Camera gear discussions

A customization option would be nice, as I suspect a lot of people would prefer what you outline above. I actually like how it defaults to a zoom selection area, which I find useful for landscapes (all I really shoot), so I can select a specific point in the scene. I just have a custom button assigned to the function on my A7r, so I can move through it pretty fast. Subject matter, process and working style dictates a lot of what people end up preferring.

 

That's true. I'm more used to moving my hands and the camera for framing, though, which happens after focusing because I typically think of focus as a 2nd thought (especially for landscape with smaller apertures). So there's really no need to select a zoom area for me as long as the middle of the frame is somewhat in focus.

For portrait shots, though, I guess being able to move the zoom area may make sense, but then again, I've also been able to frame using the above method without inducing too much focus shift (as long as I move in a parallel plane, right?) even at super large apertures (f/1.4).

 

Interesting, what prime lens did you recommend for a test run with A7R(II)? The rent for Sony system is definitely not cheap here (and I'll have to go to a significantly further store for it since the smaller store nearby only had limited variety of Canon and Nikon for rent), but well I can try at least just for a day of real testing.

 

I would say... that depends on what you shoot primarily. 55mm f/1.8 would be my pick as a shoot-everything-equally-well lens.

But if you shoot landscape, I'd go for the 24-70mm f/4.0. More versatile with regards to framing, and 24mm should be wide enough in most cases except for the extremes where distortion will most likely warp your image anyhow.

The 24-70 may also be good for birds and the likes, but I'd recommend a fixed prime tele like the 90mm that Kapanak got for that purpose. A fixed prime will almost always give you better shutter speed advantage (through bigger aperture) that can potentially save you from noise and other stuffs at high motion. Plus more light means the focus system of the A7Rii will be happier.

 

If you want to see the what camera is capable of, the FE 55mm f/1.8 as Bill recommended is the right choice. Similarly the FE 90mm Macro G lens is also just as sharp for a slightly more telephoto and macro applications (works well for portraits too). Any of the other zoom lenses by Sony simply do not have enough resolution for the 42mp sensor. Make sure you rent out an extra battery XD These things GULP battery life. I have five batteries, two from my NEX system, one extra I bought, and two come with the A7RII.

I do not own the FE 35mm f/1.4 yet (due partially to my belief that wide angle lenses shouldn't be that long and heavy haha), but in terms of resolution and sharpness, the FE 35mm f/1.4 comes close to the 90mm and 55mm mentioned above.

 

Then demonstrate the beauty of manual control.

If people want machines to take over for them, fine and enjoy they enjoy their sheeple happiness. A camera body, manual lens and a decent sensor are enough for me to start working. I detest the increasing dependency on machines and software at the cost of DIY and creativity.

 

One of my favorite things about mirrorless is the ability to use virtually any lens with adapters, assuming auto-focus isn't a priority/necessity (I may be in the minority regarding this). There are a lot of great legacy lenses to explore. A personal favorite that I've found thus far is the Micro Nikkor 55mm F3.5 AI, an old manual focus prime. I purchased it for around $60; it's wickedly sharp corner to corner on the A7r, virtually zero chromatic aberration and can focus as close as 1:2 without any extension tubes. I use it with a Metabones Nikon F mount adapter. Really great value and stellar results if you're willing to deal with manual focus and aperture adjustment. I use smaller apertures for most of my work, so a wide maximum aperture isn't much of a factor for me.

I'm not a fan of KR, but this is the lens: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55f35ai.htm

I plan on exploring some of the older Canon FD lenses in the near future as well. The Canon 35mm F2.8 TS FD will probably be my next purchase. I'm used to using movements with my large format film work, and I would prefer to be able to do this with digital as well, vs. combining exposures for DOF whenever possible.

 

True, but it might not be something a paid photographer would submit for an assignment, especially if the client is discerning enough, although it would seem that such client bases are shrinking.

 

My fav camera:

 

I'm wanting to get a Sony a7x for the very reason of being able to use legacy lenses (having a collection from my film days).

Is it worthwhile to wait for the 7Rii to drop in price a bit later, or just go with the 7ii (or maybe the mk1 7R)? I'm not sure if additional MPs would make for a better image, but some photos from the Rs look stunning. My understanding is that more MPs may actually be worse but that may be for just smaller sensors.

 

If you are into stills, the mark I series is still good.

If video and more resolution matters for you (and you crave that bigger grip) the mark II series is your thing.

Sony is wrecking Canon and Nikon.

 

There are reasons to go with the A7rII rather than the A7r, but I don't think the megapixel difference is really one of them. The A7r's 36mp files (7360 x 4912) equate to 24.5" in the long dimension at 300 dpi, and the A7rII's 42mp files (7952 x 5304) end up being 26.5" at 300 dpi. The A7II you mentioned (6000x4000) is 20" at 300 dpi. As far as more megapixels being "worse", it comes down to intended use. For my purposes, more is better (assuming top notch base ISO performance), but I shoot at low ISO's and on a tripod 99% of the time. If you shoot in very low light all of the time, at very high ISO's, considering something with a lower MP count might be the right move.

That said, the feature set is where the A7rII distinguishes itself, compared to the A7r. As Deep Funk mentioned, the video capability is much better. The A7rII has built in 5 axis IS, which is a really big deal if you hand-hold a lot (most people do). Auto focus is improved. The sensor is backside illuminated, though I haven't found any tests that have shown this has resulted in much of a meaningful gains over the A7r in terms of DR and noise, probably due to the increased pixel density. And also an electronic front curtain shutter, which is much quieter and can be set to not cause shutter induced shake at slower shutter speeds (this is a documented problem with the A7r with some long lenses).

Of course, whether or not any of this is meaningful to your work and process is highly relative. I couldn't justify it with the differences in cost, especially considering how much the value drops upon the release of newer gen bodies - I purchased my A7r used for $900 with a battery grip, and it was only 11 months old and had about 7500 shutter actuation's. The 24mp A7's can be purchased lightly used at very reasonable prices. You can buy some really nice glass or go on a nice photo trip for the difference in cost. Sony's product cycle also turns quickly, so the latest and greatest today will quickly become surpassed. Whether or not it's worth it to you to be one the bleeding edge is up to you. To be blunt, most people's technique is going to be the limiting factor in obtaining the absolute best results from either of these cameras.

As with anything YMMV, etc. Best of luck!

 

I think the A7Rii also has a slight advantage on ISO performance versus gen 1 as well. That may be due to the backlit sensor. No DR or noise improvements, though, as said.

But yeah, for that much of an increase in price, you're not getting that much more resolution (6MP extra?), that many more features (video and stabilization?). I'd argue that video recording can be bested by cameras a fraction of the price (try the new Panasonic compact one?), in-body image stabilization is not as good as optical stabilization IMO, and though autofocus improvements are nice, they're only better than gen 1. DSLRs still beat the A7Rii at a lot of things (except for IQ).

If you're getting one of these bad boys for manual focus lenses, I don't think you'll find the extra stuffs that the A7Rii offers compelling enough.

Plus I actually prefer the edgy/sharp design of the 1st gen. 2nd gen A7 cameras look too much like DSLR, and I don't like that. The extra bulkiness and uglier design for more electronics to do gimmicks is not my cup of tea.

But on the other hand, if you're getting the A7Rii to use with Sony's autofocus lenses, and you know you'll be using tele lenses (>85mm) a lot, plus you also want to shoot some good video sometimes, too, then... well, I guess it is good for that.

 

I did a bit of study of the weight of 3 systems here. These lenses were chosen for comparison because they had comparable depth-of-field at the widest apertures.

 

Would help if you put this in context so we know what we are looking at. Unlabelled results, tables, graphs or statistics are very bad.

 

Ooops! hope it's clearer now.

PS: If Sony FE 28 F2 is chosen instead, overall cost is 600 lower.

 

Thank you

And hot damn! The new Zeiss Batis 85mm f/1.8 lens would fit perfectly in my kit. I already have the Sony FE 55mm f/1.8 ZA lens and the Sony FE 90mm f/2.8 Macro G lens for my A7RII. Need to add a wide-angle to my kit as well, perhaps the FE35 f/1.4 or the new Batis 20mm f/2... *wallet cries*

 

Haha nearly 300g of difference between XT1 setup vs D750, and it is not even considering if the D750 carries 85 f/1.4 + 35 f/1.4 'essential coverage' setup instead (each lens are significantly heavier, especially the Sigma 35 art).
Gosh am I getting really old or what, I swear I could carry a backpack full of study books from morning to evening just a decade ago and not groaning about it.

 

For DSLR and mirrorless I prefer a higher quality messenger bag. Compact and sturdy but not too bulky.

A body and three small lenses or a a small and a big lens are enough for me. Then I still have room for accessories and vitals like water.

 

Agreed, messenger bag is what I use most too.

I used to carry at least 3 prime lenses. Nowadays I tried my best to always carry only 2 primes at most which means a lens on the body and the second lens in the bag. In no way I'll ever use something as heavy as a D800 or up for anything other than studio work.

35 and 85 are what I use most of the time. I missed having the 24 or 28 sometimes (or even the 14-24 for some very rare occasions) when I want to capture more of the vista in a photo but as long as there is no wall or chasm (or the perilous traffic of death of a 3rd world street) behind me, 35 + couple of backsteps are always enough. Rather work the legs than the back. "Oofs!"

Oh and I tried the A7R this morning; there's a secondhand unit of it at a nearby cam store so it's just a couple of test shots and stuffs, not a full day rent and experimenting. I think I'll pass. God knows how much I want a full frame mirrorless system just for the weight/size factor alone but this Sony just didn't have the chemistry for me. Perhaps the styling, the aesthetic of the body, or the layout of the buttons and dials, I don't know. I'll keep rooting for Fuji for now, who knows what 2016 will bring to their lineup.

or perhaps buying a secondhand X100T is what I should do while waiting for a full frame X body...