johnloumiles Posted September 10, 2015 Share #1 Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Seems like the new Sony A7RII is the equivelent to the Beatles stepping off the plane at JFK in 1964; lots of screaming and pulling ones hair out before fainting. In all the excitement I keep hearing people say this is the full frame camera that gives similar results to medium format. Personally I'm not sure where this is coming from; the fact that it has an equivelent pixel count or its resolution (which I admit is pretty good) or just the camera overall. Some even say it has a the same three dimensional feel as the larger sensor camera. I'm not the biggest fan of Sony cameras for a few reasons but you have to give them credit for pushing camera technology forward. That said I don't see how a sensor that is 50% smaller is ever going to compete with medium format in terms of resolution, shallow depth of field and the 3D "pop" among other things. You can pour 5 billion dollars into developing a 35mm sensor but I'm under the impression that there is a mathematical formula that cannot be overcome between the two. I always find myself getting lost in medium and large format exposures as it seems you can almost walk into them with the depth that only comes from bigger sheets of film. While medium format digital is not the same size as the film it's named after I still find it retains those qualities, therefore it will always surpass 35mm digital in that way. There's no doubt 35mm cameras are getting better and better, but can they ever really equal an S even if they have more pixels and tons of money in development behind them? Edited September 10, 2015 by johnloumiles 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Hi johnloumiles, Take a look here S vs A7RII. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
SaW Posted September 10, 2015 Share #2 Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) I've had the A7RII + 35mm f1.4 lens for 3 weeks. Made the comparison with my S2 and 45mm lens. Sold the Sony. I was hoping (sometimes I can be optimistic) that I could sell my 45mm S lens and use the Sony combo instead. It's true that the gap between Medium format and 35mm is getting smaller and I was thinking the S system better shows its strengths from 50mm focal lenght and above. So I've made some tests and unfortunately for my wallet I could only note that the 45mm S simply is in another league (borders and corners sharpness way better with the S, to the point I think it is possible the Sony 35mm f1.4 was a defective sample. I know there is alignment issues reported with this lens but both sides were very bad with my copy). But I also think that the S lenses raised the bar so high that you can only be disappointed when using other lenses. The Sony A7rII sensor wasn't that impressive neither. Colors are difficult to set properly. I even found that I prefer the Dynamic Range of my S2. Recovered shadows are noisier but more natural. Highlights is better on the Sony. What's more important is the overall look and pop. More beautiful, natural and with luxurious drawing from the S system. As a friend pro photographer in Art reproduction said, the Sony looks more common, coarse. I don't care about video, high isos etc. Just want top IQ at base iso and around. For my needs the S system makes things just right. Edited September 10, 2015 by SaW 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterv Posted September 10, 2015 Share #3 Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) Well said John! Completely agree, though I think print- and viewing (on a monitor) size have some influence too. I think the sensor size of the Leica Pro Format was chosen wisely. Edited September 10, 2015 by peterv Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xiaubauu2009 Posted September 10, 2015 Share #4 Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) Well, my view is opposite to SaW. In terms of IQ, I am blown away by the possibility given by Sony A7RII, especially when you pair it with a Cambo Actus view camera and some enlarging lens. Leica S Lens is nothing in comparison to enlarging lens and its resolving power, it's in par with Alpa HR lens minus the distortion and color cast. In terms of portability... well, no contest there, I can fit 2 Zeiss Batis lens, the Cambo Actus, and 3 Enlarging lens into a shoulder bag and is still lighter than a Leica S and 3 lens. And with the S notorious reliability (I have 3 of 7 of my leica S items having issue one way or the other, aperture issue, not able to recognize the contax mount, and dead pixel), I think Sony's a no brainer. So, I don't know, on the one hand, it's the last Leica system I own. on the other, it's does have some strong point and the best handling MF. A7R2 + Cambo Actus + Rodenstock APO Rodagon 50mm f/2.8 (not full resolution, full rez is even more detail) Edited September 10, 2015 by xiaubauu2009 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted September 10, 2015 Share #5 Posted September 10, 2015 I think the a7r2 is reasonable, yet at the same time overhyped and a bit average. That is not to say that it's bad, just average. The quality coming from the S is much better. Better again, though, is that coming from the larger Phase Sensors. It's the depth, tonality and colour that just has a lot more information to work with. The extra pixel count really makes the difference for extra large prints and output. I'm still on the fence about the S. I think it's an exciting camera and has really come on in leaps and bounds, the lenses in particular make it quite a tempting offer, but it's still somewhere in between what I need and want. But it's certainly more of a contender for me now and i'm interested to see where they head with it. For me the answer is quite plain. If you want better than Leica M go for Medium Format. I will continue using both. YMMV. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xpixel Posted September 10, 2015 Share #6 Posted September 10, 2015 The quality coming from the S is much better. No i can't agree with you. If you compare S and Sony pictures from the same subject there is not much difference in terms of IQ. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jip Posted September 10, 2015 Share #7 Posted September 10, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Oh please, why do people even start to compare this stuff... use whatever you like... I like both. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted September 10, 2015 Share #8 Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) Oh please, why do people even start to compare this stuff... use whatever you like... I like both. For some, it's not just about using whatever you like. Edited September 10, 2015 by Paul J Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted September 10, 2015 Share #9 Posted September 10, 2015 The quality coming from the S is much better. No i can't agree with you. If you compare S and Sony pictures from the same subject there is not much difference in terms of IQ. You are dreaming. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xiaubauu2009 Posted September 11, 2015 Share #10 Posted September 11, 2015 You are dreaming. It really does depend on the lens. The sensor on the Sony is also Neutered for some reason. The RAW could have been better. Anyway. I see this as a good replacement for Medium format possibility. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnloumiles Posted September 11, 2015 Author Share #11 Posted September 11, 2015 Interesting responses. I wasn't trying to compare the cameras head to head or their usability so much as try and figure out if the Sony sensor could overcome being half the size yet still be able to toe up to the larger sensor in most categories. For example the picture above is a nice example of a one dimensional landscape type shot. I can see in this regard where it might be more difficult to pick out the differences at first glance. Now let's put a subject in front of that bookshelf about 10 feet from the lens and maybe a foreground element as well to really round out the three deminsional aspect of the shot. The A7 with an f/2 and the S at about a f/4 and both cameras with lenses that offer a 50mm FOV. Under those conditions would it be possible for the Sony to take an equal exposure to the S or are people just throwing that out there because of the high pixel count, kinda like saying the Fuji X Pro is comparable to an M because they look similar. Would have just took it all with a grain of salt except for the fact Michael Reichmann at LuLa questioned the importance of sensor size in his video breakdown of the Sony A7RII Xia - you seem to be fully vested in both systems, maybe you can take some non landscape side by sides? SaW - Maybe you as well if you haven't sold all the Sony gear yet;) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xiaubauu2009 Posted September 11, 2015 Share #12 Posted September 11, 2015 (edited) Interesting responses. I wasn't trying to compare the cameras head to head or their usability so much as try and figure out if the Sony sensor could overcome being half the size yet still be able to toe up to the larger sensor in most categories. For example the picture above is a nice example of a one dimensional landscape type shot. I can see in this regard where it might be more difficult to pick out the differences at first glance. Now let's put a subject in front of that bookshelf about 10 feet from the lens and maybe a foreground element as well to really round out the three deminsional aspect of the shot. The A7 with an f/2 and the S at about a f/4 and both cameras with lenses that offer a 50mm FOV. Under those conditions would it be possible for the Sony to take an equal exposure to the S or are people just throwing that out there because of the high pixel count, kinda like saying the Fuji X Pro is comparable to an M because they look similar. Would have just took it all with a grain of salt except for the fact Michael Reichmann at LuLa questioned the importance of sensor size in his video breakdown of the Sony A7RII Xia - you seem to be fully vested in both systems, maybe you can take some non landscape side by sides? SaW - Maybe you as well if you haven't sold all the Sony gear yet;) I think both has its uses. The A7R2 is a different machine than the S. S is the best handling MF I have tried so far and it is really use-able as a MF street shooter and the optics is very very very good. It's also 'versatile'-ish to be able to adapt a few lens to it. A7R2 is more like a toy, albeit a very very powerful toy, that if you are not careful, you will blow the Leica's IQ away, with the correct lens. I don't normally do portrait with large aperture, hence I don't have that kind of shooting material to compare. Even if I shoot S, I generally do Cityscape or Landscape. Some streets, but it's all small aperture. So, in this sense, I question the viability of the S compare to the A7R2. But I know it's like comparing apple to oranges. Interesting question you raised though. Edited September 11, 2015 by xiaubauu2009 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bab Posted September 11, 2015 Share #13 Posted September 11, 2015 Well, my view is opposite to SaW. In terms of IQ, I am blown away by the possibility given by Sony A7RII, especially when you pair it with a Cambo Actus view camera and some enlarging lens. Leica S Lens is nothing in comparison to enlarging lens and its resolving power, it's in par with Alpa HR lens minus the distortion and color cast. In terms of portability... well, no contest there, I can fit 2 Zeiss Batis lens, the Cambo Actus, and 3 Enlarging lens into a shoulder bag and is still lighter than a Leica S and 3 lens. And with the S notorious reliability (I have 3 of 7 of my leica S items having issue one way or the other, aperture issue, not able to recognize the contax mount, and dead pixel), I think Sony's a no brainer. So, I don't know, on the one hand, it's the last Leica system I own. on the other, it's does have some strong point and the best handling MF. A7R2 + Cambo Actus + Rodenstock APO Rodagon 50mm f/2.8 (not full resolution, full rez is even more detail) Can't compare an apple to a banana as to which is better or a Mini Cooper to a Rolls Royce but you can compare fruit to your taste or cars that get you from one point to the other...in the old days the point was to go from NYC to Los Angeles today it's how fast and how comfortable. sony files are no match for Leica end of story Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted September 11, 2015 Share #14 Posted September 11, 2015 I respect Michael Reichmann. He is a great photographer and he knows what he is talking about. I agree that sensor size doesn't always matter, in the sense that just because something is better, doesn't actually mean it's needed at the end of the day. To those that have an actual need for Medium Format, it really does matter. It makes an enormous difference and there is no comparison at all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xiaubauu2009 Posted September 11, 2015 Share #15 Posted September 11, 2015 Can't compare an apple to a banana as to which is better or a Mini Cooper to a Rolls Royce but you can compare fruit to your taste or cars that get you from one point to the other...in the old days the point was to go from NYC to Los Angeles today it's how fast and how comfortable. sony files are no match for Leica end of story Hmm, won't say so with such absolute confident that it's no match, but as we all know, it's MF, and if you want that kind of feel/performance, you really have no choice but to go MF, but what I am saying is that, A7R2 is not a bad compromise in terms of versatility and compact-ness. Carrying a 10kg setup (tripod and all) around town for 5~8 hours a day is not that fun. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xiaubauu2009 Posted September 11, 2015 Share #16 Posted September 11, 2015 (edited) 100% file of a Rodenstock APO-Rodagon 50mm f/2.8 + Cambo Actus + Sony A7R2 Just in terms of resolution, I think Sony holds up pretty well. and even colour is no slouch. Edited September 11, 2015 by xiaubauu2009 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnloumiles Posted September 11, 2015 Author Share #17 Posted September 11, 2015 (edited) Again I wasn't trying to line these cameras up at a starting line and yell go. In fact forget the camera, just put the Sony sensor in a digital back and plop it on a Hasselblad. That's what I'm really talking about, not "which camera is better, A or B?" Where does technology end and plain ol' mathematics begin (size of sensor). Maybe it is in the eye of the beholder hence the varying of opinions. Edited September 11, 2015 by johnloumiles Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xiaubauu2009 Posted September 11, 2015 Share #18 Posted September 11, 2015 Again I wasn't trying to line these cameras up at a starting line and yell go. In fact forget the camera, just put the Sony sensor in a digital back and plop it on a Hasselblad. That's what I'm really talking about, not "which camera is better, A or B?" Where does technology end and plain ol' mathematics begin (size of sensor). Maybe it is in the eye of the beholder hence the varying of opinions. CFV50C. Sony Sensor with a Hassy body! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.