Triumph61

In many ways I did.    had to choose one system and eventually the Sony won out,  with still shooting a factor in my choice.

Sorry Don  I disagree with this test.  But it's DPreview so it must be correct eh ;-)   Did I read somewhere that they couldn't use their normal adapted test lens on the NX1 so they used a zoom to compare?  I have noticed on many DPreview tests, errors? or lens alignment issues?? in their comparisons.  One camera area sharp, comparing as unsharp on another camera, then the opposite in another area of the image.  All good though the Samsung has it's strengths and so does the Sony.     The Sony is perfectly fine in isolation, the NX1 is just a super sharp high resolving 4K camera and to own  both and compare can be a challenge toward what you want out of your camera.   I chose the Sony in the end. FF and still images where my deciding factors. 

Yes, and I hear that Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic collectively sighed,  in huge relief.   :-)    So if you use a NX1 suddenly your work becomes "imaginary"?  lol

Max?   I meant no offence,  I did put a smiley face :-) ,   and I am absolutely happy to hear an opinion,   which is an opinion just like mine, is  also just an opinion,  and not fact for everyone or every scenario.   One size does not fit all.  As I said i would love to have my cake and eat it too,  but.........  Maybe a lottery win?

Correction!!!!    In my haste to test the A7SII I set up everything except the removal of in camera sharpening on profile PP6  :-|     So  on retesting the A7RII S35 and A7SII FF, from a resolution and sharpness point of view are very similar.     Again my apologies.

Andrew, is this a function of SLog3?  As i am not seeing this in the PP6 Cine 2 setting which is obviously not a Log setting.   Also would Resolves new colour match option help, using a  XRite colormate passport or the like?  

Of course all your info is technically correct,  So now will i will go back and look at my mates books and see all those errors and they will look like crap taken on a D300.. :-)   I have owned Fovean Technology and have met the owners multiple times, so I am very aware of what you are saying, but it's still pixel peeping.  Some phenomenal images have been taken on EOS 1 D's and D3/4 etc all below 20 megapixels or 5-6 MP based on your Bayer explanation.   My point is that less than 1%  of people who use these camera have an output scenario that see's this difference in real terms.  YES, i would like a higher res Still image, but I prefer a FF 4 K shooter that also shoots FF stills well and the only game in town currently is the A7SII.   Sony are making some great camera's but it is a confusing offer with no easy choice.  Ideally the best choice would be to own the A7RII for stills and have an A7SII in your bag for Video.   

I have Landscapes taken on 3 and 5  million pixel sensors (stitched)  that have been displayed in Public buildings printed 1.5 metres long.    I bought the A7RII  and it didn't excite me for Video.   I WISH it had!  Would have saved me some cash.  :-)   When I bought mine the info and reviews were saying S35 was great and FF was a little behind,  That is just not true. IMHO FF  video on that camera is poor.

Zeiss lens sales and high pixel count is being driven by pixel peeping, MANY don't print and the few who do, would have to print huge to see any difference,  How many walls do people have in their homes?  :-)  I just looked at a mates books he did on his travels through Europe, beautiful books of each country he traveled through,  all shot on a D300 and if he had used a  D7200?  they would have looked.....the same in reality,   He is old school though and gets the shot "right" in camera.

And I now own a A7RII,  An A7SII and a NX1,   Two will make way for one.    I think we will wait a long time for a Hi res FF still camera that can perform like the A7SII for Video, so for me it was the realisation that the res thing is over rated for still, the lack of  PD AF was a bigger deal as a still shooter. 

If someone can make a 20 MP plus chip that doesn't have a lossy FF output I am interested, but I wouldn't hold my breath.  

and they call it a ..............niche product.     Of course you would be crazy to buy the A7SII as a still only camera, unless for it's iso capabilities, but my point was who can afford an A7RII and an A7SII,  when I had to choose the A7SII won as a better allrounder for me.  

For many the lack of PD AF will be the deal breaker for still photography

I said it betters it,  and I believe it does.  Apart from that,   I have a 20mm 2.8, 24mm F2.8, 28mm F2.8, 50mm  1.4  Lovely small little Minolta lenses,  How do I get their perspective and depth of field on a A7RII in S35 without taking out a second mortgage?  Also have Canon FF glass including a Sigma 35mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4.   This is my preference and I am sure for some S35 is perfect.   

I agree Andrew, ( which is why I posted) tell it to the guys at the Camera Store who just posted their video review and in their summary they call it a niche video camera and that the A7RII is the all rounder, that still shooters should only consider.  As a still shooter, I disagree with them.   

https://youtu.be/zph4Ni4TYyQ

IMHO

So I own a NX1 and bought a A7RII.   I wanted a FF camera that straddled Video and Still.  One camera that was Good at both.  Most will say "buy the A7RII cause it does both well".  I disagree.  

I have now had a chance to try the A7SII, which I liked the specs on but was disappointed with the lack of Sony's new PD AF system which I really wanted for my stills.  Luckily,   I actually own some Minolta glass, a hang over from my days using a A900 which as a still camera I loved.  So I bought a second hand LA-E4 adaptor and tried it on the A7SII,

Now I remember why I loved those Minolta lenses,  They are small , sharp and really perform and with the LA-E4 they work really well.

The FF video output of the A7SII is ....Wow.....everthing the A7RII is not, and it is also betters the s35 output from the the A7RII.   Plus as a one camera shooter having to shoot FF for stills and S35 for video?  Not ideal for me.  Sure if you go out to shoot video and only video, but a mix of still and video? and the A7RII is a big compromise.

So how is the A7SII as a still camera?  Amazing.  I remember when I bought a D800E that after 6 months I realised I was just obsessing over my pixel peeping and to really impress anyone I would have had to have a small detail crop in a print to show the high res sensor, but in a normal print it was no advantage.  My computer would grind opening ever 36MP file, I eventually sold it for a 5DMKIII.   Canon and Nikons pro camera are around 16mp, So, is the A7SII such a "niche" camera?  I think not.  I would love them to put in the PD AF which obviously means a whole new sensor. But Legacy Glass and Minolta adapted lenses when I need (or want ) AF, is a perfectly fine compromise for me.  Plus the Minolta glass is so good and so well priced.

The 12 MP images off the A7SII are amazing, great latitude and great colour.   Cropping is the real advantage of the A7RII.  The quick video tests I have done with the A7SII are really impressive especially the dynamic range and "look"  and thats just using PP6 which is the Cine 2 (from memory) setting rather than Slog.   As a street shooter the PP6 setting really just seems to work.

There is no perfect camera that does everything, but i think I have found the best compromise by far.

Just watched some of this video,  The still portrait photographer makes a point about his pet hate of bad focus and the guy videoing keeps mis focusing on the background???  Also I question those comparison high iso studio shots near the end, They had to be jpegs cause the sony was using some crazy destructive noise reduction that I am sure would not be an issue if using raw. They did not qualify this and just then gave it to the Canon,  Bit misleading?  More talking heads, some good info and some very misleading. IMHO

OK, Put on my Flame suit :-)  Actually I would LOVE the Sony to be the camera I keep, I just wish it didn't compromise so much in a few area's like FF 4K resolution and moreso the smearing of detail in FF.  Because of this and the cost ratio of lenses to kit out the A7 series is why I am tossing up to keep the NX1 and or Keep the A7RII and invest in more FF glass....Again :-)    Below are some samples, at 100% and then 200% from 4K still grabs.  From Sony A7RII and NX1  all shot with the same Nikon 35mm 2.8 prime at F5.6,   The order is A7RII  S35....A7RII FF.......NX1.     Before everyone replies yes I can see the NX1 is over sharpened, but it is also impossible to sharpen the Sony S35 to get the result the NX1 gives natively.  So my conclusion is that the S35 on the A7RII is pretty good but probably needs some post sharpening, The A7RII FF is not so good, and the NX1 has lots of resolution and is oversharpened in camera.  The last image is of the 5DMKIII  internal codec versus Magic Lantern Raw showing how the detail in far greater in her T-Shirt,  hat and skin (freckles) where the internal codec is destructive to such detail.  This has been what I have found with the A7RII in FF, the softness I can see and accept to a point,  but less so the smearing of texture and detail that is lost in open areas of detail (rather than edges) that results from this.

Sorry, I know I will be howled down by some here, but I think the "4K" FF output of the A7RII is far from acceptable, I would say it is a FF still camera and a 4K S35 video camera.  FF can be used for simple bold subjects but really does not stand up to scrutiny when detailed 4K is what you are after.  Its not just lower res than 4K, but it smears  lots of detail in FF.   IMHO.   I would love to be wrong ,  because I wanted this camera to perform in FF, but it does not.    I own the A7RII and yes in S35 it can perform albeit with worse rolling shutter, but in FF it is really average, worse than my 5DMKIII in 1080 with magic lantern.  I am seeing details lost that is  like my 5D did before I used ML.  Using ML Raw I would see texture in a shirt whereas the internal codec would smear it to a flat colour with no texture.  happy to post examples.  

My Samsung NX1 definitely show Moire quite often.

Yes the NX1 still over sharpens but it also does capture more detail as per the image below.

Has anyone got a A7SII, and can relay how well it focuses without Phase Detect AF?   I assume it crap with adapted lenses and OK with native?

Sorry  disagree and certainly not what is being seen in the  Video files as a  Huge difference.   There is a difference, but drastic?  More res based than lens based I can read the same writing in each raw file.  Drawing a long bow I think, I'll give you this  10% lens and 90% internal camera processing.  If I had more time I could do the same test and flick them to video output to show you the lens is the insignificant factor here.  

Hi Chris, I disagree re FF comparison, it does serve a purpose, many here may want to see what the real difference is,   It's one thing to read that it's not as good and a bit "soft" in FF but for some, this will be a better illustration.  Two of my images were S35 so I showed both FF and S35 and i did qualify that one of my main attractions was FF video and stills.   The other things like back focus button and adapted lenses are fair enough, but to me, seem far more relevant for a still shooter than video.  I have found adapted lenses on the Sony to be fairly flaky with Metabones 4 and latest firmware. It's great you can do it, but far from a great experience.  If I had seen a comparison like this before I bought, considering that FF was one of my criteria, I may have purchased differently.   TOOOO many talking heads on so called "reviews " online without real life data, to show what a bit softer actually means. IMHO  Personally I was a bit shocked when i started looking at the 4K output from the A7RII, but I have gone from 5DMKIII magic lantern raw to NX1 and now Sony A7RII and the output from the Sony surprised me after the other two especially with regards the discarded detail as shown in the images at the start of my post. People have said they have shot footage on the Sony in FF and S35 and edited it with no real discernible difference in the final cut between them, I think my images show that is far from correct.  FF is mush not just a "bit softer"   I will do some more tests and maybe I can live with it, but so far I am unconvinced.  If ONLY Sony hadn't left Phase detect AF from the A7SII, it could have been my potential Still/Video shooter  :-(

OK richg101   Sorry but I disagree and so does the real life output.  I have taken two shots attached here at 100% crops.  They were taken on the Samsung at 24mm and the Canon on the A7RII in APSC mode at 24mm.    Both shot in RAW and imported into Lightroom with sharpening turned completely off on both.  Exported both to 4K resolution to be fair as the Samsung is slightly higher res and to emulate what happens when each frame of Video is created.  Then I have cropped in at 100% on where I focused and here are the results.  The Samsung benefits very slightly from a higher starting res at this pixel level magnification of very fine detail, but the difference is very small, hardly any difference and CERTAINLY not what is show when the same test was run as Video output rather than Raw stills.  So the Variable here is ............Video output versus Still capture and I am sorry but by far the largest loss of res is NOT the lens but it is lost in the conversion in camera to Video.  By the way, hardly fair to have a 16-50 F2 zoom compared with a 55mm 1.8 prime?  But as you can see here that would not be the difference in a shoot out with these two camera's when Video is chosen.  :-)  Sony is the first image and Samsung the second image.  Happy to post edge resolution but its still shows the same result.  To be honest I probably could have shot the Samsung in Video and taken a similar grab for a similar effect, the Samsung seems to be able to create 25 frames at it actual still resolution in a fairly lossless way when resolution is considered. Still grabs from Samsung footage look like still shot images.  Not so for the Sony.

Comparisons with the Sony?

So find me the sharp point?   They are different lenses so of course the depth  of field will differ. But I focused on the bottles. Better still I am  happy for you to prove me wrong ,  put  up your own findings?    The Samsung shows detail even with Legacy glass,   Don.  I own both, do you?

I am very aware of the Samsungs short comings, but resolution is not one of them and it is with the Sony.   Which is why I posted my findings.  people can make up there own minds or they can get offended that I have criticised their camera choice.   

The NX1's iso performance is actually not that bad, only at extremes and I think this is overstated.  If you need it, sure high iso is important. Many have noted that the performance between 100 and 1600 is virtually the same, which is where many will live and shoot.  Latter firmware may have actually improved it according to some.

When I watch this below, I am seeing lots of resolution, not so much over sharpening.  That said I do believe the NX1 could do with lower sharpening levels.

Actually I know a lot about lenses, its been my life for 35 years,  But to satisfy some before I sell the A7RII I will shoot a comparison with the same lens,  It will have to be a Nikon because that's all I have that fits both.  Funny thing is the IR filter is there for Video and its still there for Stills and the 24-70 is razor sharp in stills?    Must be some voodoo magic happening? :-)

Saw the macro blocking n the NX1 and yes the Sony out performs in this area, but replaces it with outhr sensor based artefacts  like noise, so which is better?  I suppose it's up to the individual.

No Chance of Macro Blocking here :-)  The Samsung just recorded the detail while the Sony thought it was not important?  Or maybe you will say I misfocused?

Sorry Disagree,  If it was the lens, I would see it in stills, even cropped stills, and I do not.  The Canon 24-70 F4 L series is just as sharp even at APSC crops as the Samsung lens

This is no small difference you are seeing in these images

FF tests are not Moot for me because it is the main feature that would attract me to the Sony for Video.  I was aware it was going to be not as good.  but it still surprised me by how bad it was.  So along comes the A7SII...woot woot...   except as a still photographer they leave out Phase detect AF?    It's called Sonyfication, the things that make your scratch your head about Sony :-)  So good and then the deal breaker.

Yes Ricardo,  I wanted it to be close,  but if you have owned the Samsung and you see the Jaw dropping shots in Andrew Reid's video that look like "moving stills" it's hard to go backwards.  

Lenses are listed in the post.  Samsung 16-50 F2  and Canon L 24-70 on the Sony,  Zero sharpening in post and minimum in camera on both.  First pair is NX1 vs FF Sony,  Second and Third image are NX1 versus Sony S35 and the forth image  is  NX1 versus Sony FF.  S35 is better but even in S35  grabs from the Sony, in resolving detail, the NX1 eats it.     Re Log exposure, no did not expose 1 stop over, so will retest for noise.  Sharpening is one thing but detail resolved is still significantly less.  For SUCH a high tech camera in S35 mode, I think Sony need to spend some time in Korea. :-) and learn how to get all the data of the chip and into the file.  If I didn't own the NX1 maybe I would be very happy with the Sony, but the NX1 has spoilt it's owners for 4K resolution.  IMHO