# Sony A7r II - Like and Dislike features



## Dylan777 (Aug 11, 2015)

Share your like and dislike features from A7r II

*Dislike:*
1. shutter and aperture dial feel cheap and small. Hard to turn
2. EVF not as good as A7s - especially shooting in low light. Has smearing look. 
3. Don't see much benefits with back-illuminated Exmor R full-frame CMOS sensor with high ISO yet. Cut off line seems to be at 5000ISO.

These are early observations....


*Like:*
1. IS works good on my FE55mm. Was be able to shoot 1/5 without tripod

At this moment, I'm still favor my a7s...


----------



## Eldar (Aug 11, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> Share your like and dislike features from A7r II
> 
> *Dislike:*
> 1. shutter and aperture dial feel cheap and small. Hard to turn
> ...


Interesting to hear your honest views Dylan. There is a lot of hype these days, so a down to earth user experience is much appreciated.

Your comment about the EVF surprised me. I would have expect every single new release at this level, to be equal or better than previous ones.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 11, 2015)

I've been shooting with 12MP(a7s) and do get carry away with high ISO. I have to remind myself this is 42MP.

Couldn't figure how to use AF tracking properly yet. I prefer to pick a target and allow the camera to track it. At this moment, it doesn't seem a7rii has that feature. Again, I'm still in the discovery land.

On the other side, allowing the camera to track nearest subject works very well with Zone mode 300AF points. 

Another AF tracking mode works pretty good is "Expand Flexible Spot - 9points AF". It does allow me to pick a target and camera will track the moving subject within 9points. 

I was amazed how EVF looks quite bad in low light.


----------



## bwud (Aug 20, 2015)

1. shutter and aperture dial feel cheap and small. Hard to turn

*I agree. There's little feedback and they're too recessed.*

2. EVF not as good as A7s - especially shooting in low light. Has smearing look. 

*I haven't used the A7S, but I agree that there is smearing when you pan. It even smears in good light. That being said it's demonstrably better for MF due to in EVF magnification, even in low-light (due to being illuminated).*

3. Don't see much benefits with back-illuminated Exmor R full-frame CMOS sensor with high ISO yet. Cut off line seems to be at 5000ISO.

*I'd call it at 6400. I don't think ISO is the only benefit, but from a user-perspective it's just kinda "sure whatever."*

1. IS works good on my FE55mm. Was be able to shoot 1/5 without tripod

*I still want to try that lens. I grabbed the FE 28/2, and it's a significantly better experience than using adapted glass. In particular, autofocus is fairly impressive. I mapped the AEL button to Eye-AF, and it's pretty damn impressive. I'd still tend toward manually focusing or manually selecting an flexible spot for critical applications (posed portraits, etc.), but for getting something really close to perfect while chasing family around? It's impressive. Also, flexible spot AF works 1000% better off-center with native glass. *

Another gripe I have is the lack of a PC port. Now, to drive my elinchrom monolights, I have use my speedlight triggers, either wiring the receivers to the monos or using a receiver wired to the elinchom skyport to trigger the trigger. Doing the latter doesn't appear to cause too much delay, but I haven't pushed it up against max sync.

Another gripe is how easily it jumps to another mode while I'm trying to select an AF spot. As mentioned elsewhere, I've unassigned the left- and right- buttons on the rear dial, but I guess I have a tendency to spin it a little while navigating around the screen, which brings up a different selection. I wish it had a dedicated joystick a'la canon. Using the wheels is ponderous, plus I have to move my hands. Also, the menu system itself is weird. Sometimes it will return to the screen I was previously on, other times it's somewhere completely random. Don't like.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 22, 2015)

I find it exceedingly difficult to see the effects of CPL through the EVF. I can rotate it 360 and barely see the change which is readily apparent on the PC. So IMO for high contrast scenes, fast action, and visualizing minute tonal changes, OVF is demonstrably superior. For MF, EVF is better.


----------



## Neutral (Aug 24, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> ...
> Couldn't figure how to use AF tracking properly yet. I prefer to pick a target and allow the camera to track it. At this moment, it doesn't seem a7rii has that feature. Again, I'm still in the discovery land.
> ....



A7r2 has this, a7s also.
There are number of options under "Lock-on AF".
Select AF-C operations mode, then under "Focus Area" select any of the lock-on AF options and that's it. There are flexible spot lock-on AF options, select size of the AF point , if required move it where you want and when you half press release button camera focuses on this point, lock on the object, adjust lock area and then track object across entire frame.
It worked very well on an a7s but on a7r2 it is much much faster.
It was very difficult to do the same on1dx.
Also there is option called "Center Lock-On AF" which you could engage in single shot AF-S mode. It starts track object from center of the frame and when release button is half pressed focus is locked on object position at this time. It works very well though as you see from above description it is a bit different than the same in AF-C mode.
With right setup of functional buttons all that is just one or two buttons clicks away.
Very convinient.
Tested also both AF modes with Canon 85mm F/1.2L II, 24-70mm F/2.8L II, 70-200mm F/2.8L II, all is very fast and using PDAF. All focusing instantly and 100% accurately and 85mm even in very low light when wide open. But tracks objects well only within PDAF points area which actually not bad. The problem with 85mm though that all imperfections when wide open are very noticible on 42mpx a7r2. For 12mpx a7s it was not an issue. 
Possibly I will replace it with Batis 85mm.
Also eye AF is not supported on Canon lenses. 
On a7r2 with native lenses this works like magic - instantly and accurately
Sorry for any typing errors if any, very difficult to type from small tablet, much easier to type on normal PC


----------



## bwud (Aug 24, 2015)

Neutral said:


> Also eye AF is not supported on Canon lenses.
> On a7r2 with native lenses this works like magic - instantly and accurately



I find EyeAF to be pretty accurate if the face in question takes up a relatively large portion of the frame. For full length portraits, the green AF confirm box is often as large as the white face recognition box itself. 

So, for full length (which is probably 70% of my portraiture), I'm using manual selection or manual focus.


----------



## RobertG. (Aug 24, 2015)

Dislike:
1. rumors and rare examples of posterization
2. use of SD cards 
3. no 2nd card slot
4. lack of confidence in Sony's quality and quality control
5. small battery capacity

Like:
1. better DR than a 5Ds, at least on paper
2. movable screen for live view
3. less noise than 5Ds
4. possibility to use native FE & EF lenses (although only the Sony Zeiss FE 35mm f1.4 lens interests me)

I'm currently looking for a new camera, especially for landscapes. I can't decide yet between the Sony A7RII and the 5Ds R. The price of the Sony + Metabones adapter is very similar to the 5Ds R. But with a collection of new SD cards it becomes even more expensive than a 5Ds R. I trust a Canon cameras and believe that a 5Ds R doesn't fail me out in the wild. I don't have this confidence in Sony (yet). This is more important than DR or autofocus for me. My main lenses (see signature) work well with the Sony. The rest of the lens collection (currently all in all 18 lenses with EF mount) doesnt...


----------



## bwud (Aug 25, 2015)

Regarding trying it in the wild: I agree.

In bringing my A7R2 and 5D3 to Europe in two weeks. It will be interesting to see what I use more. The Sony is hamstrung by my learning curve, but I'm coming up to speed. 

If I end up using the 5D more, I'll sell the Sony gear (at whatever loss) and get a 5DSr or mk4.

If I end up using the Sony more I'll keep it and invest in native glass, and I'll keep my 5D for action and tele.

The cost of SD is nominal. The cost of the adapter is not; it was nearly as pricy as the FE 2/28.

As for DR, yah the Sony has rather clean shadows (see attached recovery).


----------



## steen-ag (Aug 25, 2015)

Is this site not a canonsite???


----------



## IglooEater (Aug 25, 2015)

steen-ag said:


> Is this site not a canonsite???



We discuss third party lenses for canon bodies (sigma tamron etc) for a lot of us the Sony is (potentially) a third party body for our canon lenses.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 25, 2015)

steen-ag said:


> Is this site not a canonsite???



Take a gander at the sub-forum you're commenting in. It's called "Third Party Manufacturers."


----------



## romanr74 (Aug 25, 2015)

RobertG. said:


> My main lenses (see signature) work well with the Sony. The rest of the lens collection (currently all in all 18 lenses with EF mount) doesnt...



Holy crap - what an accumulation of TS-E glass...


----------



## sanj (Aug 25, 2015)

steen-ag said:


> Is this site not a canonsite???



I like to learn photography and find such discussions valuable.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 25, 2015)

steen-ag said:


> Is this site not a canonsite???


Yes, it is a Canon site.... but many of us like to keep an eye on what's happening elsewhere. Every manufacturer has it's strengths and weaknesses... far better to understand them than to blindly sit in a corner, after all, many of us use different systems for different purposes.


----------



## Too_Many_Hobbies (Aug 25, 2015)

My 2 cents on this topic:

Likes:
*Viewfinder *- wasn't sure if I would like an electronic or not. Not sure if I have a preference one way or the other as there are pros and cons to each, but it at least exceeded my expectation.
*Form Factor* - I like the smaller size of the camera, but at the same time it is kind of an in-between size where I'm not sure that it would really gain me anything compared to the DSLRs I use.
*Low ISO image quality* - there is a lot of detail compared to the 6D and 70D 20 megapixel files that I am used to. There seems to be some more flexibility to the files, more room to crop, can apply heavier noise reduction, etc.
*Exposure Comp* dial which works in manual mode. Really HATE that I have no option for this in the 6D or 70D (If Canon significantly improved the sensor in the 7D Mark II I would sell my 70D for the improved IQ and that feature alone).

Dislike:
*Controls* - I had a really hard time finding and using the controls, especially the movie record button and the wheel by the shutter button. I might get used to it, but with my limited time shooting with it I found it frustrating.
*High ISO noise* - my subjective impression is that the 6D looks better at least with an unprocessed RAW file out of the camera. Even after editing I think I would prefer my Canon setup.
*Adapted Canon Lenses* - the autofocus either didn't work at all (100L Macro lens), would work once and then not work until I disconnected and reconnected the lens (Sigma 35A), or did a lot of hunting in indoor lower light (70-200 F4 IS).
A lot of the *advanced autofocus* features that I wanted to try out did not appear to be usable with adapted lenses.
*Menu layout *- Very hard for me to find what I want, and there is no custom menu feature that I could find that I have grown used to with Canon.
*No touch screen* - I figured Sonly would have included this. I prefer the screen from my 70D.

Again, didn't have much time with the body, but I had enough time with it to know that it is not for me. Really looking forward to see what Canon does with a 5D Mark IV and EOS M IV (or whatever). As I would love a A6000 like Camera from Canon that I can have with me when out with the kids and a 5D Mark IV when I have some more room to carry my gear.


----------



## jrista (Aug 25, 2015)

Just a note on the BSI sensor. In Sony's own words, apparently one of the primary reasons they moved to that was to reduce corner vignetting caused by angled light with FSI designs. The wiring and transistors around the photodiode actually block light at higher incident angles...which IS the case with the extremely short registration distance in mirrorless cameras. Sony was using shifted microlenses in the past, but those can only be so effective. With BSI, corner illumination is supposed to be full, because there is nothing to block any incident light anymore...and there are still microlenses. 

I'm curious if anyone who has a past generation Sony A7 series camera and the A7r II has checked into that at all. I am not sure exactly which kinds of lenses are must succeptible to the problem...the angle should, as far as I understand, be high for most if not all lenses, but some may require higher angles than others.

Anyway, that's the primary benefit of BSI on a full frame sensor. I am sure there is probably some benefit to higher ISO performance, but I wouldn't expect it to be hugely obvious. If we had another 46mp sensor to compare to, the differences should be fairly easy to spot....comparing an A7r II to a 5Ds is probably apples-to-oranges enough that too many things could factor into differences between the two cameras.


----------



## emko (Aug 26, 2015)

jrista said:


> Just a note on the BSI sensor. In Sony's own words, apparently one of the primary reasons they moved to that was to reduce corner vignetting caused by angled light with FSI designs. The wiring and transistors around the photodiode actually block light at higher incident angles...which IS the case with the extremely short registration distance in mirrorless cameras. Sony was using shifted microlenses in the past, but those can only be so effective. With BSI, corner illumination is supposed to be full, because there is nothing to block any incident light anymore...and there are still microlenses.
> 
> I'm curious if anyone who has a past generation Sony A7 series camera and the A7r II has checked into that at all. I am not sure exactly which kinds of lenses are must succeptible to the problem...the angle should, as far as I understand, be high for most if not all lenses, but some may require higher angles than others.
> 
> Anyway, that's the primary benefit of BSI on a full frame sensor. I am sure there is probably some benefit to higher ISO performance, but I wouldn't expect it to be hugely obvious. If we had another 46mp sensor to compare to, the differences should be fairly easy to spot....comparing an A7r II to a 5Ds is probably apples-to-oranges enough that too many things could factor into differences between the two cameras.



Yes BSI helps that but NO BSI was made for less noise higher ISO specifically for cellphone sensors but they managed to upscale it to a full frame sensor making the MP jump easier as the ISO would not be as bad, just look at the 5DS 6400 limit and it looks really bad something like from a APS-C sensor.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 26, 2015)

The high ISO performance is far from mind blowing. If I had to guess, I'd say the aptina DR-PIX implementation is far more important than BSI as it pertains to ISO. I imagine BSI help, but returns diminish as pixels grow (eg as you go from cellphone towards full frame).


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 26, 2015)

bwud said:


> As for DR, yah the Sony has rather clean shadows (see attached recovery).



Good example of why DR is important and why everyone could use more....

I figure it is only a matter of time before RAW files jump from 14 bit to 16 bit and the camera world gets the ability to handle two more stops of DR.....

My first DSLR did 10 stops and I thought it was fantastic. My current camera does 12 1/2 stops and the difference is striking. Sony seems to be hitting that 14 bit limit to DR. although those 14 bits of DR is just a little bit better than my Canon's 12.5 bits, those are 14 CLEAN bits, where the bottom Canon bits are noisy, and that's why instead of being 1.5 stops better, it is really twice that...

In the future I expect both Canon and Sony to have 16 bits of relatively clean data and the whole DR controversy to vanish...... At least until someone comes up with 18 bits of signal and we get to start this all over again


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 26, 2015)

jrista said:


> Just a note on the BSI sensor. In Sony's own words, apparently one of the primary reasons they moved to that was to reduce corner vignetting caused by angled light with FSI designs. The wiring and transistors around the photodiode actually block light at higher incident angles...which IS the case with the extremely short registration distance in mirrorless cameras. Sony was using shifted microlenses in the past, but those can only be so effective. With BSI, corner illumination is supposed to be full, because there is nothing to block any incident light anymore...and there are still microlenses.
> 
> I'm curious if anyone who has a past generation Sony A7 series camera and the A7r II has checked into that at all. I am not sure exactly which kinds of lenses are must succeptible to the problem...the angle should, as far as I understand, be high for most if not all lenses, but some may require higher angles than others.
> 
> Anyway, that's the primary benefit of BSI on a full frame sensor. I am sure there is probably some benefit to higher ISO performance, but I wouldn't expect it to be hugely obvious. If we had another 46mp sensor to compare to, the differences should be fairly easy to spot....comparing an A7r II to a 5Ds is probably apples-to-oranges enough that too many things could factor into differences between the two cameras.



I'm wondering what effect adapting a Canon lens has on corner lighting, since the angle of incidence should be less. 

I'm keeping a eye out for some measurements of vignetting with similar focal length Canon and Sony lenses.

Its good to see feedback from actual owners. We have already had a lot of people reviewing it from the specifications, but now we will hear from experience.


----------



## bwud (Aug 26, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > As for DR, yah the Sony has rather clean shadows (see attached recovery).
> ...



Here's a more practical example. I've shot this same location (it's across the road from my front yard) numerous times at sunset. To show detail and especially color in the foreground, I have to resort to blending exposures with my 5D. Typically, I process the foreground as a silhouette.

As for 16-bit... Sony isn't even yet writing out 14-bit, so perhaps they could benefit from wider depth ADCs if they continue curving the data, but in a linear space 14 is still more than SOTA sensors can realistically use, it seems.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 26, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...


I have never considered DR as the most important aspect of a camera's performance, but with Canon I do consider it as the brand's greatest weakness and the place where they need to improve the most..... so yeah, I am a DRone, but a balanced one 

I have been watching Sony closely as their sensor advances show what is possible with current technology.... If you combined that with the ergonomics of the Olympus cameras you would have a great product.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 26, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...




It also has pixels 50% larger than the D810, so perhaps it has significantly higher FWC, and with similar RN might be able to make use of 16-bits. It could also be a marketing thing. Time will tell.

RED uses 16-bits to capture their HDR stuff.


Typical consumer 135-format sensors? Not so much. Canon could have put a 16-bit ADC on the 5DSR, and it would have been like ordering a small coke and putting it in a large cup.


----------



## sdsr (Aug 26, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> *Like:*
> 1. IS works good on my FE55mm. Was be able to shoot 1/5 without tripod
> 
> At this moment, I'm still favor my a7s...



I love my a7s but wish it had IBIS, which may be my single favorite feature of the a7rII (it's in the a7II as well, of course, but I don't think it's as good in other ways - more moire, oddly, for one thing). I mostly use third party manual lenses on mine and it's nice to have them all stabilized even if you don't get the full stabilization afforded native lenses. I've not tried anything extreme yet, but being able to use, say, my Rokinon 135mm f2 at 1/60 or Canon EF 200mm 2.8 at 1/80 hand-held and obtain perfectly sharp images is valuable to me. 

As for high ISO, I try to avoid going above 6400 on any camera, but on the a7II the noise is very fine-grained, even and unobtrusive. I've not yet been tempted to use more than the default LR noise reduction. Perhaps as important, color and detail are nicely retained. I've not compared it to my 6D; I suspect they will look similar, at least once the a7rII files are properly scaled down. (For those who care, it's now possible to use the DP Review comparison tool.)

As for the EVF, have those of you who find it disappointing activated the HD (or high quality or whatever they call it) option? The default is standard. I generally like it, though I don't think the resolution is quite high enough for its increased size compared to other models - I'm more aware of the individual pixels than I'm used to.


----------



## bwud (Aug 26, 2015)

sdsr said:


> As for high ISO, I try to avoid going above 6400 on any camera, but on the a7II the noise is very fine-grained, even and unobtrusive. I've not yet been tempted to use more than the default LR noise reduction. Perhaps as important, color and detail are nicely retained. I've not compared it to my 6D; I suspect they will look similar, at least once the a7rII files are properly scaled down. (For those who care, it's now possible to use the DP Review comparison tool.)



I shot a dim party last weekend at something like 1600, and was surprised by how noisy it was.



sdsr said:


> As for the EVF, have those of you who find it disappointing activated the HD (or high quality or whatever they call it) option? The default is standard. I generally like it, though I don't think the resolution is quite high enough for its increased size compared to other models - I'm more aware of the individual pixels than I'm used to.



I enabled it and didn't really see a difference. I thought it affected playback, not operation, though.


----------



## bitm2007 (Aug 26, 2015)

Hi Guy's

What's the corner sharpness like, when used with EF lenses via an adaptor ? I've heard that there's a lack of definition due to diffraction. Is this true ?.


----------



## Neutral (Aug 26, 2015)

bitm2007 said:


> Hi Guy's
> 
> What's the corner sharpness like, when used with EF lenses via an adaptor ? I've heard that there's a lack of definition due to diffraction. Is this true ?.



Have not done controlled test shots for that yet but have some general few test shots done with TSE17 and Metabone III adapter.
Sharp edge to edge - seems to be better on a7rII than on a7r.
DO not see any color cast at the edges.
Possibly will do some tests for that later when have time ( if any frame edge issues observed on a7R with adapted lenses).
Earlier tests that I did were to test AF with Canon lenses
General feeling from general test shots is that results from a7RII better at the fame edges.


----------



## sdsr (Aug 26, 2015)

bwud said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > As for high ISO, I try to avoid going above 6400 on any camera, but on the a7II the noise is very fine-grained, even and unobtrusive. I've not yet been tempted to use more than the default LR noise reduction. Perhaps as important, color and detail are nicely retained. I've not compared it to my 6D; I suspect they will look similar, at least once the a7rII files are properly scaled down. (For those who care, it's now possible to use the DP Review comparison tool.)
> ...



Are saying this based on viewing at 100% or otherwise?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 26, 2015)

sdsr said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > sdsr said:
> ...



For people who purchase such a camera and want to be able to crop severely like I do with my 5D MK III, the per pixel noise can come as a shock.

While noise is pretty low when you down sample the image to 8mp and ISO 100, you also defeat some of the benefits you thought you were getting with 42 mp (or 50mp). Its just a matter of understanding that there is no free lunch.

If you want to crop to near 100%, keep ISO to 400 or even less.


----------



## bwud (Aug 26, 2015)

sdsr said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > sdsr said:
> ...



100% view. At the size I exported it's a non-issue, it just looked noisier than I expected in my workflow (which involved some local brushing, etc). Also, as mentioned, if you're going to crop heavily, beware. That being said, there is little pattern or chroma noise, and typical NR tools work pretty well. 




Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If you want to crop to near 100%, keep ISO to 400 or even less.



640 is marginally better than 400. The A7R II appears to implement DR-Pix (from Aptina) at 640 (the A7S uses it at a higher sensitivity). 

So far, my use cases have been: 100 if I can -> 200 if I can't do 100, -> 640 if I can't do 200 -> whatever I have to use.


----------



## sdsr (Aug 27, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > bwud said:
> ...



Oh, sure. My point was merely that it can be misleading to compare ISO performance of cameras with different resolution; the a7s may still be best high-ISO performer to date, but when you figure in the resolution difference its margin of superiority is considerably reduced.

Aside from all that, those who haven't seen this may enjoy this hyper-picky chap's review:

http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/08/25/the-sony-a7r-ii-a7rii/


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 27, 2015)

sdsr said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > sdsr said:
> ...



I think we are agreeing on this. High ISO and a tight crop might not result in a pleasing image, but if its a small web size, you can get away with it. There are a lot of variables.


----------

