Jump to content

Does Sony consider the A7RII camera to be pro? (rant)


Recommended Posts

OK i tend to have a short temper every once in a while, when something isnt working out as planned/thought

 

So after i managed to power my R mark II via USB, i faced the issue of not being able to purchase the time lapse app. Different thread.

 

That finally worked out as i pre-charged my account with 10€ since a direct booking of my credit card didn't work.

 

now i started up the time lapse app for the first time and some frustration surfaces again.

 

The app loads slowly, it lags partly heavily and some features where not as i thought.

 

the maximum captures seem to be 990 images, correct me if this is limited by the SD card, but i think its not.

Hello, what about the pros who want to use this camera to cover some events which took longer than a day or even a week?

i hope that Sony still corrects this in the next update!

 

Also my Sony displayed a heat warning on Sunday, when i was out hiking and it was very hot.

the A7 series seems to be full of compromises(of course)

 

For the time being, 10€ wasted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is a7R-II a "pro" camera ? The model number 7 clearly

and unequivocally indicates that no it's not, and it's not

being marketed as such.

  

The a7 series bears the number 7. "7", in Minolta-speak,

means mid-level hobby/enthusiast/amateur model. Over

the years it's sometime upper mid-level, or not. The a7

series seems to be "upper" which perhaps causes some

folk to mislead themselves concerning the intended use  

the a7 series. But Sony has been honest about it.

 

    

############################################ 

 

 

Sony-Minolta, which now is called Sony, has been pretty

consistent over the decades: 

 

Number 3 or 5 is a casual-use or entry level model.

Number 7 is the midrange, enthusiast amateur model. 

Number 8 rarely applied, see below.

Number 9 is the workhorse, possibly "pro" camera.  

    

Sometimes there's a few zeros following the 3, 5, 7 or 9. 

  

There has been the very occasional number 8. One was

a hot-rodded "7", the other was a very slightly scaled back

version of its corresponding "9". So "8" is ambiguous but

the rest have been verrry consistent. IOW an a8 could be

built either from the a7 platform or from the a9 platform.   

    

========================================= 

  

Time will tell. The most recent precedent is the a850 and

a900 nearly-identical twins. The older example was in the

Maxxum era, the 8000-i being related to the 7000-i [there

being no 9000-i in the "X000-i" lineup].

 

The a7 series is a 7, not a 9, and Sony has therefor been  

quite honest about what to expect from the a7 series.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well the price clearly points towards pro,  for 3200+usd(at introduction) i expect a camera that does not easily overheats and quits performing, i get it, the compactness makes it difficult to keep the parts cool.

still at that price point i would expect more.

and this lagging in the menus of the loaded apps is just a killer! i know i am repeating myself

Link to post
Share on other sites

You really must be more inventive. A firmware update upped the operating temp before the camera shuts off. (I can NOW operate in Texas sunshine and heat without shutdown.) Also, a recent hack eliminates the 30 min video record limit. A 13 hour limit is now in effect on mine.

 

It's what you DO with the camera that determines if it's "pro", not some silly labeling or numbering system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

......... 

 It's what you DO with the camera that determines if it's "pro"

....... 

.

`   

That is such tired old BS. It lingers, cuz it has that

"warm and fuzzy" ring of great wisdom. But that is

just style over substance, typical of such BS. 

  

Some stuff is built for casual use, some for somewhat

more active enthusiast level use, and some is heavy

duty stuff for use in commerce. No way around that.

 

"It's what you DO with the camera

that determines if it's "pro"..... 

  

No.It's what you do with a camera

that determines whether you did,

or did not, choose the right camera. 

   

You wanna make a living with the wrong camera ?

Acoarst it CAN be done. But just don't be bitchin

about the shortcomings of a camera that's pushed   

into operating beyond its design parameters.  

  

==================================== 

  

One of the typical examples of the difference

between enthusiast cameras and commercial

duty cameras is the megapixel race. Very often

the best-spec'd enthusiast camera has the top

MP count and other "amazing features", which 

are absent from the commercial use model, cuz

commercial use demands rather different design

priorities than the design priorities that feed the

fantasies of the enthusiast market.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well the price clearly points towards pro,  for 3200+usd

(at introduction) i expect a camera that does ............

  

Fine. You expect.  

  

Others also expect. 

  

And I expect.  

  

I, for one, expect any $3000 camera to fall short of 

$4500 to $6000 cameras that are of a similar genre.

 

Commercial duty cameras, in that genre, cost $4500

and up. The a7-II costs $1600. It's not a commercial

duty camera. The fact that you can option it up into

the "R" or "S" version at almost double the price does

not change the fact that it's still an a7-II. It just means

that if an enthusiast has an extra $1400 to put toward

expressing his enthusiasm, Sony will oblige him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the a7rii is Sony's current flagship mirrorless camera, people would tend to assume that it's "pro level", and many compare them to Canon and Nikon's flagship offerings. Even being half the price of Canon and Nikon, the a7rii does hold it's own in many respects, and even exceeds expectations in others, but let's not get it past us that it's a relatively new emerging technology and quite literally half the price of the competition. Sony was never known to make their prices cheap in the first place (compare the new 24-70 GM to Canon and Nikon's offerings; it's a lot more expensive), so consider a ~2000-2500 USD full frame DSLR as it's true competition and it's absolutely stellar. It still does suffer from mirrorless limitations like poor battery life and questionable low-light autofocus capabilities, especially with slower lenses, and adding to that fact, E-mount full frame lenses are still very new as well.

 

All that aside, the playmemories apps are just junk in the first place. If you need an intervalometer, just buy an external one; shouldn't set you back more than 20 euros. The heat issue can usually be solved by pulling the tilting back screen out a bit, not leaving it in direct sunlight, and making sure you turn off the camera when you're not using it. There's a possibility that variations in the microprocessors is causing much more heat than normal, so just like a bad lens copy you should take it back to your retailer and exchange it. If you bought your camera grey market, used, or simply long enough ago that this isn't possible, there are videos on how to disassemble your device and add scrims, chipsinks, thermal paste, or whatever else to help dissipate the heat.

 

As for the 990 limit, I'm thinking you have either a battery issue (NP-FW50 is only rated for around 300 shots on the a7rii) or a memory card size issue. If you're shooting uncompressed raw, each image is about 80mb, which will eat up a 64gb card in about 800ish shots. In any case, try the external intervalometer and lifting the tilt screen a tiny bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the a7rii is Sony's current flagship mirrorless camera, people

would tend to assume that it's "pro level", and many compare them

to Canon and Nikon's flagship offerings. Even being half the price

of Canon and Nikon, .........

    

I fully understand what you are presenting/explaining.

  

But the a7-II trio are NOT flagship cameras. At present,

the E-mount Sony line has no flagship. The A-mount has

the a99-II, with a "Level 9" model name, as appropriate. 

Performance expectations should be relative to the rank

of the model within the system. 

  

I use an a7-II and am never disappointed. This isn't due

to any miraculous performance by the device. It's due to

realistic and appropriate expectations toward the device.  

  

Sure, I'd like to see less high-ISO noise, but I don't see

paying double to incrementally improve that, and even if

I did throw that money at the problem, I'd know that all I

got for double sheckels is a modest upgrade. In all other

respects I'd realize it remains just an a7-II series camera

with an "R" or an "S" added to its model name. Any truly 

fundamental improvements would change the name from

"a7xx" to "a9xx" ..... which would then seriously increase

performance and reliability expectations, !

  

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++  

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

 

It's not really surprising that there's a missing flagship.  

This not unprecedented in Minolta history. Canon and

Nikon NEVER fail to offer a flagship. Minolta leaves a

gap sometimes at the top of the line as the generations

evolve, like this:

  

Maxxum 5000, 7000, 9000.

Maxxum 5000-i,7000-i, 8000-i [no typo]

Maxxum 5-xi, 7-xi, 9-xi  

 

The 8000-i was a higher spec's 7000-i, not a slightly

scaled back 9000-i, as there never was a Level-9 in

that generation. Thus, between the early generation

Maxxum 9000 and the final generation 9-xi, you have

an example of missing flagship model. 

 

Nobody should have mistaken the 8000-i as an being

an upgrade/replacement for the original 9000. The 9-xi,

 

when the "xi" generation came around, was a plainly

obvious replacement for the original and aged 9000.   

   

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++  

  

This stuff is not obtuse. Canon, for example, has a

very clear system. Flagships are designated "1" and

other single-digit model numbers are upper mid-level.

Double-digit models are the lower ranks, followed by

the triple-igit models [which in some markets or called

"Rebel", but you also see the three-digit name on the

cover of the user manual]. Nikon's system is similar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest Jaf-Photo

Some serious pigeon-holing here.

 

What has happened since the Canon 5D is that rank-and-file professionals started using mid-level cameras. Both Canon and Nikon responded to that by making such cameras that were suitable to pro use.

 

Sony is still in the process of reacting to pros using what Sony thought would be enthusiast cameras.

 

Therefore any camera is the A7 line-up has quirks and deficiencies with the potential to bug professional users.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some serious pigeon-holing here.

 

What has happened since the Canon 5D is that rank-and-file professionals started using

mid-level cameras. Both Canon and Nikon responded to that by making such cameras

that were suitable to pro use.

 

Sony is still in the process of reacting to pros using what Sony thought would be

enthusiast cameras.

 

Therefore any camera is the A7 line-up has quirks and deficiencies with the potential to

bug professional users.

  

+1

  

I realize I posted an excruciating amount of detailed history

and certainly applaud your getting right to the point. You've

nailed it. And if all the fanboys could grasp what you have

now made so easy to grasp, all this "pro camera" nonsense

would cease. 

  

Acoarst, you made the situation easy to grasp, but you did

NOT hit every single fanboy upside the head with a 2x4, so

the nonsense will not cease :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Peter Kelly

*Sigh*...

 

It's not how a camera is designed, or marketed. It's not what a camera is used for, or who by. It's certainly nothing to do with a camera label!

 

The bottom line as to whether a particular camera is a professional tool rests on the ability to return a profit.

Assuming the camera will provide the desired results, this will depend upon the available finance and cash flow, together with lifespan and reliability, and such calculations are not necessarily straightforward.

It may well be that a cheaper camera which falls apart within 18 months could be more valuable in terms of overall returns.

 

I know of a press photographer who makes a good living with his Nikon D90 held together with duck tape. Not a professional camera? Damn right it is!

I'm absolutely certain the level of return far exceeds anything a D5 might provide, which is why he still uses it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jaf-Photo

Thank you Golem. The 2x4 option is alas incompatible with my generally praceful disposition, so we'll have to stick with the words.

 

Peter, I applaud your friend with the D90, although I think his job would be made easier with a body upgrade. But I know most photographer's aren't rationally calculating the earning power of different gear before making an upgrade. It's very much a game of Simon says. The competition is very harsh and nobody wants to be left out because of their gear. So many photographer tend to use whatever gear other photographers use.

 

I've spoken to a handful of photographers who recently went from Canikon to A7R2. Each of them had little knowledge of Sony, but they thought it would be the next big thing and didn't want to be left behind.

 

So psychology seems to be stronger than financial, or even practical reason here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Posts

    • Hmm that's pretty dreadful indeed... My 18-105 for sure is sharper than that. If I have time tomorrow I'll shoot an example with mine at 40mm f/8 side by side with the 16-55. Sold my kit lens when I bought the 18-105 so can't compare those anymore.
    • Thanks for the very useful information. The 16-55 tempts me, I can live with the absence of stabilisation, what holds me is the price tag. As always, there is not such a thing like a free lunch in life. The Sony gives performance at a reasonable size but with no stabilisation and higher price tag, the Zeiss is compact, stabilised and reasonably priced but lower performed, while the Tamron provides performance at very good price and stabilisation at the expense of bulkiness. 😀 All in all, I think I will give a try to the Tamron, once I have taken in my hands. Here are two cutouts taken close to the center of the picture. The sharper one is the kit zoom, the other is the 18-105 mm, at approximately the same lenght around 40 mm at /f 8. The difference is impressive and more impressive for me is that all the lenses in the shop had the same behaviour on two different cameras. At this point looks like a whole batch and not just a lens.  

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

    • That's a pity and certainly doesn't match with my experience with the 18-105: mine is definately on par with the 16-50 kit lens (which on its own was as decent as I could expect from such a cheap lens). Sure, dont expect sharp corners especially wide open, but in the center my 18-105 left little to be desired across most of the zoom range. The 16-55 does beat it in every regard except zoom range though. The Tamron 17-70 trades blows with the 16-55 and might be the better choice in some cases. I went for the 16-55 because of the smaller size (I also found the 18-105 too bulky most of the time) and slightly wider FoV. My camera has a stabilized sensor so stabilized optics was no requirement for me. As you noted, I kept the 18-105 on my old A6000 for the occasional video project.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...