Nice review overall, but I think they’re being unnecessarily harsh on the A7 II, especially on the matter of lenses — or lack thereof:
But many of the original A7’s faults remain: native lens options are still woefully limited and expensive (Sony offers a paltry seven, and a number of those overlap with each other), image quality at higher ISOs is not as good as other cameras, the autofocus system still lags behind, and battery life is still short. Though Sony improved many things with the A7 II, if you didn’t like last year’s camera, you’re not likely going to be satisfied with this year’s.
Sports photographers, portrait photographers, studio photographers, or anyone that just wants a lot of lenses to choose from are still better served by a DSLR than Sony’s A7 lineup.
I find it funny that they would choose that particular aspect to criticize, because in my mind lens selection is precisely one of the strongest selling points of the A7 system. There may not be many native offerings yet, but the few lenses available are all excellent, and it’s the only camera system in the world that’s compatible with all full-frame DSLR and rangefinder lenses out there — with the use of adapters, of course. So if your work requires you to shoot with many different lenses, how exactly would you be better served by a DSLR?
Via Josh Ginter.