Up until about 18 months ago I was solidly a DSLR fan and had used Canon cameras almost since they came on the market (and Pentax SLR's back into the '60's).

In Nov '13 I purchased a Sony A7R primarily for its 36 MPixel sensor and advertised dynamic range performance. I soon fell in love with its full frame performance, light weight and the phenomenal performance of its electronic viewfinder (in particular the digital display, low light performance and image review). I can also adapt every lens I own to the body; Canon EF & FD, Pentax, Minolta, Sigma, Tamron, Vivitar, M42 and T2, i.e.: I leave nothing on the shelf by moving to Sony's E-mount and regained the use of my ol' Canon FD lenses. Even though the Canon adapters allow the use of the automatic features of modern lenses I wouldn't recommend relying on autofocus; can be deathly slow via adapters! But it is nice to capture lens settings in EXIF.

When Sony's A7S became available I promptly purchased one; the best camera I have ever owned for astro/nightscape photography. I also use it as a walk-around camera when I'm not too sure where I'll end up, i.e.: outdoors, in a museum, a lava cave, etc. With an ISO range of 50-409,600 (usable 50-maybe 102,400) it has allowed me to capture pix I would never have even attempted previously (attached). I certainly would not have attempted these with my ol' Canon 60D and they would have even pushed the A7 II to its limit.

And if you're into video, the A7S' low light performance is quite unbelievable...

I recently acquired a Sony A7 II for a trip to Norway/Iceland and paired it with Sony's 24-240 mm zoom; maybe not the top end image quality but a great combo for travel. The combo is probably no lighter than a Canon DSLR and reasonable zoom but it covers pretty much all the handheld field-of-view I'm steady enough to shoot. I also packed the A7S and 28-70 mm zoom for the trip. The A7 II shot 3000+/- pix and the A7S captured another 1500+/- pix.

Based on the performance of the Sony A7 series cameras I've sold off most of my other DSLR's and all of my astronomy OSC CCD's. I have retained my Canon 60D for use with my long lenses for wildlife shooting where I require fast autofocus which an adapter just does not provide. The Sony 24-240 mm zoom has quite good autofocus speed but it doesn't have the reach I like for wildlife shooting (and to the best of my knowledge there is no E-mount 1.4x or 2x teleconverter available).

My experience with (high end) mirrorless has been VERY positive, i.e.: I will never purchase another DSLR and I assume a fair number of other shooters will draw the same conclusions once they've given modern mirrorless cameras a serious workout...

bwa

SonyA7S & 28-70mm @ 28mm & f/3.5, 1/5sec @ ISO 6400

(Download)

SonyA7S & 28-70mm @ 28mm & f/3.5, 1/50sec @ ISO 6400

(Download)

SonyA7S & 28-70mm @ 28mm & f/3.5, 1/25sec @ ISO 12800

(Download)

I always thought the difference between 12 bit and 14 bit was insignificant until I started comparing 12 bit shot in silent mode off the A7S and 14 bit from normal operation. There is essentially no difference until you start doing serious postprocessing, i.e.: astrophotography. The difference is significant!

Anyone know if Virtual XP will run under Win 10. It works just fine under Win 7 to allow a number of my Win XP programs and print drivers to function.

I would hate to have to upgrade ($$$) all my printers and astrophotography software just to move to Win 10...

I don't really see why any good Canon full frame lens would not be adequate? The sensor pixel size of the two cameras is no smaller than that used in the 7D II and it doesn't require a rethink of the lenses required.

bwa

I use the Sony A7R for astro/nightscape photography and find it is pretty decent up to ISO 3200 (and normally use it at ISO 1600-3200). Maybe we simply have a different opinion of "much worse in low light"? I also use an A7S in the same capacity. It is about 2-3 stops more sensitive and I normally use it at ISO 6400-12800, sometimes pushing it to ISO 25600 and, on rare occasions, to ISO 51200. Both cameras have a degree of amp glow at ISO 6400 and above which means if I go higher I either drop back to crop mode or have to do additional postprocessing on full frame pix.

I'm just starting the testing of an A7 II. Initial tests show it to be about the same as the A7R, maybe a bit more noisy/less sensitive; however, I do like the in-camera stabilization (a lot!). This feature would be nice on the A7R II.

I should add that I've picked up a Sony FE 24-240 zoom to go with the A7 II. So far I'm loving it, although it is not a light or small lens but seems to balance nicely on the A7 II with its slightly larger grip.

Testing album for A7 II & various lenses at: https://plus.google.com/photos/116260312230579398213/albums/6135915031366021697

bwa

I have the Sony A7R (36 MPixels), A7 II (24 MPixels) and A7S (12 MPixels) and rate them as follows:

- A7R: high resolution, great for aggressive cropping or small targets where I really need the resolution. Great for larger print sizes.

- A7 II: great general purpose camera for daytime usage. Good mid-range resolution.

- A7S: great low light performer, at least partially due to the size of the photosites. I've turned out 8x10 prints and they look pretty nice! It is also a great video performer.

All of them use roughly the same vintage of sensor technology so if I compare them all at say 12 MPixel, the noise levels are quite similar. If I simply do 100% crops, the A7S wins out. The A7R is probably in 2nd place. And the A7 II, surprising, is in (a very close) third place; whereas, based on photosite size it should be in the middle of the pack?

Don't know if this helped in your decision process? Just my approach...

bwa

Lunar Eclipse - Blood Moon:
https://plus.google.com/photos/116260312230579398213/albums/6134018501930353521/6134018686792877394?pid=6134018686792877394&oid=116260312230579398213
Sony 70-200mm @ 200mm & f/4.5, full spectrum Sony A7R, Kolari Color Correction filter, 1/3 sec, ISO 1600, tripod mounted, IS off

https://plus.google.com/photos/116260312230579398213/albums/6134018501930353521/6134019374778628642?pid=6134019374778628642&oid=116260312230579398213
Sony 28-70mm @ 70mm & f/5.6, full spectrum Sony A7S, Kolari Color Correction filter, 2.5 sec, ISO 3200, tripod mounted, IS off

Remainder of images and video (the good, the bad & the ugly) at:
https://plus.google.com/photos/116260312230579398213/albums/6134018501930353521

Enjoy!

bwa

Totally agree! Works this (terrible) way with both my Canon and Sony IS lenses. FAR BETTER image quality on tripod with IS off!

bwa

No, because it isn't the best camera available in the market!

The 50mm Sony image looks like it is almost on the edge of being out of focus? Could be a problem with the lens?

I have a Sony 70-200mm f/4 and a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8. The Sony's image quality beats the Canon's for daytime shooting but the Sony is terrible for astrophotography with star stretch and coma on the edges and in the corners, which I would not expect considering the cost of the lens. I guess you can't have it all in the realm of cameras and lenses!?

bwa

All I can see from the pictures in the link are poor quality or overprocessed JPG's, obvious by the fringing. I would really like to have seen a few of the original RAW's off the camera. Considering the quality of images in Brad Husick's review, I certainly could not draw any conclusions regarding the lens' quality.

I think the paragraph from the OP's original article is quite favorable:
"I shot all photos in JPEG+RAW so I could compare any in-camera JPEG corrections to the RAW files. Upon reviewing the photos on the camera I was quite impressed; they had good color, contrast, were sharp, and showed no noticeable vignetting, distortion, or chromatic aberration. This is quite impressive, perhaps a little too impressive for a full-frame superzoom lens. Once I loaded the RAW images into the computer, I did notice that the camera was doing a fair amount of lens correction on the JPEG images. Still, distortion is easy to correct, a soft image isn't, and I'm happy to say the lens's sharpness and contrast are quite impressive, though it definitely exhibits a fair amount of distortion across the zoom range, and exhibits a bit of vignetting at the wide end."

I definitely agree with his assessment, "... distortion is easy to correct, a soft image isn't, and I'm happy to say the lens's sharpness and contrast are quite impressive..."

I guess we have to agree to disagree on the 24-240's image quality. Since I've pre-ordered the lens and expect to see it over the next week or so, I'll find out 1st hand whether it is acceptable or not!?

bwa

Can you post a few of the images that you consider soft? You and I may have different ideas of what soft is? A lot of people don't like the Sony 28-70mm kit lens. I love it! In fact the only reason I have the 28-70 lens is someone that purchased it with the A7, didn't like it and essentially gave it to me. He claimed it was terrible; go figure!?

bwa

Shutter shock, if present, normally shows up with longer lenses. I wouldn't expect it to be a problem in the range 24-70; maybe showing up under certain circumstances with an 85mm lens. The only place I've found it to be a problem is with the 70-200mm lens when I forget to solidly hold or tie down the A7R. The problem is not present with the A7S, but with it I shoot in electronic first shutter mode.

bwa

It isn't the lens I have to tie down. It is the A7R that really has to be tied down.

bwa

How were you shooting the 24-240 lens? Off a tripod? What exposures were you shooting?

Was it the lens or the A7R shutter shock giving the soft results?

I have both the A7R and A7S, and an A7 II on order. I KNOW the A7R can be hard to shoot with, specially with long lenses. I use the Sony FE 70-200 on both the A7R and A7S, and one has to really tie down the A7R when using this combo, particularly at the upper end with exposures in the 1/50-1/100 sec. range. A7R/70-200 image attached (137mm, f/8.0, 1/1000 sec, ISO 400)

I'm asking because I'm looking at the 24-240 lens as a potential travel lens, instead of packing 3-4 lenses to cover the same length.

Any thoughts on how it might match/work on an A7 II??

bwa

Sony 70-200mm w/ Sony A7R (50% of full scale)