Sony Alpha a7 II Review

They complain about the "rear control wheel being too small and fiddly to use in bitter winter conditions when gloves were worn." Interesting. I wonder how easy those recessed tiny main dials they commented so positively on are to turn with gloves on...

They say: "Inspecting our Raw files at 100% revealed it’s almost impossible to tell the difference between ISO 100 and ISO 1600." Well, then, I wouldn't have much hope for them to tell the difference between a7 II & D750/D810 files if they can't see the difference between the two ISOs on the a7 II... our studio scene, OTOH, differentiates them very well.

...

Their DR measurements show that the camera is virtually ISOless all the way up to ISO 1600. That'd really be something to talk about, if it were real anyway. I'd really like to know how they got those results. Are they analyzing JPEG results after noise reduction? Do they have a page where they explain their methodology?

And we also have another review that doesn't mention what exposures ISO comparisons were shot at, making comparisons of limited value (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Is there something in particular you were getting at by mentioning this review and how 'different' it was?

I think we've substantiated our position(s) fairly well with hard data, but it's hard to draw anything conclusive from the data in that review b/c the data (the Raw files themselves) aren't available, nor are the testing methodologies, nor the exposures used.

We try to provide most of that information, though clear stand-alone write-ups of our methodologies are definitely in-need.

A nice argument in isolation but not related to this review. The critisms were directly at the camera not the system.

It does seem like shutter sound is compared to silent shutter cameras, size is compared mostly to smaller mirrorless cameras, high ISO is compared mostly to the D750, AF compared to the top cameras in their respective classes, as well.

So disregarding IBIS (as the article seems to in discussing IQ for the most part), the Sony doesn't beat the leaders in those categories and is docked for lacking touchscreen while cameras like the D750 aren't.

@ FujLiver:

"Yet again dpreview turns in an appalling critical review for one of the best cameras ever made"

With respect, who's showing bias now? You'll find plenty of justification for our generally very positive review of the a7 II in the body of the review.

"Possibly as another comment pointed out, they don't jet dpreview to a posh location or sponsor the site ...."

Cheap shot, and a strange one since it's so easily disproved. Sony has been one of our main advertisers for years. It's actually the Sony ads on DPR that fanboys for other brands most frequently point to as evidence that our reviews must be biased (towards Sony of course).

Yet another quote taken completely out of context.

May I ask why you would do this? We're genuinely curious.

That statement was specifically in reference to high ISO performance only. In which case, it's absolutely true. Can you see that it's inappropriate to quote us without the context (i.e. the sentences before it)?

Par w/ the a6000? Who said that? Where? With respect to what? Please clarify.

Yes, that's right, and that was kind of our point - that there wasn't a huge difference in ISO performance between the a7 II and the D5500, despite our giving the cameras the same exposures, same lighting levels.

The data's the data - why are you claiming then that we've 'gone too far'. Gone too far by clearly outlining our protocol, showing you the data, and making the raw data even available for you to download?

But that's ISO performance, not 'performance in general'. You completely misquote us by removing all context.

It's important to not generalize & to be specific about what you're talking about. It's definitely NOT 'known' that 'Canon is so ordinary at the moment'. What kind of blanket statement is that? Ordinary at what? Their dynamic range suffers, but ISO performance, where the increased downstream read noise of their electronic architectures don't really matter, is just fine with Canon. So it's not at all surprising that Sony & Canon are 'on par' here.

....... you might like to re-read what I had to say - you seem to have taken agreement and a backhanded compliment as an insult. Don't really understand the logic of your posts, except that you are not happy.

original A7 was missing,
1.) metal alloy body,
2.) proper shutter button. A7 has the most disgussing shutter button placement i could ever imagine..this by itself enough to never buy it.
3.) Non reflecting sensor. i think you dont do night city scapes and didnt encounter discussing reflections come from sensor..
4.) A good grip like A7ii
5.) 5axis ibis, enables you to shoot with zeiss55 @F1.8 at 1/40s @ iso800 which is impossible with original A7...
6.) all metal mount on A7ii..
A7ii is a huge leap over A7...period.

replying in order
1) that's nice but I have no problem with current body
2) no problems with shutter
3) I have actually encounter this a few times and only thing I care about so far in A7ii
4) again no problems with A7
6) I can shoot at 1/40 with FE55 handheld. Takes a bit of handholding practice. In fact I can shoot down to 1/30. Tbh most of the time I can't go that low. Like I said I rather take 1 stop ISO performance over IBIS as IBIS has normally doesn't help me any more than 1 stop (and yes I have shot with IBIS cameras - A57, A99, A77ii).
6) cool, but nothing wrong with my current mount. how many broken mount stories have you heard?
7) The new improved AF is of some interest but its still not as good as A6000. (when it becomes as good I'd be more interested)

A7ii is not interesting to me...period

ijustloveshooting, do you realize that I clearly stated my personal opinion? Why do you think that the things you consider important are a must for everyone?

Yep. Fix the AF first then the RAWs and all that silly stuff about lower IQ with continuous drive and long exposures. Then reevaluate your lens pricing strategy and definitely do not rush release below par lenses (24-70 f4) and expect people to pay the big bucks.

And as bonus, maybe make good on your original specs and make A7 camera actually weather-sealed. Some people are still under the mistaken impression that they already are.

@Mike Sandman
Can you please point me to one, just one photograph on the entire internet which was ruined or otherwise made unusable by the RAW compression? Thank you.

@Roman Korcek Why would you expect unusable photographs to be displayed in the internet? I don't believe anyone wants compressed lossy RAW files. That's the point of a RAW capture, to have the camera do as little as possible to the data. Sony's RAW implementation is poor on this model, and they need to fix it, obviously.

@Naveed Akhtar We're discussing a full frame camera, not m43 which I think is becoming less and less relevant anyway. Even my Canon G1x point and shoot has a larger sensor. It might be time for Olympus to obsolete another mount and move on up in sensor size. Over the years, Olympus fans have gotten used to the company abandoning a mount often enough.

The G1X... lol

Canon's m43 sensor in all but name. Yes, I'm sure Olympus, the m43 consortium and the whole industry are shaking in their boots at the sight of the G1X. That and the EOS M are Canon's two-sprung strategy against the eventual death of compact camera and DSLR markets. Canon owns the future.

@bluevellet I seem to remember not many years ago the 4/3rd consortium with their flagship E3 camera body and various lenses. Now a forgotten tombstone to remark its passing. Remember "telecentric" lenses? These 4/3rd consortium manufacturers were going to "own" the market. They were going to be the demise of compact and other DSLR cameras. Remember? You don't have to go back very far.

Step back a couple of generations to the OM line of fine Olympus cameras. What happened to that mount? Another stranded bunch of photographers, that's what. They were touted as tiny cameras which were going to own the market and be the demise of full sized DSLRs. Where have all the OMs gone, long time passing... (singing).

Step again back to that lovely line of Olympus Pen half frame cameras which were going to end the need for bulky SLRs. History now.

We have a long line of Olympus abandoning lens formats and mounts, stranding their fans. Adapters anyone?

@guidenet

The OM mount lasted nearly twice as long as the Canon FD mount (replaced by the AF-based EF mount). A whole lot of angry Canon fans back then., but it worked out for Canon in the long run.

Olympus resisted this AF revolution but finally relented with the end of film days. They could have probably adapted the OM mount to the digital era with a new set of AF lenses. They opted to design a digital system from scratch. Those telecentric lenses actually worked quite well, I still own and use some of them, but failed against more entrenched rivals.

M43 is different in two ways, they're not playing catch up but undercut the competition by embracing/creating mirrorless right away (Nikon and Canon are the late comers to this market). They're also not in the margins of market since they started first and still have momentum. Competition is still fierce and the camera market is shrinking, but mirrorless eeks out small gains yearly so that part of the market is safer in the long run.

Navved, use math correctly: 2015-2008=7. :p

Credit also goes to Panny for releasing the very first M43 camera.

D5000 = 560 grams
A7ii = 556 grams

When was the last APSC lens developed for E mount? When is the next one coming out, if there's any?

The situation you describe is happening in Sony world. It's smaller, APSC line (that people fell in love with) is given the shaft in favor of the bigger, more expensive FF bodies that get all the lens development.

Many people, including Sony users, would argue that the ideal camera size is smaller than a DX body hence why for example they bought an A6000 (and in spite of poor native lens prospects) instead of a Nikon D5500 or an A7II.

Your statement is predicated upon the false assumption that we don't compare DSLRs to mirrorless, as we do mirrorless to DSLRs. We are absolutely adapting to the times by comparing them to one another, b/c we fully believe them to be in competition.

In numerous reviews of late we've referred to things like:

1. The potential advantage mirrorless offers in terms of face detection and subject tracking b/c of its continuous use of the image sensor.

2. No mirror to flip out of the way, and the typical inclusion of electronic first curtain in mirrorless - and the advantages these offer for image sharpness compared to traditional DSLRs

3. EVFs & the live preview they give.

... etc.

You're flat out wrong that we don't equally compare the two formats to one another.

As for your obsession with live view AF in DSLRs- you're on your own crusade there. If you want live view all the time, you do not use a DSLR, b/c you're crippling the 2 main advantages of DSLRs: traditional PDAF & OVF.

Different tools for different jobs ;) thanks

@Calvin Palmer. Hyperbole. I know so many great photographers having no clue about all technical subtleties. Being award winning has nothing to do with reviewing a camera. You don't need to be a nobel prize winner in literature to write or criticise prose.
I find the review quite good. I have the A7ii, but still don't consider it a replacement for my DSLRs. Maybe the A9.

@HFLM: But it does help if you don't need a minimum shutter speed to freeze the action.

Benchmarks are open-ended, why don't you take up a benchmark-style scale?
If a model totals 92, then the next best one could total 105, just omit the percent sign.
Just a suggestion, OFC, do as you please.

We are in constant conversations about how to improve our scoring system, but it doesn't happen overnight. We have and are considering things like open-ended scales, normalization to top-performers, etc.

The 0-100% scale should be abandoned as quickly as possible. Scores older than let's say 2 years are useless on a such scale. besides, 100% is just an imaginary spec anyway, not a "scientific" one. I understand this transition is not an easy one.

@Rubber dials
I agree with your assessment. When it's convenient the comparisons to the D750 is emphasized and exaggerated. But of course where the A7II outshines the D750 it's not a big plus. Seriously why does the D750 have a flippy screen and it completely sucks at AF in live view. Isn't that a major plus for the A7II or at least a major negative for the D750, it's 2015 guys. And seriously When did we start comparing entry-level FF to intermediate FF cameras? Yeah I guess this makes me a Sony fanboi as well.

I actually own both the A7 II and the D750. As you suggest, they are in different ecological niches in the photographic world.

However, I do think many buyers would compare the two. Hands down, the DPR review is entirely fair in that regard.

The real issues with the A7 II are all associated with the RAW output and malleability. It's fair to compare the D750 in that context because it has a similar sensor, better dynamic range and produces significantly less noisy and more malleable files at higher ISOs. This is either the RAW compression or the filter array or a combination of the two. None of that means it is a poor or average camera, but it does mean it's very good, not excellent.

A lot lighter, smaller, i can still cary A7ii+zeiss55 with my small bag that i used to carry my A6000...open lcd, on belly level, shoot people on streets with iso1600 maximum..i get great results....this is what i can not do with fat D750+big glasses + terrible AF in livewiew......if i were a paid professional does weddings, etc. then i'd go for D750...for my hobby, A7ii is a clear winner...these are tools for requirements guys..

The premise: "No one would choose between an a7 II vs a D750 b/c people looking at cameras like the a7 II are trying to get away from cameras like the D750" is utterly false. In fact, I'm one of the very buyers who is looking to (eventually) buy mirrorless, but have had to go for a D810 instead b/c of its AF. Actually, I still have my a7R, which I was hoping I could use instead of a D810, but shutter shock and poor AF limit its utility.

The very people you mention (those trying to get away from DSLRs) are those who need to know if the a7 II is good enough to replace a DSLR. So your argument that these people wouldn't want a comparison against a DSLR is just flat out wrong.

True the a7 II gives you hand-holdability in low-light, though this won't always work for moving subjects. Saying the D750 doesn't hold up well spec-wise is a bit specious - you left out all discussion of the D750's stellar AF.

ttran88 - you seem to obsessed with D750 Live View AF. DSLRs aren't known for LV AF...

Just for the people quoting terrible AF in liveview. You can stop, really. No one is buying DSLRs because they think live view focus is better than mirrorless cameras.... If it also helps the few times I've used LV with the D750 I've actually had very decent performance/results from it ;-)

When DPR reviewed the 7Dii, it chose to benchmark its comparisons against the 5-year-old D7000, instead of the D7100 or even D5500 (which it surely had by now). With A7ii, it chose to benchmark against the brand new top-of-the-line D750 that costs $600 more. So you see, kid gloves for Canon, and no-holds-barred for Sony. We get it :)

"Funny because this comment reads like it was written by a Sony fanboy!" - Barney Britton

This reply from an editor lacks class and perfectly illustrates the level DPR has sunk to.

Forgive me. It's hard to stay polite sometimes when confronted with such classless, low-level comments.

I'm not seeing what's "classless" or "low-level" about RubberDial's critique of your review.

The first paragraph is pretty disingenuous but I'm not calling him/her out specifically here. My comment was honestly made more in jest - admittedly very frustrated jest - than anything else.

I think people should calm down a little. IT IS JUST A CAMERA. Are you really being personally attacked by a review? Are you really spending hours defending your gear choice? DPREVIEW can't do it right, whatever they do. Always someone is bashing. There seem to be so many frustrated guys because of THIS? Sony is not your friend. It's a company which wants to make profit.

Actually, that's not true. I was a Canon user (7D and 5DkII) and couldn't justify the price of the 5DkIII vs either the D750 or A7mk2 given the sensor quality.

I ended up going with the D750. Sony's RAW compression was one factor, and that shouldn't exist in a $2000 camera, period. The main issue for me was the astronomical price of the native FE mount lenses. Yes, it would be nice to troll eBay looking for vintage glass that I do not already own, but I don't want to MF all the time and/or deal with half a dozen adapters. The size benefit is also lost when adapting most 3rd party lenses. Add in the wider availability of rentals and that was it.

The wisest comment I've read on the A7 series is that it isn't the size that is the true benefit but rather the EVF, the tools that come with it and the change to workflow. The Sony <<system>> simply isn't mature enough for many at the moment. D750 was also only $150 more in Canada 1.5 wks ago!

I agree. There's a lot of people who take the camera brand they've chosen as a religion rather than a tool. Moreover, liveview performance in anything much over a point and shoot is pretty much of a non-issue, and I'm not fond of it on a point and shoot, for that matter.

I know it sounds elitist, but watching these tourists at Disney holding their DSLRs out at arm's length is a bit humorous at best. They take forever attempting to see something on their sun-washed screens only to capture Facebook images to bore their friends.

Hey Barney! Don't you think there is maybe something wrong with that scoring system. You should realise that it is clearly confusing just by looking at all comments here. Time to do something about it, eh?

Well, most people seem to get it. But things get complicated when we're scoring cameras in new product classes, or which could straddle multiple classes.

"best mirrorless out there". Many will disagree with you. Although I have it, it is not better than a D750. Sorry to disagree. AF is really not up to NX1 or EM1, Em5ii, etc. IQ is very good, but not excellent.

The sheer number of times I have seen you guys having to tell people to read up on your scoring system plus having to explain it says something about your scoring system and not your readers. One shouldn't have to read a manual just to understand a few reviews!

Once you're grasped two very simple facts, it's actually very easy to comprehend. Those things are:

1: Awards (gold/silver/none) are not intrinsically related to the % score

2: Cameras are scored relative to other models in their category and the scores are relevant at the point in time at which they are created.

Seriously. It is THAT SIMPLE.

that is exactly my point, you shouldn't need to explain anything. Find a person who hasn't used your website properly, get him drunk (there people who provide this service, not a joke) and see how long it takes for him to figure out the above two points.

I should be able to look at your score and say according to dpr reviews camera x score > camera y score. now THAT is SIMPLE.

Basically my point is if someone lands on your front page, you have a column on the left with percentages for the cameras you reviewed most recently. So I click on 'see all reviews' now you have percentages and awards that will make absolutely no sense!! (All this time I am new user or at least new to your review system). I don't even know where to go to understand why these numbers and awards don't make sense.

This should never happen. Look at dxo they have numbers that people can easily (sometimes mis-)quote and understand. Now if I need to use your review as a reference to something its impossible.

Also one more thing, I have seen enough people being confused about your system and you guys explaining it enough times. This to me says there is a problem.

Now others and I have nothing to gain by moaning at your system. Just like how Rishi say's he is calling out to Sony to fix certain issues in A7ii (or e-mounts), we are calling out to you guys so you employ a better scoring and grading system. All this defending you guys do makes me think you are not interested in listening us (if this the case please do tell us, we can all stop wasting our time and yours).

Can you please expand on your statement "The rest of us want the features that, at the present time, can only be found in mirrorless." What features are these that you speak of?

Being able to adapt lenses is not a measure alone for gold. I prefer AF. IQ is equally important. And relative to their peers at this instant in time, it lags behind.

My bet is that the differences DPReview is seeing are mostly caused by Adobe conversion differences.

DxO shows 1/3 stop better performance for the Nikon D750 over the Sony A7II in high ISO, and 2/3 stop better performance for the A7II over the Nikon D5500 (which DPReview is claiming is equal to or better than the Sony)

Because the RT can give sharper - crisper image as well, i too think a bad compatibility of .ARW and ACR are to blame...

You didn't open the link.

This was specifically about Rishi's comment that class-leading (D3300/D5500) APS-C sensors outdo the A7ii's FF sensor, and that this thus implies that the A6000==D5500 runs toe to toe with the A7ii and even outdoes it.

As an owner of both the A6000 and A7ii I find this odd. For daytime perhaps, but not for nighttime. My findings agree with DxO, essentially the FF sensor is a full stop faster.

My findings however are not based on OOC JPG or default RAW flows, I use DxO and LR for high ISO flows, and I don't use the defaults. In fact, using my method, the test-charts that are used in the studio setup end up looking a lot sharper, cleaner, more vivid and more saturated, with deeper blacks than the posted images.

Also, the A7/ii RAW images have simply more headroom than the A6000, and I presume the D5500, per the DxO stats.

I wasn't commenting about AF, battery life, handling, ergonomics, etc.

Please don't put false words in our mouths.

We never said the a6000 outdoes the a7 II. The a6000 has worse ISO performance than the D5300/D5500 in our studio tests.

The above studio scene comparison shows the following:

NX1 > D5300 > a7 II > a6000

Although the results are fairly close.

We've controlled for scene illumination and exposure in those studio tests. So barring huge differences in lens transmission that happen to disfavor the Sonys, or some ACR issue...

I'll personally look into this further by comparing dcraw conversions in the next few days though.

@ Rishi, RE NX1 > D5300 > a7 II > a6000

please take a look at
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55580989

I, too, suspect something in ACR, hence I was perusing the JPG images at low light & high ISO. But, see my post, I would definitely argue that:
a7 II > D5500 > D5300 > NX1

Wouldn't you agree?

Perhaps this is a judgement for ACR, rather than for the camera/sensor itself? I would still be curious as to what the sensitivity is that triggers such a difference in the results (from RAW).

Also, do you have access to e.g. DxO PRIME?

@ Rishi, RE "Please don't put false words in our mouths. We never said the a6000 outdoes the a7 II. The a6000 has worse ISO performance than the D5300/D5500 in our studio tests."

Referring to your comments in http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55575295

Rishi: "The a7 II, on the other hand, shows ISO performance similar to, or perhaps slightly worse than, that of top APS-C competitors (and by top, I also mean dirt cheap D5300/D5500s...)."

In other words, the D5300 outdoes the A7 II.

Then, in http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-a6000/12

"... In low light, the a6000's Raw performance is a fraction behind that of the Nikon D5300..."

This basically says that the D5300 and A6000 are within a hair of one another, and, coupled with your first statement, this implies that the A7 II is slightly worse - yes - than the A6000.

I don't see why there should be any great argument here, since DxO have scored these sensors for ISO performance (highest ISO at which the SNR is equal to or greater than 30 dB IIRC). The A7/ii is better than the APS-C D5500 and A6000 by a smiggen under a stop. I'm not sure why this doesn't translate precisely into dynamic range measurements, but they're all about what you'd expect.

I agree, but dpreview's findings contradict your statement.

To repeat Rishi's comment from above: "NX1 > D5300 > a7 II > a6000"

Odd...

@blue_skies:

Your post compares JPEGs. We specifically said our analysis was based off of Raw. ???

Second, you took my comment: "The a7 II, on the other hand, shows ISO performance similar to, or perhaps slightly worse than,... D5500", then convoluted it with a different reviewer's comment: "In low light, the a6000's Raw performance is a fraction behind that of the Nikon D5300...", where you chose to interpret 'fraction behind' as 'not behind', so then came to your conclusion that somehow that meant the a7 II is worse than the a6000.

When the reality is, when we said 'fraction worse', we did actually mean the a6000 was worse, & when I said the a7 II was 'similar to, or slightly worse than... D5500', I really meant slightly worse. Which actually means the a7 II is better than the a6000.

Switch to low light, & the a7 II & D5500 really are just similar, which means my statement is still accurate. The NX1 does fall behind tho, thanks for pointing that out. a6000 is still the worst.

Realize also that we're talking about 1/3 EV or less differences here, which are within the margin of error. The bigger point is that the FF sensor should easily be outperforming the APS-C D5500/D5300, and it just isn't. Not in daylight, not in low-light. That was the takeaway you were supposed to get from our comparison; that's why we made that comparison.

The reason we tend to draw less ISO performance more from our daylight scene of late is b/c of our confidence in that light source, vs a tungsten bulb which is constantly dying. Also high ISO performance gauged by daylight balanced bulbs is not irrelevant - it's representative of many sports scenarios, and is still going to be correlated with low light performance in low-light. We may look into commenting on performance under both types of lighting, but are 1st looking for a new red-shifted light source that is more guaranteed to be consistent.

@ Rishi, low light shooting can have many different forms.

ISO can be based on spot metering, average metering, or highlight protection. One of the reasons to choose FF cameras is because of the greater dynamic range.

The resulting image is sensitive to how much of the noise remains in your subject: in a night scape, the entire scene is the subject, but a performer on stage is only a part of the image. I would automatically find a way to use a lower ISO (fast lens, tripod, longer SS) for the larger (edge to edge) subject, and would look for ways to illuminate a smaller subject (stage light, bounce flash, ambient light, etc.)

Then, the Raw work flow would reflect what I am trying to achieve in terms of detail and noise control. I use graduated filter to listen or darken part of the image if needed, thereby increasing or decreasing the need for good high ISO performance in shadow areas.

1/3EV is not a meaningful difference to me: the subject matter plays a much bigger factor.

(continued) The high performance ISO plays a secondary role for me. Highlight clipping and protection, lens and sensor flare, microcontrast (after post-edit) are all big factors.

If I go past ISO 6400, I also tend to use the image for smaller size purposes, such as Web, half-size print, or poster collages. This gives me an extra layer of noise control without getting the dreaded watercolor effects.

Your findings tend to focus on the studio scene at high ISO using an ACR Raw flow. Although this gives me interesting info, it does not help me for my purposes, as I try to explain here.

If anything, newer sensors (eg. BSI, smaller process node) will keep continue to improve on older sensors, no surprise here. If this is visible at very high ISO, then great. But I would still not choose the A7s, as this is for ISO when details begin to disappear, and images loose their punch.

Therefore, I suggest perhaps to break the ISO into three sections: low, medium and high.

I am taking the liberty of linking respected forum Member Bill Claffs PDR measurements for A7 II vs NX1 vs D5500

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#NX1,D5500,A7II

As far as I'm informed, the A7R is not affected. Neither is the A7S.

However my NEX5N shows them clearly on some of my own concert or nighttime shots, when bright lights are present.

I've seen similar greenish sensor reflections on several A7 shots from other users and followed the ensuing discussion in the dpreview and other forums.
I haven't found evidence of sensor reflections from the A7 II on the many pictures that I've seen so far.
I'd just have liked to hear someone elses opinion on that matter.

I can confirm the sensor reflection issue: I tested both cameras side by side and the A7ii is noticably better than the A7 in this regard.

It is not a major issue, imho, but with certain lenses and certain (outdoor) lighting situations, the A7 shows halos and glare that are absent in the A7ii. Even if you push the image, the A7ii remains noticably clean.

For me, this was the major reason to upgrade the camera, not the IBIS.

Exactly what Sam said.

Yes, because the E-M1 and X-T1 got brand new sensors and they churn out new sensors with every iteration?

I didn't call the a7 II "the most advanced mirrorless camera ever made." Nor did I say there is anything wrong with using a predecessor's sensor.

But the E-M1 and X-T1 sensors are competitive in their classes. In fact, if we didn't at all mention the worse high ISO performance of the a7 II sensor, we'd be labeled biased for then mentioning the limited dynamic range of Canon sensors. Or should we not mention that either? With that logic, we could just remove everything negative from reviews.

Maybe that'd make this a happier place.

Maybe then we could all get along.

I'm not sure I agree about the X-T1 sensor, Rishi. As far as I can tell, it's just the rather dated Sony 16MP sensor out of the D7000 with a funny colour filter that causes it to produce revolting artefacts, especially in RAW, and with virtually no genuine fine detail. It competes with the likes of the Sony A6000, which leave it for dead.

@Dan Bracaglia: Nikon D750 uses the same yesterday's sensor and does get a gold award.

@Mike99999 But with better IQ, in contrast to the A7II.

And it's the total package of the D750 that gets the camera the gold, not just Nikon using Sony sensors better than Sony themselves. A bit like it's not a single flaw dragging the A7II down to silver but a series of flaws.

I am too, because I've been historically impressed with DP Reviews and this one was a bit of an eye-opener for me.
Now, I recognize that as a Sony owner, I am going to be somewhat biased (one way or the other) and I also recognize that reviews are meant to be (and should be) critical of the products being reviewed, but they really need to be critical in terms of context of their intended purpose, and this is my main surprise with the review.

It seemed to me to be reviewed in a context that made little sense, and the "issues" thus found, were, in some cases, less relevant for the intended potential owner of the camera.

There are good reviews and poor reviews. My belief is this was not one of DP's better reviews. I assume that you'll take my comments not as some butthurt fanboy, but rather as an interested observer with knowledge of the product and it's MANY strengths. I'll continue to enjoy the site and the work done to provide good product reviews as has been done in the past.

and I'll add that while I personally have not found the lossy RAW compression to be an issue (and frankly, I can hardly even see it in the posted example image, but that may say more about my eyes than the actual performance issue), I absolutely would agree that Sony should provide a firmware update to at least gve the user a choice of presumably space saving lossy compression and lossless compression, with whatever frame rate performance impact that may have.
In my case, frame rates are absolutely irrelevant, as I shoot single frame or HDR multi-exposure sequences only, with MF lenses, as do many other users of these cameras with legacy glass.
I'd rather have the improved IQ, and, for that matter, the Bayer filter removed like the RX1R, but that would be a hardware change and not as "simple" a fix.

So, just so I understand you, our:

(1) In-depth analysis of how many stops of stabilization you get from IBIS at 3 different focal lengths;

(2) Raw ISO performance comparisons that show the a7 II falling behind many of its FF competitors down to the levels of (better contenders amongst) APS-C cameras;

(3) In-depth analysis of the quirks of subject tracking and continuous AF, while including praise for depth-tracking when you remain within the PDAF area

(4) Praise of the dynamic range but also a reality check that it's not quite as high as other, better FF performers... especially when you consider that Raw compression will limit malleability of Raw files

... these are all more or less 'less relevant for the intended potential owner of the camera'?

We just want to make sure we understand your criticism.

1. Very relevant to me.
2. Not relevant unless tested in Single shot mode/highest quality mode, for me.
3. Not relevant for me, or anyone using legions of legacy or MF glass or the new Loxia type FE lenses buitl for this camera
4. See #2.

It's a pleasure...happy to help your understanding.

So let's get this straight:

1. Relevant to you
2. That's exactly how we tested it, so, also relevant to you.
3. Fine, but at least you can admit that AF performance is relevant to a lot of potential users of this camera, if not the majority of users.
4. See #2; we tested in Single mode, so this is relevant to you as well.

So, we got a 75% hit rate for relevancy even for you, with the remaining 25% (#3) being relevant to most users.

I'm having trouble how this equates to the review being largely irrelevant.

So the images for which much discussion has been had here when shot in the lower quality continuous drive mode are somehow not relevant?

Look, I've tried to get across my view (and apparently that of some others here), that the review appears to be stressing characteristics and performance criteria in comparisons with cameras that are for entirely different audiences.

The A7ii is NOT a direct D750 competitor.
It is a magnificent camera for the many thousands of us who shoot primarily stills, landscapes, travel, etc. It is not an action or sports camera.

Consider the folks buying these cameras - many, many of them are using them with legacy and MF glass. For that type of work, it is a fantastic camera - class leading when considering the ability to use stabilized Minolta, Leica, Zeiss, CV, Canon FD, Nikon and thousands and thousands of old/film/rangefinder/obscure lenses, all beautifully stabilized.

Search FLICKR for "Sony A7" I counted 14 out of first 20 images -using MF glass.

And thanks for the replies. I've said my piece. I stand by my opinion. You can think it was a fair and valid and RELEVANT review. We disagree. I'm done.
Cheers,

I for one feel that DPR has spent way too much time in answering many of these complains that are distracting for the majority of the readers. The majority of the readers who are considering a FF camera will shop all possible options, whether they have a mirror or not. For many readers, me included, the main reason to go mirror-less is to reduce the size of the gear. Thus as A7 is getting bigger and heavier, it is impossible not to compare it to the next lightest FF camera, the D750. We do not live in a world using just SONY cameras. When we shop, we look around.

Old Baldy: "So the images for which much discussion has been had here when shot in the lower quality continuous drive mode are somehow not relevant?"

1) The fact that continuous drive mode (including bracketing) and other modes degrade image quality is a bug, not a feature.
2) DPR confirms their test shots were all in single-shot mode anyway; the report of continuous mode was an erroneous comment.