Anyone using Sony A7R M2?

[Steve Axford]

In general, I agree with your view and I tend to ignore all the opinions, but just sometimes it is worth digging some more. For example, the focusing does appear to be something that may be significantly better with mirrorless, under some circumstances. I sometimes use a Canon 50mm f1.2L. It is a great lens but I have never been able to use it at f1.2 effectively. I will try it with the Sony to see if sensor focusing will add that extra bit of accuracy. Also the eye focusing sounds interesting.
Moving to the subject of lenses, what about colour? Reviews often say things like "excellent colour", or nothing at all, but it is important. Often good colour and good resolution go hand in hand, but not always. When a reviewer says he likes the colour it may be worth investigating.

[bitsnpieces]

Colour you can technically always fix.

Sony's colours are generally a little more washed out by default, a little white. Not as contrasty to other cameras, from what I've seen.

But that also depends on the settings though - you can obviously a camera to have more contrast/colour, or less.
An example of this is the Canon 5Diii I borrowed from my friend to shoot his weddings - the photos didn't have as much contrast and colour as my a65, but that's only because of settings that I used (and also because I wasn't used to working about Canon)
Then another guy who shot my niece in law's wedding had his contrast and colour way up, more than my a65, so his photos were very bold in colour. It's all in the settings

The Sony cameras also let you tweak white balance so you don't just pick a balance like sunset, shade, fluorescent light, etc, but you can then further tweak it to make it perfect.
I've even done that on AWB just to add a little bit more yellow in because I was using a 3rd party flash and using AWB gave blue washed out photos. Using the daylight balance helped a lot, but would sometimes be too yellow. So, back to AWB, tweak in the yellow, done. Or I could have gone into the daylight one, tweak out the yellow a little, and would have been good, but AWB worked better because during times I didn't use flash, the extra yellow added didn't cause much difference or any problems to regular photos, compared to what the daylight one would have.

At the end of the day, colour is also something that can be fixed in PP :P

[Steve Axford]

Colour is a very complex area, David. If it is just a matter of white balance, saturation or contrast, then yes, it can be easily fixed in photoshop, but if it is something more than that, then no, it can't. I would suspect that any differences in colour between top end cameras is easily fixed, but differences in colour between lenses is not always fixable. I always use auto white balance and then fix, if necessary, in software. I also set everything to neutral in camera as I prefer to enhance things, if needed, in software. I'll be interested to see what difference the Sony makes to colour, but I expect it to be just a slightly different processing, or nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

Colour is a very complex area, David. If it is just a matter of white balance, saturation or contrast, then yes, it can be easily fixed in software, but if it is something more than that, then no, it can't. I would suspect that any differences in colour between top end cameras is easily fixed, but differences in colour between lenses is not always fixable. I always use auto white balance and then fix, if necessary, in software. I also set everything to neutral in camera as I prefer to enhance things, if needed, in software. I'll be interested to see what difference the Sony makes to colour, but I expect it to be just a slightly different processing, or nothing.

[markdphotography]

I have just jumped ship from Canon to Sony and I have another problem. I have an A7 Mk1, Mk11 and an A7R and I am addicted to infrared. The lenses available when used in infrared light have hotspots and barrel distortion and pi cushion distortion for infrared (not a problem with visible light). There are not a wide range range of lenses available and adaptors to Canon/Nikon an other old mounts seem to give the best results. I do like the camera (albeit a bit small but a battery grip can overcome that) and my only other gripe is the poor battery perfrmance. Have found some hugher Mah batteries but the roller coaster ride goes on.

[Steve Axford]

How strange, Matk. You wouldn't think there was a noticeable difference with infrared vs normal light.

[ricktas]

I have just jumped ship from Canon to Sony and I have another problem. I have an A7 Mk1, Mk11 and an A7R and I am addicted to infrared. The lenses available when used in infrared light have hotspots and barrel distortion and pi cushion distortion for infrared (not a problem with visible light). There are not a wide range range of lenses available and adaptors to Canon/Nikon an other old mounts seem to give the best results. I do like the camera (albeit a bit small but a battery grip can overcome that) and my only other gripe is the poor battery perfrmance. Have found some hugher Mah batteries but the roller coaster ride goes on.

reading all that, what made you decide to jump ship in the first place?

[mpb]

reading all that, what made you decide to jump ship in the first place?

I think its something to do with the way it renders the colour of grass, other brands (no matter which ones) always render it much greener.

[markdphotography]

reading all that, what made you decide to jump ship in the first place?

Multiple reasons really mostly centered around Canon's mirrorless format - it has a different lens system to the SLR range, poorly designed product (no good reviews that I read), it was APS C sensor. The Sony was full frame sensor, love wide angle and Sigma 10 - 20 was my favourite lens on the Canon so full frame would be real wide angle, price/value for money, new model releases in a short period of time, same lens system for APS C and full frame, same system for visible and invisible light. I had not known about the hot spot issue and it is an inconvenience that can be worked around. Found some information already by Ed Noble and will test the lenses myself as information on the web is not sufficient. I think tht the Sony has a brighter future than the Canon and are far better value for money IMHO. I can use lens adaptors, old lenses and look for suitable lenses. The IR photog is a small group of shutterbugs on the fringe and we are used to working around problems. Here is one from the weekend that was taken with the A7 Mk1.

ausphotog.jpg

- - - Updated - - -

mpb said - I think its something to do with the way it renders the colour of grass, other brands (no matter which ones) always render it much greener.

It is not really to do with the grass - more to do with the light wave length and the coatings on the inside of the lens that are more likely to reflect invisible light. Infrared light is everywhere even under tungsten light and most cameras are made to block IR light so capturing is a whole different matter.

- - - Updated - - -

Steve Axford said - How strange, Mark. You wouldn't think there was a noticeable difference with infrared vs normal light.

Yes my assumption also but Sony are not alone both as a lens manufacturer and a camera manufacturer. There is a lot of lenses that have the "hot spot" issue, Canon, Sigma, Nikon, Olympus etc etc ................................

[Steve Axford]

Could that vary from one lens to another? I would guess that there is no quality control for IR quality.

[markdphotography]

Could that vary from one lens to another? I would guess that there is no quality control for IR quality.

It certainly does and camera manufacturers are not worried about IR (even though Fuji is just releasing a model) as it is a post modification and not mainstream. Ed Noble is crazy about IR (probably crazier than me) so he has started a blog at - http://infraedd.blogspot.co.uk/2015/...ts-part-1.html that you may find interesting.

[Steve Axford]

I'm now in possession of a Sony A7R2 plus a Sony 90mm macro. As I am now a Sony ambassador, I cannot claim a total independence in what I do, but I have done some initial testing. I used a Canon 5D Mk3 plus a Canon 100mm f2.8L macro and compared the result with a Sony A7R2 plus a Sony 90mm macro. I did this mainly to ascertain the maximum fstop I could reasonably use for macro photography. I have been using f18 with the Canon and this has been quite successful. So here are the pics I took. All photos are ISO100 and are shown at 100% and have only been corrected in levels as all were underexposed by about 1 stop.

The Canon 5DMk3 with Canon 100mm f2.8L Macro at f14


at f18


at f22


Sony A7R2 with Sony 90mm macro at f14


f18


f22


I was not expecting this degree of difference. Perhaps I have done something to make the Canon photos worse than they could have been, but that is my normal camera plus lens and I have always got good results from it. Those results are actually very good, but the Sony results are quite exceptional. Now I just have to learn how to decipher the menu.

[markdphotography]

I was not expecting this degree of difference. Perhaps I have done something to make the Canon photos worse than they could have been, but that is my normal camera plus lens and I have always got good results from it. Those results are actually very good, but the Sony results are quite exceptional. Now I just have to learn how to decipher the menu.[/QUOTE]

As a new Sony Groupie - this is impressive. My budget does not extend to an R2 but I do have a family of them. My only concern is the lack of lens options for the full frame mirrorless and then the number that are suitable for my infrared images.

The familiarity with the menu will come and I found the Graphic/Icon Menu option easier to decipher, I guess it is like driving a new car, the more you drive it the more familiar you become.

I am looking at another lens option for my macro choice to increase my lens selection.

I look forward to seeing some actual images.

Cheers

Mark

[Steve Axford]

So do I, Mark. With all this sun, it isn't good at present, but things can change quickly. I tried to take a tiny spider, but the web moves in the breeze and I haven't got around to trying the Canon flash with the A7. It really needs a focus stack, but that needs no wind.

[EnlightenedMedia]

The reason I am sticking with my A99 and not moving to this, is I feel Sony is gravitating towards the E-Mount to upsell their expensive lenses. I love the alpha mount because it permits the use of legacy Minolta, and don't like the direction they are taking with the plethora of E-Mount cameras. Being forced to buy Sony branded lenses can make your overall gear costs skyrocket, so potential purchasers should consider this.

[Steve Axford]

You are right. The Sony lenses are expensive, but, the macro at least, is quite outstanding.

[bitsnpieces]

lol Was looking at the macro from Canon and thought, I know it isn't easy getting a perfect macro shot so I guess that's pretty good quality depending on where you look from, then as I scrolled to Sony,

Anyways, regarding full frame a-mount updates, it's coming. Sony's just focusing on the mirrorless because it's catching huge waves right now, and being that it's a new line and knowing the current lack of lenses, they want to make sure that this line doesn't die as soon as it started.
They have the a68 which is a pretty decent upgrade from the previous one, and sure, it's only APS-C, but I'm confident the full frame is coming soon.

Here you go
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr4-t...9-replacement/

[Steve Axford]

You could be right, but I like the mirrorless for a variety of reasons. The lenses are a bit smaller and generally of a very high quality, so what they lack in range, they make up in quality. Also, I can use my Canon lenses, at least the wider angle ones, though I have not received the adaptor yet.

[arthurking83]

..... The lenses are a bit smaller and generally of a very high quality, so what they lack in range, they make up in quality. ....

Most mirrorless systems are smaller sensored types(APS-C or m4/3rds) .. so the lenses are smaller due to the sensor design, not the mirrorless design.
The only mirrorless camera system with equivalent sensor format where the lenses are actually smaller is the Leica M system, and the lenses aren't all that much smaller when you take into account that M lenses are all manual focus. Compare an old Nikon(and maybe some old FD Canon lenses) .. and the size difference will be minimal, if any at all.

But now that Sony has started making more lenses for the FE mount A series cameras, it's obvious that the fact that the camera is mirrorless has no bearing on the actual size of the lens they make. Lens size is determined primarily by it's physical specs.
So, a 200/2 lens on a DSLR will invariably be the same size as a 200/2 lens on a Sony A7 .. that is a minimum of a 100mm front element diameter .. more likely 105mm or something.

I was quickly looking at the differences between a Sony 35mm/1.4 compared to Canon's 35/1.4 and Nikon's 35/1.4 and they're all pretty much the same size, with a few small differences.

Sony specs are: 112 x 79mm and 630g
Nikon specs are: 89 x 83 and 600g (as a reference the 35/1.4 Ais manual focus predecessor lens specs were 61 x 69 and 400g)
Canon (vII) specs are: 106 x 80mm and 760g
Sigma specs are: 94 x 77mm and 665g

so as is obvious .. the Sony being a mirrorless camera design doesn't immediately imply that the lenses will be smaller in any way.
Just that some lenses are smaller due to their designs.

Funnily, why I was looking at the Sony 35/1.4, was the writeup on Lens Rental about the internal manufacture of the lens.
The lens design is a bit of a revolutionary design in the way it works it focusing mechanism(all Sony FE lenses are).
Instead of using a helicoid design which itself is a bulky mecahnism, they use a linear sliding electromagnet system, so you'd expect that this part of the design will make the lens even more compact. Yet compared to the Nikon at least and the Sigma, the Sony lens is actually massive!
You'd expect that the focus system's design would help to make it more compact in some way.

Then there's the new Leica SL system .. it's lenses are monumental in terms of size .. approaching medium format sizes!

[Steve Axford]

You are probably right, Arthur. There do seem to be some technical advantages in lens design, though I'm not all that interested in studying what they are, Currently, Sony and Zeiss seem to have concentrated on the range from, not too wide, to, not too telephoto. I suppose that is sensible. I think that the mirrorless cameras will end up being a bit smaller than the mirrored, but not much in it for high end cameras, but some of the other advantages will start to weigh more heavily. There is one thing that I have really noticed, and that is focusing. It is a little slower, but it is far more accurate. It truly is WYSIWYG, whereas DSLRs are not. DSLRs focus through the eyepiece, not the sensor. Sure, you can use the microadjustment, but then you really have to rely on autofocus because what you see is definitely not what you get, which is pretty lousy for manual focus. I realise now that my Canon camera was not really very accurate in focusing. I learnt to work around it, but now I don't have to.