Sony Alpha 7R II Review

@ProShooting: So, here we have a camera that arguably can do more than any that preceded it, and all you can do is complain and demand more? Hard to take someone like you seriously.

I had the LAEA4 with my Sony A7r. It is very different. The LAEA3 focuses based on the camera's focus; the LAEA4 replaces the camera's focus with its own. I got Tamron's new 24-70 to go with the A7rii. This is a better lens and combo. (My A7r and the excellent Tamron 28-75 were stolen) Focus noise has not been an issue for me.

The A7rII has a crop mode (aps-c) and your 16-70 could be a decent compact zoom for it. The 10-18 works actually reasonably well in FF between 13mm-15/16mm or in crop mode. For general travel/reportage snaps aps-c mode provides sufficient resolution. To get the best of FF out of the sensor, prime lenses are the way to go. Batis 25mm, Zeiss 55mm, Batis 85mm and the upcoming Loxia 21mm (only MF) are all excellent.

Because of post-processing. I suppose this is a topic we'll have to cover, b/c there's a lot of confusion about it.

Whereas a straight-out-of-camera (SOOC) JPEG/Raw may not show much noise for a properly exposed ISO 100 shot, by the time you do contrast and saturation adjustments in post (I'm even leaving out exposure adjustments), underlying noise is made more visible. This is something many pros are familiar with as they typically post-process significantly.

You can't compare heavily processed files to SOOC results.

This is another reason larger sensor, higher full-well capacity (lower ISO), and ETTR is so important to get clean, crisp results. You can never just expect images to retain their ISO 100 'cleanliness' after lots of tonal adjustments. This is why it's important to start off with high signal:noise, which you can do w/ (1) larger sensors, or (2) by giving your camera more light by properly ETTR'ing (even if you want a dark image - you can always decrease exposure later)

... or by using a camera like the D810 that has ISO 64. ISO 64 essentially means you can give the camera 1/2 - 2/3 EV more total light before the same highlights clip (compared to a conventional camera at ISO 100), which gives most tones higher signal:noise ratio (SNR) to begin with.

The important take home point: when you give the camera more light, SNR for most tones goes up, with makes your entire image more malleable.

The other thing to remember is that if you're pixel-peeping a 42 or 50MP file and comparing it to a 100% view of a 24MP file, that's not really fair, as noise levels will appear higher. That's because per-pixel noise will necessarily be higher than a lower resolution, same sensor-size camera (simply b/c of statistical or shot noise), but once you view the same total areas of the image at the same size, similarly performing sensors will look similar, no matter large differences in resolution.

Finally, armandino - you could get the same results by giving the a7R II the same exposure you were going to give the camera at ISO 50, but expose at ISO 100, and then dial in -1 EV to the resulting Raw. That's because ISO 50 isn't 'real' on the a7R II; it's just the camera doing that -1 EV relative to ISO 100 before writing the JPEG or Raw (or ACR doing it to the Raw, if you implement it intelligently).

What you're doing by going to ISO 50 is increasing the total exposure, kind of like ETTR. You of course have to be careful not to blow highlights - which is always important to consider when ETTRing.

If you like this method of using ISO 50, you'd be better off with a camera that has a native ISO 50 due to a higher full-well capacity, like the Nikon D810. For the same exact exposure of the same exact scene, brighter objects will blow more easily on the a7R II (or any other modern FF camera for that reason) than on the D810, which means generally you can give the D810 more light.

@ Rishi Sanyal
thank you for the very extensive explanation. I know that this topic has been beaten to death in forums here and also in your articles. I do understand also that dialing down 100 iso will give you the same results and you are basically loosing 1 stop of DR, and having to watch the highlights more closely. From a workflow point of you I find more intuitive and direct to operate at 50 iso rather than overexposing 100 ISO.

First, you're an idiot for that comment, and get what??? Please explain it to me, if you are such an expert!!!

@GPW,
your post was silly once, now you insist? Get educated in the field. I can do that for you but it will cost you ;-)
Hint: are you seriously comparing a crop sensor to a FF? Your camera is not even in the same class!

My comment was that I can get images as good as the images that I viewed on this site that was taken with the Sony a7R ll with my Nikon D7200 and my Nikon 70-200 lens. You should get educated in believing that a FF camera is the "be all end all" format for photography. I have see a lot of crappy photos taken with FF cameras. A camera is just a tool to help a photographer to achieve/express a moment in time. If you think that you can only get great photo by only using a FF camera, then you sir really don't understand photography. Your still an IDIOT

And a lot of people can get most of the pictures that you can take with your D7200 70-200 on any Super Zoom camera!!

Hey GPW, why do you call someone an idiot? Can't you express your opinion without being rude?

So GPW, the D7200 is a fantastic camera. Congratulations on owning it. it's true the D7200 is an awesome camera and in many situations, especially when there is plenty of light, will be able to take images indistinguishable from those of the ff cameras. Almost always, the difference between photographers will be more important than the difference between cameras, at this level. In fact if you watch the contests you will see that more of the contest winners use APS-C cameras than FF.
But in challenging light conditions, to achieve better images in high dynamic range situations, for color depth and nuances, and for shots where you want very narrow depth of field, this camera, The D750 and others do have an edge. (I don't comment on other brands cause I don't have.).
On a budget, a D7200 and better lenses is a great choice. I wish I had one. But I wouldn't trade it for my A7rii even if your pictures are better than mine.

@GPW
most of the images are taken with Zeiss Batis 25mm and 85 mm wide open. Many with the Canon 11-24.
Would you be kind and elaborate on how you would get these images with your D7200? Even your 70-200 will not deliver the same sharpness and view angle for what matters to match a FF. http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vrii_n15/4. you are borderline troll or straight out cluelessly incompetent.

First I have an experience with all sorts of cameras (FF, APS-C, and the smaller sensor ones). If you're after that FF feeling, you can achieve it with fast lens, even on a APS-C or 4/3rds. Personally I'm not a huge fan of anything faster than a good f/1.4 on a FF or even on APS-C for the reason of loosing everything out of focus. Now, these fast lenses were primarily produced in the film era when high ISOs were sci-fi. With, say 50mm f/1.2 on a FF everything gets lost in the bokeh, and according to my taste, that ain't good.
The other fact is that CA tend to be better on FF bodies, cause the same DOF can be produced stopped down to about 1 f stop.
Eitherway, you can produce about the same results as shown here with a D7200, you only have to use 50 f/1.2 or Sammy 16 f/2 which is a heck of a good lens. Print the photos from the A7 and D7200 A2 size and there WILL NOT be a considerable difference (if any) to a casual observer. Of course, first correct the CA in post, and see 4 yourself!

@martindpr
you cannot reproduce the same effects of a FF with a crop sensor because the perspective/dept is not the same (Comparing the Sammy 16/2 to the Batis 25?). I agree that for a CASUAL observer there is not much difference. But the casual observer will probably shoot with an iPhone anyway. Your comments reflect GPW that indeed if you do not need the FF for your shooting is is fair, however that is untrue if you want to step up he game. Do not forget that the A7RII offers 42MP vs the 24MP of the D7200, which also does not offer the lens compatibility, IBIS 4K etc. Note that at pixel level the A7RII also offers an advantage with slightly larger photodiodes and BSI. Finally, it is quite obvious that you are going to get more chromatic aberration on a FF that on a crop sensor with a full frame lens. Also, many pictures here are shot with extreme wide angles or very fast lenses which are both prone to this and it is easily corrected in post and are not a problem with the camera.

@ Keith Reeder
what do you base your statement on? For how much Canon users love to dismiss DXO Mark did you try to compare low light performance of the 7DII to the A7II. Bring to the table hard evidence and be specific (in other words avoid BS). Note that I own both cameras (7DII and A7RII). It looks like this thread is a photography beginner/troll magnet. Btw you might want to bring more respect to "this thing" that packs most tech than anything else on the market. But obviously you do not know what you are talking about anyway.

I doubt the sample images are intended to show everything the camera can do. That said, one needn't look far to exceed a D7200 sensor with the A7R II

@ Esstee
exactly. The A7RII can match and outperform the D7200 with just half of its sensor.

yeah, 4K in body, 5 axis IBIS, 399 PDAF points covering more of frame than any other FF camera, worlds first BSI FF sensor, Eye AF, silent shutter... no way they should charge more than $500 for this step backward sort of...

Yes, I get that, just not sure how those two things alone should dictate either the price or if the camera should be called professional or not... or even if it matters?

Just love the way that 'professional' is bandied round on these comments streams in a passive aggressive way, tied to the specific features of whichever camera is being slighted and that that camera happens to be weak at, to imply if a camera is 'worthy' or not... surely pro's will decide that? or worse still marketeers.

yeah, the sensor is the only reason to like this camera, see my OP....
Thanks for the pro Nikon monologue too, but back to your original post... what has price or the word 'professional' got to do with anything?
BTW - some of my best friends are DSLR owners... :-)

The MSRP of the A7Rii ($3,198) is very much in line with the competition, its a little lower than the D810 ($3,300) and quite a bit lower than the 5DS/R ($3,699 / $3,899) and also lower than the Canon 5D MKIII ($3,500) when that was launched, so I'm not sure why one would expect it to "have everything and more than a DSLR"? Or is the bar simply higher for mirrorless? (these comments seem to suggest it IS). Ironically it does offer a lot more than current DSLR competition as I mentioned in my OP (I'm certain no one is bragging and even if they were it wouldn't be just because of the sensor) but you seem to be saying that this doesn't matter because two things you've decided matter most, battery life and responsiveness aren't up to DSLR standards. I disagree on two counts. Firstly, these are not the only things that dictate a camera's price or its pro / am status. Secondly, the problems are massively exaggerated, like your own use of phrases like 'hefty' with regard to the price.

Where to start... I'm wondering if you're reading my comments properly... I'll try again...
- My issue is with you saying the camera isn't worth its 'hefty' MSRP and is a 'step backwards, sort of', due to the 2 reasons that you stated in your OP - I just don't think the two (exaggerated) issues you stated are enough to make those claims, especially given what you get for the money.
- NOTE: I couldn't give a monkeys about your interpretation of what 'professional camera' means and I thought I'd made that clear in one of my other comments...
- I'm not just talking about the sensor either, read my OP.
- If you read my comment, you'll notice the abbreviation, MSRP. It's hardly objective to judge a recently released cams price, which has yet to be discounted, against bodies many of which have been out for over a year and some even longer. MSRP is one objective way of saying 'what does the manufacturer think it's worth at launch', before market forces take care of the price for them.

I decided to take a look at eBay too as you suggested, this is a bit of an inexact science. I looked at the US ebay, where mirrorless are less popular than DSLRs, then used a rough average based on what was for sale.
Old models
D800 - MSRP $2,999 – ebay av. used $1499
D600 – MSRP $2,099 - ebay av. used $875
5D Mkii –MSRP $3,499 – ebay av. used $1,100
A7R - MSRP $2,299 – ebay av. used $1,150
A7 - MSRP $1,699 – ebay av. used $799
Latest models
5D Mkiii - MSRP $3,500 – ebay av. used $1,899
D810 – MSRP $3,300 – ebay av. used $2,399
D610 – MSRP $1,999 – ebay av. used $1,199
D750 – MSRP $2,299 – ebay av. used $1,500
A7R MkII – MSRP $3,198 currently no used cameras listed on ebay.
It looks to me that if you pay MSRP you lose on average the same amount of value as a percentage of your initial outlay – the loss is less if the camera is still the ‘latest model’. Sony used prices, another cliche peddled on here without evidence... I shoot Sony, Canon and Fuji listed on my profile.

I don't own it, if you actually read my post I pointed you at my profile which shows all the cameras I own. This isn't one of them.

As for your opinion, if you share it publicly you need to be able to defend it, especially when it's as massively generalising as...

"all the amateurs are paying a hefty professional price for the Sony..."

or as tired, cliched and unsubstantiated with any evidence as...

"Sony systems do not hold there values".

anyway, such fun while it lasted, ciao.

Oh, good, we've not stopped yet...
I post data at your request and its not good enough, so now you want me to take your word based on a conversation with a bloke in a shop and no evidence? I'd say in terms of justifying your opinion, that's ..a step backwards, sort of.

And your qualifying criteria for a Fanboy = someone who doesn't agree with and asks you to justify your opinion?

Focus point! Bloody focus point! The most basic function of any camera, being able to tell camera where to put the focus!!!

Why sony didn't give a small joystick?!

@dlcolak Focus point adjustment is either something you use a lot, or not at all. I used it a lot previously, but I've stopped altogether now because I simply prefer shooting from the center point and recomposing, even when I'm shooting something fast, like a dance performance.

This is because I've always found the center point to be the most accurate, even if all the focus points are cross-type. And secondly, it's to avoid any accidents where the focus point is off center and I don't notice until I've snapped. I tried playing around with the focus points of my 70D, since I can directly set to move the points via the rear control, but I find that it slows down my thought process too much.

With that being said, I can see why it's important to certain photographers, and hopefully Sony takes a serious look in their design review. Honestly though, I dislike the A7II's ergonomics, especially the dials. I actually liked the A6000 and A7 controls much more.

Focus and recompose is a certain way to miss the focus, specially wide open.

http://digital-photography-school.com/the-problem-with-the-focus-recompose-method/

"Focus-Recompose is easy, intuitive, quick and self-defeating. While this method will work in some situations, there’s no way to know how well it will work without calculating your depth of field before each shot to see if you have any wiggle room with your depth of field."

@Thermidor
the 650D off centre points are not very good. Your adaptation make sense, but if you have a camera with a more advanced AF points your point does not hold, while the more accepted and reliable method is indeed using off centre focusing points as dcolak pointed out. It is highly unlikely that I am going to nail the focus by reframing my 85/1.2 wide open at headshot distance.

agreed

Good points raised here, specifically that sometimes off-center points lead to even worse performance than the focus plane shift from focus-and-recompose.

Also, as you go to more telephoto focal lengths, the plane shift is minimal, b/c you don't actually rotate your camera very much to change the FOV significantly. Therefore, the plane shift from focus-and-recompose can be more of an issue with fast wide primes, like 24/1.4.

And, of course, focus-and-recompose doesn't work if your subject moved between the time you focused and then recomposed. Which can happen all the time if you're shooting newborns, or brides, candids in action, kids, etc.

colour fringing is mostly caused by the lens, not the sensor itself...

It doesn't look like Chromatic Aberration with the two colour edges ..it's more colour fringing with outlines taking on the colour of the over-exposed backgrounds. The Indian people interior shot displays this vividly. We have orange fringing on one lady, one main lady with red blooming on her hair and the man with green fringing with probably a foliage background causing it. Most cameras have some fringing but this example is worse than a compact camera. Can't figure out what the fuss is about!

It's fringing resulting from significant post-processing. The reality is is that professional photographers will post-process most images, & the contrast and color and exposure adjustments invariably 'amplify' defects, including chromatic aberration.

So even a lens that starts with modest LoCA (like the otherwise incredible Zeiss Batis 25mm here) will end up looking significantly worse after post-processing that doesn't target removal of the LoCA: contrast boosts, highlight reduction, and some small saturation tweaks make green and magenta fringing look much worse than something that may have been barely visible in a SOOC JPEG.

I didn't do any LoCA removal, but LR/ACR does allow you to remove some green/magenta fringing, at the potential cost of some color artifacts (that are rarely seen). It's usually an acceptable tradeoff.

Few F2 or F1.4 primes have such little LoCA that you wouldn't see it after PP. Canon 35L II is an exception, and Sigma Art primes come close.

We hope to do controlled LoCA, amongst other, tests in the future. I think it'd be very beneficial to our community, and photographers-at-large.

Incidentally, my comment about post-processing also explains why a lot of audience members here are aghast at how noisy ISO 100 images are. Contrast (not to mention exposure) adjustments and up increasing the visibility of underlying noise. This is why I often stress that tools to help one ETTR (Raw histograms), or higher full-well capacity, are important tools for the cleanest images. The more light you collect, the higher the SNR, and the cleaner your images will look and the better they'll withstand post-processing. It's one reason Nikon D810 files are so malleable if you shoot ISO 64 - you can give the camera 2/3 EV more exposure than conventional cameras at ISO 100, which increases overall SNR, and make images crisper. Because the camera can actually record more total light than most (all) other full-frame cameras. Just as an aside. :)

@spikey27
it depends on the photographer really. I have been a Canon user for a long time, owning at some point every single Canon DSLR worth having. Since I owned the A7RII my canon bodies are used strictly for sports. Am I giving up ergonomics and some other logistic? Absolutely. Is it worth it? Absolutely.

A live histogram, focus magnification, peaking, replay, seeing shutter speed, video, face and eye recognition AF, gain in the EVF are not very up front in a Dslr. Canon seems to be successful with the same old body and OS.

Face recognition and at least 3-axis, if not more, work with adapted lenses when using an electronic adapter.

Your name should be "7829 Off the Mark". My everyday lens on this camera is a Tamron 24-70 for Sony A mount, used with the LAEA3 Adapter. IBIS works like a charm, It is turned off by the software only when it detects competing lens based IS. IBIS also works with my Tamron 150-600.
And as Rishi says, face recognition focus works. Is true eye focus doesn't work with theses lenses.

That's pretty poor. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Out of curiosity - what do you use the memory banks for? Although I find them nice for setting up video modes, most of the time when I want to set up my camera for 'landscape' shooting or 'people' shooting, I need to reconfigure the physical buttons, which the memory banks don't allow me to do.

Nikon big, Sony small. Easy choice, accept for sports. Just buy two camera systems. If I could have afford a Wife and an a Girlfriend...I would do it :)

Whenever someone says something is unilaterally better and does so with terms like way better, hands down, huge etc then it usually means they are trying to defend the camera/system they presently own. People, competition is a good thing. If something comes along that is in some way better doesn't mean what you have is no good. Technology marches on and no matter what you have it will eventually be replaced by something better.

Technology doesn't always make things better.
The internet, television, and air planes have not made the world a better place. I don't believe anyone who has not experienced life before the wide spread existence of these three will be able to comprehend such a statement.

Where I come from missing shots many times due to a dead battery is called user error.

And on EVERY single review...of any camera on this website.

We already have far more words in our review than ideal. We think we can leave it up to you to decide if it's worth your money, if we spend our time/effort in the review talking about the capabilities, and not being so presumptuous as to assume we know how best to spend your money...

(1) That's simply untrue. Eyes are perfectly focused.

(2) For stylistic reasons, which you're welcome to disagree with.

(3) To test/show just how capable this camera is at nailing focus even with such challenging depth of field.

daddyo - you weren't there. The truck shot was well after sunset. There was some yellow and pink in the sky, but trust me - it was pretty darned dark. I shot various images of this scene at different settings but settled on ISO 100 @ F1.4 with some shadow pulling in post. I like the effect - you are free to disagree.

There's a reason little was discussed about 'proper' amount of background blur - there isn't any. It's an artistic choice.

Also, you're wrong about focus. You refer to this photo being focused on the nose and not the eyes/eyebrows, and the opposite is true: the noise is unfocused and the eyelashes/eye/cheek are perfectly focused, as you can see in this crop here.

The rest of the shots, and all in the gallery really, are all focused perfectly on at least one eye, with the other eye also appearing in focus/sharp at most normal viewing sizes (so your eye isn't distracted into thinking some other facial feature is focused on, b/c all other features are less focused than at least one eye).

Not sure if you're trolling us but, if so, please stop - it wastes everybody's time.

Lower noise but then lower detail - which is important to you?

"Lower" detail? From a D750? Are you serious?

Yes, silly comment really. Nikon has much more lens line up than Sony offered for the E and FE line up. So the chance of getting good quality lens from Nikon at better price is high. Compare to Sony with tight lens line up with mostly expensive Carl Zeiss does not help at all which blows the budget.

Even in low light high ISO noise, Sony A7RII and Nikon D750 are same, stalemate. And Nikon D750 comes at better cheaper price than A7RII. $2,299 for body only D750 vs Sony A7RII body only $3999 (Retail is $4500 normally when it is brand new release) after exchange rate. $3999 is special price though at the moment.

Also Nikon does much better job with Real World DR Difference, in shadow the noise is lesser than Sony. So I think you need to have a good long hard look at review before making comment.

Video is far superior on the A7rII than anything Nikon ofers or any Canon below the $13,000 C300mkII. The rear LCD on the D750 is absolute garbage, its resolution/refresh rate is terrible, making manual focus when shooting video a chore.

None of them shoot 4k. I'll take the A7rII FTW.

guys wake up, new D750 body costs 1500 USD!!! It's amazing FF value for money, and probably more than most people including me will ever need.
with quite good walkaround lens 24-120 F4 (not stellar, but for general daylight photography by far my favorite) its 2000 USD (talking about current Swiss prices)

Sony might be better, and IS better in video (which is useless attribute to me for example), but it ISN'T 2x better camera, or more. Not even going into available lenses topic, that would bring it even lower.

A D810 that can't focus in as dark a scene as the a7R II with fast primes... Or a 5DS R that can't focus on an eye without you first moving the AF point over to tell the camera where the eye is - which is of course difficult for a moving subject, or which costs you a candid shot because you had to expend time manually moving your AF point or reframe (which costs you compositional freedom).

Not to mention dynamic range limitations of the 5DS R, or the lower high ISO performance of both relative to the a7R II.

Not to mention focus accuracy issues of DSLRs relative to the a7R. Or AF frame coverage. Or the freedom of not having to worry about handheld shake and shutter shock, b/c of IBIS and electronic first curtain, respectively. And that's before we start talking about video...

Let's not overtly simplify a nuanced discussion.

@gbdz - Who cares when you can get great AF from pretty much any Canon or A-mount lens? There are far more AF capable lenses that can be used on the A7rII than any DSLR. You can choose to stick your head in the sand by saying "native" but in the real world that's just not the case. Its only been two years and Sony is set to announce 8 more lenses, Zeiss says three more Batis lenses are coming, it won't be long before all of the most popular FL's are covered.

Pentax needs an owner worthy of it's legacy.

IF it comes out. Sony will release a A9 by the time it is ready.

Most people actually USE their camera. The look THROUGH it instead at it.
But I guess you are the person that byus uncomfortable shoes becouse they look good. Kinda like a twelve year old girl don't you think ?

it's not like a Nikon Df - a camera only good to watch on it....

The DF is an excellent camera. You obviously have never used it for making prints. It not only looks different and good for many, but has one of the best sensors.

I don't think it's ugly at all. having held one though, it's ergos are awful. I could not shoot with one for an extended time. I know Sony is putting all its cameras in the black can, and saving a ton of money doing it, but it is not designed for comfort.

Put it in Gariz leather half-case and its like a Leica... for 1/2 price :)

That's some sound logic. Sarcasm.

Leica is waiting to take your money if you're part of the camera jewelry camp.

There's very little difference between cars in the same class at the same pricepoints. There are big differences between the IQ from the A7rII and the Df. Who cares about what the camera looks like, its about the image, and there the A7rII looks pretty good, and better than anything from Pentax, Olympus, Fuji and the Df.

Cheers.

Still a better looking camera than the DF

"I like walking around proudly with a camera that people notice and comment upon; they mistake me for a creative artyfarty person, hence they give me more credit."

Somebody needs to grasp the concept of irony...

Please note that I already removed some software related issues after copy-paste. The remainder is (IMO) hardware related ones.
So, actually, this is not the whole cons list. :) Thanks in anyway Rishi to write all of them one-by-one. This is in anyway an unbiased review as nothing is hidden under the carpet. HOWEVER, giving the GOLD is the reservation of the reviever. Rishi thinks it deserves a GOLD. I think it deserves a SILVER. That's the pure choice of priorities. That's why reviewers say "read the whole article before jumping to conclusions page". If anybody buys such a camera in rush even without reading the whole pros/cons section but just by the color of the medal, than he/she has no place here anyway.

Cihangir Gzey, as Rishi mentioned in the comment, the con list is long since the review is very comprehensive. They can make any camera con list long or short depending on the mode of reviewer and thoroughness of the review.

Doesn't prove crap. Your argument is nonsense. The camera gets gold and 90% because that's what the reviewers think it deserves.

How many $3000+ DSLR's have a touch screen? None.

How many of them shoot 4k? None.

If you shoot CaNikon you'll need two systems - one for high rez stills and one for 4k - to match the capabilities of this one tiny body. And Canon's DR is lagging far behind Sony.

Batteries are $10 each and weigh 1.5 oz, get the grip and carry 10.

You know you can get the same tone/colour with every single camera on the market? That's why you go to post processing... and if you dont use that, you really don't need a $3000 camera, rather stick to P&S models.

Oh btw, the Sony A7RII is exceptionally good at maintaining colour at high ISO even in extremely warm light (camp fire, tungsten with warm coloured shades).

Agree 100% with everything you've said. And Naveed - a lot of this is essentially what we say in the scoring widget at the end of the review, with out 'Good for', 'Not so good for', and 'Overall conclusion' sections. It's just that, as DPReview, we need to actually back up everything we say and, indeed, do all the tests first in order to be able to know what to say. :)