Update Sony A7sii
Lane Frisch
It seems that every time I sit down to write a review lately it is for a new Sony camera, and believe me, as much Sony as you see written here and all over the web (due to so many new cameras coming from them before the Holidays), it is not stopping here. With the RX1R Mark II on the way within days Sony is like a runaway freight train, except instead of crashing and burning at the end of the road I think Sony is hoping for world domination in the world of Mirrorless cameras. I have to say, their plan is working well for them as I know so many who are shooting with the latest generation A7 bodies these days, and they all love them. The A7II, A7RII, and now the A7SII are fantastic full frame 35mm digital cameras that can do it all. With impressive image and video specs, the new breed of a7 cameras are stunning and surpass the 1st gen A7 bodies by a large margin IMO.
But this review is for the newest Sony in the A7 line, the new and improved a7SII. If you missed the original a7S review, see it here as this will not rehash the things that are the same there.
Well, maybe. Maybe not. That all depends on YOU and what you want. If you want the new body style, then yes. If you was 5 Axis IS, then yes. If you want even better AF performance and new processing then YES! What you will not get in the new A7SII is a new sensor or better low light performance than its older sibling. It is still the tried and true 12MP sensor from the original A7s, which means low light performance will be about the same and IQ should be about the same. Even so, in my shooting I have found that I was getting slightly better color and pop with the new A7sII, though it could have been because of the lens I was using for much of the review..the Excellent Voigtlander 35 1.7 in Leica M mount.
So after a couple of weeks with the new A7SII, and while still owning the original A7s I was critical of the new body, mainly because I have bonded with my original. Yep, it has been here since launch. These cameras are not cheap, so I wanted to see if I would pay the upgrade fee for the SII over my old S Mark 1. Before I get into that, let me tell you what Sony improved in the new A7SII over the A7s Mark 1.
A 12.2MP full-frame Exmor CMOS sensor and BIONZ X image processor work together to enable an expansive dynamic range with minimal noise and notable sensitivity from ISO 100-102400, which is further expandable to ISO 50-409600. Coupled with the large individual pixel size the 12.2MP sensor affords, this camera is well-suited to use in low-light conditions.
The sensor and processor combination also avail a wealth of performance-related benefits to still shooting, including a Speed Priority continuous shooting rate of 5 fps, or a 2.5 fps shooting rate with continuous AF.
The Fast Intelligent AF system employs 169 AF points (up from 25 points of the original) , which is comprised of 25 contrast-detection points and nine central AF points that have been split into 16 segments each, in order to provide both speed and accuracy in low-light conditions down to -4 EV.
So in a nutshell, the Af is better and faster than the previous A7 body and that one was already the best A7 Af system out there, and the new a7SII focuses without an issue in just about any light I have had it in.
are you sure this is zero noise reduction? i think the cam automatically applies noise reduction and other stuff when you are outputting jpeg. this is why jpegs look cleaner than raws with nr turned off. the only way of having really zero noise reduction would be to output raw and turn off noise reduction in the raw converter.
Is the a7rii really very different from the a7sii in terms of ISO if i downsize the photos in post? (going from 42 to 12 mp). Are there any specific differences i might care about? I may also use Canon AF lenses with it as that is my current system.
Hmmm. Well, all depends on your tastes. I like the 35 1.4 ALOT. But its huge. I also love the Zeiss Batis 25 and 85, two of the best I have used. The Loxias are fantastic if you like Manual Focus. Hard to make a bad choice. What I do not like is the 24-70. Its soft and lackluster IMO which is why I did not review it.
Id skip the 24-70. I have tried 2 copies and both were a tad soft wide open and have very low contrast. I never use it and is the ONE Sony lens I do not recommend. The Batis 25 and 85 would be amazing, or even the 16-35 if you like ultra wide.
This review got me over the hump of which camera to buy, the 7RII or the SII. Thank you for your practical and thorough approach to the review. It has shown me the versatility of this camera to the type of shooting I look to do with it. Nicely done.
I am planning to upgrade my a7 to one of the mark 2s. After reading your review, one thing draws my attention, it is the photos having the Leica M9 looks. I replaced my M9 with the a7 a while ago, do miss the M9 rendering and pop. So, is it all the mark 2 of a7 having this characteristic, or just the a7Sii? I am planning to upgrade to either the a7ii or a7Rii as I am not much a video and low-light guy.
Well, the SII will kill the Leica in any low light use but the photo quality character will be quite different between the two. The Q has a contrasty picture with bold color and pop. The SII can do this but out of camera the files are less contrasty and have a more neutral color tone. The SII is fantastic, and if debating between it and the Q, just think if you will ever want anything besides the 28mm focal length. If you would be 100% happy with 28, go for the Leica as it has beautiful IQ. If you want versatility, the ability to swap a lens or two, shoot in really low lihgt and have pro video capabilities, go with the SII as it is technically the better camera and offers you much more. Size wise, they are not that far off from each other.
Increasing the pixel count of these A7S cameras would wreck their appeal for those of us who shoot video as well as stills, and the similar Panasonic GH series cameras would then look more appetising, and Sony would lose sales.
Steve, I own a Nikon Df and a Nikon 810. Often, I find myself reaching for the Df because the 16 meg raw files do not take up nearly as much room on my computer and are perfect for everything other than the most severe cropping. 12 megabytes is plenty for me as long as the lens is superb.
Richard
Steve has a much better understanding of the resale value of cameras but I have thus far gotten 75% of the purchase price of all my digital cameras after two years of ownership. I always keep them in pristine condition, have every original component that came with the packaging, always throw in something extra, and I sell them at the time that the next iteration of the same camera comes out. So then it is always a minor cost for the upgrade. Always stay current or else the value of your digital camera will just plummet.
you said that the rendering produced from this a7s mk 2 is similar to the m9 which I kinda agree with you. my question is.. what about the a7s mk 1 vs the m9? does the a7s mark 1 has the same rendering or similar to the m9?
Nice images and thanks for the review. But I am still seeing some serious limitations beyond ISO 10,000. I would like to see how these shots would render with noise reduction, because most of them are unusable with substantial grain.
I do not use NR as it smudges details, I hate it as it kills the images. Id rather have grain that smudging. Also, I have used ISO 80k images from the S, as in they appeared in a publication. So it is usable beyond 10k.
Steve, Doest the original A7s with the voight 35mm 1.7 look M9ish too? Why not include that in your comparisons. I am sure lots of us would like to see that before making any decisions. Colors look a bit oversaturated to me and they are loosing color detail just an observation.
For me it is a non issue as my RII handheld shots never are blurred and provide great sharpness. So for me, its not an issue. The A7sII sounds like the camera for you though, will do just what you need.
However......I usually switch between 24mm 35mm 50mm Samyang full frame primes when filming but (on XAVC format) after i hit record it crops itself automatically, it didn't do this on MP4, so now everything looks like an 85mm lens?!
Ive also tried all the shooting modes on the selection wheel, some of them don't crop and give me full view with all my lenses but these modes are the ones that give me ZERO control over settings. I always need to shoot in movie mode or manual so the fact that it doesn't crop in other modes tells me that its possible to use all my lenses un-cropped....I just need the right settings in XAVC S HD and manual to get it.
PAL is correct for the UK (same as Australia, 50Hz electricity system) so normal shooting at 25fps (1/50th sec) will eliminate most light-flicker issues (not always though... but you are limited what you can do with a non-cinematographic camera). You could try shooting NTSC for higher frame-rate and adjust your shutter speed to try to compensate for flicker (say 1/60th)... may or may not work... there's math involved in that and my brain doesn't like trying to figure it out anymore.
If that question is to me (?).... and I have no idea why you'd be shouting...
the camera can't unload the data from the sensor fast enough to record 4k video at high frame rates, so your choice becomes limited to your shooting speed vs resolution.
Reduce the resolution (crop the sensor) and you can get higher fps. That's a pretty common choice you deal with even in professional digital cinema cameras.
My main issue is with the severe cropping during filming in XAVC or 4K, what I'm asking is WHY IS IT HAPPENING and is it just a simple fact of life that XAVC and 4K will be cropped? When I switch to any FPS in both XAVC or 4K it crops automatically.
Can't answer with confidence specifically to the A7SII as I have an A7RII I'm getting used to, and I know there are differences between the cameras sensors. Do you have APS-C "ON" all the time for video mode? that could account for 4K 25/30 fps apparent crop.
Most of my digital video/cinematography experience over the last 10-15 years is with RED or video cameras, so still finding my way around the vagueries and limitations of these hybrid stills jobs but a lot of the basics are the same, and I find trawling (not trolling) forums like this is invaluable for picking up hints... so I try to pay back where I think I can be helpful.