New Sony a7 mk2

x_tan wrote in post #17284503
Otus is very nice
But the cheap and humble 1,8/55 AF just unbelievable FAST and accurate, which make it the BEST walk around lens for 'street photography' as David starts doing it

You're right, that 55mm f/1.8 is a gem. I can't have it all, so I'll make do with the Otus. Actually for street, the upcoming 35mm f/1.4 (due out next year) could be a great choice for that. I'm looking forward to that one.

sublimesun wrote in post #17284319
I still wouldn't budge. The appeal is a smaller package that's equally as capable. If I still have to pack a Canon 70-200 I am not really saving any weight. Their bodies still seem one dimensional. Hopefully someday they will have the complete package.

For many of us, the smaller package isn't a consideration - more often than not, it's actually a hindrance. Sure, thinner and lighter (not necessarily smaller in length and width) is good, but not at the expense of functionality - dedicated buttons instead of having to scroll through menus or play with multifunction buttons, dual card slots, etc.

The attraction, rather, is in the sensor. If you shoot mainly at low ISO (1600 and below) and need either high resolution or high dynamic range, Canon sensors haven't been able to keep up or some time. Nikon has (largely due to using Sony sensors) but is lens-limited - very few non-Nikon-mount lenses will fit onto a Nikon due to its large flange distance.

So far, Sony has delivered a body that can take almost any lens and put it in front of a top-of-the-line sensor. AF is slow and mediocre, but most people using it that way can put up with it for now, since they're mostly landscape, studio, architectural, macro and other non-moving/slow-moving-subject photographers. In a way, it's similar to the 5D2 - all sensor, and not much else. But a body which could AF well (delivering the functionality of the 1Ds3 instead of the same-sensor-but-different-functionality 5D2) would be far more versatile - no need to pack a 1D4 or 1Dx body along with the lenses and Sony bodies when going on a mixed landscape/wildlife trip.

NullMind wrote in post #17284287
Looks like no GPS still, waiting on that one :/

You've missed the boat on that one, Sony brought out GPS in the A55 in 2010, users said WiFi would be better so they dropped it for the A77ii and replaced it with WiFi, and that's probably why the A7 has WiFi and no GPS.

Sadly I have no 'hunger' for the A7ii, the a7r will do for my landscapes-its sole purpose-thank God they (landscapes) don't move too fast. The A6000 or RX100iii are my current walk-arounds and I use an RX10 when paddle camping (me thinking its weather sealed)
Now when the time comes I can put an EF lens on any FF e-mount (with an adapter far far faster than the Metabones) and get focus speeds like on an EOS body then Sony gets more of my mulah.

Shadowblade wrote in post #17284510
For many of us, the smaller package isn't a consideration. The attraction, rather, is in the sensor.

Well then go medium or large format! Mirrorless was created to cut down on size and has evolved from there.

Shadowblade wrote in post #17284510
AF is slow and mediocre, but most people using it that way can put up with it for now,

This is because the majority of people that have "adapted" shoot primarily still portraits or landscapes. If that was my schtick then its the holly grail, however for photographers that want a flexible camera it doesn't make sense.

sublimesun wrote in post #17284726
Well then go medium or large format! Mirrorless was created to cut down on size and has evolved from there.

This is because the majority of people that have "adapted" shoot primarily still portraits or landscapes. If that was my schtick then its the holly grail, however for photographers that want a flexible camera it doesn't make sense.

I read that different. seems to me he basically said that most of the canon shooters did not get the a7 for it's size, but for its sensor instead.

I also used my a7r, the slower of them all, on events and it works well. for sports, maybe not (I dont do sports so I cannot give any input on that) but it still is a good camera.

and yes, each camera, not just the a7, is different for someone else. that's why there are plenty of other cameras in the market. pick one, or two, or three, or more :P

the 5d3 doesn't make any sense to me...

DTBaan wrote in post #17284786
I read that different. seems to me he basically said that most of the canon shooters did not get the a7 for it's size, but for its sensor instead.

I also used my a7r, the slower of them all, on events and it works well. for sports, maybe not (I dont do sports so I cannot give any input on that) but it still is a good camera.

and yes, each camera, not just the a7, is different for someone else. that's why there are plenty of other cameras in the market. pick one, or two, or three, or more :P

the 5d3 doesn't make any sense to me...

So if its sensor they are after go for a Hassie or Phase One especially if focus speed is not a concern. I suppose if its simply a hobby then choose whatever fits your budget.

sublimesun wrote in post #17284799
So if its sensor they are after go for a Hassie or Phase One especially if focus speed is not a concern. I suppose if its simply a hobby then choose whatever fits your budget.

you got your answer.

the a7 series are popular because users can get a 3rd party adapter to attach their currently owned lenses. price, capability, while af is not a concern, this works well and focus peeking helps for manual focusing. why would they do that? because they like the sensor. if canon bodies had a sony sensor in them, the a7 is not needed for their needs.

putting aside the 3rd party lenses, the FE native lens are fantastic. downside is the cost.

DTBaan wrote in post #17284815
you got your answer.

the a7 series are popular because users can get a 3rd party adapter to attach their currently owned lenses. price, capability, while af is not a concern, this works well and focus peeking helps for manual focusing. why would they do that? because they like the sensor. if canon bodies had a sony sensor in them, the a7 is not needed for their needs.

putting aside the 3rd party lenses, the FE native lens are fantastic. downside is the cost.

So if its pretty much the same sensor as Nikon 800 series then explain to me the advantage? "Did not get the a7 for it's size, but for its sensor instead" I am sorry if I am confused though I always thought the switch to mirrorless was to save weight.

^is there an adaptor that allows use of EF lenses on Nikon body?
I dont know, Nikon does nothing for me.

sublimesun wrote in post #17284819
So if its pretty much the same sensor as Nikon 800 series then explain to me the advantage? "Did not get the a7 for it's size, but for its sensor instead" I am sorry if I am confused though I always thought the switch to mirrorless was to save weight.

someone else would have to answer your question. my reason for getting an a7 was for smaller and lighter. I was merely trying to make it clear about shadowblades statement about some users using their lens on the a7 for its sensor.

I have a d800. if you asked me why I would mount my Nikon lens on the a7, my answer would be weight and size of having to carry the d800 around. instead of carrying around two bodies to use two different kind of lens, I can just have an adapter and the lens while leaving a 2nd heavier body behind if a 2nd body is not needed.

and fyi, I don't dislike the 5d3. I only said it was useless to get you to think that I don't know what I'm talking about something good that I think is junk. I think the 5d3 is an awesome camera but at the end I chose d800 for its sensor.

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #17284832
^is there an adaptor that allows use of EF lenses on Nikon body?
I dont know, Nikon does nothing for me.

Ive wondered too. there are adapters to use EF on nikon. I've seen them but I do not know how well or how it works. some say Nikon's live view is horrible. also I think theres no auto focusing at all. my answers could be wrong though.

sublimesun wrote in post #17284819
So if its pretty much the same sensor as Nikon 800 series then explain to me the advantage? "Did not get the a7 for it's size, but for its sensor instead" I am sorry if I am confused though I always thought the switch to mirrorless was to save weight.

The A7r has a similar sensor to the D810, which is comparable in image quality to the 40MP MF bodies out there (many studios have actually switched to the D800/D810 instead of Hasselblad or Mamiya). In addition, unlike the D810, you can put Canon lenses (and just about any other lens, including telescopes and microscopes) in front of it.

If you ask the A7r shooters on a typical day at Gorak Shep or Torres del Paine, you'll find that many of them were previous 5D2 shooters who are using it to achieve the sort of image quality Canon hasn't been able to deliver for the last few years. And many of them are carrying full-size tripods and heavy lenses, so it's not about size.

Saving weight is always good, especially with weight limits on flights, but not at the expense of useability and features.

The A7 (not A7r) probably has a lot more users who simply wanted a smaller body - if you go to the trouble of doing this to get a better sensor, you may as well go for the best sensor. Although I believe the A7r has actually sold better.

Shadowblade wrote in post #17284250
Yet Sony bodies can AF non-native lenses using adapters, and Sony has also patented Z-axis sensor movements for focusing by moving the sensor and for flange distance adjustments, which would be only useful for non-native sensors.

Just to be clear, it's only A mount (and even then you need the appropriate adaptor, of the 4 options) and EF mount lenses which currently have AF capable lens mount adaptors.

Shadowblade wrote in post #17284253
It also wouldn't work with mirrored systems.

If the sensor is stabilised, but the lens is not, then the image seen in the optical viewfinder would also not be stabilised, and what you see through the viewfinder will not be what is recorded on the sensor, since the sensor will be constantly 'out of alignment' due to the stabilisation.

That out of alignment is of little concern. There are very few viewfinders out there which show 100% of what the image sensor sees so a misalignment of less than 1% will not be noticed by anybody.

_igi wrote in post #17284398
...Canon 6D has a better sensor...

Only when you are talking noise at high ISO sensitivities and then only if you aren't pushing and pulling the raw image.

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #17284832
^is there an adaptor that allows use of EF lenses on Nikon body?
I dont know, Nikon does nothing for me.

For sublimesum's sake, you can't mount an adapted EF lens to an F mount (Nikon) body and retain infinity focus - the F mount flange length is longer than that on the EF mount

You lose the ability to focus to infinity, which makes it largely useless unless you're shooting macros.

Nikon's live view is just fine. The D810 is much better than the D800 in that regard.

sublimesun wrote in post #17284799
So if its sensor they are after go for a Hassie or Phase One especially if focus speed is not a concern. I suppose if its simply a hobby then choose whatever fits your budget.

For me its the sensor, the size and budget. I switched up from the 50d to the 6d for the better sensor but skipped out on on getting the a7r which i really wanted because the cost would have been too much for me at the time. One of the main reasons i like the a7r is because of its size. Add the 55mm on it and I have a very portable camera to take around with me. For me my 6d stays home alot due to the size. If cost wasnt an issue i would be buying and selling cameras like...i dont know...I cant think of what should go there. But i would certainly be playing around with all sorts of brands just to see what they are like. Even the sigmas really have me interested with their foven sensor. Either way, im curious to see the A9.