For all my posts on the Sony A7II - CLICK HERE
Sony A7 II - Nikon 20mm f/1.8 - Nikon 55-200mm APS-C DX zoom - Metabones adapter.
Above and Below - Sony A7 II - Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 at f/1.4 - Metabones adapter
There is an awful lot to like about the Sony A7 II. In terms of design there are improvements in the camera over the original A7. The finish (a rather nice matte black) a bigger handgrip that improves the handling and there is now 3 & 5 axis IBIS (in body image stabilisation) Add this to the previous specs. - a 24MP sensor excellent at all ISO's, OLED EVF, light and small form, focus peaking and moveable live view screen and you have a very capable camera that can handle most, if not all, picture taking situations. But like many MCE (Mirrorless / CSC / E.V.I.L ) cameras it is often touted as some kind of DSLR 'killer', that is one more nail in the coffin of the Nikon and Canon dominance over the interchangeable lens, 'serious' camera market. But as ever, these predictions tend to be somewhat premature and often exaggerated. I'm in the position to be able to see how the A7 II compares to the Nikon D750 that I've just bought and which has impressed me in almost every aspect and the following is a discussion of where the A7 II (and indeed all the Sony FE series) are with regard to being compared with the latest DSLR's. Is the A7 II a real alternative to a DSLR? or just a wannabee clone that talks the talk but, as yet, can't walk the walk.
SONY A7 - The good, the bad and the ugly.
One thing is for sure, Sony know how to make a digital camera sensor. They have been pushing the boundaries with this for some time now. I still remember the (pleasant) shock when I got to take pictures with the 24MP APS-C sensor in the NEX-7. The NEX-6 and A7r have been my cameras of the year and the a6000 is, for me, one of the best cameras around currently. And following on from the success of the RX1, Sony leapt into the 'full-frame' mirrorless interchangeable lens market with gusto and have currently released four cameras (with a fifth on the way) that has offered these high-quality 35mm film sensors in a smaller and lighter package that would seem to have advantages over the somewhat heavier and bulkier Nikon and Canons.
And in terms of sensor performance performance, there is little to complain about. All the cameras, including the remarkable low light champ, the A7s, deliver superb image quality. And since the Nikon D750 has what is generally accepted to be the same sensor, the A7 II certainly doesn't suffer by comparison, though seems to have a slightly stronger AA filter. I can't for certain say it's the same sensor, but having used both cameras, the results from the D750 and A7 II are remarkably similar in terms of image quality and surely that's no coincidence. And in terms of operation, the A7 II is decent enough in terms of AF accuracy, metering, colour balance etc. The camera layout and menu options seem pretty well organised (the more you've used Sony cameras, the easier it gets to use them obviously) and overall there aren't any serious flaws that spoil the experience of using it.
But there are issues, that for me Sony need to address, if they are indeed to make serious inroads into the Canon / Nikon 'full-frame' duopoly. There are a definitely a few areas that need improving. Frustratingly, I can't see any good reason why these improvements are necessary and am still somewhat at a loss to explain why some of the things Sony have chosen to put into the A7 II (or leave out!) and the other FE cameras happened in the first place. It's not as though they are cheap cameras. The A7 II, body only is currently around £1300 from UK dealers and it's not difficult to find the D750 at that price (I did). So what are these 'issues' for me.
STARTUP TIME
I'll start with this since it is the first thing we all do, switch on our cameras. As I've indicated in previous articles, from switched off to saving an image onto my SD card, the Nikon D750 takes around a second. Now that's impressive. The Sony A7 II does the same things, power up, focus, capture the image and save it in just under 5 seconds. And no matter what I do, I can't get it any quicker. Now that's slow, even by mirrorless camera standards. And as indicated before, I'm not sure why it should take that long. The start up time from sleep isn't that quick either. So this is missed shot time.
WHY NO ELECTRONIC SHUTTER IN THE A7 II?
After the excellent addition of a silent electronic shutter in the A7s, I assumed that would be happening in all FE cameras. However, Sony have chosen not to equip the A7 II with that option. In fact the A7 II is one of the noisiest cameras I've ever used in terms of shutter noise. (The A7r being the noisiest) The A7, A7r and A7 II that I've owned and used all have noisier shutter actions than either my Nikon Df or D750 DSLR's. And it's also a longer and more 'clatter' type sound. Again, I have no idea why this is the case. MCE cameras are normally pretty quiet anyway, so why these FE cameras clunk away is a mystery to me. And it does impact on my picture taking. I don't use these noisy cameras around people or animals, since it is noticeable. I've had people turn around and look at me and animals run away, so it is intrusive. Surely this can (and has to be) fixed.
FOCUS PEAKING - GREAT FEATURE - YES?
Well yes it would be if worked 100% of the time, with all lenses under all circumstances. But it doesn't. And for some reason it seems to be happier with some lenses and simply doesn't work with others. The gallery at the top of the page was shot with my Nikon 20mm f/1.8 and 55-200mm zooms. The wide-angle worked perfectly with focus peaking, but the zoom didn't generate any peaking 'halo' at all when I magnified the image. And using a zoom lens with apertures ranging from f/4 - f/5.6 is just the situation where I need this to work. In the end I had to focus without any kind of peaking, which wasn't easy.
Contrast this with the rangefinder dot system in the Nikon. This works 100% flawlessly every time in any light, with no need to magnify the image or have something like a 'bad trip' scene from a 1960's movie appear before my eyes. Why other manufacturers haven't copied the Nikon system is beyond me. It is the best MF aid ever and once I got used to it it's seriously quick as well.
VIDEO OPTIONS
Sony are still offering the highly compressed and meant for TV viewing AVCHD format and the 'stretched' 1440 x 1080 format in their cameras as video options. There is now XAVC-S, which is an improvement, but overall I have to say that I'm not impressed with the footage I've shot with the Sony. The first time I tried the video out on my D750 I could immediately see that was sharper, cleaner footage. Again, this is difficult to understand given Sony's long history with video. Also, I'm not that impressed with IBIS for hand held video when using my Nikon lenses. I'm no video expert, so I'll post this link to Andrew at EOSHD who is. - http://www.eoshd.com/2014/11/sony-a7-ii-review-5-axis-stabilisation-video-mode/
Plus where is 4K? The A7s sort of has it, with the need for a seriously expensive add-on, but when you consider that the Leica D-LUX (Typ 109) / Panasonic LX100 shoots incredible 4K footage, why on earth can't Sony match this?
THE (LACK OF) LENS ISSUE
Yes, here it is again. The serious shortage of FE lenses for the system and the somewhat strange choices that Sony make when they do get around to releasing a lens. As regular readers will be aware, I only use Nikon lenses, manually focused on my A7 II. And I've been doing this with all the FE cameras I've used for some time. The simple reason for this is that Nikon have the lenses I want, Sony don't.
The e-mount range still doesn't have a high quality standard zoom lens, the 28-70mm and Zeiss 24-70mm being somewhat 'ordinary'. Plus where are the telephoto primes? The only option in native FE mount is the £1000 (on the Sony website) 602g 90mm f/2.8 macro. There also seems to be no likelihood of any zooms with a fixed f/2.8 aperture on the horizon. I have a 20mm f/1.8, a light 28-200mm zoom. fast primes and even a workable lightweight 55-200mm APS-C zoom for my Nikons and there is no equivalent in the Sony FE range for any of the Nikon lenses I use all the time. I've tried some a-mount lenses via adapter, with varying degrees of success, but ultimately when I have the choice, I'll just pick up one of my Nikon cameras instead.
It seems Sony can't release a good solid plain and simple lens. Everything has to be some of headline grabber. I'm particularly bemused by the release of the monster 28-135mm video lens. Particularly in the light of the video performance of most of the Sony FE cameras.
Finally on the lens issue, I still see the evidence of Minolta lens design in many of the Sony lenses I've bought. When I started in photography with film, Minolta were in the top five. (Nikon, Pentax, Canon and Olympus were the others) but were always 5th. in that league table. And having tried a lot of Minolta lenses, rightly so in my estimation. Sharp in the centre, soft corners and edges was always the Minolta template (for zooms at any rate) and Sony, unfortunately, seem to be continuing that tradition.
THE BALANCE ISSUE
It's all very well to have small light cameras, but the majority of Sony FE lenses are not small and light, so consequently getting a nicely balanced outfit using them is something I find difficult. The new design of the A7 II is a step in the right direction, but it's an issue all MCE manufacturers struggle with. (Though m4/3 perhaps less than most) And for me it's a misreading of the market for these camera. I doubt there are many point and shoot compact or smartphone owners who want to upgrade directly to full-frame and this is very much a serious enthusiast / semi pro / pro market surely. And that market is also surely more interested in a well balanced camera / lens combination that any pre-occupation with size. Plus isn't weight a much more important consideration anyway? There are lots of 'hideaway in a pocket' options these days, so just exactly how important is it that the FE camera range is so small? Particularly since most of the lenses sabotage any perceived advantage.
BATTERY LIFE
Yet again I'm complaining about battery life, which seems to be par for the course with MCE cameras. 300 shots per charge just isn't good enough. And if Sony includes a power hungry IBIS system then there has to be a battery that can handle that. Panasonic have come up with a more powerful battery for the GH3 and GH4, why can't Sony for the FE series?
CONCLUSION
It will come as no no surprise that my conclusion is that the Sony A7 II is certainly no DSLR 'killer' and the way Sony are going I doubt whether the A7 III or A7 IV will be either. So what is this cameras niche? Well firstly, with the right lenses, it is a camera that can provide superb 'full-frame' image quality in a small footprint combination. The samples I shot above were with two decent size lenses, but I'm much more likely to go out with the A7 II plus my Voigtlander 20mm f/3.5, which I can set up, using the hyperfocal distance scale, to be a 'focus-free' 'street' camera (though somewhat hampered in this regard by the shutter noise) and my Series E 100mm f/2.8. MF of course, but much more suited to the A7 II for me. And surely Sony should be designing some lenses with this in mind. At the moment we have a few light(ish) primes, though nowhere near enough and some big heavy zooms. So, why don't Sony come up with some light small primes? Particularly at the telephoto end. With the IBIS and no need for lens stabilisation, it's perfectly possible to make these. And if lenses like this did appear, then the system starts to make sense and become something other than a DSLR wannabee, which is what it seems to me it is failing to be at the moment.
The upcoming A7r II is supposed to have IBIS and the new design, but will it have a silent shutter? If so then it could be a very useful camera. 36MP of light, small, stabilised, silent usefulness. And then instead of being a DSLR replacement, it becomes a DSLR alternative and one that has a unique place in the camera marketplace. But will Sony include that option? Who knows. But Sony do seem to listen, (or at least they used to) so the more we FE owners make the case for what we want, the more likely we are to get it. Because otherwise, Sony FE may well be a blind alley. A seemingly attractive one, but ultimately one that is going nowhere and in terms of Nikon and Canon a minor irritation and in terms of us as DSLR owners an also-ran.
THE FINAL WORD
The Sony A7 II isn't a bad camera, in fact it's a very good one. Under many circumstances and for many photographers it's just the right tool. And it is very popular. I started a group on Google+ a while ago for the A7 series - https://plus.google.com/b/111408024451777741269/communities/100183290209241734329 and from just me it now has an astonishing 2010 members, with regular postings every day. And the A7 II is well represented. So it's a well liked and popular camera. I also like using it and I'm certainly not going to complain about the images I create with it, they are excellent. The issue for me, is how it's perceived, what it's capable of and what is it's role within my camera collection. A DSLR 'killer' it's not. In most aspects the Nikon D750, as well as my other cameras, do a better job for me, but there is a need, both for myself and in general, for a small, light well-specified 'full-frame' sensor high MP count camera, but to fully achieve it's potential I believe that Sony have to make some 'improvements.'
It has to be faster at starting up, waking up from 'sleep' and operationally.
There should be an electronic shutter, or at the very least a much quieter one than at present.
The camera (and the whole FE range) needs a more powerful battery.
Focus Peaking needs to work under all circumstances with all lenses. Or else another system needs to be adopted.
The video needs to upgraded to a higher level and the FE cameras have to offer in camera 4K.
In terms of 'matching up' with the camera, the lens range needs to expanded (quickly!) and the many gaps in the FE system need filling (again quickly!) This should involve primarily the introduction of small, light primes with no frills, just excellent sharpness across the frame. There is nothing wrong with 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100 and 135mm f/2.8 lenses. Not very sexy, not headline grabbing, but very useful to us as photographers.
Apart from anything else, the market for interchangeable lens cameras is diminishing, whether it be for MCE or DSLR cameras. And if Sony want to retain any decent market share in the non-smartphone marketplace, surely 'fixing' the above should be a priority. It's not as if most of the features I've outlined are that difficult to change. All of them have been achieved in one camera or another. Sony have always struck me a 'listening' company and hopefully they will take on board what I and others have been saying for some time. Because at this moment in time, it strikes me as not a good idea for the suits in the Sony boardroom to think that they have all the answers. Because we, as consumers, will, as ever, get out our wallets and purses for what we perceive as the best 'bang for our buck' and while I admire what the A7 II offers, currently it's hardly that.