[normhead]

It's 7974 x 5316 (42 megapixels).

An A7r is 7360 x 4912

So it looks like you are going to be paying the big bucks for and extra 600 pixels wide and 300 pixels in depth. For comparison, when you go from a K-5 to K-3 you go from 4928 x 3264 to 6016 x 4000. That's an increase of 1000x 700 pixels.
Increase in pixels across for Sony is about 8%/ For the Pentax upgrade it's 22%.

So, I'm wondering, is the A7RII IQ noticeably better than the A7R?

Plus I've heard the A7RII is a backlit sensor that suffers from colour bleeding (the same issue that slowed down K-3 development.)

Anyone seen any images?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[pathdoc]

the same issue that slowed down K-3 development

Which may imply that the engineers at Ricoh/Pentax have had enough experience to deal with it in the bigger sensor.

Ultimately it's not just the sensor - it's the combination of the sensor and the processing algorithms behind it, even for a RAW file and certainly for JPEG ex-camera. If Pentax can get the processing algorithms right, it will leave every other camera with this sensor in the dust. Ultimately that's what we're waiting for - an ergonomically appealing package with appropriate switch placement and menu setup for easy work-flow, AND a superior implementation of data extraction out of whatever sensor they've chosen. If they can deliver that, it will win customers (not to mention making Sony's R&D people look like a bunch of idiots for not being able to match that when the sensor is their own technology).

[philbaum]

It's 7974 x 5316 (42 megapixels).

An A7r is 7360 x 4912

So it looks like you are going to be paying the big bucks for and extra 600 pixels wide and 300 pixels in depth. For comparison, when you go from a K-5 to K-3 you go from 4928 x 3264 to 6016 x 4000. That's an increase of 1000x 700 pixels.
Increase in pixels across for Sony is about 8%/ For the Pentax upgrade it's 22%.

So, I'm wondering, is the A7RII IQ noticeably better than the A7R?

Plus I've heard the A7RII is a backlit sensor that suffers from colour bleeding (the same issue that slowed down K-3 development.)

Anyone seen any images?

Inquiring minds want to know.

One can't separate out the sensor from the other features the camera body has. The Sony IBIS clearly outclasses the K3 SR that i had experience with. The A7r also doesn't have the 5 axis IBIS so i strongly suspect that users have to shoot at higher speeds to get the same sharp images. Sony also included a carbon fiber shutter in the A7rII for much quieter operation and less possibility of shutter shock problems than the A7R.

Pentax learned its lessons on shuttershock with the K7, Nikon with the D800 and Sony with the A7r. But certainly if one keeps the shutter speeds up markedly above 1/100s, it may be hard to see it.

I can't imagine that 42mp versus 36mp is as significant as 5 axis IBIS and a quieter shutter (i.e. less possibility of shutter shock)

[Winder]

The 42MP sensor in the A7rII has some hardware on on that is specifically for 4K and mirrorless and that is driving up the price. Sony could make a 42MP BSI sensor without the PDAF and 4K. Sony will want to sell this sensor to as many companies as possible, so I would expect different versions of it at different price points.

[Rondec]

I think the benefit the 42 megapixel sensor has have to do with faster read out speeds and better high iso performance (over iso 6400 it really does quite a bit better than the A7r). If Pentax wants better video and can handle fast frame rates with 42 megapixel images then certainly the newer sensor is the way to go. I don't know if Sony would make a version without PDAF on the sensor. Certainly that is somewhat wasted on current Pentax cameras. I guess it could make live view more useful.

Anyway, I think Pentax probably should go with the newer sensor, merely for the fact that it is newer and will create more buzz than if they go with the D810/A7r sensor. And I think they should make the effort and come up with a decent video codec and have 4K video in the camera. I don't shoot video with my SLRs, but I think it could be a selling point if it was more than just an after thought.

[pathdoc]

Putting the PDAF on the sensor with a semi-translucent mirror would end any hassles created by having changeable focusing screens, would it not? Not that the tail should be permitted to wag the dog; just a possible side benefit.

[normhead]

One can't separate out the sensor from the other features the camera body has. The Sony IBIS clearly outclasses the K3 SR that i had experience with. The A7r also doesn't have the 5 axis IBIS so i strongly suspect that users have to shoot at higher speeds to get the same sharp images. Sony also included a carbon fiber shutter in the A7rII for much quieter operation and less possibility of shutter shock problems than the A7R.

Pentax learned its lessons on shuttershock with the K7, Nikon with the D800 and Sony with the A7r. But certainly if one keeps the shutter speeds up markedly above 1/100s, it may be hard to see it.

I can't imagine that 42mp versus 36mp is as significant as 5 axis IBIS and a quieter shutter (i.e. less possibility of shutter shock)

For most of my best images I don't use shake reduction, so that's rarely an issue. Even with small birds I look for situations where I can use a two second delay.

In images like this one, I'm not detecting a lack of sharpness due to anything, shot on a tripod, which as far as I know is still what you have to do if you absoutlely have to have the image and need maximum clarity. ....the trouble with comparing IBIS is, how do you create equal circumstances? I don't have a mechanical shake mechanism to create an equal vibration. I guess one can have impressions, based using two systems... or use two systems and then compare images. But it's hard to qualify what that means. You're left with "Some guy says this one is better than that one."




I get good results with SR on my K-3 down to 1/15s, and when pressed have had success down to 1/8s so unless you're saying with a Sony, I could shoot at 1/4 second, it's not two stops better.

[philbaum]

For most of my best images I don't use shake reduction, so that's rarely an issue. Even with small birds I look for situations where I can use a two second delay.
......

I get good results with SR on my K-3 down to 1/15s, and when pressed have had success down to 1/8s so unless you're saying with a Sony, I could shoot at 1/4 second, it's not two stops better.

I have one picture, couldn't post for some reason, taken at 1 second at 6400 iso, but i was braced against a wall corner so that doesn't count, during a tour of a boarded up high school.

Handheld standing without support, I feel confident at getting 100% sample sharp images at 1/30s with a 55mm lens. I found a coupla images that were sharp at 1/10s with 50mm crop lens, but i was seated. So sounds like you're doing just as good with the K3. Haven't done any real "testing" and don't do birds.