a7R II

No. Frankly I prefer the colour I've seen from the recent Sonys to that from the Canons. I find Canon is always biasing warm, while the better Sonys just have a healthy colour, without being biased. There was an era of Sony where colour was iffy, the a7rii in particular, but that was 11 years ago no

Je te comprends. Je suis passé de MFT (Olympus) à FF (Sony), puis retour à MFT (Panasonic) pour la compacité, et là je suis en APSC (Fuji) qui est je trouve un bon compromis qualité/encombrement (mais j'ai énormément hésité à revenir vers Sony). Le passage d'Olympus à Sony a apporté énormément pour

The Sony A7RII and Leica SL were released the same year, 2015. The Leica SL has a maximum DR of ~13.1 stops at ISO 50, vs 13.3 for the A7RII. This is very competitive at low ISO. The trouble arises once you get out of the low ISO band and into the "we actually take pictures here" region -- ISO 400 t

Agree, my current set up consists in a Sony a7rii (which I picked up on eBay for really cheap) and a vintage Vivitar 55mm f2.8 macro with the Valoi Easy35 v1 and the results are mind blowing!

I originally bought it as I'm into wildlife photography as a hobby and seemed a good option as I already had Sony stuff. Yeah I've missed the higher pixel count ever since swapping my a7rii for the a9, plus I'd like the video features.

I think so, to an extent. I stepped through the Canon Rebel line - Using,T3, T5 and T7, before eventually moving to a Sony A7R2. The megapixel difference is massive. Even zealously-cropped photos are print-worthy, as are desktop wallpapers. I find I do less lightroom editing, and at first I attribut

pixel area almost doesn't matter, sensor technology matters way way way more that's why 48mpx sony a7s iii can be marketed as 12 and people don't care (it's using quad bayer, like phones, but advertises resolution after downsampling, since you can't pull full res photos from it)... and also why sony

The Sony A7RII has 5.93 micron pixels. Side note: Google AI overview says "0.0049 × 0.0033 millimeters" which is 4.9 x 3.3 microns which is definitely wrong. Sanity check. The sensor is 35.8 x 23.9 mm and 6000 x 4000 image pixels, but sensor is 6038 x 4025 pixels. 35.8 / 6038 = 0.005929 mm = 5.93 mi

If you value resolution and quality, then you might be best off with a DSLM + fisheye lens. I do this more or less as a hobby myself and in the past have had a Sony A6300 + 7Artisans fisheye lens (I think that was it), as well as a tripod and nodal point adapter. I think the costs were around €300-4

I had an X-T2 years ago when it came out. I was moving away from Nikon DSLRs and was hoping Fuji would be a good enough mirrorless alternative, but it just wasn’t. I switched to Sony, starting with the A7Rii, and level looked back. Incredible sensors with amazing autofocus and low light performance.