![]() ![]() I think there’s no clearer demonstration of this than the fact that the A7II’s raw files are always the same size at higher ISOs, the OOC JPEGs are actually larger. All three use Sony’s 11+7 bit lossy raw compression that can result in posterization at either end of the tonal range if any serious processing is required. The problem is, each A7 variant arguably also has some serious deficiencies: the A7R suffers from very visible shutter vibration at typical shutter speeds, meaning critical pixels can only be obtained at very fast or very slow exposures the A7S is very resolution limited, and similarly low-noise results – with more detail – can actually be obtained by downsampling the A7R to 12MP the A7 has an AA filter which is probably a video compromise, but not so good for stills. ![]() I will upload more to this flickr set in due course.Īrguably, each A7 variant serves a niche – high resolution, high sensitivity/ video, general purpose (perhaps not really a niche). ![]() Unfortunately, the 24-70 was either a poor sample or just optically a dog – very soft off-axis and with significant CA, so all of these images were shot with the 55/1.8. I reviewed a production A7II with the Zeiss 55/1.8 and 24-70/4 OSS lenses, running firmware 1.10. The A7II brings one thing that makes me curious enough to give it a try despite an uninspiring experience with its predecessor: the first full-frame mirrorless camera to have in body stabilization. This appears to be typical Sony strategy: rather than making a product that’s a definite improvement on the previous model, we get many attempts hoping that each one will find its’ own niche. We now have no less than four full frame mirrorless options from Sony the A7R (previously reviewed here) the A7, the A7S, and now the A7II. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |