zeiss E-mount lenses. I've been extremely pleased with my Sony A6000, but the better lenses are intended for full-frame. There were too many issues with the original A7 models to suit me. The new model seems to correct those problems, hopefully without introducing serious new problems of its own.

snakebunk

It is great that there are adapters, but where do you put your claim if you have a problem with the autofocus and three brands involved?

ThomasHorton

Now that the Sony A7Rii can AF better than Canon using canon lenses...

Does it? Or is this just something Sony marketing is claiming? From what I have read there are some Canon lenses that can focus faster using the Sony/Metabones set up.

haroldp

Metabones may be saying it, I doubt very much that Sony will promote the use of any other lenses on their cameras. They would much rather you buy the lenses they do not have.

... H

heartyfisher

Its not only that it can AF the canon lenses. It makes them all IS/VR.

It would be nice to have VR on all my old AIS lenses.. makes the rumored F Mount Nikon Mirrorless take the back seat on that feature. if sony cant do it then maybe Pentax will make a mirrorless FX that can mount and AF Nikkor.

haroldp

The sony A7II (24 mp) at half the price of the A7rII also does VR in the camera. That is why it I mount my Leica Lenses on it.

If Sony had an acceptable line of AF lenses in FE mount, it would replace both my Nikon's and my Fuji's for general purpose photography.

For wildlife, sports, and theater, the D810 and 400 / 2.8 VR , 200-400 /4 are so far beyond anything anyone but Canon has available, that they will remain my kit for a long time.

.... H

Ironheart

Its not only that it can AF the canon lenses. It makes them all IS/VR.

It would be nice to have VR on all my old AIS lenses.. makes the rumored F Mount Nikon Mirrorless take the back seat on that feature. if sony cant do it then maybe Pentax will make a mirrorless FX that can mount and AF Nikkor.

Why can't the mythical F Mount Nikon Mirrorless have sensor based VR? My Nikon 1 does...

manhattanboy

Its not only that it can AF the canon lenses. It makes them all IS/VR.

It would be nice to have VR on all my old AIS lenses.. makes the rumored F Mount Nikon Mirrorless take the back seat on that feature. if sony cant do it then maybe Pentax will make a mirrorless FX that can mount and AF Nikkor.

Why can't the mythical F Mount Nikon Mirrorless have sensor based VR? My Nikon 1 does...

The Nikon 1 does not have sensor based VR. Its VR is still in the lenses. There is a psuedo VR for video not based on IBIS, and it does not work at all for pics.

MaxBerlin

New Sony only has 11+7 compression. My blog details numerous reasons why Sony just isn't there yet.

You're wasting your time and opportunity with Sony. Since getting the Nikon D810 the Sony ONLY comes out for comparisons in which it's TRAMPLED by the Nikon in IQ.

Search these forums for SONYVNIKON to find a link to my blog or google it.

BabaGanoush

Since getting the Nikon D810 the Sony ONLY comes out for comparisons in which it's TRAMPLED by the Nikon in IQ.

Can you offer any pictures that compare the d810 with the sony and demonstrate the superiority of the d810? I'd be interested to see them for myself. Instead of graphs derived from studio test charts, I'd rather see photos of normal everyday subjects, in other words, I'm interested in any differences in photographs that I might take myself.

haroldp

I am an active shooter of both Nikon (D810, D3x) and Sony (A7 II) for real photographs that I show.

I do not find camera based IQ issues to be significant for me and I am very fussy.

The issues raised by MaxBerlin, and by Thom Hogan about Sony compression are real, but only become relevant under the most extreme difficult conditions, trying to get detail out of buried shadows or burned highlights.

For wildlife, sports, and theater, the D810 and 400 / 2.8 VR , 200-400 /4 will remain my kit for a long time. mostly because of Lens and AF capabilities.

Most of my photos are taken under decent conditions, and I have no problem with Sony's IQ if properly post processed (I use ACR lens / camera profiles).

When shooting with Leica lenses, under less than perfect conditions, adding sensor based VR matters more than the differences in data compression, and I wish I could do it with my Nikon lenses.

The Sony A7 II with Leica WATE is 2/3 the size and weight of a D810/16-35 combo, and is with me for architectural shoots where I would not carry the Nikon combo, and the lens is better. A kit that you have with you has much better IQ than a kit left at home.

IMHO, Sony's biggest deficiency in the serious market, is a complete lack of worthwhile native FE mount lenses.
Their current lineup are way overpriced and second rate performers. I will accept an F4 (rather than 2.8) zoom, but it had better be sharp at F4 and theirs are not. If I did not already own a range of suitable Leica glass I would not have considered Sony.

I agree that If I could only have one, it would be Nikon because it can be configured to be suitable for a much wider range of conditions.

... H

BabaGanoush

I am an active shooter of both Nikon (D810, D3x) and Sony (A7 II) for real photographs that I show.

I do not find camera based IQ issues to be significant for me and I am very fussy.

......

I agree that If I could only have one, it would be Nikon because it can be configured to be suitable for a much wider range of conditions.

... H

That's a very fair appraisal and I'd likely agree with most if not all of your comments. The only Sony lens I own now is the 70-200mm f/4 FE lens, which is decently sharp on axis (almost as sharp as my Nikon 80-400mm lens), but it gets soft towards the edge of the field, and in that respect doesn't hold up as well as the Nikon glass. I have been shooting with it on my A6000 in excellent conditions so it's not being challenged in ways that would separate it from my D800 (which I no longer own). What I will probably decide is that Sony gear can replace the MFT cameras and lenses I keep as a light travel kit but not the Nikon gear for most other photography.

WestEndFoto

I am an active shooter of both Nikon (D810, D3x) and Sony (A7 II) for real photographs that I show.

I do not find camera based IQ issues to be significant for me and I am very fussy.

......

I agree that If I could only have one, it would be Nikon because it can be configured to be suitable for a much wider range of conditions.

... H

That's a very fair appraisal and I'd likely agree with most if not all of your comments. The only Sony lens I own now is the 70-200mm f/4 FE lens, which is decently sharp on axis (almost as sharp as my Nikon 80-400mm lens), but it gets soft towards the edge of the field, and in that respect doesn't hold up as well as the Nikon glass. I have been shooting with it on my A6000 in excellent conditions so it's not being challenged in ways that would separate it from my D800 (which I no longer own). What I will probably decide is that Sony gear can replace the MFT cameras and lenses I keep as a light travel kit but not the Nikon gear for most other photography.

Your comments regarding the Sony 70-200 f/4.0 are very damning for Sony. Their cameras suggest promise, but then you look at their lens strategy and become depressed. I find that there are a few people that are likely shooting Sony:

1.
Photographers that don't get hung up on the gear and often know how to shoot great images even with mediocre equipment. Whether they know it or not, mediocre gear is good enough most of the time.

2.
Consumers of camera porn. These are the same type of people that spend countless hours debating the merits of Ferraris and Lamborghinis, though will never have enough money to buy one and sometimes even more sadly, are still doing it when they are 40. You will likely never see a portfolio from these people, as they suck.

3.
The average amateur that sees a camera and lens as one. They likely have a zoom, may have two and occasionally, may have a prime. When they buy a new camera, they may not think too much about the lens they currently have, as it may have never come off their camera.

I know lots of 1s and 3s and count some as pleasant people and a few as friends.

I find #2s shallow and boorish. They are easy to avoid in most aspects of life, though that is trickier on an online forum.

In my view, if you appreciate that the better camera brands are marketing a system where the lenses are the most important component and you care about long term quality, you will buy Nikon, Canon, Fuji and perhaps Leica.

PB_PM

Indeed, when you look at the Sony FE system as a whole it is very lacking. Most of the big proponents of these cameras use third party glass because Sony's own glass and their "Zeiss" branded stuff is second rate. I guess that's okay if you don't mind using supported Canon glass on a $400 Metabones, or Leica glass, via an adapter, but that doesn't do much for me (since I don't have either). If the goal is to make a smaller, lighter package that is not the answer.

The price is also rather outlandish outside of the US ($3999 Cdn). I know it's a new sensor and has 4k, but really? 4k for a camera that has a battery rating of 290 shots per charge? Sony executives will be able to buy a new Cadillac each on spare battery sales alone!

JonMcGuffin

I am an active shooter of both Nikon (D810, D3x) and Sony (A7 II) for real photographs that I show.

I do not find camera based IQ issues to be significant for me and I am very fussy.

The issues raised by MaxBerlin, and by Thom Hogan about Sony compression are real, but only become relevant under the most extreme difficult conditions, trying to get detail out of buried shadows or burned highlights.

For wildlife, sports, and theater, the D810 and 400 / 2.8 VR , 200-400 /4 will remain my kit for a long time. mostly because of Lens and AF capabilities.

Most of my photos are taken under decent conditions, and I have no problem with Sony's IQ if properly post processed (I use ACR lens / camera profiles).

When shooting with Leica lenses, under less than perfect conditions, adding sensor based VR matters more than the differences in data compression, and I wish I could do it with my Nikon lenses.

The Sony A7 II with Leica WATE is 2/3 the size and weight of a D810/16-35 combo, and is with me for architectural shoots where I would not carry the Nikon combo, and the lens is better. A kit that you have with you has much better IQ than a kit left at home.

IMHO, Sony's biggest deficiency in the serious market, is a complete lack of worthwhile native FE mount lenses.
Their current lineup are way overpriced and second rate performers. I will accept an F4 (rather than 2.8) zoom, but it had better be sharp at F4 and theirs are not. If I did not already own a range of suitable Leica glass I would not have considered Sony.

I agree that If I could only have one, it would be Nikon because it can be configured to be suitable for a much wider range of conditions.

... H

Thank you for this clear and unbiased comment.

NSXTypeR

I'm more interested in the newest versions of the Sony RX100 and RX10. Not that I was going to buy it, but incremental updates of solid cameras are only good, if not just to spur the other manufacturers to keep up with great Sony compact cameras. I'm not a fan of Sony mirrorless cameras, but boy their compact cameras are good.

PB_PM

RX100 MKIV ($1k Cdn and RX10 MKII ($1.5k Cdn) have crazy price tags. Over 1k for a compact cameras with 1" sensor? Really? I'm sure the sensors have some wonderful tech, but yeah. You'd have to really want to shoot 4k video to ever consider those models over the previous generation ones, since all Sony did was slap a new sensor in the new ones and called it a day. Sony execs will be laughing all the way to bank on those things.

Ton14

I am an active shooter of both Nikon (D810, D3x) and Sony (A7 II) for real photographs that I show.

IMHO, Sony's biggest deficiency in the serious market, is a complete lack of worthwhile native FE mount lenses.
Their current lineup are way overpriced and second rate performers. I will accept an F4 (rather than 2.8) zoom, but it had better be sharp at F4 and theirs are not. If I did not already own a range of suitable Leica glass I would not have considered Sony.

... H

I bought the NEX-7 (€ 1150.-) 2-1/2 years ago, when Sony promised quality lenses. They did not provide them. The Sigma 30mm f/2.8 was the only lens that performed a bit. Then I bought the Zeiss 16-70mm f/4, well ... Zeiss can do a lot better for a € 1000.- lens. I tested the $1500.- 70-200mm G lens and it performs hopeless, so I left it in the shop.

I don't think I see normal priced quality lenses for Sony. Changed the Nex-7 for the NEX-A6000 because it is light and I have 2 lenses for it. I see it as an advanced compact for having a camera with me.

Can put my Nikon lenses on it with an adapter, but then I'm back in the dark ages, everything is manual and nothing fancy camera thing works anymore, that is not where I buy a camera for.

Stick with my D600 and pro glass.

NSXTypeR

RX100 MKIV ($1k Cdn and RX10 MKII ($1.5k Cdn) have crazy price tags. Over 1k for a compact cameras with 1" sensor? Really? I'm sure the sensors have some wonderful tech, but yeah. You'd have to really want to shoot 4k video to ever consider those models over the previous generation ones, since all Sony did was slap a new sensor in the new ones and called it a day. Sony execs will be laughing all the way to bank on those things.

I guess yes, if you must have the newest and greatest it is not great value for money. But, honestly, 20 mp is enough for me, and the original RX100 I got used from my cousin for $200. Yes he gave me a great deal on it, but you can probably get one for under $400 now. A small-ish compact camera with a fast aperture, 1 inch sensor, for around $400? That's a pretty good deal there.

If you want the best Nikon interchangeable lens camera with a 1 inch sensor, those easily can get you over $600, especially if you want some of the fancier lens options.

The RX10 will give you a great range with a fast-ish aperture. The Nikon 1 system still doesn't have a fast zoom option. For that you'd have to get an adaptor and a 70-200 2.8, which easily puts you over $1500 at that point, just for the lens. The RX10 will do that in just over $1000.

henrik1963

The A7 mark 2 cameras would benefit greatly if Sony/Zeiss would make a small and super sharp set of primes.

35, 50 and 85 2.8 - that way you can carry a system all day. Later they could add a 1.8 or 2.0 set.

It would be the modern version of my old Leica set up: Leica M2 + 35 2.8 + 90 2.8.

If you are a Sigma 1.4 Art shooter - you may be better of by staying with something like a D810............... and a few sherpas :-)

haroldp

The A7 mark 2 cameras would benefit greatly if Sony/Zeiss would make a small and super sharp set of primes.

35, 50 and 85 2.8 - that way you can carry a system all day. Later they could add a 1.8 or 2.0 set.

It would be the modern version of my old Leica set up: Leica M2 + 35 2.8 + 90 2.8.

If you are a Sigma 1.4 Art shooter - you may be better of by staying with something like a D810............... and a few sherpas :-)

I am using my Leica primes (and WATE) on an a7II quite happily. They are MF, but the a7II has good MF focusing aids (peaking and 10x magnification).

The pres. of Sigma has stated that they will produce their lenses in FE mount, which would be a good AF solution, but have not announced a date.

... H

henrik1963

@haroldp: I do remember the MF days. I was pretty good at getting focus right fast - be it on a Leica or a Nikon But I also remember the first day with my Nikon F801s with AF - what a difference AF makes when you try to take pictures of kids and other fast moving objects.

That is not to say that good Leica glass + a good camera has no uses.

How does the Leica glass perform on a modern camera compared to Nikon glass?

WestEndFoto

I still use MF at 50mm or wider. My D800 is fine. Not sure what it would be like wider.