Sony Alpha 7R II Review

Typically, JPEG clips a lot of the impressive DR in Raw, but in this case actually Sony allows you to maintain a lot of it, due to DRO and S-Log2.

And low light detail retention in JPEG is class-leading for recent Sony cameras, due to a sophisticated JPEG engine.

So we could probably remove the 'in Raw' qualifier, you are correct.

Richard sees everything.

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

DVB, using all caps indicate one is yelling and screaming.

This is why I do not trust raw files. They are not standard file types such as JPEG. So, today having difficulty reading them imagine years from now the then computers and software will not be able to read them.

For those that doubt that, Adobe and their ilk dropped support for many of the older raw files (cameras not sold and long out of date). Thus, folks that want to use their original now very old raw files will not be able to open them.

Raw file formats change by vendor and camera model. In fact I have seen them change with firmware upgrades. Yes, raw has advantages, however, a properly setup camera should not need to shoot raw. If one is using raw for PP correcting issues they are doing something wrong. JPEG is good for quite large blowups, and spectacular images. For me shooting JPEG my workflow and time on computer greatly diminished, but not image quality.

Most photographers I know shooting raw are more proud of their computer skills than photography skills.

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.

Maybe - it excels in all those disciplines you mention, but if I don't have a comfortable feeling with the camera in my hands, and if I can't operate it intuitively and straighforwardly, then all those technical skills are irrelevant TO ME ...

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.