Biggest problems with the A7S Ii

[Viscount Omega]

Not really. You could get the same image from s35 if you created a lens that was completely equivalent in terms of FOV of F-stop. My point was simply that most of the time the equivalent lens does not exist, at least amongst the current crop of stills glass.

I've changed my thinking for what I think is responsible for the different looks between large and small sensors. It has nothing to do with matching DOF. They can never be equivalent because of the different angles the images are captured at.

In comparing FF vs. APS-C it might be harder to see the difference in extreme close-ups or huge wide shots but in the middle range--say full frame 35mm-75mm--it would be most obvious because that's where the difference between the angles is greatest.

 

[Samuel H]

I think what you're missing is that the lenses are just not the same, even if they have the same DoF and FoV.

This description here:

It's interesting because the technical or mathematical side doesn't seem to explain it right but I and a number of others can also seem to spot it... as if everything was captured bigger and better and richer, with a different relationship to light, and then zoomed down to fit the screen... almost a more 3 dimensional look to the images... rather than a flatter sort of cropped in look. And no, I am talking FOV and DOF all being equivalent.

Reminds me a lot of the discussions about lenses by people who know a lot more than I do: they see how the light goes from in-focus to out-of focus, how light wraps and blooms around objects, and many other things I just can't express when I see the images (I can get to "I like this one better" but have a hard time explaining why).

So, for me, it's 50% "people use better lenses when they shoot with bigger sensors", and 50% placebo effect. If you think you can see it, go here and play.

 

[Viscount Omega]

the lenses are just not the same, even if they have the same DoF and FoV

Right but I don't think the quality of the lens matters at all in determining the different looks but rather the angle due to the size of the glass and sensor receiving the image.

I played the game and only got about 50% right but like I explained before, it would be harder to tell with something like close-ups and big wide shots. It's all about the relationship of objects in space. If I could see the images side-by-side it might be easier to tell which one is full frame vs. a smaller sensor.

 

[nyvz]

With the same DR as the FS7. And add 4k 60fps if you're feeling generous.

So hoping for a DR downgrade in the A7SIII? A7SII definitely has more DR than the FS7 already.

 

[Samuel H]

^ Really? In video mode? I've never used an FS7, but from what I've read the FS7 had a DR advantage over the original a7S of at least one stop, and the a7S II hasn't improved that much (you can get slightly more usable shadows if you use slog3, but it's a fraction of a stop).

 

[spinkscapes]

I don't do stills at all btw

If you are strictly video, don't even consider the stills cameras that 'do video as well'.

I'm seriously debating unloading the A7s for a 1DXii for the autofocus just for weddings, and having a lean wedding setup

I'm seriously struggling to reconcile these statements.

 

[DLD]

FWIW, both A7SII and A7RII are on sale now. Maybe a permanent price reduction, going into CP+ and then the NAB.

 

[theprestige]

I think it's a case of different tools for different jobs. For my needs, I needed a camera that was excellent in low light situations and was capable of professional video quality with 4K future proofing me for a few years. The A7S II was the answer for me and I do not regret it for a second.

My only experiences with 'real video camera's has been the old mini dv video camcorders that we had access to when I was at school.
I haven't touched an FS7 or FS5, but I know that i've been able to customise the A7S II really effectively to the point where I can pick it up and start shooting any mode with the touch of a button. I've never felt slowed down by it. Theres so much customisation options that you'd have to be really uncreative not to make it work for you. There is even a workaround with the whole lack of internal ND thing if you use manual lenses (vivelex ND throttle adapter) it really isn't as ergonomically bad as people make out.

Batteries aren't great, but my pervious camera last 55 mins whereas my A7S II lasts about 1hr 20 mins if you know what you are doing. I think theres a battery pack thing you can use to extend the life even further. But still, just buy more batteries, no big deal.

Truth is, I think we are pretty spoilt at this point. 5 years ago, the idea of a camera with the A7S II's capabilities would have been a wet dream. Yes the GH5 has great sounded specs and i've no doubt it's a powerful camera, but it can't do the most important things that my A7S II can do.

 

[Viscount Omega]

... i've been able to customise the A7S II really effectively to the point where I can pick it up and start shooting any mode with the touch of a button. I've never felt slowed down by it......5 years ago, the idea of a camera with the A7S II's capabilities would have been a wet dream.

Yeah, I remember when the first A7S came out and people were outraged by the placement of the record button and that you couldn't switch to APS-C mode with the touch of a button. LOL. I felt lucky to have a camera of its capabilities for the price. That's the caveat in the low budget world, everything--a lens, camera, microphone--is always good "for the price".

I looked into that Fotodiox Vivelex ND throttle adapter--great idea--I need it for Sony/Minolta A mount to E mount lenses and apparently Fotodiox doesn't make it. They make one for about 5,000 other lens brands including the super-rare Minolta Rokkor mount but I couldn't find one for A-mount.

I know, it's an absurd notion to make a Sony adapter for a Sony camera. Just the idea is enough to have someone committed. They do have one for the Rollei 35m, Olympus Zuiko and Contax/Yashica lens users out there so.... woo-hoo for them!

 

[theprestige]

I looked into that Fotodiox Vivelex ND throttle adapter--great idea--I need it for Sony/Minolta A mount to E mount lenses and apparently Fotodiox doesn't make it. They make one for about 5,000 other lens brands including the super-rare Minolta Rokkor mount but I couldn't find one for A-mount.

That's really frustrating. Hopefully they'll come out with a version soon. I take it you have a lot of Sony/Minolta lenses?

 

[Viscount Omega]

Lots of classic Minolta. I sent Fotodiox an e-mail asking about it.

 

[Samuel H]

They will probably suggest stacking two adapters. It's not the best solution but it's not the end of the world either: you get a bit more play, but it works.

 

[deltoidjohn]

Set up 2 cameras outside to take a picture of a 50 foot tall tree and use a 24mm FF lens and FF sensor, then take the same picture with a 16mm APS-C lens and APS-C sensor in the same position. The framing should look identical.

If you could see the image from the side, draw an imaginary line from the top of the tree to the top of the larger sensor and a line from the base of the tree to the bottom of the sensor.

Now do the same thing with the APS-C image. The angle of convergence to the sensor is sharper in the APS-C image because it's smaller. The lines are closer to parallel with the larger sensor.

I've changed my thinking for what I think is responsible for the different looks between large and small sensors. It has nothing to do with matching DOF. They can never be equivalent because of the different angles the images are captured at.

The angle is the same once the light hits the sensor, if an equivalent lens is used (and once whole vs partial image circle is accounted for). That is exactly the point of lens design, to refract the light before it hits the sensor. Your assumptions about the angle of convergence fail to take into account the multiple glass elements the light has to pass through before it hits the convergence point, and ultimately, the sensor.

 

[Viscount Omega]

The angle is the same once the light hits the sensor, if an equivalent lens is used (and once whole vs partial image circle is accounted for). That is exactly the point of lens design, to refract the light before it hits the sensor. Your assumptions about the angle of convergence fail to take into account the multiple glass elements the light has to pass through before it hits the convergence point, and ultimately, the sensor.

The angle is the same once the light hits the sensor

A lens can't alter the viewpoint of something the lens/sensor doesn't see. The full-frame lens/sensor sees and captures objects in space (esp. in the middle range of the focal length) at a different angle that the smaller lens/sensor can ever see in the same way. No amount of lens design can change that.

What you're saying would make sense to me if the whole full-frame lens was implemented with the smaller sensor but I don't think Sony or other manufacturers ever do that.

I assume the current sensor size with the a7s series is big enough to cover the whole lens circle of full-frame lenses and can't get any smaller. I have a FF Minolta 35mm f/1.4 with a gigantic lens circle. It's like the Hubble. LOL.

 

[Viscount Omega]

I heard back from Fotodiox customer support. Here it is:

"We have not heard anything from our Research and Development team on whether or not one will be in production. I would keep looking on our various social medias for any announcements if the product is ever made."

Did you even ask them? As if the Research and Development team is going to notify customer service about this 1 in 5,000 item they're working on. Then they put the job on me to keep looking for an announcement. Go back to your lunch and Candy Crush. How about I look for another company? LOL.

 

[deltoidjohn]

A lens can't alter the viewpoint of something the lens/sensor doesn't see. The full-frame lens/sensor sees and captures objects in space (esp. in the middle range of the focal length) at a different angle that the smaller lens/sensor can ever see in the same way. No amount of lens design can change that.

What you're saying would make sense to me if the whole full-frame lens was implemented with the smaller sensor but I don't think Sony or other manufacturers ever do that.

I assume the current sensor size with the a7s series is big enough to cover the whole lens circle of full-frame lenses and can't get any smaller. I have a FF Minolta 35mm f/1.4 with a gigantic lens circle. It's like the Hubble. LOL.

Let me try to put it another way.

If you're not getting a matching angle of view (ie, same angle of light approaching the sensor) then you are not using the correct equivelant lens.

 

[Viscount Omega]

What I've been saying is that the viewing angle only seems equivalent but is really not because of the smaller piece of glass you're using to try to duplicate a full frame lens view.

i.e. the tree in the background looks the same with both lenses but the picnic table in the middle looks different to some people.

 

[Samuel H]

That difference in the table in the middle is a DoF thing.

Think of one of these camera obscura things:

If you make the room bigger by moving the right wall farther to the right, the image on the wall is bigger but the perspective remains. You have increased your "sensor" sized, and also the focal length of your pinhole lens, by exactly the proportional amount. The aperture is the width of the pin hole, and remains intact in diameter but has fallen in f/ terms because the focal length has changed; exactly as much as you need, so that DoF is constant.
Now make the pin hole wider, so the f/ is the same as in the beginning (so, if the room is twice as wide now, the hole has to be twice as wide as well, which lets 4 times as much light come in). Now you're changing DoF, and now is when you're changing how the table in the middle looks in relation to the trees in the background: now is when light comes into your wall from different angles, wrapping more around objects, etc.

 

[Viscount Omega]

What represents the size of the glass being used? The wall?

 

[dvbrother]

What I've been saying is that the viewing angle only seems equivalent but is really not because of the smaller piece of glass you're using to try to duplicate a full frame lens view.

i.e. the tree in the background looks the same with both lenses but the picnic table in the middle looks different to some people.

I think your assumption that the size of the glass is a factor is incorrect. I own 3 different 35mm lenses. And two zoom lenses that can be set to a 35mm focal length. Each one of these has a different diameter of glass on the front. But each one produces a picture with the exact same DOF, field of view and perspective when set to the same f-stop and focus.

Regardless of the size of the glass, the diameter of the aperture is what's important.

You are correct in that the angle of convergence is slightly different between a FF sensor size and an APS-C sensor, for example. But the difference in size is so small that an angle of convergence difference would be negligible. Imagine standing 8-feet away from a FF sensor and pointing a laser at the upper left corner of a FF sensor. Then switch to an APS-C sensor in the exact same position. You'd have to re-aim the laser about 6mm down and to the right to hit the equivalent spot. A 6mm difference from 8 feet will change the angle so little, that it wouldn't change apparent perspective.

Here's a link to an article about this very subject. The top photos show 2 photos: one taken with a FF camera, and the other with an iPhone 6, which is much, much smaller than an APS-C sensor. The perspective is exact.
https://photographylife.com/sensor-size-perspective-and-depth-of-field