[Shanti]

From the samples I've seen so far the A7s has the possibility to capture wildlife/nature that otherwise would not be possible,therefore a dream for those of us wanting early morning/dusk shooting possibilites, or pics that were only available with FLIR cams before. It would not be the only camera used but a necessary addition I think. As is the Q in good light for those wanting extreme tele shots,but hard to focus!! I find with DA300 + TC on it.
Would really like Pentax to come out with a FF using that sensor ..

[rawr]

Would really like Pentax to come out with a FF using that sensor

That would indeed be great.

But if you have the money, it seems the 654Z just about performs as well as the A7s in low-light, ISO 204,800 and all.
In a tiny bit larger body ...

[Shanti]

That would indeed be great.

But if you have the money, it seems the 654Z just about performs as well as the A7s in low-light, ISO 204,800 and all.
In a tiny bit larger body ...

Yes would love the 645Z

[Vince_Lux]

From the samples I've seen so far the A7s has the possibility to capture wildlife/nature that otherwise would not be possible,therefore a dream for those of us wanting early morning/dusk shooting possibilites, or pics that were only available with FLIR cams before. It would not be the only camera used but a necessary addition I think. As is the Q in good light for those wanting extreme tele shots,but hard to focus!! I find with DA300 + TC on it.
Would really like Pentax to come out with a FF using that sensor ..

I downloaded the test shots of dpreview and then used post processing myself, the result is very different from the direct raw shots IMHO.
Where the A7s is impressive (seems to have best detail in crop for me at all times), the difference did not convince me, the other low light champions win on colour and overall feel (however not coherently, once one then the other).
However this is hardly a field test where you shoot yourself. I do believe that the least you have to say is: thank you Sony for changing the game and big pixel!

That would indeed be great.

But if you have the money, it seems the 654Z just about performs as well as the A7s in low-light, ISO 204,800 and all.
In a tiny bit larger body ...

Mid frame or Large frame (yes on film) have their advantages, certainly for portrait and landscape. With live animals in the field, I´m a bit sceptic about the lenses to use and DOF.

[rawr]

I´m a bit sceptic about the lenses to use and DOF.

There are nice little 400mm and even 600mm telephotos for the 645 series. Plus teleconverters. Even some of those compact Pentax 67 telephotos like the 800mm f6.7 could be mounted ... And while shallow DOF will be an issue, think about the far greater cropability of a 50MP image vs a 12MP image.

[Digitalis]

Even some of those compact Pentax 67 telephotos like the 800mm f6.7 could be mounted

What you did there...I see it.

[Vince_Lux]

This topic keeps hunting me, so I have evolved in my conclusion:

I believe we have established that the Sony A7s is a not the wildlife shooters dream, I believe this is a lot closer:

I use a Nikon D4s with a Nikkor 400mm f/2.8G VR, using a Nikkor 2X teleconverter ...

Why: AF is better, very close in dynamic range and low light ISO performance and a lot better lens selection.

There are great Pentax alternatives:

But if you have the money, it seems the 654Z just about performs as well as the A7s in low-light, ISO 204,800 and all.
In a tiny bit larger body ...

Honestly it seems that the Pentax 654Z will give a real revolution as well, be it for other applications as the D4s.
And there are better weather sealed Pentax bodies (compared to other brands) that will do great in most of the wildlife situations and let you go out there when others stay in.

Where does this leave the Sony A7s? What are the strengths?
1) Relatively low price. No that body is not cheap, but the sensor performance (sharpness and low ISO) is very high for the price and probably outperforms anything close in price and portability in August 2014.
2) It is small and light. Yes a mirrorless is smaller and lighter then the DSLRs and Midframes. I find myself carrying already too much gear and weight gain is a decision factor when I´m 20m up a climbing path in a forest at the crack of dawn. (e.g. the Pentax Q series is great to take along, it can do a lot for the extra bother of carrying it).
3) Flexibility on lenses. With adaptors (just like the Pentax Mirrorless systems) you can add almost any lens (but losing features), I found some Leica guy stating high liked the result of the A7s with Leica lenses better then the Leica bodies.

So not the wildlife shooters dream, but combined with a good Prosumer action oriented DSLR system, some old very high quality (any brand) lenses and some passion for low light photography, this body can give a nice portable set-up for a wildlife amateur on a (larger but not professional) budget. The pro will take a larger and a lot more expensive system and there are certainly combinations possible with other bodies that give similar possibilities, it is up to the buyer to spend his money wisely.

[Rondec]

This topic keeps hunting me, so I have evolved in my conclusion:

I believe we have established that the Sony A7s is a not the wildlife shooters dream, I believe this is a lot closer:


Why: AF is better, very close in dynamic range and low light ISO performance and a lot better lens selection.

There are great Pentax alternatives:


Honestly it seems that the Pentax 654Z will give a real revolution as well, be it for other applications as the D4s.
And there are better weather sealed Pentax bodies (compared to other brands) that will do great in most of the wildlife situations and let you go out there when others stay in.

Where does this leave the Sony A7s? What are the strengths?
1) Relatively low price. No that body is not cheap, but the sensor performance (sharpness and low ISO) is very high for the price and probably outperforms anything close in price and portability in August 2014.
2) It is small and light. Yes a mirrorless is smaller and lighter then the DSLRs and Midframes. I find myself carrying already too much gear and weight gain is a decision factor when I´m 20m up a climbing path in a forest at the crack of dawn. (e.g. the Pentax Q series is great to take along, it can do a lot for the extra bother of carrying it).
3) Flexibility on lenses. With adaptors (just like the Pentax Mirrorless systems) you can add almost any lens (but losing features), I found some Leica guy stating high liked the result of the A7s with Leica lenses better then the Leica bodies.

So not the wildlife shooters dream, but combined with a good Prosumer action oriented DSLR system, some old very high quality (any brand) lenses and some passion for low light photography, this body can give a nice portable set-up for a wildlife amateur on a (larger but not professional) budget. The pro will take a larger and a lot more expensive system and there are certainly combinations possible with other bodies that give similar possibilities, it is up to the buyer to spend his money wisely.

My perception is that the A7s probably does video (and high iso video) better than any other interchangeable lens camera out there (at least in a similar price range).

[Christine Tham]

My perception is that the A7s probably does video (and high iso video) better than any other interchangeable lens camera out there (at least in a similar price range).

Perhaps, but the lack of 4K capture is a killer for me, otherwise I would have already bought it.

I've been told by the Sony product specialist that the issue is heat dissipation, and Sony is working hard to find a solution. In the meantime, Panasonic is the way to go for 4K video.

[Rondec]

Perhaps, but the lack of 4K capture is a killer for me, otherwise I would have already bought it.

I've been told by the Sony product specialist that the issue is heat dissipation, and Sony is working hard to find a solution. In the meantime, Panasonic is the way to go for 4K video.

I suppose, but the low light video capability here is unmatched by any Panasonic option, 4K or not. It is truly amazing.

[normhead]

When I posed this question to Christine Tham she didn't recommend any a7 for wildlife or action... it's just not their strength, she said. I'd have serious questions about it's ability to AF in low light, or questions about focus peaking working at all. The demo I saw, the guy could take pictures in the dark, but he had to prefocus with the lights on, and then take the picture without changing the focus. There are still a few bugs to be ironed out in this low light capacity on EVF thing.

[Digitalis]

I posed this question to Christine Tham she didn't recommend any a7 for wildlife or action... it's just not their strength, she said

For once I agree with her. Mirrorless cameras hold an advantage over SLRs when it comes to short focal length lenses, longer lenses will always be rather large - there is no way of getting around this. Every possible approach in making a compact telephoto lens over 300mm has already been tried: Diffractive optics, Mirror lenses both of which have poor bokeh and below par resolution compared to standard optical designs.

The demo I saw, the guy could take pictures in the dark, but he had to prefocus with the lights on, and then take the picture without changing the focus.

Exactly what was he demonstrating? how to take bad photographs in bad light? only a fool would be impressed by this.

[normhead]

For once I agree with her. Mirrorless cameras hold an advantage over SLRs when it comes to short focal length lenses, longer lenses will always be rather large - there is no way of getting around this. Every possible approach in making a compact telephoto lens over 300mm has already been tried: Diffractive optics, Mirror lenses both of which have poor bokeh and below par resolution compared to standard optical designs.




Exactly what was he demonstrating? how to take bad photographs in bad light? only a fool would be impressed by this.

He was all happy because he could take a picture in the dark, and not fazed at all by the fact that he couldn't focus. What? We're you hoping for a camera that could take pictures in the dark and focus in the dark ? Really ? Both of those things? Come on, quit being nit picky.

[ElJamoquio]

...I guess it's a good security camera, maybe?....

[Christine Tham]

When I posed this question to Christine Tham she didn't recommend any a7 for wildlife or action... it's just not their strength, she said. I'd have serious questions about it's ability to AF in low light, or questions about focus peaking working at all. The demo I saw, the guy could take pictures in the dark, but he had to prefocus with the lights on, and then take the picture without changing the focus. There are still a few bugs to be ironed out in this low light capacity on EVF thing.

The low light AF is actually not too bad. I had good success with my A7r in the "night" section of the Sydney Wildlife Zoo, actually a better success rate than a friend with a D800E (who gave up trying), but again the operator skill and experience plays such a large part it's not a valid comparison. I am not saying my friend is not experienced or don't have skills - just that we are comparing apples and oranges.

But then I was shooting with the 55mm prime. With a long telephoto zoom like the FE 70-200, I found it to be slow (like, DA* 50-135 slow), also prone to "hunting".

I have played with a pre-production A7s - to be honest, I did not find any improvement in AF over the A7r. Maybe the production model is better.

PS - maybe this camera is what the original poster would have wanted ...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Cameras/Canon-EOS-1D-W-DSLR-Camera.aspx