[Sliver-Surfer]

The wifi remote feature on the A7 is handy when taking portraits on a tripod and for doing boom pole work. you can see what your camera sees through a tablet or phone

[rawr]

Ya, but can you see a difference?

Unfortunately no one can just look at a RAW, it is just a bunch of bytes that have to be turned into an image we can see. Humans probably can't immediately and visually see the difference between a 12 bit (4096 tonal values) and 14 bit RAW (16384 tonal values) RAW in large part because there may be a lot of limitations in the output devices we use (printer or monitor colour spaces, for example) to view the output.

But I think as a vague, general rule, the wider the range of colour data we feed our RAW processors, the better they can work when preparing images for output, even if it is just spitting out 8 bit (256 tonal value) JPEGs.

[Rondec]

Ya, but can you see a difference?

I definitely can see a difference in how much I can process K5/K5 II files versus K-01 files. K5 files just are able to be pushed harder and have a little better colors. But it isn't huge.

[Na Horuk]

Oh yes, its definitely important how you process the raw files, whether the software can handle higher bit depth, and what type of file it is saved as (or to be precise, the bit depth of the target file)

[Mikesul]

I definitely can see a difference in how much I can process K5/K5 II files versus K-01 files. K5 files just are able to be pushed harder and have a little better colors. But it isn't huge.

I have noted the same thing. OOC the K-01 photos can be great but they do not stand up to heavy processing as well as K5/K3.

[philbaum]

I always set my cameras to RAW, but camera manufacturers and Adobe have their say about it too.

I've found out that if one chooses a Scene mode, panning, or "remote commander" on my Nex6, one automatically gets jpg vice 12 bit RAW. And then on Photoshop, about half, at least, of the filters don't show up for use if the files aren't converted to 8 bit color mode first.

There are things they don't tell one upfront

[danielchtong]

I bought a A7 with the intention of using my A lenses and a couple of M lenses with a photdiox adapter and have not been disappointed. With the focus peaking and the zebra stripes its a joy to use , no examples to hand to show you but these all shot with the so call poor kit lens that came with the camera .
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5nczemw2zgcokcx/AABYdhyA1Yam9Rl6wnjdeGGJa?dl=0

I borrowed an Alpha 7R. Took a couple of quick shoots. This one was with FA135mm



But I miss the SR particularly with the longer lens. AF s important but I do manage MF though


Daniel

[Sliver-Surfer]

I borrowed an Alpha 7R. Took a couple of quick shoots. This one was with FA135mm



But I miss the SR particularly with the longer lens. AF s important but I do manage MF though


Daniel

I think you may have missed the focus on that picture by a couple of inches in front of his face. You can set a custom button to focus magnifier and you will be spot on everytime.

[Nicolas06]

I think you will find the lenses weigh about the same , but the A7 being mirrorless is small and very much lighter. When used with a Pentax 50mm or a zoom it is a much lighter combo than my K5IIs with the same lenses.

The only reason I used the kit lens for the drop box images was like a idiot I left the bag with the lenses behind and had to make do with the K5 and a Sigma 2.8 24-60 and the Sony with its 3.5/5.6 28-70.

If Pentax do produce a FF unless they go mirrorless I am pretty sure it will be as heavy as a K3 / K5 so weight saving will unfortunately happen.

Given the new A7version2 just released apparently has shake reduction the body like pentax the benefit will be obvious to users of legacy glass, yes have to set the aperture manually and yes you have to manually zoom, for me not a big deal I often do that with the Pentax kit anyway.

As to the original posters question a simple search on DXo website will give a decent comparison and till you have tried the A7 focus systems and the ability to get instant zoom to fine tune the focus ( if necessary) ther is no real way to compare the two very different systems.

That appear logical but I honestly checked:

You need longer focal with an FF for the same framing... When you do the comparizon the 24-70 is comparable to 16-50 but the 70-200 f/4 is far worse than 50-135 in size and weight. The A7II you speak off has a weight of K50 so nothing spectacular.

As for primes, I agree with you take 2-3 short focal primes with you and shoot A7, will be just fine... And MF if you don't buy a-mount or want more than what is currently available in FE mount.

This a good for some people, but no silver bullet. In the end, FE lenses are more or less one stop slower than they could be to avoid being too big. The crop factor don't only apply to say good things out of deph of field control and high iso, it come very concretely to say that if you have 1.5 crop factor, you can also get 1.5 time shorter lenses too... Or if you prefer that your FF lenses are 1.5 time bigger, mirrorless or not.

[Nicolas06]

the sony raw file not-really-14-bit thing has been beat to death... the only legitimate pic that i've ever seen that shows a potential raw compression problem is a star trail shot, viewed at 100%.

if you are worried, try googling the subject, and see how many actual problem photos you can find... i've never seen a raw compression issue in any of my pics, and i shoot everything in raw.

there are other problems to gripe about with sony cameras, but not with the raw compression.

Fully agree on this - for a time - 12bit isn't really an issue in most circonstances. So not fully 14 bit... Really that's not significant. After all, Canon sensor may encode 14bit but they are not able to get noise low enough for that to be usefull.