Sony Alpha 7R II Review

DOWNLOAD ADOBE DIGITAL NEGATIVE CONVERTER FROM ADOBE.COM TO CONVERT YOUR RAW FILES TO .DNG FORMAT.

It's our latest review. After expending months of effort behind a thorough review, you think that displaying it on the home page of Digital Photography Review means the content must be paid off?

@Rishi You can't please everybody...

@Rishi Yes, it does.

Conspiracy theorists are so lame.

@Rishi - I feel bad for you guys, constantly having to deal with the mouth-breathers of this community. Please know that the rest of us appreciate all the hard work you do.

Yes, I've seen this Video too, and I commented on it because it is a total NONSENSE.

I commented on SonyAlphaRumors as well as on Vimeo, because it is not a scientific assessment of noise between these two cameras.
The guy fails to understant that he has to normalize the pics at the same size (i.e. he has to display the exact same portion of the image at the exact same size on his screen from the 2 camera).

He fails to do that, and because of its higher megapixel count the image from the IQ160 appears like "zoomed in". So he's also zooming into the noise, and he makes it appear more on the IQ160. This is nonsense, and he has to normalize the pics first.

He fails to understand and even says DPR does it the same way, which is wrong, eventhough the comparison tool doesnt normalize pics from different sensors...

@surlezi - working on it :)

By the way, we definitely do allow for normalized comparisons in our studio scene widget. We don't have the IQ160 in there, but we'll try to get one of the latest Phase One cameras in there soon. I wouldn't be surprised if the a7R II, despite its smaller sensor, surpassed it though - the CCD MF backs have poor ISO performance generally, because of fairly high upstream read noise. The exception being the ones that use the latest ~50MP Sony CMOS sensor in them.

There are pros and cons. I have always been a SLR user and I have to admit that what you see is what you get from a mirrorless is nice. Also a bright image in the dark is nice. DSLR live view is almost useless for everyday shooting because of the very slow AF performance.

The camera effectively shoots in LV all the time.... With the LCD it's 340.

The 5DS scores 200 shots in LV using the LCD, using the same CIPA method for measuring.

I also don't think we've said that Mirrorless is taking over.

Mirrorless is where the interesting things are going on: advances in areas such as video that DSLRs aren't great at and improvements in areas such as C-AF that DSLRs have traditionally dominated. However, we're not blind to some of the shortcomings that some/many models have, and try to make those clear in our reviews.

However, while you're right that current sales trends don't tell the whole story (because you can't assume those trends will continue forever - it seems likely that DSLR and Mirrorless will co-exist at some level for the foreseeable future, rather than one replacing the other), absolute sales volumes tell you almost nothing useful beyond the fact that DSLRs are pretty entrenched.

Importantly, our 'noise' is backed up by videos of the cameras in operation and rollovers with 100% crops and fully-downloadable 'test results' for each and every test, so you don't just have to take our word for it, you can judge for yourself.

So unless you're suggesting we rigged every test... your accusation and insinuation is unfounded, baseless, ludicrous.

Perhaps you could take the time to read and review the information we spent countless hours and months of our time collecting and making available to you, rather than jumping to an accusation of bias because you don't like the conclusion.

Also, are you suggesting that sales figures are an immediate, sure-fire indication of how good a product is?

Dpreview is my most reliable source of information concerning digital cameras - it would be an unacceptable allegation that it makes courtesy expertises for money.

The present review on the A7rii is precise and exhaustive, strengths and weaknesses are adressed in a well-balanced way.

But what irritates me is the conclusion which is drawn on the basis of the qualified analysis: Gold Award! Best camera of the year!! How is it possible that a camera with so many flaws can earn such a high appraisal?

Mainly concerning ergonomics/handling, this body falls far behind my expectations. There is no excuse for bad ergonomics in a small body - as ist proofen by the Olympus E-M1 and Panasonics GH4.

There are other flaws: Weather sealing! Viewfinder (nervous, strong moiré), no touch-screen, handling of the focus point, and so one ...

This camera ist more an absurdly overpriced toy than a serious tool for professionals, and therefore deserves a Silver Award at most!

@Ktrphoto The speed and rate of any hypothesized mirrorless take over can actually be calculated by using changes in sales and mathematic modelling based on Fisher & Pry's S shaped growth/substitution curve, or variations thereof. Bifurcation patterns based on changes in consumer demand as well as on competitive responses may of course emerge. The challenge is, it seems the numbers aren't growing, rather the opposite. The camera market has been in free fall for the past 5 years. Mirrored cameras are losing volume faster than mirrorless.

"This camera ist more an absurdly overpriced toy than a serious tool for professionals, and therefore deserves a Silver Award at most!"

Let's add: to you.

Yet in the hands of many professionals it's more capable in many scenarios than anything costing up to twice as much or more (face tracking over the whole frame at large apertures, blur free prime shooting in low light, nailing focus down to pixel level at high resolutions, video, specifically 4K in general including AF and low light, etc.). To put "toy" and "absurdly overpriced" in to perspective.

Exactly, to you. And since we all differ, it's probably fair to say that you can't discredit their conclusion, just because it doesn't reflect yours.

Swiss Forester: get a grip. No, literally. It's only $148 with the a7R II right now, with a free Metabones Smart Adapter IV, effectively saving you $600, over at B&H Photo & Video.

@Ktrphoto
"DSLRs still outsell Mirrorless by a huge margin"
"there is no compelling reason to believe that sales of DSLRs will fall below those of Mirrorless, at least not for many more years"

I'd check my information before making such bold statements.

See Amazon.de Best Sellers and you will see that mirror-less outsell DSLRs in Germany.

Then if you watched CameraStoreTV last video, they're saying in their store in Canada, there are people dumping $20k worth of DSLR gear and migrating to mirror-less.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtTPCAn6kU8

We have to wait and see the results of this quarter, but if the market does not flip now, it is very likely to happen in 2016.

It takes years for the momentum for a change to build up, but once there the change happens quite fast. All of a sudden everyone is dumping DSLRs and noone's buying.

Mirrorless is the future.
And while it may not have taken over at this time, I'd add that the take over process has most certainly begun. As we're now witnessing mirrorless camera's encroaching on DLSRL territory. - Not much... that's true, though it is enough to invoke that sense of discomfort however. Which btw. is a natural response in cases such as these just as it was with film when digital finally took over. - and oh, my was that ever rough. So many naysayers rising up against digital saying things like "I'd rather die than switch etc.", though in the end, the inevitable happened and digital photography is now the undisputed standard above all things. - Just like mirrorless will become.

Some very sensitive people here at DPREVIEW. Chillax, already. For the vast majority of us, these are just rich boy toys, nothing more. Certainly nothing to get worked up about.

Ktrphoto
What's really surprised me, is where you sentiment and statement was one that I heard someone say almost twenty years ago when digital camera's were closing in on film. :)

Ktrphoto, your statement was

"there is no compelling reason to believe that sales of DSLRs will fall below those of Mirrorless, at least not for many more years"

Definition of many - a large number of, numerous, a great/good deal of, a lot of, a large/great number of, great quantities of, plenty of, countless, innumerable, scores of, crowds of, etc. In other words at least 20-25 and even more.

Do you really believe that in a couple of decades DSLR cameras will still be outselling mirror-less cameras ?!? I'd call this totally inadequate judgement.

Looking at the current rate of rise, its safe to predict that, if not next year, the year after mirror-less cameras will outselling DSLRs.

@Ktrphoto
"I have little confidence in my, or anyone else's, ability to predict the future."

Then why are you making bold statements about the future like these below?

"there is no compelling reason to believe that sales of DSLRs will fall below those of Mirrorless, at least not for many more years"

Just to annoy people?

A large share of readers here (if not the majority) are enthusiasts and care about the future. Actually, enthusiasts and early adopters make future happen!

That's why people like reading about mirror-less cameras, even if they are not the best tool for your personal use today.

If everyone was like you only caring about the present, you would still be using film cameras or even some sort of plates.

@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.

@ProShooting I find that Sony's A7R II is an amazing accomplishment. You do understand that Sony has to have something to improve upon, or they would shoot themselves in the foot commercially? It's simply the way capitalism and product based markets work. I'm sure you'll see the touch screen appear on some future iteration. Look at their strategy for the RX100 and I believe you can/will see some similar variation for the A7R line.

@Nick Spiker The higher end Olympus OMD cameras have in camera 5 axis stabilization. This is the review from 2012 of the original OMD EM5. It's not a new thing.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5

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.

@martindpr
ahah! thank you that is funny :-) I really think I am stating the obvious to be honest. Most of my friends tell me I should work for Canon as that is what I have been shooting for years actually. Maybe I have a great future as a sales rep.
My argument is not really about the MP count but about the sensor size. Megapixel count actually plays somewhat a role because Cameras like the A7RII and 5Ds can shoot full and crop maintaining good resolution. Smaller sensor is inferior to larger, period. Especially when you are matching the pixel size so there is no pixel density advantage with the crop sensor. Glad to hear you enjoyed your D2X colours. Too bad that DXO is not on your side for colour depth when comparing it to the A7RII. The Nikon might have good colour straight out of the camera, but I doubt the Sony cannot match or better them with appropriate processing or the proper colour profiles.

Keith Reeder - stop trolling our site. Your comments are repeatedly solely intended to incite Sony users, & this sort of instigation is not welcome.

Also, you're wrong. Saying a 7D Mark II is better at high ISO image quality is nonsense.

@martindpr: suggesting armandino works for Sony illustrates well why jumping to baseless accusations only makes you look worse: armandino has been known to shoot Canon for some time.

Furthermore, he's right in what he says: the a7R II's ISO performance is almost on par with the D7200, which means that you could use half its image sensor (half the surface area) to get the same normalized high ISO noise performance as the D7200. You can verify this in our studio scene: ISO 25.6k on the a7R II looks roughly like ISO 12.8k on the D7200.

Which makes @Keith Reeder's comment all the more ridiculous. The a7R II has, at the very least, twice the high ISO performance of the 7D2.

Our site clearly debunks these ludicrous statements, & yet the persist...

Thanks Thematic... Try and put yourself in my shoes... If you have to wait close to 6 months to have a simple repair from Sony's only authorised repair facility on a virtualy new A7r -- Wouldn't you like to be assured that Sony was working to eleminate that kind of aweful repair delay for the new camera? OR that they indeed knew about their only repair source working so slowly. - My Ar7 would rent for around $100 a day from a company. So the cumaltive cost of not beign able to use it - was by that standard - awful. Sony people should care. And again -- I LOVE the new Ar7 2 A I said I bought it day one- amazing camera!!!

I am just a FORMER pro photographer but I distrust Sony, too. Why?

First, because their customer support and repair service can be disappointing in many countries (I know it from own experience in video/TV/broadcast).

Second, because you never know if they'll continue to support a platform in the future. In my opinion they've dropped way too many products, platforms and formats too early in the last decades (in audio, video, broadcast, PC, etc).

That's okay for equipment you know you'll use just for a couple of years but if you want to invest in the future an try to build a system that is supposed to serve you as a professional for the next decade(s), you'd probably look somewhere else. Just my 2c.

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...

Jonath - step backward means things are already working or you already have, but you no longer have it...900 plus photos per battery charge, instantaneous speed...these are given performance on FF DSLRs...yes, a 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.

The only reason people brag about the A7rII at this point is that it has the latest Sony sensor with the best DR performance at the high MP range. I'll definitely give credit to Sony, but when looking at the overall performance, Sony system is not refine enough to overtake the FF DSLR at this point, not by a long shot. If Sony continues to sell it sensors to Nikon, the next gen Nikon, assuming using the same/better sensor than the A7rII, people who are familiar with FF DSLR will still stay with Nikon. Surely, I for one will not get a A7rII so I can get 95% performance out of my Nikon lenses minus the AF. Sony has a lot of potential if it's willing to address at least the battery issue by increasing the size of the camera body so it can have a bigger battery; something easy to do. I'm speaker as someone who actually own a mirrorless system and know it's pros and cons. While we're debating this issue, Sony will probably release the next A7xx soon, so why bother...

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.