The full-frame Sony A7s II is now shipping from B&H Photo. Shades of the old and well-beloved Nikon D700, the A7s II has only 12 megapixels, but it's the outlier speed king according to DxOMark. And it has 5-axis IBIS. Which I hope doesn't work very well.
To my frontal cortex it seems like it would be insane for me to even consider any different camera, but in my gadgygdala (the primitive, chopped-walnut-sized part of the brain near the spinal cord that governs gear lust), there's a furious storm of electrical impulses taking place. I can't help it, it's basic instinct.
Mike
Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
No featured comments yet—please check back soon!
UGLY,,,, design by committee. forget the specs,, a camera has to look good feel good and have a gentle look that is so comforting as not to be noticed,,,this camera iswithout grace.
Posted by: glenn brown | Friday, 16 October 2015 at 06:47 PM
I remember when Sony bought Minolta and entered the photo market. I had serious doubts. I'm not sure how it's working as a business decision, but for pro photogs and serious hobbyists there's an A7 for them to lust over for almost all genres. Personally I'd like A7r II of the current line, with its usability with canon lenses but really I want what I suspect the A7 III will be as I want between the R and S.
Posted by: Josh Hawkins | Friday, 16 October 2015 at 07:48 PM
This would be a really, really great camera if it were DX instead of Full Frame.
Full Frame lenses are just too big & heavy for a small camera. If I wanted to lug around big & heavy, I'd choose a Hasselblad H5X (which also takes film backs).
Posted by: c.d.embrey | Friday, 16 October 2015 at 08:23 PM
Based on specs, the A7s II is the camera to have now. And if I was starting from scratch there'd be a good chance I'd go for it. But something mysterious happened to me recently and I'm simply no longer chasing gear. I'm fine with what I have until it stops working correctly. But more power to those who lust after the new Sony. Here's hoping the reality lives up to the promise.
Posted by: Steve Biro | Friday, 16 October 2015 at 10:06 PM
@ GlennBrown: "UGLY,,,, design by committee."
I just think, "Meh".
The Canon G5X on the other hand, I rather like. It looks functional.
Posted by: Roger Bradbury | Saturday, 17 October 2015 at 02:16 AM
Gadgygdala! This will surely ensure you a Nobel prize for medicine. Generations to come will thank you for this discovery, Dr. Johnston.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Chisholm | Saturday, 17 October 2015 at 02:49 AM
Rumors of a new Leica 'SL' announcement on Tuesday.....stay tuned....gear lust comes in many forms.
Posted by: Jeff | Saturday, 17 October 2015 at 08:20 AM
Dear Mike
I am in the same situation as you except I have bought a Sony A7. I made that choice after much deliberation and comparison to the Fuji. Referencing your next post I wanted and want a camera to last me four years. I want to forget buying cameras and focus on my photos. My head is sure I made the correct choice (I actually don't believe there is a wrong choice in this market segment)
Yet...
My heart keeps nagging about the Fuji. The Sony has the IS I wanted. It has the lenses I wanted. It is a very good camera. I like it. Yet...
Posted by: Jason Davidson | Saturday, 17 October 2015 at 12:26 PM
This camera is aimed squarely at videographers. We use them for our inhouse videos at work. I've used shots we got using the A7S original at over ISO 100,000 and nobody noticed. The low-light capability of these cameras is just astounding.
Posted by: emptyspaces | Saturday, 17 October 2015 at 09:00 PM
Mike, I just don't get why these Sonys are such a siren song for you...especially when you own and use an X-T1. The only thing I can think is this is the megapixel trap, the same one fallen into some years back when it was rationalized that a 24 megapixel camera was needed to print double-truck spreads (and we both know how that turned out).
The bodies of the A7s are clunky, they don't feel like precision photographic instruments, they don't feel like cameras. I just don't get it; in the 19 months I've been shooting with my X-T!, I've never once thought, "Oh, I need a Sony A7 here...." Not to mention the stupid, mixed-bag of the Sony lens lineup (a mash-up is more descriptive) that is BIGGER and HEAVIER than the Fujis.
Why on earth would I want to go back there?
It's like that point you reach in high-end audio: I'm DONE.
Posted by: Stephen Scharf | Saturday, 17 October 2015 at 09:14 PM
Sony are really pouring effort into their offerings. For a while now I've really appreciated the results in terms of specs. Then I pick them up and operate them and they leave me cold. Just like other Sony products. They feel like they are designed by a committee or maybe a committee of machines...
Clearly I'm the problem because what's not to like?
Posted by: Stephen McCullough | Sunday, 18 October 2015 at 04:25 AM
"DONE" is a mythical photo gear concept. ;)
Posted by: Earl Dunbar | Sunday, 18 October 2015 at 07:12 AM
42mp not 12. Don't care if the camera is ugly as long as the pictures are not. Dxo numbers impress me....
[The A7rII has 42 MP, the A7sII has 12. --Mike]
Posted by: John Robinson | Sunday, 18 October 2015 at 07:47 AM
Right you are my apologies...
Posted by: John Robinson | Wednesday, 21 October 2015 at 05:55 AM