Press releases:

A7r mk2

Sony's New a7R II Camera Delivers Innovative Imaging Experience with World's First... -- NEW YORK, June 10, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sonys-new-a7r-ii-camera-delivers-innovative-imaging-experience-with-worlds-first-back-illuminated-35mm-full-frame-sensor-300097178.html)

Rx10 mk2 / Rx100 mk4

Sony's RX100 IV and RX10 II Cameras Bring Professional Imaging Experience to... -- NEW YORK, June 10, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sonys-rx100-iv-and-rx10-ii-cameras-bring-professional-imaging-experience-to-acclaimed-cyber-shot-rx-series-300097176.html)

Already up at B&H, I guess Sony saw reason to raise the price, unlike the A7II that was the same as the A7 starting price.

$3200!

Sony a7R II Alpha Mirrorless Digital Camera (a7RII Camera Body) B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1159878-REG/sony_a7r_mark_ii_digital.html/BI/19641/KBID/12197)

I think a lot of people will be happy that it has internal 4K recording now. That was on my list of must-haves for the A7SII, but it seems it'll be in the mid 3K price range when it's announced probably months from now.

α7R II -The Ultimate High-resolution 4K movie in Super 35mm | α | Sony - YouTube

I will definitely get an RX10 II. I was just waiting for this new version. I already have an A7s and an a6000 (for stills) and an RX100 III.

Sony videos are appearing now - this one is for the A7R MkII.

https://youtu.be/1Jor_WkheaE

And this one for the RX100 Mk IV.

https://youtu.be/NdiRFFl1ZDw

$3200!

Is that not almost double the price of the old non 4K version? Would you not be better of with just the a7s? That one is also plenty detailed in 1080p and eventhough the A7r II can resolve more detail it should be no match at all in low light, not sure if it is worth the premium price just to get 4K full frame but only average low light performance?

The thought occurs that the NEX-VG900 is way overdue for an update/successor.

In the B&H Explora article, the claim is that the low light performance of the A7r ii is nearly as good as the A7s, despite the far greater resolution. This is somehow the result of the back side illumination of the sensor.

For now, I will stick with my A7s, but I do want one of the new RX10 ii's.

A7s MKII?
WAITING.... WANTING....

Is that not almost double the price of the old non 4K version? Would you not be better of with just the a7s? That one is also plenty detailed in 1080p and eventhough the A7r II can resolve more detail it should be no match at all in low light, not sure if it is worth the premium price just to get 4K full frame but only average low light performance?

The A7R was released at $2200 and is currently on sale for $1800. Either way, $1K price bump is nothing to sneeze at. It also can't do the same high ISO that the A7S can (I can't figure out what the A7RII's max video ISO is, just that 102K is only available in photo mode). What I was really saying is now that this version of the A7 can record 4K internally, the A7S II will certainly have 4K (and IBIS). Those two being requirements if Sony wants a current A7S owner to plunk down cash for a new one even if they price it higher than $3200.

Did anyone notice the two smaller cameras can -almost- shoot 1080-240fps???

That and a pseudo-global shutter - 5x faster readout from the sensor using buffer memory (stacked) on the back of the sensor... suggesting that RS/skew may be history, or at least greatly reduced!

These are a little more interesting with the new sensor than first impressions might suggest... not sure if they are worthy of the higher entry prices, but if image and video samples are as impressive as the specs suggest, Sony has done some nice technical upgrades!

The thought occurs that the NEX-VG900 is way overdue for an update/successor.

I have the VG900, A7r , GH4 and am waiting for a VG900 upgrade with A7s sensor, IBIS, UHS-II support and C4K 60p with 300MB/s data rate.

That and a pseudo-global shutter - 5x faster readout from the sensor using buffer memory (stacked) on the back of the sensor... suggesting that RS/skew may be history, or at least greatly reduced!
Makes me wonder why Sony didn't just go with a true global shutter. If Alternative Vision could move the GS circuitry to a different layer, surely Sony could.

The detail in those A7R-II is just tremendous. It's pixel peeper's heaven!

Dang!!

Please please please don't keep us waiting for an A7s mkII!!

The detail in those A7R-II is just tremendous. It's pixel peeper's heaven!

Dang!!

Detail is very good, perhaps on par with the NX1, but I'm less than impressed with the color on any of these new Sony releases.

To my eyes the color looks both desaturated and too blue, a problem with several recent Sonys.

A few stray thoughts...

1) Sony (almost) always Best Buy showrooms up the color and sharpness and contrast of their promotional videos so I'm not worried about the color just yet.

2) Say you what we will about its video potential, this looks like a world-class stills camera--and that's its primary customer base.

3) I'm not very technically oriented so forgive the extremely crude estimate but I'm not sure how great the low light capability in video mode will be--at all. In full frame still mode, using every pixel on the sensor, the camera is already 2 ISO stops down from the a7s. Okay, not a big problem since the a7s is a low light monster, though that already means you can't deep focus in moderate light like you can with the a7s.

But remember, just as the 409,600 mode on the a7s is not aesthetically usable in most situations, neither will the 102,400 iso mode on the a7rii. For most folks the a7s stops putting out a magnificent picture if it goes beyond 51,200 iso. If the same ratio applies to the a7rii, then in full frame still mode one will probably start to lose great quality beyond iso 12,800. Still impressive--but already no a7s.

It gets worse though, in full frame 4k video mode the a7rii has to engage in massive line skipping. Forgetting about moire for the moment, even in 16 x 9 mode the a7rii in still mode has roughly the resolution of an 8k camera. So, crudely guessing, in video full frame 4k mode you're using 1/4th the pixels--wouldn't that reduce the light capturing ability by another 3 or 4 iso's? In full frame video wouldn't we be looking to max out at iso 1600 before quality starts to go down?

In super 35 things get more complicated as Sony claims to incorporate 1.8X 4k into one beautiful 4k signal. But given the relatively small area, and how tiny even pixels that are virtually twice as large would be, are we still talking about a good but not miraculous iso of 3200 or 6400? Now a lot of us would say that's plenty but I've gotten spoiled by what you can achieve with ultra high ISO (the more generous f-stops, the faster turn-over times from tiny light rigs, the magical effects that pop up when small objects all the sudden become light sources, etc.).

And while super 35 is the cinema standard, those of us who love the full frame look can't really see the a7rii as the first full frame internal 4k camera if the full frame mode is so compromised Sony is all but urging us not to use it in the promotional materials.

Betsy, just responding to your #1:

I watched the Sony 4K demo on my calibrated 4K monitor. I use this same monitor for viewing and editing my NX1 4K videos. Those NX1 videos certainly have the detail of the Sony demo, but have far better color that is both more saturated as well as more neutral.

Right now, that's my biggest concern.

Secondarily, I'm very interested to see how effective the Sony in-camera stabilization is. The OIS of the Samsung lenses on my NX1 is just 'OK'.

Oh sure, Ken, I didn't mean your monitor was off, only that Sony likes to amp up its videos before it sends them out. That said, I agree Sony never has my favorite color out of camera.

Ken,
Are you actually saying that the NX1 footage looks better than what you've seen from the A7r?

Larry, with only one released 4K clip from the A7r ii to judge by, yes.

Objectively, up to now, the NX1 has the greatest 4K resolution measured by Slashcam. Of course they haven't yet measured the A7r, so we'll have to wait for that. On a more subjective note, I find the color better on the NX1 than from recent out-of-the-camera clips from Sony cameras. The NX1 takes truly excellent 4K footage.

However we only have one clip from the A7r at this point to compare, so let's wait before rendering a final verdict.

Ok, great, as I'm really toying with buying an NX1.
Since you do have it, I assume you convert the footage? Into what? Prores, Cineform? How do you find the footage as far as color gradation?

S-log in the RX10 and RX100 should be interesting. If you bought all three of these cameras it could make a pretty sweet travel setup.

The Panasonic LX100 seems to be the direct competitor to the RX10...and still seems more attractive to me because of the micro 4/3 sensor and price. But S-log is tempting still...

I actually don't convert at all. Although my usual editor is Edius Pro 7, it doesn't handle native H265 as of yet. I suspect Edius Pro 8 will from what I've read.

So I use Power Director 13. PD13 ingests native H265 without conversion. You can then output your project to H264, or alternatively (a lengthier encode) to H265. Visually I'm hard pressed to see any difference in 4K detail or artifacts between the H264 & H265 encodes.

So PD13 makes this whole process easier, but the program itself is more scaled back than my Edius Pro 7.

As for grading, I'm very happy with the color out-of-the-camera, so I haven't done any grading. I've read that people that have done it are surprised by how tolerant the footage is to grading.

If you want to get an idea as to quality, here's a quick edit I did for a trip to Baltimore & DC. All clips are straight from the camera, no corrections. My biggest issue with the camera is the OIS in the 18-200 lens I occasionally use. That lens was used for some shots and those were done with no tripod and I would have hoped for a somewhat more effective OIS:

Baltimore Harbor & Washington DC shot with the Samsung NX1 in 4K - YouTube

It's so razor sharp! It's an amazing footage, the resolution and the details are amazing, but I could never mistake it for film. As somebody mainly interested in narrative, I'm not sure it's the right cam for me?

As somebody mainly interested in narrative, I'm not sure it's the right cam for me?

How do you mean? Will a 4K camera prevent you from telling a story?

3) I'm not very technically oriented so forgive the extremely crude estimate but I'm not sure how great the low light capability in video mode will be--at all. In full frame still mode, using every pixel on the sensor, the camera is already 2 ISO stops down from the a7s. Okay, not a big problem since the a7s is a low light monster, though that already means you can't deep focus in moderate light like you can with the a7s.

...........

It gets worse though, in full frame 4k video mode the a7rii has to engage in massive line skipping. Forgetting about moire for the moment, even in 16 x 9 mode the a7rii in still mode has roughly the resolution of an 8k camera. So, crudely guessing, in video full frame 4k mode you're using 1/4th the pixels--wouldn't that reduce the light capturing ability by another 3 or 4 iso's? In full frame video wouldn't we be looking to max out at iso 1600 before quality starts to go down?
I think you may be being unnecessarily pessimistic, but I'll confess I shall have to make some assumptions about what is going on.

I've thought for a while that about 42Mp is a "magic" figure for sensor resolution and the reason why is an extension of the technique Canon used for sensor read with the C300. Simply, in FF mode it can theoretically do the same trick as the C300 used to derive HD - read the sensor in 2x2 Bayer blocks, and derive each output pixels R,G,B values directly - no conventional deBayering.

For the C300 to do this for HD it needed 4x1920x1080 photosites (about 8.3 million). To do the same for 4K (or QHD at any rate) would mean 4x3840x2160 - about 33.2 million. That's for 16:9 - adjust for 3:2 (cropping to get 16:9) and it brings it to a total of about 39.3 million effective. Add in extra pixels for the surround and hey presto we're getting very close to the quoted count.

Are these assumptions correct? I don't know for sure, but they certainly make me optimistic! If - IF - it is true, then far from "massive line skipping" it could open the way to a highly clean 4K output achieved with fairly simple processing.

And more - by reading 4x4 blocks - it should give very good HD output, again with fairly simple processing (here averaging R,G,B values within each block).

And it's a similar thought regarding sensitivity - although each photosite may be relatively small, the averaging process will counteract that and you can expect to get back to square one. That should also hold true in s35 mode, here the averaging happening via the scaling process.

Yes, there are a lot of assumptions there - but I certainly see enough to make me very, very optimistic. Only proper chart tests will definitively show if it is indeed using the 2x2 read technique as seen (for HD) in the C300, but the numbers look right......

It's so razor sharp! It's an amazing footage, the resolution and the details are amazing, but I could never mistake it for film. As somebody mainly interested in narrative, I'm not sure it's the right cam for me?

Thanks Larry. People differ in the look they like. I've always gravitated toward the 'you are there' look and the resolution of the NX1 gives me that.

With that said, I'd agree with Noa, there's no reason that this look wouldn't prevent you from telling your story.

Of course not. These days stories are told with Iphones 5, not even Iphones 6!
I'm just saying that even an uneducated audience will say, oh, this is video, uh? And we all know that's not a good thing for a narrative.

That sounds as if you're equating "very sharp" with "video look"?

I know where you're coming from, but I don't think it's true any more.

It's almost the opposite. Go back about 20 years - when HD (let alone 4K! :-) ) was a dream for most - and the basic problem with video images was LACK of real definition, and it became the norm to wind in large amounts of detail enhancement to try to give an illusion of sharpness. Think obvious edges round objects. And THAT is what I'd say is the real objectionable side to "video look".

But the sharper the image really is, the less need for electronic sharpening, and indeed many cameras now have an ability for negative enhancement. You can always make a picture softer, but not always the opposite!

True, we can always make something softer. I think for me there is something I simply can't define that tells me something is video or at least not film.
I used to be biased against the Black Magic Cams and now I realize it's simply because there is very few nicely graded footage out there.
Since them I've stumbled on a few decently graded footage, from all 3 current smaller BMC and I must say there is something amazing, for the price, in all the BMC footage I've seen that I don't see in the NX1. The more I think about it and the more I'm convinced that it must have something to do with the color sampling. Shooting raw or ProRes 4:4:4 is going to allow more latitude in post and I think this is what I see lacking in all the mirrorless cam such as NX1, GH4 etc...
I'm slowly confirming something I had always felt in my gut, a very good color space, provided some decent res is there, is much much better than just razor sharp definition. It's personal and very subjective.

I think you may be being unnecessarily pessimistic, but I'll confess I shall have to make some assumptions about what is going on.

I've thought for a while that about 42Mp is a "magic" figure for sensor resolution and the reason why is an extension of the technique Canon used for sensor read with the C300. Simply, in FF mode it can theoretically do the same trick as the C300 used to derive HD - read the sensor in 2x2 Bayer blocks, and derive each output pixels R,G,B values directly - no conventional deBayering.

For the C300 to do this for HD it needed 4x1920x1080 photosites (about 8.3 million). To do the same for 4K (or QHD at any rate) would mean 4x3840x2160 - about 33.2 million. That's for 16:9 - adjust for 3:2 (cropping to get 16:9) and it brings it to a total of about 39.3 million effective. Add in extra pixels for the surround and hey presto we're getting very close to the quoted count.

Are these assumptions correct? I don't know for sure, but they certainly make me optimistic! If - IF - it is true, then far from "massive line skipping" it could open the way to a highly clean 4K output achieved with fairly simple processing.

And more - by reading 4x4 blocks - it should give very good HD output, again with fairly simple processing (here averaging R,G,B values within each block).

And it's a similar thought regarding sensitivity - although each photosite may be relatively small, the averaging process will counteract that and you can expect to get back to square one. That should also hold true in s35 mode, here the averaging happening via the scaling process.

Yes, there are a lot of assumptions there - but I certainly see enough to make me very, very optimistic. Only proper chart tests will definitively show if it is indeed using the 2x2 read technique as seen (for HD) in the C300, but the numbers look right......

I certainly hope you're right and the RGB approach has precedent in HD cameras like I believe the Genesis. That said, Sony's own press releases seem to downplay the full frame quality--really pushing the super 35 aspect and shooting the first promotional 4k video exclusively in that mode and bragging on charts that only the crop mode had no "pixel binning", as does Philip Bloom's first hands on impressions. Maybe the tiny body and economic restrictions didn't allow for a more elegant use of all those great pixels. Now, for the crop mode, they're obviously doing something clever to combine those pixels from 1.8 to 1 and that's exciting.

I read today that the native iso in s-log mode is 800 so I'm sure it can be happily stretched a few more iso's at least. 1600 should be easy--wonder if 3200 is asking too much. And I wonder what the native iso is for the crop mode.

As to that, does the metabones adapter in crop mode increase the available light the way it does on other cameras? That could be very exciting in and of its self.

As to that, does the metabones adapter in crop mode increase the available light the way it does on other cameras? That could be very exciting in and of its self.

Metabones makes 1:1 adapters, and then the "Speed Boosters" you are referring to. All of the excitement about the a7RII focusing so well with Canon lenses is with the 1:1 adapters (the excitement is because earlier Sony Alpha cameras did not focus very fast with Metabones.) In principle the Speed Boosters should work and be great for Super 35 video, but I don't think anyone has demonstrated that yet.

Sony's own press releases seem to downplay the full frame quality--really pushing the super 35 aspect and shooting the first promotional 4k video exclusively in that mode and bragging on charts that only the crop mode had no "pixel binning", as does Philip Bloom's first hands on impressions. Maybe the tiny body and economic restrictions didn't allow for a more elegant use of all those great pixels.
I think you may be looking at that the wrong way. If they are doing a "2x2" readout ("direct read") of a 7680x4320 photosite matrix then it makes it EASIER for the "tiny body and economic restrictions" to do the processing - you're "just" reading out values directly for the R,G,B of each output pixel.

That is much, much easier than the more conventional way of doing a conventional deBayer, and then having to do complicated scaling - as easy as line skipping methods have been, but without the quality issues they have been associated with. That's the beauty - theoretically, if it is what it's doing! :-)

But it's only possible with exactly the right number of photosites - not too many, not too few, that's the point. And why I've been wondering when we were going to get exactly such a 40Mp sensor (3:2 - cropping to 33Mp for 16:9)

The point about super35 is that it's the basic video large format standard, so an ability to do it well is important as well as the full frame abilities. But such a crop from such a sensor means you are now nowhere near any of these "magic" numbers, so the only way to get quality now is to do the conventional deBayer and scaling. Well, only from about half the total sensor count, but likely still a lot of processing and that's why I think Sony are flagging up that it's not pixel binning - not for anything it implies about the FF mode.

It needs proper tests to be certain - but well, from the number count I say again I'm optimistic!
Now, for the crop mode, they're obviously doing something clever to combine those pixels from 1.8 to 1 and that's exciting.
Yes, but "complicated" may describe it better! :-) If they are doing 2x2 read in FF it's nowhere near as clever in terms of processing, but actually is more exciting!
I read today that the native iso in s-log mode is 800 so I'm sure it can be happily stretched a few more iso's at least. 1600 should be easy--wonder if 3200 is asking too much. And I wonder what the native iso is for the crop mode.
It's often said that sensitivity is dependent on photosite size - which is true to a point, but needs a lot of caveats. In particular of the "all else equal" type, and that is what often gets misunderstood.

If you keep sensor size the same, but reduce the size of the photosites, it must follow that the resolution will increase.

It further follows that whilst each photosite may then be noisier at a given illumination, it's effect on a given output image will be smaller in area, so the effects tend to cancel out for a given size of output picture.

It's a bit like comparing two film cameras with differing negative sizes. Which will be the best in low light? DIRECTLY speaking, it may seem a silly question - as the answer may seem to be as simple as "it's irrelevant - it only depends on the film ISO".

But think a bit deeper. If we're interested in a given level of grain for acceptability, then it follows that the larger format can tolerate a higher ISO film stock than the smaller format before grain becomes a problem. So negative size DOES have a bearing on low light capability, yes? :-)
As to that, does the metabones adapter in crop mode increase the available light the way it does on other cameras? That could be very exciting in and of its self.
The adaptor I think you are referring to does NOT "increase the available light" - that would be impossible according to the laws of conservation of energy! What it DOES do is make for a smaller - but brighter - image. Same AMOUNT of light, but differently distributed, which is a very different matter indeed.

(And practically, if we assume twice the brightness, but half the size, then for corresponding sensors you can expect very comparable performance. Halving sensor size - with all else equal - is likely to reduce the native ISO rating by about a stop. But since the image is twice as bright it brings things back to square one - same performance.

The oft made mistake is to focus solely on the way one variable changes, and ignore other variables. "Amount of light" and "brightness" are related, but are *NOT* the same thing.)

Metabones makes 1:1 adapters, and then the "Speed Boosters" you are referring to. All of the excitement about the a7RII focusing so well with Canon lenses is with the 1:1 adapters (the excitement is because earlier Sony Alpha cameras did not focus very fast with Metabones.) In principle the Speed Boosters should work and be great for Super 35 video, but I don't think anyone has demonstrated that yet.
Charles, do you imagine the AF will work with the Speedbooster?

For 4K UHD in Super35 mode the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens for Sony A mount with A to E mount adapter looks interesting. Maybe Metabones will come out with a Speedbooster A-E mount adapter for lenses like the new full frame Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di USD Lens (Sony A).

But a Speedbooster is designed to use a full-frame lens with a s35 sensor - that's fair enough if you have a camera with that size sensor and full frame lenses. It'll keep the lens angle as when used on a a full frame camera, and won't waste any light.

But if your camera has a full-frame 4K mode, then what's the point of the Speedbooster!? For a given full-frame lens, then why not simply just put it on the camera and use that in full-frame mode?

To answer my own question, then it may be valid if the s35 crop mode was noticeably better than the full-frame mode, but for all the reasons above I strongly suspect that will not be the case. But OK, let's wait for proper tests.

But a Speedbooster is designed to use a full-frame lens with a s35 sensor - that's fair enough if you have a camera with that size sensor and full frame lenses. It'll keep the lens angle as when used on a a full frame camera, and won't waste any light.

But if your camera has a full-frame 4K mode, then what's the point of the Speedbooster!? For a given full-frame lens, then why not simply just put it on the camera and use that in full-frame mode?

To answer my own question, then it may be valid if the s35 crop mode was noticeably better than the full-frame mode, but for all the reasons above I strongly suspect that will not be the case. But OK, let's wait for proper tests.

Sony is advertising the S35 mode on this camera as advantageous. No pixel-binning in that mode means less weird stuff happening during processing that produces the moire, aliasing, and softness that plagues most of our DSLRs. I can see why someone might want to use a speedbooster rather than a standard adapter for this camera. I'm pretty sure all of the video they have released thus far was shot in S35 mode.

That being said I'll still probably go with a standard adapter. I just love the full frame aesthetic too much to abandon it all together.

Sony is advertising the S35 mode on this camera as advantageous. No pixel-binning in that mode means .......
Unless you've seen anything else, the only thing I've seen from Sony on the subject is :
The impressive video credentials of Sony’s new α7R II camera include the ability to record movies in 4K quality (QFHD 3840x2160) in either Super 35mm crop mode or full-frame mode.

In Super 35mm mode, the camera collects a wealth of information from approximately 1.8x as many pixels as 4K by using full pixel readout without pixel binning and oversamples the information to produce 4K movies with minimal moire and ‘jaggies’.
Which praises the s35 mode, yes, but is certainly not saying it's advantageous over the full-frame mode. It's making a comment about the s35 mode but not saying if the final quality is worse, better or the same as full-frame.

It's being INTERPRETED as meaning "better" because we've got used to the idea of a very large number of photosites will mean it will have to pixel skip or bin. By and large that may be true, but once you get up to a count of 4x3840x2160 that theory all goes out the window for the reasons I gave earlier. ("2x2" block read, or direct read etc.)

We'll have to wait to see what actual results show, but I think dismissing the full-frame 4k mode and assuming speed-boosters will be necessary is very premature. But let me know if I've missed anything Sony have said.

We'll have to wait to see what actual results show, but I think dismissing the full-frame 4k mode and assuming speed-boosters will be necessary is very premature. But let me know if I've missed anything Sony have said.

To be clear, I certainly was not dismissive of the full-frame mode and even indicated that I'd still likely prefer it over S35. I still think Sony is making it sound like S35 mode will have less moire and processing artifacts. But yes agreed time will tell. I wish they'd hurry up and release some full frame images.

Charles, do you imagine the AF will work with the Speedbooster?

I really don't know. I've never used a speedbooster on a Sony camera. I've used the full frame Metabones adapter with Canon lenses, and the autofocus was very slow on a A7II. But the A7RII is reported to have solved this. Whether this would apply to a speedbooster has not been discussed by Sony. More will be revealed over time. I'm personally not very interested in this, I'm not a fan of lens adapters, and I'll just use my wide angle lenses in the Super 35 mode with the A7RII. But the idea is intriguing if it comes to be.

I'm more interested in whether Sony and third party APS-C lenses will work in the Super 35 mode. There is a great selection of these lenses. I'm pretty sure this is going to work, but again, Sony hasn't discussed it.

Unless you've seen anything else, the only thing I've seen from Sony on the subject is :

Which praises the s35 mode, yes, but is certainly not saying it's advantageous over the full-frame mode. It's making a comment about the s35 mode but not saying if the final quality is worse, better or the same as full-frame.

It's being INTERPRETED as meaning "better" because we've got used to the idea of a very large number of photosites will mean it will have to pixel skip or bin. By and large that may be true, but once you get up to a count of 4x3840x2160 that theory all goes out the window for the reasons I gave earlier. ("2x2" block read, or direct read etc.)

We'll have to wait to see what actual results show, but I think dismissing the full-frame 4k mode and assuming speed-boosters will be necessary is very premature. But let me know if I've missed anything Sony have said.

I think what I and others have been trying to say, and it's my fault perhaps for not being clear enough, is that there are several early articles, videos, etc. that are touting the super 35 abilities and downplaying the full frame 4k abilities. Sony, bless 'em, is like most other camera manufacturers in that it allows its marketing department to sometimes painfully oversell a product and under deliver (auto focus in video mode on the a99 comes painfully to mind). If Sony has included an incredible full frame, no compromises 4k functionality, and chosen not to play up that fact at all, and hide videos of how great this mode will be and only show videos of the super 35 mode, then the execs at Sony must have been visited by 3 ghosts last Christmas and changed their ways:)

I think what I and others have been trying to say, and it's my fault perhaps for not being clear enough, is that there are several early articles, videos, etc. that are touting the super 35 abilities and downplaying the full frame 4k abilities.
Yes, but AFAIK those have been by people who haven't had the facilities or access to the camera to perform any real quantitative tests. Until somebody does exactly that, it's dangerous to draw too many conclusions from slight inferences in marketing press releases - which unfortunately is exactly what has been happening. On top of that, conclusions have been reached by extrapolating from other camera tech - in a fashion which is sensible on the face of it, but when you think about what the implications of a sensor with twice the desired resolution *MAY* be, those certainties go out the window.

If it is the case, the rule book has to be rewritten.

The first test that could be done to try to prove or disprove whether what I'm saying is true is to first lock the camera off, ideally looking at something like a ruler laid horizontally. Then take a still frame using full frame max resolution mode, then shoot some 4K full frame 4K video without moving the camera, and compare the angle of views of the two results.

The max resolution for stills is 7952x5304. If my theory is correct, it must use 7680x4320 if it's doing the 2x2 read for video in this mode. The implication is that if I'm right, we'll see a slight reduction in the angle of view between the still and video modes - video mode will be a bit tighter than stills. It's possible to predict how much it be which is the difference between the horizontal counts, divided by the total, and multiplied by 100 to get a percentage. That's about a 3.5% crop.

So - does that happen?
Sony, bless 'em, is like most other camera manufacturers in that it allows its marketing department to sometimes painfully oversell a product and under deliver (auto focus in video mode on the a99 comes painfully to mind). If Sony has included an incredible full frame, no compromises 4k functionality, and chosen not to play up that fact at all, and hide videos of how great this mode will be and only show videos of the super 35 mode, then the execs at Sony must have been visited by 3 ghosts last Christmas and changed their ways:)
Well, no need for supernatural explanations! I can think of two other possibilities, always assuming I'm right!

Conspiracy would be that they want to keep the exact details from their competitors for as long as possible, in which case they are going to appreciate what I've said like a hole in the head!

Cock-up would be that in many organisations there is a big gap between the designers and engineers and the marketing and sales people - and it's the latter who tend to write the public facing literature. Believe me on this one! And all too often the marketing people don't fully understand what the technical people tell them, let alone there being issues with needing to condense it into a public friendly form anyway.

And in general, I normally favour cock-up over conspiracy...... And either of those are more likely than 3 ghosts coming a-visiting! :-)

1) Sony (almost) always Best Buy showrooms up the color and sharpness and contrast of their promotional videos so I'm not worried about the color just yet.


I'm not worried about Sony color at all: Rakesh Malik (http://WhiteCrane.500px.com)


2) Say you what we will about its video potential, this looks like a world-class stills camera--and that's its primary customer base.


That I think is the most sensible statement so far on this thread. :)


3) I'm not very technically oriented so forgive the extremely crude estimate but I'm not sure how great the low light capability in video mode will be--at all. In full frame still mode, using every pixel on the sensor, the camera is already 2 ISO stops down from the a7s. Okay, not a big problem since the a7s is a low light monster, though that already means you can't deep focus in moderate light like you can with the a7s.


I have no problems focusing with my a7r, so it wouldn't worry me.


But remember, just as the 409,600 mode on the a7s is not aesthetically usable in most situations, neither will the 102,400 iso mode on the a7rii. For most folks the a7s stops putting out a magnificent picture if it goes beyond 51,200 iso. If the same ratio applies to the a7rii, then in full frame still mode one will probably start to lose great quality beyond iso 12,800. Still impressive--but already no a7s.


I find it amusing that in most discussions about the a7s, people seem to assume that its defining characteristic is its high ISO support, which IMO should be a tertiary consideration, at most. Far more useful is its very wide dynamic range (comparable to what you get with an Alexa or a CineAlta), its very wide color gamut, and as a fringe benefit, its high sensitivity.


It gets worse though, in full frame 4k video mode the a7rii has to engage in massive line skipping. Forgetting about moire for the moment, even in 16 x 9 mode the a7rii in still mode has roughly the resolution of an 8k camera. So, crudely guessing, in video full frame 4k mode you're using 1/4th the pixels--wouldn't that reduce the light capturing ability by another 3 or 4 iso's? In full frame video wouldn't we be looking to max out at iso 1600 before quality starts to go down?


Worse? Not likely, based on the quality of what the a7s can record internally.

I look forward to trying out the MkII.

I like the A7s, but it sounds like the MkII has addressed a couple of things lacking = internal 4K recording, usable auto focus and an even better viewfinder + 8K stills.

Here are the first high-ISO still image samples. Looks as good or better than my 6D so I think I'll be happy with it.

First High ISO (12800, 25600) Sample Images of Sony a7RII | Camera News at Cameraegg (http://www.cameraegg.org/first-high-iso-12800-25600-sample-images-of-sony-a7rii/)

Do you think the A7R II will video autofocus better than the Panasonic GH4 which really sucks on video autofocus.

As to low light video, I am a bit uncertain which would provide better footage, using the full frame feature which supposedly has more issues, or the super 35mm setting for the sensor.

News Shooter | Sony a7R II first impressions: Hands on with the surprising 4K camera (http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/07/10/sony-a7r-ii-first-impressions-hands-on-with-the-surprising-4k-camera/)

Granted this a preproduction unit but I'm disappointed in the rolling shutter performance.

........ I am a bit uncertain which would provide better footage, using the full frame feature which supposedly has more issues, or the super 35mm setting for the sensor.
I think it's worth quoting something else from the link above link (my emphasis):
The second big surprise is that the full-frame 4K mode also looks remarkably good. I assume that pixel-binning is being used to reduce the output of the 42-megapixel sensor to achieve this. As I have pointed out before, the quality of images achieved by pixel-binning techniques varies wildly. There was very little obvious aliasing and moire of the kind we used to see on the 5D mkII. The 4K full-frame output of the a7R II is really excellent.
All that is definitively known about the various modes is that it does some form of pixel-binning in the full-frame modes, and also s35 HD - it doesn't in 4K s35.

That has then been widely interpreted as it must mean the full-frame modes won't therefore be as good as the s35 because of the binning - but as I've suggested before that may be a wrong conclusion. High quality via binning relies on the sensor dimensions being EXACTLY twice the format resolution, and that is mathematically possible for a 42Mp sensor.

I'm still waiting to see more definitive tests (esp crop comparisons of the various modes) but reading "The second big surprise is that the full-frame 4K mode also looks remarkably good. ........ The 4K full-frame output of the a7R II is really excellent." tends to make me think it is indeed likely that it is using 2x2 binning for ff 4K. Having less rolling shutter in the FF mode would also be in line with the theory - more photosites to read out, but much less processing to do.

And that really would make the A7R II quite special.......