I'm currently shooting an A7II. It's a great camera but I'm not impressed with the AF, and low light performance by todays standards and it would be nice to have built in 4K for occasional use.
Currently the A7III is $1999 and the A7RII is going for $2300 new or $1700ish used. Same ball park.
I mainly shoot in the mountains. Hiking and Rock/Ice Climbing. Occasionally I'll do a portrait session. This will also be my "walk around fun camera".
Things I care about:
-Resolution
-AF Performance
-Image Quality
-Weather Sealing
-Reliablity
-4K capable
-Decent Low Light Performance
-Battery Life
Things I don't care about as much:
-Continuous Shooting
-Dual Cards? (not a top priority)
-Touch Screen
I'm torn between the A7III and A7RII here. I would like the A7RII's higher resolution but the updated AF of the A7III is tempting. Battery life is important, but I already own six batteries for the A7II and they're not that cumbersome to carry arround as spared.
How much better is the A7RII's auto focus compared to my older A7II? Does the A7RII's weather sealing compete with the A7III?
Gah! I like the new shiny things. But there's something drawing me to that 42 MP sensor. I know the ultimate solution would be to pick up an A7RIII however this is out of my budget.
I have had both...for your kind of shooting and your needs...get a lightly used rII...there is NO difference in mage quality and the AF on the rII is quite accurate and fast enough. I shoot professionally and there is not that great a difference between the two. Eye AF on the RII works quite well as does continuous af. Put that extra money into some glass instead. Later on...if you need more speed, you can buy the a7III as a second body.
It looks like the A7r III is the one that ticks all the boxes there . If you can take less of the AF performance and battery life then the A7r II is a formidable camera...still. And yes, the 42MP sensor is superb.
Mar 14, 2018 at 09:49 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Well for me I would get the A7r II, but I don't care at all about AF and I like the higher resolution at times. You seem to understand the pros and cons well, but I will comment on just a few things that you mention. For AF, the A7III is likely to be noticeably better than the A7r II, but the A7r II is noticeably better than the A7 II, so even the A7r II would be an upgrade in AF. The A7 III should be better at low light AF as it is rated a stop better. With regard to image quality, I would expect the two cameras to have similar dynamic range and high ISO performance, but we won't know for sure until the A7 III is release. The higher resolution of the A7r II, however, will allow big prints and more cropping capabilities than the A7 III. With regard to weather sealing, reliability, and video capabilities I expect them to be similar. The A7r II is a great video camera, but I expect the A7 III to be excellent as well. Obviously the battery life is better on the A7 III. So, I think the big difference is do you want better AF or higher resolution? That is probably what makes most sense to drive your decision.
Thanks for the advice folks. Steve Spencer I think you're right. I need to decide between AF or Resolution. I'm going to go play with a A7R2 today and see just HOW much better the AF is over my A7II.
The A7r2 has noticeably better AF than the A7mk 2, however, due to the general responsiveness of the R3, it feels like it blows the socks off the R2, it feels gigantic in practice.
silent shutter on the R3 much more usable
EVF if you do any type of MF, is a massive improvement
I still use the R2 for smooth reflections and landscapes in general, but hard as hell to use it for normal everyday use due to how good the R3 is.
The full frame 4K of the R3 is considerably better in low light, around 2-3 stops improvement, essentially usable in all scenarios. R2 falters in VERY low light, but generally OK outside of that.
Dare I say, the R3 is a camera that you can shoot for the next 10 years and be very satisfactory. I think that's a very bold statement among the GAS crowd, but that's my impression of it. It's so good at everything.
dills84 wrote:
Thanks for the advice folks. Steve Spencer I think you're right. I need to decide between AF or Resolution. I'm going to go play with a A7R2 today and see just HOW much better the AF is over my A7II.
Tough call but given these criteria than get the A7rIII. As a hobbyist you will get at least 3 years of use . Break that down in costs at lets say you can grab one at 2900. 36 into 2900 about 80 dollars a month. Not bad considering your getting the latest and greatest with 42 mpx and terrific AF and more important your moving to the new battery that will be around in the future. You also get the better EVF. To me this is a no brainer. But I’m a pig and always go for the best.
Again....I have the r3, have had the r2, yes, the battery life in r2 is miserable, but they are cheap and light, so buy a few more batteries. The review time on r2 is a little slower, which matters if you are doing event work.The double card slots is vital to pros. The af joystick is useable, but it is really cramped around there for your thumb. I found moving the af around with the wheel on the R2 to be fine also. Contrary to what you are hearing....the AF is NOT that much better in the R3, in fact, I felt the AF in the R2 was somewhat more consistently accurate, but that could be just a copy variation. As far as the viewfinder, I felt no detriment between the old and new. Lots of folks who give advice here, have not even owned both. As far as a usable camera for a hobbyist, either one of these will have the same longevity...since as you know , the next greatest thing is always right around the corner.
Something not discussed but on the 'care about' list was weather sealing. The A7RIII (and presumably A7III) will have better weather sealing than the A7RII, but of course not up to some other DSLR standards.
On a side note, I'm surprised the A7RII prices have crept back up a bit on the B&S board after the A7III announcement. A few weeks ago there were quite a few that sold in the $1500-1600 range
echelonphoto wrote:
Again....I have the r3, have had the r2, yes, the battery life in r2 is miserable, but they are cheap and light, so buy a few more batteries. The review time on r2 is a little slower, which matters if you are doing event work.The double card slots is vital to pros. The af joystick is useable, but it is really cramped around there for your thumb. I found moving the af around with the wheel on the R2 to be fine also. Contrary to what you are hearing....the AF is NOT that much better in the R3, in fact, I felt the AF in the R2 was somewhat more consistently accurate, but that could be just a copy variation. As far as the viewfinder, I felt no detriment between the old and new. Lots of folks who give advice here, have not even owned both. As far as a usable camera for a hobbyist, either one of these will have the same longevity...since as you know , the next greatest thing is always right around the corner....Show more →
I kind of disagree here as the AF to me is worlds apart and in Low light totally better on the A7RIII. Im just going to say it and Im a working Pro that does a lot of different shooting. I could not wait to get rid of the A7rII and when i did I bought the A9 completely worlds apart than sold that rented a A7RII and i could barely use it until the A7r3 was purchased but this is me and I think the A7rII sucks compared to the A7rIII and i don't even want one for free ( Yes free you can't give me one) as a backup. Ill leave it at that as i have had a war on this subject but like you said these folks never owned the a7R3 and are guessing. Ive owned them all
With that Im really done with this topic as it comes up every other day. I can lead folks to the watering hole but if your not smart enough to drink the water than your on your own. I would never ever recommend old tech, sorry...
No need to reply Im out of this thread . My response is not directed at anyone but a general topic of real concern when folks put price in front of abilities and performance. Im performance driven
I can attest to the low light challenges of A7R II. It depends on the lens and subject, but I had times of no-chance autofocusing from A7R II before sunrise. It wasn't even close. Very frustrating. Manual focusing wasn't an option because there wasn't enough light for focusing manually from display image. Magnifying a grainy image didn't help either. In same conditions, Canon 5D would have focused.
That's why I would favor A7R III as well, AF in low light, half the batteries needed, and better image quality promised.
GMPhotography wrote:
I kind of disagree here as the AF to me is worlds apart and in Low light totally better on the A7RIII. Im just going to say it and Im a working Pro that does a lot of different shooting. I could not wait to get rid of the A7rII and when i did I bought the A9 completely worlds apart than sold that rented a A7RII and i could barely use it until the A7r3 was purchased but this is me and I think the A7rII sucks compared to the A7rIII and i don't even want one for free ( Yes free you can't give me one) as a backup. Ill leave it at that as i have had a war on this subject but like you said these folks never owned the a7R3 and are guessing. Ive owned them all
With that Im really done with this topic as it comes up every other day. I can lead folks to the watering hole but if your not smart enough to drink the water than your on your own. I would never ever recommend old tech, sorry...
No need to reply Im out of this thread . My response is not directed at anyone but a general topic of real concern when folks put price in front of abilities and performance. Im performance driven...Show more →
I must have a bad copy of the R3....I guess I will send it back to sony pro to be adjusted.
Not what I meant by any stretch, guess we feel things differently. Its been a major improvement for me in many ways. From low light work, to being accurate and faster in AFC modes, power, buffer, playback, scrolling in playback, just getting to review, menus, did i mention battery.
I am traveling with my A7rII. I did want to buy an A7rIII desperately for its better battery life and better focusing....But now I am quite satisfied.. dills84 wrote:
I'm currently shooting an A7II. It's a great camera but I'm not impressed with the AF, and low light performance by todays standards and it would be nice to have built in 4K for occasional use.
Currently the A7III is $1999 and the A7RII is going for $2300 new or $1700ish used. Same ball park.
I mainly shoot in the mountains. Hiking and Rock/Ice Climbing. Occasionally I'll do a portrait session. This will also be my "walk around fun camera".
Things I care about:
-Resolution
-AF Performance
-Image Quality
-Weather Sealing
-Reliablity
-4K capable
-Decent Low Light Performance
-Battery Life
Things I don't care about as much:
-Continuous Shooting
-Dual Cards? (not a top priority)
-Touch Screen
I'm torn between the A7III and A7RII here. I would like the A7RII's higher resolution but the updated AF of the A7III is tempting. Battery life is important, but I already own six batteries for the A7II and they're not that cumbersome to carry arround as spared.
How much better is the A7RII's auto focus compared to my older A7II? Does the A7RII's weather sealing compete with the A7III?
Gah! I like the new shiny things. But there's something drawing me to that 42 MP sensor. I know the ultimate solution would be to pick up an A7RIII however this is out of my budget.
echelonphoto wrote:
Again....I have the r3, have had the r2, yes, the battery life in r2 is miserable, but they are cheap and light, so buy a few more batteries. The review time on r2 is a little slower, which matters if you are doing event work.The double card slots is vital to pros. The af joystick is useable, but it is really cramped around there for your thumb. I found moving the af around with the wheel on the R2 to be fine also. Contrary to what you are hearing....the AF is NOT that much better in the R3, in fact, I felt the AF in the R2 was somewhat more consistently accurate, but that could be just a copy variation. As far as the viewfinder, I felt no detriment between the old and new. Lots of folks who give advice here, have not even owned both. As far as a usable camera for a hobbyist, either one of these will have the same longevity...since as you know , the next greatest thing is always right around the corner....Show more →
One kludge for much faster review + magnification times when shooting RAW... is to also shoot a small/medium jpg with it. When you want to magnify to chimp the camera uses the jpg, which is plenty for judging sharpness, etc.
It could be possible that you and guy differ on the rII vs rIII AF because you're shooting in different modes under different conditions?
For 1-shot AF w/ native glass they are pretty similar in a lot of situations. But the rIII definitely shows its stuff in continuous mode and w/ eye-AF.
dills84 wrote:
I'm currently shooting an A7II. It's a great camera but I'm not impressed with the AF, and low light performance by todays standards and it would be nice to have built in 4K for occasional use.
Currently the A7III is $1999 and the A7RII is going for $2300 new or $1700ish used. Same ball park.
What would you do?
I have a A7rll coming from Greentoe for $2050. So their about the same.
justruss wrote:
One kludge for much faster review + magnification times when shooting RAW... is to also shoot a small/medium jpg with it. When you want to magnify to chimp the camera uses the jpg, which is plenty for judging sharpness, etc.
It could be possible that you and guy differ on the rII vs rIII AF because you're shooting in different modes under different conditions?
For 1-shot AF w/ native glass they are pretty similar in a lot of situations. But the rIII definitely shows its stuff in continuous mode and w/ eye-AF.
thanks for adding to the discussion....I shot a few engagement sittings with the r2 and used continuous mode as couples were running toward me, now this is in good light and found that all the shots were nailed very well...also used eye af indoors in poor house light on my granddaughters and used afc eye af...it nailed focus there too. I have not really seen any better from the r3 in those circumstances. I do however still have a problem with focus on the r3 with the 24-105 lens...the lens is not one of the defective lenses with focus shift, but it almost seems as if it needs to warm up....I will focus on a static subject with either afc or afs and the first shot will be oof...on subsequent shots, they will be fine. In the studio environment , with a fairly strong modeling light, using manual mode with f 6.3, the focus is not very consistent and it actually hunts some times, doesn't matter whether i use eye af or small spot af....so that is affecting my rating. The 24-105 is very sharp and in good light it is fine, but struggles in lower light..my 85mm 1.8 does not.
You may have a bad copy of the 24-105. Not talking the repair stuff as I'm not seeing those kinds of issue. I have run into doing grip and grin stuff where the light was just to low for a F4 lens and it did struggle to obtain focus. But that was really the lighting and it was really bad. Once i went in the ballroom with more general lighting , nailed everything but all that was the f4 limitation and nothing more. Other than that one situation it does track and hold very well. Unfortunately by nature zoom lenses do have copy variance. Might want to rent one and test it against it and see where you are.
No one is saying the R2 is bad or can't do the job its just slow compared to the R3.
. If you can take less of the AF performance and battery life then the A7r II is a formidable camera...still. And yes, the 42MP sensor is superb.