CAMERA SIZE: Sony A7RII Size Compared!

143 Comments

1. Yesteryear when I extensively used a 6×9 Fuji as my tool of choice, I would of had to have changed out 40 rolls of film in order to equal a 320 shot battery charge for my A7rII— or about 9 rolls of 36 exposure film cassettes with my Canon EOS3. Another comparison at the far end of the continuum would be the 4×5 Graflex that I loved so dearly in the 1960’s— as it would have required 160 rather bulky film holders to rival a single Sony battery charge. By comparison installing a second, or third, battery during an extended days work seems mindlessly simple IMHO.

   While there are many excellent features I previously appreciated about my 5D and 7D series Canons, including battery life— size and weight were not on my personal list. When I recently switched over to the Sony A7rII, I literally needed to borrow the store’s wheeled cart to roll in my trade in camera bodies, lenses, tripods, flash, etc.. Truly, the equipment collection was that heavy and bulky.

2. I have seen a number of claims on the web about the A7 series being the same size as the Nikon xxx. When I then post some of these same comparison shots, the guilty party goes silent. I guess this is what the conversation is like these days on the Nikon forums.

3. Bravo Steve, for kicking off such a discussion with a few schemes and words! Looks like not everybody got convinced, but perhaps one really needs to try it out…

4. Hi Steve,

   Don’t get disheartened by the negative comments. Mainly “brand blindness”. Your conclusion on size / quality comparison is right. I’ve proved it for myself – to the extreme.

   For the last 20 years, my main camera has been Hasselblad. Initially the 205FCC with a 120 film back / Imacon scanner and then the CFV-16 digital back. Five or six years ago, I bought the Hasselblad H4D-50, by far the best quality digital camera on the market at that time. I love the quality of the images that the H4D-50 produces. In summary, quality is really important to me.

   But, as I get older, lugging that Hasselblad camera and a couple of big prime lenses has become more difficult. Two weekends ago, trekking 5 km upwards alongside a waterfall, I found the weight on my back exhausting. Also, for longer walks, I need to carry the ‘blad in a backpack, making it awkward to get to quickly.

   Last week, I received my Sony A7Rii and a couple of FE lenses.

   After 4 days with Sony A7Rii I can tell you that I am absolutely blown away by this camera.

   So, what have I learned?

   Unless I find some hidden stumbling block, this camera system WILL replace my Hasselblad. It is much lighter, much smaller but produces equivalent quality for most shots AND surpasses the ‘blad for extreme shots, especially low-light and fast moving subjects.

   The steady shot works like a dream. I can easily hand-hold to 1/15 and, even as slow as 1/6, if I am careful. The Hasselblad was so heavy that hand-holding slower than 1/60 was difficult as muscle-shake would kick-in after a while.

   The A7Rii ISO range is great from 100 to 1600 and OK at 3200 with some minor noise correction in post. The Hasselblad started getting noisy at 400 ISO.

   The camera is comfortable to hand-hold and pairs nicely with the SpiderPro Hand Strap. You could walk all day with this camera in your hand.

   The button / dial layout is logical and the custom buttons and custom mode are useful.

   For the two “custom” mode settings I have set one to be like my Hasselblad: AF-S centre spot, 100 ASA, aperture priority, AE Lock. The second custom setting is “auto everything”: AF-C; ISO Auto (locked between 100 and 1600), continuous shooting, program mode, etc.

   I love Eye-AF. So useful for portraits that I have set Custom Key 3 to Eye-AF – just press and hold Custom Key 3 with the thumb and shoot with the finger. It works surprisingly well.

   I’ve tried importing and adjusting images in Sony Image Capture, Capture One and Lightroom. Despite some people saying that C1 is better at handling shadows, the quality looks to me about the same so I will stick with LR because I know it best.

   But, the key point is that this is a great quality camera package in a small size – extremely portable.

   Sony have just set the bar a big step higher for the other manufacturers to try and catch up.

   Regards
   Peter

5. DigitalRev review out, worth checking out. Consensus seems to be almost universal that the video is disappointing, great stills camera but auto focus issues compared to a DSLR still. Best part of the video is going over the timeline of the Sony releases and why it might pay to wait just a few months if thinking about purchasing.

   • Where’s the consensus that video is disappointing? Digitalrev is hardly an authority on video.

     • EOSHD/Philip Bloom/digital Rev etc… All say the same, poor 4k Video, over heating problems (which just might destroy the camera FYI )… You could just hit Google and see for yourself. It makes the camera very expensive for just stills.

       • They are all quite positive on the camera for stills though.

       • Jumping to conclusions. EOSHD and Phillip Bloom have not yet posted their reviews of the A7RII. Digitalrev is a comedian. If you go by his assessments, good luck!

         • EOSHD has already posted part 1, Bloom has written about it extensively already. It’s a great stills camera. word is Sony already working on a new S version that will be significantly larger so that it can have a proper heat sink for 4k (plus will be easier with a lower mp sensor). Every video forum is full of posts of the problems they are having with video, i’m sure as aggressive as sony is, they will have a solution soon. Just not with this camera most likely, but who knows?

       • We must be reading different review. This is from EOSHD “The Sony A7R II is a fascinating camera and tons of fun to shoot with. When compared to cream of the crop from last year, the GH4, NX1 and A7S, the A7R II is overall the better all-round camera for both video and stills. Astounding 42MP photos, completely new sensor and internal 4K recording from a full frame sensor, despite heat issues. Only it doesn’t quite scale the heights for 4K video quality when compared with cinema cameras.”

6. Oops, we forgot to compare it with the Nikon D5500 DSLR

   http://camerasize.com/compare/#624,580

   And that’s without taking into account a very important factor to engineers and designers everywhere, but almost always left out of camera reviews: the price/performance ratio.

   • So a cheap crappy plastic APS-C DSLR vs a tour de force of full frame tech and they are the same size. Goes to show you can have full frame, massive res, awesome build, 4K video and the best tech of 2015 in a camera the same size as the tiny 5500, which is not full frame nor comparable in any way, shape or form to the A7RII.

     • Cheap or not cheap is not the question. A Sony A5100 for example is a cheap camera and produces stunning results! I would compare the A7RII with a Nikon D7200 or Nikon D750 for the size factor. They are all good cameras 😉

     • Steve,

       It sounds that you’ve been beaten !!!! 🙂
       What are we going to say with the new a7000 with the built in HDR!!!

       It is like saying Pinto is cheaper than a Vette…It has better gas mileage therofore is a better car.

       Keep it up guys.

       • Your comment confuses me. Been beaten? What does an A7000 have to do with the A7RII and the size? It is what it is, and this post was simply for all of those out in internet land who said the A7RII was the same size as a full frame DSLR 😉 Which clearly it is not even close.

         • I guess my ironic comment and in a sense making a joke about the a7000/a5100/d5500 has not been received this way.

           It is ok. Some people get it and some not.

           Thanks for allowing us to post our comments.

7. It amazes me all the comments about the A7 series and lens size. …..Pick up a 1970s/80s SLR . Many are around the same size as the A7rII. Then look at the lenses that went with those cameras. Then read the criticism that the lenses for the A7rII are too big and wonder at the lack of thought behind them. No one complained about lenses appearing to be oversized on SLRs so why are people complaining now when we have a camera that returns us to the old normal size?

8. It is interesting after all these years and all the efforts from so many companies: is that Leica still holds many reins.

   • Like what?

     • Show-off factor, mainly… at least for the digital Ms. They look nice, are intuitive to use, have excellent lenses, but when it comes to some other important features, EVF cameras like the A7 family and the RX1 have a lot more to offer, at lower cost.

       (says me, who has been an analogue Leica M user since 1982 (starting with M4P, then adding M3, M6, CL and M8 = digital APS-H = to the collection – still owning and using them, and about 10 Leitz/Leica and as well several Zeiss and Voigtlaender lenses).

     • Here just a few pointers:

       It is still the smallest full frame interchangeable lens camera.
       It has real glass-rangefinder – unbeatable. Direct conection to reality. No looking through tiny TVs.
       Simplicity, no gimmicks and wastefull buttons.
       It is morelikely the most rigid camera.
       Possibly the best lenses.
       It has many flaws and is not the camera for everything but does not claim to be either.
       Some of the most well known and famous pictures are taken with a Leica. This is not be a show off; it is reality.

       It just leads the pack in many-many areas; exceptionaly traditional and direct to the point. You do not forget what photography is about by dealing with useless features.

9. The Canon 5DIII actually does not look as large compared to the A7RII as I thought it would, and the 6D is smaller than the 5DIII. I think it obvious that the Sonys are easier to carry around as they are smaller and lighter, but whether they are actually nicer to hold in the hand and shoot with is a question only the user can decide. Some will think yes and others no.

10. Dpreview recent test says A7rII Af in lowlight can match or beat Dslr AF performance.

    I think the A7RIII despite all those sony haters is a game changer camera. All this great functions in a body that size is just amazing.
    Probably all of those people that are talking nonse things about the A7RII are people that have their d800 and 5ds….and can’t accept that a company like sony is making a smaller camera just as capable as their nikons and canons big dslr’s. Their ego is hurt.

    • Like it or not the A7rII IS a real game changer. It spells the death knell for the DSLR. Now that companies can build a reflex camera without the heavy prism and complex mirror mechanism profits will go up. Reliability will go up. Customer satisfaction will go up. With cameras that can accept lenses from many different brands lens sales will go up. While I love my D810 I am no longer 20 years old and just can’t take hauling a 40 pound camera kit around all day. The only reason I have not pulled the trigger on an A7rII is the issue of Compressed RAW output. It has now been demonstrated that this does have a detrimental affect on Dynamic Range. Why SONY has not fixed this is beyond me… but in all other ways the A7rII is pretty much unbeatable.

      • The compressed RAW files apparently make no difference in image quality, even with very large prints.

11. you guys sure are taking the fun out of photography … i got full frame and you got a such a smaller sensor … all bla bla bla … go out and just take photographs no matter what camera you are using!

12. N ikon 50 1.8 @ B&H – $216.95
    Sony 55 f/1.8 – $898.00.

    4x as expensive but substantially better. Not 6x as expensive unless you’re talking about another country where the exchange rate is different.

    • I live in Denmark. It’s 6 times more expensive here. 1200 dkr. vs. 6400 dkr. or 5½ times. Who cares? The Sony will be someting like 1100$ vs. 200$. To me the whole ting about a 50 mm is about price vs quality. 50’s are always good because they are the cheapest lenses to design and that’s the way it should be. I would never ever pay that kind of money for a 50 even it was made of gold.

13. Thks for the effort in putting up the comparisons

    I have use xpro1, em5, a7r and now a7r2….i must say the a7r2 i can start to feel the increase in weight. I didn’t do any scientific calculations just the overall experience

14. I am spoiled by the size and weight of glass for APS-C E-Mount. And for my purposes I have a complete line of primes. I don’t want to go backwards to a “full-frame” system with lenses as large as for DSLR, at least with those that really matter for me: 28, 35, 55 and 85mm.

15. Size and weight are not the only factors but they sure are important. I’m not sure why anyone would really shoot a DSLR these days, but each to their own, I guess.

    If I had to shoot with a DSLR it would have to be something like a Leica S. The lenses are bigger (and way, way, better than even the best Canon, Sony or Nikon SLR lenses), but if you’re going to have a big camera, you may as well put a big sensor in it.

16. Can I take my A7rII to Iceland in the middle of winter? No one mentioned weather sealing. It’s the one thing holding back Sony from completely destroying the offerings from other manufacturers. For whatever reason, they just won’t answer the question seriously and have made false claims. If the A7rII had a body like the OMD series and could take on some water…now that would be end game and nothing left to argue IMHO.

17. I’m sure that Steve’s enthusiasm for the A7rii is justified and I would love to have some experience with what sounds like a dream camera. I am a recent Sony convert from Canon, but have not yet sold
    my 5DMarkiii and lenses. I am currently holding an RX1R and an A7ii with many lenses inckuding a both Loxias, Batis 25/2, 35/1.4, 70-200 f/4, and 55/1.8. The image quality from the Sony with those lenses is superior to all of my Canon kenses except the Canon 24-70 f/2.8. Yes, even the canon 24 f/1.4 and 35 f/1.4 primes. I am planning to sell the Canon gear, but honestly I get tripped up on the ergonomics (not weight) of the Sony vs Canon. Every time I shoot the Canon, it feels more natural and comfortable, mostly because I feel the body design is better balanced in the hand. I’m wondering if the Sony battery grip will resolve this. Anyway, IQ is better on the Sony and it is a better, lighter kit fror travel. But if Canon could ever up the sensor on the 5D, add an EVF with focus peaking, and match the sensor on the A7Rii, they would only then have a competing product. The 5DSR doesn’t seem like the answer and ergonomics aside, I’m real close to selling all of the Canon gear to recoup my Sony investment. That said, Sony could definitely use a better battery! And all and all, the Zeiss glass is just fantastic.

18. There is something crazy wrong with the A7RII and the posterization:

    http://diglloyd.com/blog/2015/20150819_1136-SonyA7R_II-posterization-BlueLake.html

    It’s not the only problem. Long exposure is a big no no too:

    http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56339030

    • Don’t believe everything you read. Especially Diglloyd propaganda. Has he made the RAW file available for others to test first hand? No. Then I’m not convinced.

      • The EXIF data for that Diglloyd files shows the file was saved as JPG quality 8. Given the compression, I would expect some posterisation. As a minimum, file should be saved as JPG quality 10. Even better, he should show us the RAW file.

    • that’s a big concern

19. Thanks Steve, when I was at the camera store considering to buy the A7r ii I asked the sales person to bring out the A7r ii, D810, 5Ds, lined them up and compared side by side. By far A7r ii is the camera size for the modern age, the large and bulky are no longer deemed professional nor advantages. But the to my hands the weight of the A7r ii seems slightly heavier, not a scientific evaluations (did not have a weighing scale at the store), firmer and solid non the least.

    At the same time I wanted to buy the grip to compliment the camera, once the grip was handed to me by the sales person my immediate reaction was that this grip is the ugliest piece of plastic crap I have ever seen to be attached to a camera. It is proportionately deformed and messes up the camera form factors once attached.

    At end I left the store with the A7r ii, without the grip of course.

    I only have one lens for the A7r ii as of right now, 35/1.4 Sony/Zeiss. My questions is would it make sense to buy both Batis and Loxia?

    • I skipped the grip as well, but do use the JB wood grip, which is gorgeous. More of a heigh extender than a grip though. The 35 1.4 is one of the best FE lenses, but large. The Loxia and Batis would only be needed if you desired a 25 or 85 or a 50 to go along with your 35. I was out with the Loxias today, love them.

      • Thanks Steve, I would probably get the Loxia first, as in South East Asia I have not been able to get the Batis at all, have tried from Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia with no luck.

20. Steve, A7R II is a gourgous little camera but let’s get real here for a moment:

    D810 + 50mm 1.4 = $3400 = 1160g with battery (that lasts for 1500 shots)
    A7R II + 55mm 1.8 (there is no 50mm 1.4 AF lens for this system yet) = $4100 = approx 1000g with 1 extra battery (which will get you 800 shots maybe)

    AF wise we all know it’s no contest, not even comparable, weight wise Sony is approx 150g lighter but less juice on a battery, $700 more for Sony. Why would anyone go for Sony? I can only think of ability to use old or new manual focus lenses. If you mostly shoot AF then there is really no argument here.

    • Let’s get more real:

      D810 + 50 1.4 (50 1.4 is NOT EVEN CLOSE to the 55 1.8 Zeiss in performance BTW, so let’s go with a comparable lens..are there any in the 50mm range?) is HUGE. A BEAST in the hand. Fat, and bulky. If you desire 1500 shots in a day, then by all means go for a Nikon. I was out all day shooting the A7RII, for about 6 hours. Used one battery and it is still half full yet I snapped off 236 shots today. Now on the charger for tomorrow. I had two spares in my bag, and they are small so easy to add in a small pocket. The A7RII has in body IS, 5 Axis and it works very well with video or for images. The video specs are tremendous, high ISO will beat the D810 and if you want a cheaper 50mm than the Zeiss, there are probably 20-30 to choose from that are stellar. Can’t do that on the Nikon. I shot today with the little 40 2.8 Pancake from Voigtlander..gorgeous lens and tiny. Can’t do that with the Nikon. In fact the Nikon also doesn’t have an EVF (which today is preferred by many over OVF) or swivel LCD. Makes no sense to me to go with a Nikon DSLR, they are fading fast these days in sales #’s as well. No one wants huge fat bodies with huge fat expensive lenses (if you want the good ones).

      But in the hand is where the difference is made. In use is where the difference is made. As for IQ, the D810 is not better than the Sony. It’s a no brainer when you have them both in hand, side by side and use them both side by side.

      • Everything you mentioned in your reply comes down to manual focus lenses. As far as AF is concerned DSLRs are still way ahead. Kudos for Sony for trying, I’m sure they will get there rather sooner than later but they are not there just yet.

        • Only for the really high-end dslr. For the middle range, backfocus, misfocus and all the associated troubles leave them way behind solid mirrorless like the E-M1, both in spedd AND accuracy. And Steve proved that in many countless articles.

        • I have both and the AF on the A7RII is every bit as good (possibly better) than the D810.

        • Paul the Sigma ART is a closer equivalent because the IQ and transmission is about the same (f1.7 vs f1.8 according to DxO). The difference in weight is much greater and the difference in price is much smaller.

      • I`m in the mirrorless camp with a A7rII and an EM5II and Leica. However, depending on the the camera/lens combo it`s a fact that the weight advantages for Sony`s FF system are quite insignificant as compared to top of the line DSLRs. Take the A7rII & the 35mm 1.4 and compare it with a D750 or D810 with a Sigma art 35 1.4 (in this comparison both are class leading f1.4 lenses). Cost wise the difference is considerable, weight wise the Sony combo has a slight advantage. In daylight the OVF has advantages, in dim light the EVF, AF is no contest, turning the camera on or waking up from sleep-no contest, battery, flash system no contest….. To cut a long story short, the Sony system should no be chosen because of “size advantage” only as it is by no means a really light weight or compact solution neither.

        • I disagree. Even in daylight the EVF wins by a comfortable margin. And in comparison (ok, ART 50 f/1,4 HSM on D810 vs FE 55 f/1,8 on A7RII), the focussing of the Sony did not take apreciably longer than the focussing on the D810 – in both cases taking one centre focussing field… and the D810 had more ‘misses’ than the A7RII, despite the fact that the Art 50 had been calibrated for the D810 body used for the comparison…

21. I think that one of the concerns people have is that mirrorless are getting bigger. Fuji’s new lens, the XF 50-140mm f/2.8, for example, is a 1kg (over 2 lbs.) “monster”. I own a Nikon DF, I love the retro looks and IQ, but is a very, very, large camera. I see here that the A7RII is a little smaller that the Nikon DF, nothing dramatic.

    According to the same source used in this post, the Sony A7R II is 42% heavier than the Fuji XT-1. (It is also thicker). 42% heavier….. !!!!

    Mirrorless needs to get a diet, or they will end up being the monsters they want to replace.

    ———-
    Here is the data from http://camerasize.com/
    Sony A7R II is 29% (13.6 mm) thicker than FujiFilm X-T1.
    Sony A7R II [625 g] weights 42% (185 grams) more than FujiFilm X-T1 [440 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).

    Sony A7R II dimensions: 126.9×95.7×60.3 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)
    FujiFilm X-T1 dimensions: 129×89.8×46.7 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)
    – See more at: http://camerasize.com/compare/#520,624

    • The XT-1 is an APS-C camera without IBIS. Sony made the choice to add IBIS. The downside is it adds thickness and weight. If you look at what the camera DOES the size is incredible.

22. Hi Steve, how about the comparing this with Leica Q which is also a full frame sensor camera & smaller than M240 …?

    • Size wise or performance? Id take the A7RII over a Q any day of the week for my own use. The Q is fantastic. Love it. Love the IQ and sensor. But at the end of the day, I prefer some versatility and the A7RII gives me the best of the A7s, A7II and then some. Best camera I have ever tested for my tastes. Is it my fave camera ever to use? No, that still goes to the Leica M but the A7RII bests the M or any Leica made today for 35mm format by quite a large margin.

23. Good ergonomics and adequate mass equal a certain size,weight and thus bulk. It’s all a trade-off, nothing to get worked up over.

24. There is another viewpoint to be considered. I am 6 – 2, weigh 195 pounds. and have large hands. I have owned Mamiya, Leicaflex, Canon, Nikon and Rollei cameras over the last 40 years. All of them “felt right” in my hands regardless of absolute size and weight. I didn’t like the latest Fujis because they are so small and the buttons are so hard to find without looking that they feel like toys. I won’t spend over $ 1,000 for something that feels like a kid’s camera. There is such a thing as too small and too light in my opinion. The latest Sonys are small and light enough while still having a quality, well built feel. That counts for a lot.

25. some people spend their lives comparing their toys and finding justfication for their decisions, while photographers focus on creating art. Some of the best images ever produced were shot with old dslr quipment that weight 3x the weight of the A7rii. So Honestly dont know what this subject has anything to do with my the IQ.

26. No question mirrorless means more compact and this illustrates it pretty well. I consider myself a total amateur, but it seems that the extra size must be for the optical viewfinder that dates back to film days. I have an old Canon T70 35mm film camera from the 1980s I haven’t used in over a decade and it’s probably comparable size to the right hand DSLRs. I find the EVF in my Sony a7 II just fine, but I wonder if pros still want the optical viewfinder for some reason. Otherwise yeah, why would you want something bigger?

    • Canon T70 was small compare to modern DSLR.. Size: 5-15/16 x 3-1/2 x 1-7/8″ (151 x 89 x 48mm) and Weight with batteries: 19.772 oz (560.6g)

    • many find an optical viewfinder much preferable to an evf. I still can’t believe Sony hasn’t copied fuji’s hybrid system, would please both sides.

      • Actually the majority today prefer a good EVF, and there are a few really good EVF’s. Once you shoot with a good one, it is TOUGH to go back to OVF for so many reasons. I can not stand OVF’s today as it takes os much away from the experience. A good EVF is amazing in use, and gives you a WYSIWYG image so you know what your image will look like. You know if you nail focus or if the system missed and you know how your metering will affect the image as well. Some will always prefer an OVF as that is what they are used to, and many hate change. My fave EVF is in my Sony A7s actually, then the Fuji X-T1, then Olympus E-M1 – all fantastic.

27. The only weight I feel is the plastic crushing noise of my credit card breaking under the $4200 cost of the a7r2 and 55mm 1.8. I would shoot music gigs with a d700, 70-200 and d3, 24-70 for hours and never thought of it for a moment, other than loving my work.

    Outside in our super camera paranoid world a smaller camera is a must psychologically. But once the Sony 55mm is nosing around, that factor is gone. So the less weight factor quickly falls away to my twisted hands and fingers cramped on the tiny body fumbling to push little buttons and awkward dials.

    I don’t shoot on the street and I don’t shoot silent standing frozen object. I need to get the shot. Dancers, Ragers, leaping guitarist, swan diving divas, all cry out to be snatched from the air, and Sonys AF while MUCH better than the RX1’s mind numbing stumblings, is still awkward.

    Sony has great image quality and great lens, I love it. And when I have a subject that sitting like a rock waiting patiently for my SONY to confirm a lock, we all happily stare at the results.

    But if you are shooting life in motion, then Sony still hasn’t met the bar a working photographer needs. I can’t wait for AF to stumble in low light or stand idle into the EV preview pop up. ( that can be turned off right ha )

    I actually like a larger sized camera and when I shoot gigs, shows or weddings, no one sees my cameras. The are looking at the stage and want to see photos that my Nikon has snapped.

    As for 4k video which is gorgeous, it’s terribly jerky as IS is terrible in video mode as the AF pumps the air, and if I have to use a tripod the. I may as well get a FS7.

    Love the image quality but if I can’t get the picture it doesn’t matter. I have a RX1 set to center focus only for images of buildings, quiet people, and smiling faces aimed at me.

    The hype prompted me to buy this, just like the RX1 and I was sad and shocked that I still don’t need one.

    • I agree. I wonder why noone has brought up the ergonomics/handling argument (smaller usually isn’t better; the D750 and the Df feel awkward in my medium sized hands which cramp up with them, the D8xx feels almost perfect) and the weight/mass argument. A light camera is more difficult to stabilize (yes yes; IS) and weight/mass helps there.

      Actually the best handling camera I have, both for ergonomics as for weight/mass is the beautiful Contax RTSIII (really lovely sounding shutter too) which, combined with the equally excellent 1.4/35 AE Distagon is an appr 1.8 kgs outfit and yes, you feel that at the end of the day, but it also allows you to make sharp pictures at 1/8 secs. Try doing that with a light and small body.

      • I agree, the Sony is a camera I so much wanted to work. My rx1 images are some of my favorite. But working with the A7r2, I find it one of the most uninspiring experiences I have ever had with a camera. I struggle to understand exactly why? Beyond the tiny toy size, and the not so RX1 build quality ( tank vs jeep ) I think maybe it was the price vs the hype.

        This size for me is counter productive. If I need super small camera, I use a Nikon Coolpix or a Ricoh GR. these
        get me candid shots in closed in spaces. Small lens, small camera, high quality, especially the Coolpix.

        For work gigs I love the big sized d3s Nikon. Goes all day, through all events and my hands are fine.

        • The A7RII is bigger than the RX1 and built better as well. Sure you own an A7RII? Care to share some images you shot with it? By the sounds of it, you bought a different camera, or never really owned the A7RII, as A: It is not tiny, and B: It is built to a higher standard than the RX1, and has a better sensor. It’s one of the most inspiring cameras I have used in years just due to the possibilities that exist with it (endless).

    • @ calm sea, It would be ridiculous to expect the A7Rii to remove dslr jitters, only to improve upon them. Having said that this camera works extremely well with someone who has steady hands, takes the proper strides and understands how to make this camera work for them. If you want a real video camera and can afford it then you should make the leap to the FS7 it is better the the A7rii in every single way (Slog 3, more professional settings, xlr inputs, ability to go as high as 12 bit raw at 240 fps). The only reason to purchase as A7Rii as a video camera is because its more affordable, or perhaps you need the smaller profile. I have owned and A7s and Fs7 for over 6 months now and even tho the a7s is terrific for the price the Fs7 is a better video camera in every single way (excluding low light).

      I just added the A7rii and it does have a lovely image but its not as good as my Fs7 in low light and its not even close to being as sharp. However, it takes great pictures and in a pinch I have a small 4k camera that can allow for shooting not possible on a larger camera.

28. What about doing a gripped comparison 😛

29. As a Nikon d810 and Olympus Omd I user have been eying up the Sony for some time and whilst image quality I great – I would like to see smaller faster lenses from them as I just can’t see the physical advantage with lenses attached. It’s marginal at best. The Olympus may not have the pixel peeping quality but I have done pro shoots with it with no complaints. The lenses available are amazing and the portability is still unmatched imho….

30. I hope and prey Olympus will come out with some pancake primes for the FE mount.
    Something like the Pana 20mm 1.7 would be a dream. That is when I will jump on board with fullframe Sony.

    • Olympus will never make lenses for FE mount. If they did, they would be much larger as they would have to cover the full frame, so they would not be the same size as the M 4/3 versions. Those are smaller as the sensor is half size, so they can stay small. But Olympus will never make lenses for Sony FE.

31. There still is someone claiming tha the E-M1 is a fail because with the fixed grip now it is bigger as a Canon 7d… Go figure…
    BTW those people have never seen an E-M1 irl, but they still propagate the argument on the net.

    • E-M1 is MUCH smaller than a 7D, lol. Some people are funny.

32. To me the difference is whether or not i can fit a camera into a pocket. I own a Nikon D700 and carrying it along with a short prime (20, 28 or 50 mm) isn’t really a big deal. I’ve had both a Panasonic GF1 and a Fuji X100S and i still left them at home when i didn’t want to carry a bag. I’ve never tried the Sony A7’s but the problem would be the same. If i need a small camera it would be something like a Sony RX100 or Nikon Coolpix A.

    • I’m the same man…but what I found that with my A7 when I travel I can carry less all my crap…including clothes in my carry on luggage now. A7 and 55mm packs away easily.

      But in terms of grab’n’go its not THAT small. And using with the f4 70 200 its a big kit. Bit still every ounce on my back matters.

    • But it’s still miles smaller than your d700 and prime! And the problem is not the same as it is SMALLER! If you want pocketable why not just buy bigger bloody pants!!! Now there’s an idea! Steve why don’t you bring out a line of photographers pants that have a bigger pocket so numpties can be satisfied with having there wonderful gear in there pockets!

      • Bigger pockets would also be helpful to carry all that money to buy all this fancy stuff…

      • “But it’s still miles smaller than your d700 and prime!” Maybe. But i still need a bloddy bag to carry it in 😉 You just don’t get it: it doesn’t matter whether it weighs 800 or 1200 grams as long as i have to keep an eye on it when not using it. With a pocketsized camera i can just – oh well – put it in my pocket, relax and worry about anything else. That’s what makes a difference to me.

33. Remember when you bought a 35mm to have a small camera to carry when the big bulky 500CM was too much?

    • I still carry my 2000FC/M regularly – usually with the Planar F 110 f/2 and the Distagon F 50 f/2,8, two film backs, a Seconic L758, and an RX-1 (or M8 with Elmarit 28) with a few spare batteries… heavy, but delivers nice results… alternatively (if it is “Portrait Day”, the Distagon and the RX-1/M8 stay home, and A7R , Sony/Zeiss FE 55 and Summilux 80 come along instead… or the HL with Canon RF 50 f/0,95.

34. Steve, why don’t you compare apple’s with apples? Sure Sony’s A7r II’s body is smaller and lighter than the cameras you compared them with, and it definitely makes for a great point and shoot with those tiny lenses. But if you want to take professional photos and a attach a speed light and a telephoto lens, there’s virtually no difference in weight and bulk between a real camera such a D750 (which is frankly cheaper and better than the Sony in many ways, but let’s leave that aside). In fact I will prove to you that the Sony gear is bulkier. Let’s compare pure specs in terms of weight of the complete gear (all data taken from Sony and Nikon websites):

    Sony A7r II body with 1 battery: 625g
    Sony FE 70-200mm f/4: 840g
    Sony HVL-F60M External Flash: 450g (without batteries
    4 x External flash batteries 100g
    5 x NP-FW50 Lithium-Ion Rechargeable Batteries 212g

    Total Sony gear: 2,227 kg

    Nikon D750 body: 750g
    Nikkor 70-200 f/4 850g
    SB-700 AF Speedlight 360g
    EN-EL15 Battery for Nikon 85g

    Total Nikon gear: 2,045 kg

    Now imagine, with the Sony you get a worse lens than the Nikkor, and you have to pack around 6 batteries (that come with the hassle of charging, and changing every 2 hours), while with the Nikon you have a lighter gear with just 1 battery that can last a day without charge. Nobody shoots with the body only, the body is a dumb and useless sensor without lenses, batteries and accessories.

    • 1st off, A7RII beats the D750 handily, and who is going to go around with all of that in a bag for daily shooting? I haven’t used a flash in 20 years, I carry 2 batteries, which are tiny. I carry the A7RII, a Loxia 35 and usually a 50. MUCH MUCH smaller, sleeker, better feel, better IQ, more capable than the D750 is. Much thinner as well, which helps A LOT when shooting. I can also take the A7RIi, slap the Voigtlander 15 on it and get gorgeous images. I can attach a Leica 35 1.4, which is tiny and get amazing IQ with it. I can attach a Nikon 70-200 if I wish, something the Nikon can never do (attach Sony, Leica or other lenses). With the A7RII I can get creative and add an old Canon f 0.95 Dream lens (Nikon can not do that). I can shoot amazing 4K video with the Sony with in body 5 Axis IS. I can shoot at ISO 102,000 and have it usable. I can go on and on and on and on. Now if I were in the small % of those who lug around big flash gear, I would still stick with the A7RII for the days I do not, and want lighter, smaller, just as fast and better IQ with all of the other features the D750 can not do. For me, and yes, I shot with the D750 quite a bit, its a no contest slam dunk. Also, the Sony lenses coming out are in no way “worse” than the Nikon counterparts, in fact, they just may be better. Look at the lens tests on technical sites 🙂 Oh, and I fit my day to day Sony A7RII kit in a Wotancraft Ryker bag, which would not hold a D750 and two lenses yet it holds the Sony and three lenses for me.

      • Steve- his example is taking one body, one lens, and a flash… seems kinda basic set up to me. I didn’t realize the Sony was so good you don’t need even one lens anymore! 😉 you don’t use flash for your style of photography… but the vast majority of pro’s and many amateurs do. I’m not saying one is better then the other, but it’s not as clear cut as you are saying.

        • Its pretty clear cut. I know thousands in the photo world, and speak with hundreds..out of them maybe 2% use flash. 😉 But people do use it, I do not. I write about my experiences as I have for 7 1/2 years now. So what you read here is all based on my experience with whatever I review. The A7RII is the best camera I have reviewed to date. It is what it is.

          • With ISO useable to 27,000 or more, the only reason to use flash is for fill, and a very small flash unit will suffice. Shadow recover works so well with the Sony that even fill flash is hardly needed. For studio shots, I use studio flash units, studio modifiers and a flash meter – no tinkering with CLS or other quasi-automated nonsense. In the 9 months I’ve owned a A7ii, the only time I’ve needed a tripod is for positional consistency between shots (e.g., group shots), certain closeups and astronomical photography.

            The A7 is about the same size as a Leica M, and nowhere near as large as a D3, D100 or even an F3. If you read otherwise, it’s time to turn on the truth meter behind your eyeballs. Nikon prime lenses are about the same diameter as a Loxia, but remember you need a 1-1/2″ long adapter to use a Nikon SLR lens. That done, the image quality of Nikon lenses is far less than lenses made expressly for the A7.

        • Yes, it is a basic setup that Taiwan Explorer gave – One body plus a wide coverage long zoom. If this is your style of shooting then please, keep your dSLR. Most of the mirrorless shooters I know and appreciate are mixing it up, carrying a few small lightweight primes, maybe an adapted rangefinder mount lens or two, and yes, a zoom on occasion.

          It is a different mindset – compact, light, fast and empowering.

    • The Nikon SB-700 doesn’t require batteries? That’s conveniently missing. Also 1 Nikon battery doesn’t equal 5 Sony, it’s roughly 3 in real world shooting. Also I’d rather pack a Nissin i40 flash that’s smaller, lighter (203g) and has higher guide number versus either the Sony or Nikon flashes.

    • But you aren’t comparing “apples to apples” either.

      1. The A7RII is spec’ed closer to the D810 which is larger, heavier and has a slightly lower battery life. You’ve also got one extra batter Sony battery for equivalent CIPA shot rating. But we’ll stick to your apples vs oranges comparison.

      2. The A7RII is always in live view mode. Just like Steve took issue with your flash choice (more on that in a sec) many photographers need live view. User reports suggest that will lower your D750/D810 battery life to 200-300 shots per battery!

      3. You’re comparing Nikon’s smallest full-size flash with Sony’s largest? Swap that out to the SB-910 (which is the HVL60’s equivalent) and suddenly your weight difference disappears.

      If you shoot with one speedlight and a 70-200mm exclusively, using only the OVF, and you don’t need any of the A7RII’s other features then, yes, you’ve come up with a scenario where Nikon equals the Sony in weight. As soon as you start adding any other lenses or start using live view or video or IBIS or higher resolutions or … well you get the idea. SLRs are great. They have their place but no full frame SLR with a similar feature set comes close to the weight of the A7 series. If you like SLRs that’s fine. Focus on their other strengths but this is one area that can be quantified and compared.

35. I absolutely love watching how closed minded people are and will argue for the sake of arguing of what they believe is best. Most people cannot admit that maybe what they’ve invested in over the years is outdated, yes, it’s still a beautiful huge camera body for sure that shoots perfect, but come on. Maybe many people have such huge hands that they simply find the A7 series small. I’m not sure how anyone can say that the A7 series is the same size or slightly smaller that some of these, absolutely funny. Nice comparison Steve, your now my #1 go to comedy forum. Maybe some have never seen the cameras side by side! I love this site!

36. Very nice job, but I am not sure that this is the reason people chose any camera. People like Canon, people like Nikon, people like Fuji, people like Leica etc. Does size make them change? I do not think so. After all photography is the way people interact with the world and try to be part of it. I like my Leica. I love my Fuji X100T.

    • I loved my 5D Mark II with some great Canon and Zeiss lenses but, man, once I started using the A7s, there is no return. It feels so much better in the hands and on the shoulder. To me, without a doubt, size and weight of my gears do matter.

    • It was my reason for just that, I carried my canon 50d and three lenses in a sling bag for five days in Rome and had should pain for three weeks, I am 71 and boy am I glad I have the a7s with just the 24-240mm for travel plus some zeiss sony lenses for day to day use. Lots of people have very active lives nowadays and look for small and light in their photography but we are all individuals and have our personal preferences and reasons for choice.

      Regards.

      • Vic- you do realize that the 50d and a all around zoom weighs less than your Sony A7s?…. i’m worried about your shoulder for the next trip when you realize you just doubled the weight of your kit….

37. Hi Steve, great comparison, thanks. I too have read where the A7rII is about the same size as the bigger DSLR’s and I just thought what are these guys smoking? It is so much easier to carry around Sony A7rII or A7II as apposed to a DSLR all day WITH bigger lenses….been there, done that. I still get a charge over the fact that it is lighter and smaller; especially on long photo hikes, really though, even when I just step outside or don’t go all that far it’s still a pleasure. And, not withstanding the quality of photos that I’m getting from the Sony…HELLO.

38. Thank you for doing this!

    • Dude go shoot the camera and crop some pictures… I dare you to find the issues of which you speak…. I cropped heavily to test what 42mpix brought to the table … The results where jaw dropping…. can’t say it’s was all that different from my D810… But that’s the point….the crops looked no worse….

      • exactly.

39. Outside of driving traffic to your website what does it matter what camera a person uses? I like the Mark III – friends of mine like the Fuji other like their iphone, don’t understand why we have to always compare the different types that are completely different. now what is educational is explaining out the Sony works, good lens for it, comparing it to another mirrorless…but why do mirrorless folks try and convince the DSLR folks to change? It’s like Apple versus Android…who care what someone else has…if it works well for them and they like 98% of photographers have invested blood sweat and tears into their hard earned gear they can’t just say well… that A7 is so much better I’m just going to dump by 1DX and get it when both do the exact same thing and do it well…and that’s take pictures and even if you blew them up to billboard size both would give you a great result… I actually like having a large DSLR with battery grip no less even if I’m carrying it around all day at the zoo or hiking in the hills of Tennessee…not trying to be ugly here just my opinion.

    • It does matter because some people want to know. Some photographers do take into account these things. You don’t have to, but there you have it.

    • +1

      • ha… i was agreeing with Randy’s comments.

40. as a devils advocate… a decent example i’ve seen elsewhere is the sony a72 vs nikon d750, total difference is 4 oz, while the d750 is a tiny bit bigger/heavier it also balances the longer lenses much better than the sony. Lens wise, i’ve found them to be very similar, they both have light weight and heavy primes, same with zooms. The D800/D4 are bigger, but they are also made to take a level of abuse that the sony (or a digital leica) would never survive. Personally i find leica to have the ideal size weight balance down. As i have owned all three systems (and still own 2), i’ve never found a D700 with a 24-70 2.8 to be particularly heavy and if you use a black rapid style strap, easy to cary around all day. I’m sure as i get older my opinion could change, but if weight is really that big an issue, just get a D7100 or 70D with a 50 1.8. or a m4/3 … way lighter

    • Id bet the A7RII can take just as much daily abuse as a D810. To me feels just as tough but nicer in the hand of course. If weight is an issue and you want full frame there is no need to compromise, why go APS-C or 4/3 when the A7 series is smaller than a D7100 or 70D yet offers full frame with what I feel is the best sensor out right now (as well as lenses btw as they are smaller as well, but also better quality than any Nikon or Canon 50 1.4 or 1.8) and M 4/3 is not full frame so of course they will be smaller still. The A7RII offers full frame, best sensor out right now, some amazing glass that is much lighter than Nikon/Canon and more enjoyable to shoot IMO than any DSLR. Bottom line is the Sony A7RII is smaller than ANY DSLR, performs as good or better, and is more enjoyable to shoot and much lighter and less bulk. Theres nothing to NOT like about that.

41. The whole weight thing to me is silly. If you want to make a camera easier to carry, drop a few pounds. You’ll be better off when you carry a camera and when not carrying one.
    Maybe the weight excuse is just an excuse for a new camera..so just say I want a new camera!

    • Weight affects MANY when shooting. If you go out with say a D810 or D4 your wrist will not be happy at the end of the day, and those heavy lenses will be killing you shoulder in the bag. When I shot a Canon 6D and three lenses in NYC for s day my shoulders were killing me (and I am in shape) at the end of the day. I DID NOT enjoy it, AT ALL. When I go out all day with a Leica, Sony, Olympus…. it is VERY enjoyable and even if I was to be out for 10 hours, no shoulder pain, no issues. So weight is important to many people who go out and shoot all day long. No excuses, it is what it is but is also one reason why I have shot Leica, Sony and Olympus for the past 8 years. I go with what gives a great user experience, what gives amazing output and what has a nice lens selection. When I find a camera that does all of that very well and is smaller and lighter, it’s a win win.

    • The weight thing is not silly. Wedding photographers carry multiple cameras, lenses and flashes and are moving on their feet often for 8+ hours. It makes a big difference when carrying two cameras on your body, or when carrying all of your gear up and down stairs, etc. It can be the difference between a 10-12 lb. bag and a 18-20 lb. bag. Many wedding photographers have bags with wheels because the bags are so heavy. Also when you raise the camera up to your eye hundreds of times in a day, your wrists really feel any weight differences. It makes a difference for hikers and climbers too.

42. Might there not be times where one would like to crop an image for detail, absent having a telephoto lens? For example, one might be traveling light with an excellent “normal” prime and wish to photograph a gargoyle on a gothic church–and then crop just for the gargoyle. Might the compression in such a case affect the image quality in a print? This probably won’t determine whether or not I purchase the camera as a replacement for a D810 but it’s useful to know the limitations of one’s tools as much as possible before the acquisitions.

    Thank you, very much.

    • Robert, it doesn’t. The only occasions when those artifacts are found are on high contrast areas where the shadows were raised in post to an extent where the images get unusable. You can crop any normally exposed shot as much as you want and still have great images!

    • No. This is the most over wrought issue in the internet echo chamber. If you do extreme crops on star trail images and you push the shadows in post you MIGHT see compression artifacts. MAYBE. Yes, Sony compresses the RAW files but they do it because 99.99% of the time it does not matter. It really, really doesn’t. If you find the few documented cases of the compression that exist online you will see that they are very rare specialty scenarios (people who have found artifacts and used RAW image analysis software to verify what they are seeing is due to compression and CA or noise—because you have to push the image pretty close to the breaking point to see the compression artifacts).

43. I don’t really know or care about the uncompressed raw thing, but if some professionals want it why not give it to them? Also sony are doing great with cameras but should also produce more variety of lenses, so people don’t have to worry about adaptors… That said I have an A7ii and love it 🙂

    • Right now I have the 16-35, 28, 35, 55, 85, and 70-200 ranges covered in FE mount all except the 28 weather sealed to go with my weather sealed A7rii. …. Don’t shoot much macro but a good one is now available…. and more lenses are coming …. Where I agree with you is in cheaper and faster lenses ( thought the primes are fast enough at f1.8 and F2)…. Still considering the quality of the lenses and the the face that the FE cameras have only been out 2years or so…. I think Sony is doing amazing …. Definitely better than they handled the APS-C line….

44. I compleatly agree. I just can’t lug a D810 around all day anymore. My ONY reservation is the lack of true rAW output. I have already see a test that seems to confirm that the RAW compression of the A7rII files does detrimentally effect the Dynamic range. I REALLY love the DR of the D810’s SONY sensor. I would like to think that a firmware update to output true RAW would be possible but until then I will stick with the D810.

    • Who looks at their images at 400%? I do not. Pixel peepers do but they have nothing to do with photography. The RAW thing, for me is silly as you will NEVER see an issue in print or in an online image. I do not blow up my images to 400% and print that image at 400% 😉 Not sure who does that.

      • Why in the world would you compare the D4 or 1DX to the Sony, they are both special purpose pro gear.

        • I compared SIZE, not the camera. So online, in certain forums have not only said the A7 is the same size as a 5D and D810, I also saw someone saying it was not far off from a D4, lol. So the sizes are shown here to prove that is not the case. Seems some Canon and Nikon fans are spreading myths 😉

          • Steve, if you’re comparing size and weight (very informative but not surprising of course), why bring the “quality” argument into so many of your replies? That muddies the waters.

      • I do occasionally look at my images at 400%, because if someone wants to enlarge them to poster size, I want to know if they can hold up. Simple as that. So far, no enlargements, but one never knows!

    • I have had dozens of my images rejected because they said the RAW file was compressed. NOT.

45. Thanks for this. I agree with what you’re saying. But I’m still a little put off by how large, and specifically long, the Sony FE primes are. If you use that same site and put a 50mm canon prime on that 5d, and then compare to the a7Rii with the 55mm … the difference is going to seem a lot less. Depends on which Canon prime you choose. If you go with f1/8 in both cases, then this will look really good for Canon. Obviously the Sony/Zeis f1.8 is better, so compromise and use the Canon f1.4. Still, it doesn’t look like the Sony advantage is as big as I would like, in considering the cost of switching. What do you think?

    • The Cano 5D with a 50 1.8 and the A7RII with the Sony 55 1.8 or even Loxia 50 f/2 will be much shorter. The 55 1.8, Loxia 50 are small lenses but with amazing optics unlike the cheap 50 1.8’s for Nikon and Canon.

      • The Nikon 50 1.8G is actually quite amazing to. The Sony is longer, weighs 100 g more and costs 6 times as much… Sorry – not to be rude 🙂

        • Sorry Lars, but I have experience from Nikon 50/1.4G and 1.8 G (on D800)as well as the Sony 55/1.8 on A7r: The IQ of the Sony is excellent and the Nikon option gloomy in comparison. the Sony 55/1.8 is not cheap but it is neither expensive!

        • @Lars: The Nikon 50/1.8 G is a dog compared to the Sony 55/1.8 and the Loxia.

          • The Sony may be better, but the Nikon is still a very good lens. And the price of the Sony is still 6 times more and it’s bigger and heavier.

      • Dear Steve – Thanks for all your work on the site, which is invaluable and basically just plain wonderful. Of course you are right about IQ. And while you may be right if you argue that this doesn’t matter, I don’t think you are right about your “much shorter” claim here. I can’t figure out how I can post a picture, but I tried the same website, and the A7RII with the 55 f1.8 is definitely longer in size than the 5DIII with the 50 f1.8.

        • As I say, you may be right if you think this length unimportant, given the Sony advantages in many other respects, including massive IQ. (And another advantage: an apparently brighter future for the system, given Sony’s increasing advantage in sensors. But, in general, I would find it easier to pay the money to switch if there were a better mix of *affordability* *speed* and *smallness* in primes for the Sony. For one thing, I can’t afford a lot of (or maybe any?) $1000 primes! For another, I doubt I need quite the sharpness advantage of the s/z 55mm — in fact I would likely trade some of its insane corner sharpness for f/1.4 and/or smaller size.

        • Id have to see for myself but don’t see how that is even possible, as the A7RIi is THIN (do not count the grip, but the mount area) and the 5DIII is massively FAT, and the 55 1.8 is not large but it is leagues better than the 50 1.4 of the Canon. 🙂

          • A 5D3 with 50 1.8 or 1.4 is indeed shorter : http://camerasize.com/compact/#312.471,624.395,312.305,ha,t

            But it still heavier and much bigger in every other measurements.

          • A link, yes, why didn’t I think of that. This is just what I wanted to show. Thanks.

    • A real comparison would be the Sigma 50mm f1.4 since it’s actual transmission rating is within a 1/3 of a stop from the Sony FE55mm (f1.7 vs f1.8 according to DxO) and they perform similarly. Add one of those to the Canon 6D and you’ll see it is still much larger in every way.

46. Maybe the dslrs are larger so they have room for a real battery.

    • Well, the A7RIi ships with two SMALL batteries that get me around 350-400 shots each, not a problem. I have 6 of them but travel with two. So a large battery would add bulk, size and weight.

      • One thought that I never see being mentioned concerning the batterry. Isn’t it to be preferred to empty a batterry completely before recharing it? When having only one huge batterry, one always needs to recharge earlier then empty. I know my last Canon batterry got into trouble because of that. For my Sony, I carry two extra’s in my bag, which I don’t feel, because they’re very small and light. But the main thing is: I only have one in my hand…

        • This would very much depend on the type of battery and quality of the charger (decent originals prefererred over dubious cheap copies, for safety reasons – one use of a charger which does exceed charge current or full charge voltage limits may have undesirable consequences).

          With Lithium Ion batteries like the NP-FW50 there is no negative effect in recharging them partially discharged – actually, Lithium Ion batteries should not normally and regularly be completely discharged, as this tends to reduce service life and reliablity.

          Full discharge is sensible from time to time to re-calibrate, otherwise just recharge after use. The battery of my first NEX has been recharged several hundred times without ill effects. I allow a full discharge in use if and when needed, or otherwise force it once per months… some sources say that this is not necessary but experience with Lithium Ion batteries in test equipment used in my employer’s environment shows this to be a sensible measure to keep batteries serviceable.

          • I have a Watson double charger that charges two Sony NP-FW50 batteries in about one hour. It takes 2-3 hours to charge my D3 batteries.

          • I still find it quite a hussle to keep your (big) batterry in top condition when you don’t (or can’t) charge it from empty to full as a rule. Also, I regularly forget to charge, when I get home. And I know I’m not the only one! If you only have one heavy and big, long lasting batterry, that appears to be empty, because you forgot to reload it, you’re in trouble. But since I own eight batteries, I always have at least 3 full batteries at my disposel, enough for a full day of shooting. I still own two batteries that I got from my NEX-5, of the very first series. The batteries are still in perfect condition, since I always empty and fill them completely. Honestly, I see only advantages to small batteries, and I was very relieved when I noticed that the batteries of the A7RII hadn’t changed.

          • Never had any issue with a “big” battery losing it’s charge due to it never being fully discharged.

            Fact is, a “big” battery isn’t big at all, you know why? because it’s in the camera grip already. Where as having 2 “small” batteries is a pain in the arse, since the 2 small ones are larger than a “big” Nikon battery, and it requires changing, requires storing while you move, and requires protection. In the mean time a Nikon/Canon owner sits there with one battery that takes 3 times as many shots as your small battery.

        • In general I’ve read the way to maximize lifespan of Lithium-ion batteries is to only charge to eighty or ninety percent, when possible; and, don’t let the charge fall below forty or fifty percent as much as possible; also, avoid overheating the battery at all costs, as that is the biggest battery killer. And if you are going to store a battery without using it for a while, store it at forty percent charged (and every few months, if it needs it, bring the charge back up to forty percent. Oh, and don’t leave batteries on trickle chargers after charged. Any other advice?

    • Switching to sub 500g high iso cameras has made me appreciate not having surplus weight for anything more than achieving the shot I want at that very instant. If you need more batteries carry them on your hip, in a pocket, your back will thank you for not carrying a tripod ever again.

    • I have a real battery in my A7. It said so right on the packaging. You can even charge them too. I love real batteries.

    • Shot my new A7rii this weekend, 150 photos over 6 hours burnt thru about 27% of the battery. So that means I could probably easily squeeze around 500 shots out of a freshly charged battery. Less than on my D810 for sure…but more than I would need for a day of shooting…. the battery knock is over stated for photographers…. Put the camera in Airplane mode and turn the camera off after snapping your shot (it’s very responsive and comes back on quickly) and you shouldn’t have too many issues…. Besides the batteries are small enough to carry 2.

    • D810 is 335g more, that’s the weight of 8 extra batteries for the A7. I’d love a longer lasting battery too, but geez, so played.

      • That is of course assuming that they are carrying the additional batteries in the same hand as the camera…

        • Carry extra batteries in the same hand? In the U.S., trousers have pockets 😉

    • I’ve been around long enough to have shot with negative film. Changing a roll every 36 images was what had to be done, even in the cold, rain, sand… Changing a battery every 300 shots is a piece of cake, a non-issue. Sometimes I can’t believe what some guys complain about.

Comments are closed.