Ditching an SLR for a mirrorless Sony A7R II...

[RichC]

I’m indoors with a cold, so for something to do I’m going to write a kind of review...

In case anyone else is considering moving from a traditional SLR with an optical viewfinder (OVF) to a mirrorless camera with an electronic viewfinder (EVF), here are my ramblings about ditching a Nikon D800E for a Sony A7R II.

I’d been thinking about selling my Nikon for a while. My River Fleet project had just finished, after walking a couple of hundred miles through London carrying a heavy, bulky SLR, tripod and kitchen steps (an essential - literally gives you an elevated view!). This project magnified the foibles and weaknesses of the Nikon and SLRs in general: too heavy, awkward and imprecise. In particular, the Nikon’s screen is rubbish - it can barely be seen on a bright day, and the image breaks up when zoomed during live-view.

I should also point out, I guess, that I use only manual lenses. The Nikon has a large, bright OVF but like all digital SLRs it’s not designed for manual focusing, and I sometimes had trouble seeing when my subject was sharp. If only the Nikon’s screen worked in live-view...!

The Nikon was going! But what to replace it with? My requirements were simple: as many megapixels as possible, superlative image quality and easier to use than my Nikon. The megapixels thing cut out most cameras, leaving the Nikon 810 or 850, Canon 5DS, Sony A7R and various medium-format cameras. The last would be too large and heavy (and expensive); the Canon has a poor sensor; and while the Nikons are more refined they are essentially the same as my current camera, with many of my complaints unresolved.

So, the Sony... The original A7R appears to have many quirks, especially ergonomics and build quality, but its successors have major improvements and new features (at least from what I read online). Crucially, the sensors perform as well or better than the Nikon D800E. And via an adapter I can use my Nikon lenses (or indeed any other brand, such as tiny but sharp Leica rangefinder lenses).

I was sceptical about the EVF, but tried out a Sony A7R II anyway. It was astonishing! The last time I looked through an EVF was over a decade ago, and it was a nasty blur with glacial updating: things have certainly advanced since then! Unless I moved quickly, when the EVF smeared slightly, it looked like real life rather than a screen. And the clincher? You can set the EVF so it shows not the actual scene but how your photo will appear - colours, contrast, exposure ... you can even view the world in black and white! You get what you see, unlike an OVF. The screen? So so - no better or worse than other cameras - but the image stays sharp when zoomed (unlike my Nikon), and the screen articulates.

The Sony A7R II and III also have 42 MP (a little more than my Nikon), image stabilisation (IS) and well-solid construction. IS definitely appealed: my manual lenses don’t, of course, have this, so I often ended up having to use a tripod, as high-megapixel cameras are almost impossible to hand-hold without blurring the photos. I tested hand-holding an 80 mm lens: without IS I could only avoid blur 100% of the time at 1/200 s, whereas with IS this dropped to 1/50 s. (I could hand-hold down to 1/20 s but with only about 75% success.)

Manual focus is a breeze! First, if the subject has contrasting areas (leaves, brickwork, etc.), there is a faint interference shimmer that appears when the subject is in focus (technically a fault - but a useful one). And, if needed, you can also zoom into the subject and/or use focus peaking. The latter is a bit like the interference shimmer but more in your face, using artificial colour like white or red (I found focus peaking distracting and intrusive, and prefer shimmer/zoom).

The Sony isn’t perfect. It was scary to see how fast it used electricity: in 30 minutes the battery charge dropped by a half! The battery is minuscule... Still, I use medium-format film and have to reload after 12 shots, so I won’t complain further! Also, the camera is a bit too tiny (it’s smaller than a film SLR - which would’ve been a more sensible size to aim at); the buttons and controls don’t stick out enough and are hard to find, and are too sensitive and mushy; there are too many functions (you can even download apps onto the camera!); and the menus are a confused mess, often with cryptic titles.

Oh, it does video too. But I don’t shoot video, so ignored everything to do with this...

There’s no such thing as a perfect camera, and despite my gripes the Sony impressed me.

I went home and pondered...

A week later I’d made up my mind. I would replace my Nikon D800E with a Sony A7R II. There are lot of significant improvements between the A7R and the A7R II, but the differences between the A7R II and III are more incremental (which boils down to better weather sealing and ergonomics, and slightly better overall performance). I’d like a Mk III, but it’s £3500! (That brings me to another downside: Sony replaces its cameras every 2 years like clockwork, so they have no resale value!)

I found a used A7R II for just £1100. It was a bit battered, and came with mud in nooks and crannies - but it had low usage and was in perfect working order. I don’t mind that it’s cosmetically beat up: I bought my Nikon new, and mollycoddled it so 5 years later it still looks new - it’ll be refreshing to use the Sony as a tool and not worry about it!

I then spent a day reading the Sony’s manual and getting to grips with what the camera can do. Even if I’m not going to use a function, I like to understand it. The Sony does way, way too much! I spent most of that time switching off or ignoring stuff!

I’ve now set up the A7R II to my tastes, including the dozen (!) programmable buttons, and have been using it for about 2 weeks. I’ve added an L bracket - not only because I often use a tripod but also as it makes the camera taller and more comfortable to hold. I’m still impressed, and have become used(-ish) to its foibles. The EVF and IS transform how I use a camera, making photography more pleasurable as I’m no longer wrestling with equipment.

Importantly, getting the photo I intend is easier than with my Nikon - which I’ve now sold.

 

[traveler_101]

I’m indoors with a cold, so for something to do I’m going to write a kind of review...

In case anyone else is considering moving from a traditional SLR with an optical viewfinder (OVF) to a mirrorless camera with an electronic viewfinder (EVF), here are my ramblings about ditching a Nikon D800E for a Sony A7R II.

I’d been thinking about selling my Nikon for a while. My River Fleet project had just finished, after walking a couple of hundred miles through London carrying a heavy, bulky SLR, tripod and kitchen steps (an essential - literally gives you an elevated view!). This project magnified the foibles and weaknesses of the Nikon and SLRs in general: too heavy, awkward and imprecise. In particular, the Nikon’s screen is rubbish - it can barely be seen on a bright day, and the image breaks up when zoomed during live-view.

I am with you - unnecessary weight and bulk. You mean a DSLR right? At first I thought you were ditching your old film camera (SLR). My query: why replace a bulky DSLR with a still rather heavy SONY full frame (when lenses are figured in to the equation) when you could have a much lighter camera - APS-C or M43? Depends on what you are shooting and what size you print to, but image quality on crop sensors is very very good. Or are using your old Nikon lenses - that would be a reason to stick to full frame.

 

[RichC]

I am with you - unnecessary weight and bulk. You mean a DSLR right? At first I thought you were ditching your old film camera (SLR). My query: why replace a bulky DSLR with a still rather heavy SONY full frame (when lenses are figured in to the equation) when you could have a much lighter camera - APS-C or M43? Depends on what you are shooting and what size you print to, but image quality on crop sensors is very very good. Or are using your old Nikon lenses - that would be a reason to stick to full frame.

Well, my long post explains my needs. In short, I need max megapixels as I sometimes print very large exhibition prints that I expect to be pin sharp even at sniffing distance (my 36 MP Nikon has occasionally been too low resolution!), and I am using my Nikon lenses.

The reduced weight and size of my new camera is welcome, but my above needs take precedence.

 

[Michael Markey]

I agree Rich .... I moved to an A7R2 for my RF lenses and my only DSLR lens a Canon 70-200/2.8L.

All manual focus including the Canon.

There`s a but though .... recently picked up a 5D3 to do the sports stuff.
Mainly for the fast AF (yes I could have bought a Sony native lens but they`re knocking on £2.5 k ) but also the fact that I`m often in the mud and rain and wonder if the Sony bodies are up to that sort of treatment.

 

[RichC]

I agree Rich .... I moved to an A7R2 for my RF lenses and my only DSLR lens a Canon 70-200/2.8L.

All manual focus including the Canon.

There`s a but though .... recently picked up a 5D3 to do the sports stuff.
Mainly for the fast AF (yes I could have bought a Sony native lens but they`re knocking on £2.5 k ) but also the fact that I`m often in the mud and rain and wonder if the Sony bodies are up to that sort of treatment.

I’m mainly a studio photographer, so hopefully I won’t meet mud and rain indoors...! I’m pretty sure the Sony isn’t as robust as my Nikon, and will treat it accordingly.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I recently went mirrorless, too. I have used a Canon 5DmkII, a fullframe SLR, for the last 6 years. Image quality was great, but I am someone who has to have a camera with him at all times, and I have a lot of health problems. I got to where I couldn't carry the Canon anymore. Just too heavy.

I decided mirrorless was the way to go. I looked at the Sony, Fuji, Canon, and Olympus mirrorless cameras and decided on Olympus. I got a Pen-F and three Olympus lenses (17mm f1.8, 25mm f1.8, amd 45mm f1.8). Their fullframe equals would be 34mm, 50mm, and 90mm.

I chose Olympus for several reasons. The cameras were the smallest, the lenses were tiny, light, fast, inexpensive and SHARP. The Pen-F has in-body Image Stabilization, something I only had on one of my Canon SLR lenses. The Pen-F is 20mp, just like my Canon 5DmkII is.

The other systems were out of my reach financially (Sony), had image quality issues (Fuji's Xtrans sensor), or had crappy lenses (Canon's mirrorless system). The Olympus gave me what I needed at a price I could afford.

I've been really blown away by the image quality of the tiny Micro Four Thirds sensor. The sensor does have slightly more noise than the fullframe Canon 5DmkII sensor, but Lightroom does a great job of eliminating it, and the images are actually sharper. The lenses I bought for the Olympus are probably better than the Canon zooms I have, and I suspect the sensor on the Pen-F has a weaker antialiasing filter than Canon uses. I liked the color the Canon gave me, and I REALLY like the Olympus color rendering.

My only dislike on the Pen-F is it needs a handgrip. Olympus sells a beautiful metal one but it costs $120!!! That's a plain metal grip, it does not hold extra batteries or have a vertical shutter release like the grips sold for SLRs, but its priced like it has those features. I ordered a Chinese copy for $45 on Amazon that should do the trick.

 

[RichC]

I got a Pen-F and three Olympus lenses (17mm f1.8, 25mm f1.8, amd 45mm f1.8).

The other systems were out of my reach financially (Sony), had image quality issues (Fuji's Xtrans sensor), or had crappy lenses (Canon's mirrorless system). The Olympus gave me what I needed at a price I could afford.

I’d like that for a carry-round camera. I need 35-50 MP, so the Sony was the only option for my main camera.

Sonys are replaced often - every 2 years - so their resale value is lousy: I bought my A7R II for just $1200 (I’ve taken off the 20% UK sales tax) with scratched paint, despite it being a current model until last summer when it cost $2400 new! It is larger than the Pen, and Sony lenses are massive and expensive (not intending to buy any - I’ll use my Nikon and Leica M lenses).

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I’d like that for a carry-round camera. I need 35-50 MP, so the Sony was the only option for my main camera.

Sonys are replaced often - every 2 years - so their resale value is lousy: I bought my A7R II for just $1200 (I’ve taken off the 20% UK sales tax) with scratched paint, despite it being a current model until last summer when it cost $2400 new! It is larger than the Pen, and Sony lenses are massive and expensive (not intending to buy any - I’ll use my Nikon and Leica M lenses).

I understand why you got the Sony. I'd have loved the megapixels, too. I couldn't afford it, though. I have made and sold a lot of gorgeous 16x20 prints from my 20mp Canon, so the Olympus at 20mp should work fine for my work. I rarely sell large prints, and my social documentary work doesn't really lend itself to such large presentation.

My cameras are all 'walk-around' cameras since I carry one all the time. What I've done in moving from the big D-SLR to the Pen-F is a lot like when I sold my Hasselblad system and replaced it with a Mamiya 6 system. Same reason. I wasn't able to carry it, and it was actually so heavy that I had difficulty with short term carrying when I took it out only when I intended to shoot with it.

This was pre-stroke, so my health was better back then. I would not have bought the Canon 5DmkII and its lenses back in 2012 if something like the Pen-F had been available back then. I knew when I bought the Canon it was too big, but felt like I had no options at the time.

 

[gnuyork]

Intereresting. I do think the Sony A7 (R/S) appeals functionally and ergonomically. I'm doing some recent work for a company that uses the A7S as a video camera. I haven't had a chance to use it yet, but I did pick it up and I did like the smaller size. I have many cameras, but like Chris, I also use a 5DMkkII which I really think still produces great images despite it's age.

One thing I looked into a while ago was the difference in image quality. To me the SONY files looked "digital" compared to the Canon and Nikon D800 files which had a more film like look which is what I always go for.

In my experience with video cameras, this also seems to be the case. Even SONY's high end cinema cameras, look like digital video (and a little plasticy) to me, where Panasonic, Black Magic, and Arri Alexa look more filmic.

I look forward to trying out the A7S and the company I'm doing some work for when I get a chance though. I do love the size.

 

[Michael Markey]

I’m mainly a studio photographer, so hopefully I won’t meet mud and rain indoors...! I’m pretty sure the Sony isn’t as robust as my Nikon, and will treat it accordingly.

Knowing your work I would think that the Sony will be ideal, Rich.

In addition to the A7R2 I have an A7S for low light stuff.

The Canon is for the rough stuff but I do think that the Sony cameras produce more pleasing files using the Canon 70-200/2.8 than the 5D3 does.

Due , no doubt ,to the more modern sensors in the Sony .
That`s not to say that the Canon files don`t have their charm.

 

[splitimageview]

Mirrorless has come a very long way in the (nearly) ten years since the Panasonic G1 first shipped.

Sony has great hardware, but the menu system is from 1983. Still don't get why camera manufacturers can't get out of the early 1980s when it comes to user interface. 🙂

 

[willie_901]

With the exception of action photography, I don't think DSLRs have a significant advantage.

Besides power consumption, there are issues with EVFs:

• Image detail decreases as ambient light levels decrease
• When the ambient light is dominated by frequency-modulated sources (fluorescent and LED), the EVF can flicker or band. The artifact level is a function of the sensor scan and EVF refresh rates, the light modulation frequency and the light intensity.
• There is always a delay between the real world and what you see in the EVF; this delay can be short, but it's not zero

A corollary to the second bullet is avoid using the electronic shutter unless you have a purposeful reason to do so. Beside flickering and banding, rolling shutter motion artifacts can become unwelcome suprises. Occasionally these artifacts occur commonplace circumstances (low rates of camera or subject motion).