Sony dropping a 42mp bomb

Imp

Lifer
Feb 8, 2000
18,829
184
106
Looks like the II version of both the original and R versions of the A7 are more expensive than the original. The A7 II came out earlier in the year, but it still looks like the original A7 is available.
 

tdawg

Platinum Member
May 18, 2001
2,215
6
81
A7 can be had for $999 at retail for the time being thanks to a Sony instant rebate. Hopefully this crashes the price of the original A7r.
 

CuriousMike

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2001
3,044
543
136
What is taking Nikon so long to get in this game?

I want the front of that body to say NIKON and let me put my D's and G's on it.
 

tdawg

Platinum Member
May 18, 2001
2,215
6
81
What is taking Nikon so long to get in this game?

I want the front of that body to say NIKON and let me put my D's and G's on it.
Same here. I'm running very low on patience. After dragging my d600 and 16-35 up a mountain last weekend, I really want a lighter kit.

I'm this close to moving over to Sony...
 

Syborg1211

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2000
3,297
26
91
Same here. I'm running very low on patience. After dragging my d600 and 16-35 up a mountain last weekend, I really want a lighter kit.

I'm this close to moving over to Sony...

I don't believe the full frame lenses and cameras from Sony are any lighter than Nikon's. The lenses definitely aren't. Pure physics determines the size of lenses for the most part. I'd say a mountain is the perfect time for a DSLR since you'll always have the camera out and around your neck/shoulder. It's when you're in busy/crowded areas that a smaller camera is really useful, or when you just want to have the camera always on you or in a bag for just in case moments.
 

tdawg

Platinum Member
May 18, 2001
2,215
6
81
Both the body and comparable lenses are definitely smaller and lighter, for the most part. An A7 is half the weight and half the size of a D600. The 16-70 f4 (3", 10.8 oz) is shorter and lighter than the Nikon 16-35 f4 (4.9", 24 oz).

There are definitely gains to be had in this mirrorless game. Oh, and every little bit of weight I can shed in my pack is much appreciated.
 

Syborg1211

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2000
3,297
26
91
Both the body and comparable lenses are definitely smaller and lighter, for the most part. An A7 is half the weight and half the size of a D600. The 16-70 f4 (3", 10.8 oz) is shorter and lighter than the Nikon 16-35 f4 (4.9", 24 oz).

There are definitely gains to be had in this mirrorless game. Oh, and every little bit of weight I can shed in my pack is much appreciated.

The comparisons you made are not apples to apples.

A Nikon D610 comes in at 760 grams. Sony A7ii is 556 grams.

Nikon 16-35mm f/4 is 680 grams. Sony 16-35mm f/4 is 518 grams.

So add the numbers together and you get a 25% weight advantage for the Sony setup.
 

tdawg

Platinum Member
May 18, 2001
2,215
6
81
The comparisons you made are not apples to apples.

A Nikon D610 comes in at 760 grams. Sony A7ii is 556 grams.

Nikon 16-35mm f/4 is 680 grams. Sony 16-35mm f/4 is 518 grams.

So add the numbers together and you get a 25% weight advantage for the Sony setup.
I can't compare the body I'd give up for the body I'd buy? I have a d600 and I'd get an a7. In hand the a7 is noticeably lighter. True, the 16-35 f4 Zeiss lens isn't much lighter, but the 16-70 f4 Zeiss is considerably lighter and offers the same capabilities as the lens I'd replace. So that too seems like a reasonable comparison.
 
Last edited:

jtvang125

Diamond Member
Nov 10, 2004
5,399
51
91
I can't compare the body I'd give up for the body I'd buy? I have a d600 and I'd get an a7. In hand the a7 is noticeably lighter. True, the 16-35 f4 Zeiss lens isn't much lighter, but the 16-70 f4 Zeiss is considerably lighter and offers the same capabilities as the lens I'd replace. So that too seems like a reasonable comparison.

16-70 is not a FF lens. On the a7 you can use it in crop mode with about 10mp or noncrop with blacken edges.
 

tdawg

Platinum Member
May 18, 2001
2,215
6
81
16-70 is not a FF lens. On the a7 you can use it in crop mode with about 10mp or noncrop with blacken edges.
Ah, good callout. When I mounted it on the camera at the store it obviously switched to crop mode automatically and I didn't realize it. So the 16-35 would be required then...
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
https://photographylife.com/sony-a7r-ii-announcement-the-42-mp-monster-has-arrived

42MP
Claimed 2 stop low-light ISO improvement
400 focus points
30p 4k video
40% faster focusing
$3200 USD - but don't worry, it'll be $999 within a year. ;)

If their claims about fast AF are true (including use of Canon EF glass via adapter being about as fast as on Canon DSLRs), and EVF lag continues to go down even as resolution goes up, then the last downside to mirrorless would be battery life. And even that can be fixed with spare batteries or a big bulky DSLR style battery.

That said, I doubt adapted EF glass has full AF-C as fast as on native Canon DSLRs. But if true, man, that's going to remove a huge impediment for a lot of Canon DSLR shooters. Can you imagine? Slap all your EF glass onto a Sony body and get all the Sony goodies like huge AF coverage, EVF, better DR, better video, in body stabilization, real time magnification and focus peaking even in sunlight... no more chimping on a hard to read LCD, no need to micro-adjust/fine-tune AF, etc.

Even today mirrorless has caught up to DSLRs for all but sports shots. Surpassed if you value things like the above features (focus peaking, etc.).

The RX100m4 announcement is what I was really waiting for, though. I don't need the improved specs like 4K video or faster fps, but I am waiting for RX100m3 prices to drop to get one for my wife, who won't use anything bigger yet wants an EVF, making the RX100m3 the only good choice.
http://forums.anandtech.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/
 
Last edited:

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
What is taking Nikon so long to get in this game?

I want the front of that body to say NIKON and let me put my D's and G's on it.

Nikon F pros: backward compatible to some degree with Nikon lenses dating back 50+ years ago.

Nikon F con: mechanical aperture control ensures that it will NOT be a smooth transition to the mirrorless future. Everyone else has gone all-electronic AF and aperture control, so Nikon F lenses without manual aperture control can't AF or change aperture on anyone else's cameras (though there are some adapters that utilize their own aperture blades rather than the lens's, but depending on the quality of those blades, that may not be a good solution). And most Nikon F lenses no longer have manual aperture control... if it says "G" then no control.

In contrast, Canon EF lenses already work on Sony bodies, with CDAF, electronic aperture, and even spitting out correct focal length info etc. If the A7RII can make it so that Canon EF lenses can be used with PDAF and not just CDAF, then that's tectonic. I can see a lot of Canon DSLR shooters moving to Sony if so.

Rant about Nikon...

I left Nikon a few years ago because it was clear to me their management was steering the Nikon ship into an iceberg. They treated their DX users like crap, especially in lens selection; at one point Nikon rep literally told DX users to buy FX cameras. No D300S successor either.

And because Nikon was too scared to cannibalize DSLR sales, Nikon issued an undersized CX sensor which does have its good points but quickly got a lot of unwelcome company (RX100 and RX10 series, FZ1000, G7 X, Ricoh GR, Samsung NX-Mini, etc.), and soon there will be folded-optics smartphone cameras that will make it even harder for 1" sensors and smaller to compete.

That does not mean Nikon is going bankrupt soon or anything, but I just got sick of waiting on them. At least with Canon EF lenses you can adapt them to Sony and Canon mirrorless cameras already, though they lose AF speed in the process.

Same here. I'm running very low on patience. After dragging my d600 and 16-35 up a mountain last weekend, I really want a lighter kit.

I'm this close to moving over to Sony...

Have you considered a pocket rocket like the RX100 series? They are getting quite good for everything but those rare situations where you MUST have a big sensor (astrophotography, sports telephoto, etc.). For daylight shots in the mountains it's dynamite.

And even if you're into astro or want wider-than-24mm (FX equivalent) so that the RX100 is ruled out, my Sony a6000 + Samyang 12mm f/2.0 lens is TINY compared to DSLR setups. The Sony 10-18/4 is also tiny compared to DSLR equivalents. If you want bigger then try an A7 + Sony 28mm f/2.0 lens or Sony 16-35 lens. All Sony interchangeable-lens mirrorless use the exact same batteries and can charge via microUSB cable, too.

I don't believe the full frame lenses and cameras from Sony are any lighter than Nikon's. The lenses definitely aren't. Pure physics determines the size of lenses for the most part. I'd say a mountain is the perfect time for a DSLR since you'll always have the camera out and around your neck/shoulder. It's when you're in busy/crowded areas that a smaller camera is really useful, or when you just want to have the camera always on you or in a bag for just in case moments.

Actually, that's not exactly true. For short focal lengths it's way easier to make a small and light short focal length lens. Only at longer focal lengths do DSLR and mirrorless lens sizes merge.

Also, about mountains... for many people, you really feel every pound when you backpack at high altitudes. That's why I usually use a RX100 when backpacking... for daytime shots it's all I need. I do wish it did better for stars, but for that I can use my a6000 + 12/2 which is super lightweight compared to anything on the DSLR size.
 
Last edited:

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
Nikon Cons: blah blah blah blah
Nikon Pros: I already own their shit.
;)

Yeah I know, I was there once. I had various Nikon DX DSLRs, the Nikon 35, 50, 85 f/1.8 lens trinity, Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (first gen), Nikon 24-70, 105 Macro VR, 16-85 DX, Sigma 10-20, Nikon and Tamron 70-300 (at different times), Nikon 55-200 (early effort at downsizing my gear, prior to Mirrorless becoming a thing), Nikon SB800, and other doohickeys like the Nikon wireless trigger.

I don't even want to think about how much $$$ it cost me to switch, but I also had a good time trying out a lot of different systems (almost all of the mirrorless companies) and seeing how other companies did things.
http://forums.anandtech.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/
 

CuriousMike

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2001
3,044
543
136
There's no way that Nikon won't have some mirrorless camera in the next 3-4 years that supports all their ( minimally ) G lenses.

I'm happy with the D610 and where I'm at - it's just fun to think of the possibilities.

Looks like Canon users are just getting their fun a little early.

Trickle down baby.

(All this excitement and I haven't seen a damn photo this device has made yet. )
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
There's no way that Nikon won't have some mirrorless camera in the next 3-4 years that supports all their ( minimally ) G lenses.

I'm happy with the D610 and where I'm at - it's just fun to think of the possibilities.

Looks like Canon users are just getting their fun a little early.

Trickle down baby.

(All this excitement and I haven't seen a damn photo this device has made yet. )

Nikon would be crazy not to have something bigger than CX sensor mirrorless within 4 years, but Nikon can be crazy... maybe they think they can just keep releasing Coolpix A variants instead of making a better mirrorless mount. ;)

Ya, you already have an outstanding DSLR, plus you actually DO shoot sports-type things (fast dogs), and AF-C tracking is still the weak point for mirrorless. So I think switching is just theoretical for you. :p

As for photos just look at A7R photos.. the A7RII isn't going to do much better in stills. The a7RII improvements have more to do with AF speed and coverage, better construction with more ergonomic grip, 4K video, etc.
 

CuriousMike

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2001
3,044
543
136
As for photos just look at A7R photos.. the A7RII isn't going to do much better in stills.

The claim of a 2-stop advantage in high-iso shooting doesn't seem like nothing to sneeze at.

Nikon still doesn't have access to the A7R sensor - Sony is on a feverish pace.
 

tdawg

Platinum Member
May 18, 2001
2,215
6
81
...



Have you considered a pocket rocket like the RX100 series? They are getting quite good for everything but those rare situations where you MUST have a big sensor (astrophotography, sports telephoto, etc.). For daylight shots in the mountains it's dynamite.

And even if you're into astro or want wider-than-24mm (FX equivalent) so that the RX100 is ruled out, my Sony a6000 + Samyang 12mm f/2.0 lens is TINY compared to DSLR setups. The Sony 10-18/4 is also tiny compared to DSLR equivalents. If you want bigger then try an A7 + Sony 28mm f/2.0 lens or Sony 16-35 lens. All Sony interchangeable-lens mirrorless use the exact same batteries and can charge via microUSB cable, too.


Point & Shoots bore the heck out of me, so I could never buy an RX100. I'd never take the thing anywhere. I've been looking at the a6000, but I can't get myself to go back to a crop sensor after moving to a full frame one. So the a7 is getting all my obsessive-research attention at the moment and I feel like I might jump very soon.

This would be so much easier if Nikon would just release a full-frame mirrorless with an f-mount...
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
Point & Shoots bore the heck out of me, so I could never buy an RX100. I'd never take the thing anywhere. I've been looking at the a6000, but I can't get myself to go back to a crop sensor after moving to a full frame one. So the a7 is getting all my obsessive-research attention at the moment and I feel like I might jump very soon.

This would be so much easier if Nikon would just release a full-frame mirrorless with an f-mount...

I can understand FF snobbery elsewhere but not when backpacking light. FF is best for thin DOF and high ISO, neither of which apply in the mountains unless you're taking very dim shots like star shots. And even with star shots, the a6000+12/2.0 Samyang combo matches full frame at f/2.8. For full frame to be any better you'd have to have faster than f/2.8 AND lack coma AND be sharp wide open like the Samyang is; few full frame lenses meet all three conditions.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/2658789@N20/pool/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/a6000/pool/
 

tdawg

Platinum Member
May 18, 2001
2,215
6
81
I can understand FF snobbery elsewhere but not when backpacking light. FF is best for thin DOF and high ISO, neither of which apply in the mountains unless you're taking very dim shots like star shots. And even with star shots, the a6000+12/2.0 Samyang combo matches full frame at f/2.8. For full frame to be any better you'd have to have faster than f/2.8 AND lack of coma; few lenses qualify.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/2658789@N20/pool/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/a6000/pool/
I don't own multiple bodies, so I'm going to buy one that covers all my desired uses, not just one specific use case in the mountains. If I was willing to spend the money on multiple bodies and / or systems then I'd have no problem having a crop body in my collection.

Stating my own personal wants is snobbery? I'm not saying any other camera that someone selects is inferior, I'm just discussing this in the confines of my personal wants and needs. I'm not attacking the a6000 at all if that's how you read that.
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
I don't own multiple bodies, so I'm going to buy one that covers all my desired uses, not just one specific use case in the mountains. If I was willing to spend the money on multiple bodies and / or systems then I'd have no problem having a crop body in my collection.

Stating my own personal wants is snobbery? I'm not saying any other camera that someone selects is inferior, I'm just discussing this in the confines of my personal wants and needs. I'm not attacking the a6000 at all if that's how you read that.

I thought it was harsh for you to call an RX100III boring for a mountaineering scenario where FF doesn't do any better, but if you could have only one camera, and you rarely go mountaineering, then I understand where you're coming from.