Sony A7R, A7RII, or A7II?

[Brownie]

I'm still on track to pick up a less expensive body as my EDC, something I can leave in the truck. I was pretty much sold on the A7R but the more I learn about it the less I like. The plastic lens mount, the lack of uncompressed RAW, and the lack of an e-first curtain shutter (100-400 APO seems to prefer it) are all marks against.

I've also looked at the A7RII as a possibility. It resolves the shutter and lens mount issues, but comes at a much higher price. And it still doesn't shoot uncompressed RAW.

The A7II fixes all three issues but has an anti-aliasing filter and the lower resolution sensor.

I know buying a several-generations old body will require compromises, I'm just not sure which of these are more acceptable to me.

The cost for the A7R and A7II are similar, while the A7RII is a few hundred more.

You folks who've used these cameras, (and preferably more than one), what are your thoughts?

I'm going to shoot some with my A7RIII in compressed RAW and see what I think about the files. FYI, this is for grab shots when I run across something during the day, not critical shooting.

 

[spudhead]

So, I have no experience with any of the above Tim so not much help, can you give us an idea of price range since it may at least help me understand the thinking behind the lineup, I had the a7 original and did not get the 7ii because it offered little more for me, I did buy the a7iii but I think these all have a bigger pixel count? the 7rii has the pixel count and friends had it and liked it but they said focus at least in the early days was not great, although the people I know that used it would not be the best judge for me as they never worked through any issue's.

 

[MrFotoFool]

EDC?

 

[Brownie]

Price range? Cheap. The entire idea of an EDC (Every Day Carry) is something inexpensive that I can keep in a small bag, take to work, transfer to the office, work vehicle, take on project sites, out in reasonably cold/hot vehicles for short periods, and not worry about it getting stolen/broken/damaged. Not something I want to risk with more expensive cameras. I've been taking the RM3 or M4.

An A7R from MPB in Excellent or Good condition is about $550-700. An A72 is in the same ballpark, while an A7R2 will be closer to $900. That's really more than I want to spend for such an assignment. From there, the prices jump to $1300 and up.

My goal is a full range (28-400) FF kit compact in form and easy to grab and go for every day. Having already collected the lenses and adapters for this kit, I can keep going with my current cameras or find a good inexpensive alternative that I'd be more comfortable with. If I can get something in the $550 range, the total investment will be less than $1100, US for lenses, adapter, camera.

This comes down to "the best camera is the one you have with you." I'm more likely to grab this when heading out the door for a non-photo task or chore than the more expensive stuff. It doesn't have to be top-notch, it just needs to be capable. Think of it as a full featured P-n-S!

Plus, part of me just wants to see how good the images can be from a setup like that. FF that's neither big nor expensive. It's an experiment.

Then the other half of me says to stop where I am and wait until the A93 is released to see what they come up with. Maybe it becomes #1, the M4 the backup, and the RM3 is relegated to EDC duty.

 

[spudhead]

Price range? Cheap. The entire idea of an EDC (Every Day Carry) is something inexpensive that I can keep in a small bag, take to work, transfer to the office, work vehicle, take on project sites, out in reasonably cold/hot vehicles for short periods, and not worry about it getting stolen/broken/damaged. Not something I want to risk with more expensive cameras. I've been taking the RM3 or M4.

An A7R from MPB in Excellent or Good condition is about $550-700. An A72 is in the same ballpark, while an A7R2 will be closer to $900. That's really more than I want to spend for such an assignment. From there, the prices jump to $1300 and up.

My goal is a full range (28-400) FF kit compact in form and easy to grab and go for every day. Having already collected the lenses and adapters for this kit, I can keep going with my current cameras or find a good inexpensive alternative that I'd be more comfortable with. If I can get something in the $550 range, the total investment will be less than $1100, US for lenses, adapter, camera.

This comes down to "the best camera is the one you have with you." I'm more likely to grab this when heading out the door for a non-photo task than the more expensive stuff. It doesn't have to be top-notch, it just needs to be capable. Think of it as a full featured P-n-S!

Plus, part of me just wants to see how good the images can be from a setup like that. FF that's neither big nor expensive.

Well, I guess the a7rii is out really on price so its 36 meg versa 24 megapixels, so I guess 36 wins if crop is a factor, so I know the a7r over heated in video, but I guess you don't want video. So, unless someone else has a plus for the a7ii the a7r is nearer to what you use now

 

[Brownie]

Well, I guess the a7rii is out really on price so its 36 meg versa 24 megapixels, so I guess 36 wins if crop is a factor, so I know the a7r over heated in video, but I guess you don't want video. So, unless someone else has a plus for the a7ii the a7r is nearer to what you use now

Yes, but there are two issues, Compressed RAW only and no e-curtain front shutter. I wasn't worried about the shutter until my recent 100-400 testing, but that wasn't real world. I've seen so many complaints about Sony's early compressed RAW, I'm leery. I am going to test both of these issues using the RM3 as time permits.

 

[spudhead]

Yes, but there are two issues, Compressed RAW only and no e-curtain front shutter. I wasn't worried about the shutter until my recent 100-400 testing, but that wasn't real world. I've seen so many complaints about Sony's early compressed RAW, I'm leery. I am going to test both of these issues using the RM3 as time permits.

I wasn't aware of those issues

 

[AlphaWorld]

Yes, but there are two issues, Compressed RAW only and no e-curtain front shutter. I wasn't worried about the shutter until my recent 100-400 testing, but that wasn't real world. I've seen so many complaints about Sony's early compressed RAW, I'm leery. I am going to test both of these issues using the RM3 as time permits.

Sony updated the A7RII with firmware 2.0 in October 2015 - one of the main changes was adding uncompressed RAW!

So you do get uncompressed RAW on the A7RII.

 

[Brownie]

Sony updated the A7RII with firmware 2.0 in October 2015 - one of the main changes was adding uncompressed RAW!

So you do get uncompressed RAW on the A7RII.

Good info! I looked at the firmware updates for the 7R but not the others.

Thanks for pushing me toward the more expensive model!

 

[AlphaWorld]

Good info! I looked at the firmware updates for the 7R but not the others.

Thanks for pushing me toward the more expensive model!

Sorry about that! But it would be worse if you settled for something less and then discovered that it had been added.

 

[Cαscαdian]

As a fresh owner of a (used, not stale!) A7.ii, it's a great camera at a great price. I could not afford to jump to 7.iii - but I wasn't aware when shopping that the 7R.ii has a BSI sensor, which is a pretty big positive. Other than regretting that fact* and knowing that last few hundred dollars would have been tough to scrape up - the 7.ii does very nice work.

I paid an e-M1 classic, two decent µ43 lenses and a couple hundred $$ for my 'BGN'-rated copy at KEH. It has a bit of screen delamination but under 28k shutter count - I dare not be unhappy about that! And now that I have an Excel workbook copy of the menus, I can puzzle out a more friendly button/dial setup

* Oh yeah, and 4k on the 7r.ii if you need it. Since I have no 4k display or TV, it's too much of a bonus for me to appreciate at the moment.

 

[Brownie]

The photos I posted in the Red Bellied Woodpecker thread yesterday were made with the 7RM3 set to compressed RAW. Honestly, I see no issue and took no special effort in processing. I understand they're not a wide representation and artefacts might still show up under certain circumstances, but for the intended use I'm not seeing much of a downside. I also shot with the e-front curtain shutter off, which seemed to have no ill effect. I may be looking back at the 7R again. The sensor in that camera was supposedly the same sensor in Nikon's D850e and the Pentax K1M2, which is pretty good company.

 

[AlphaWorld]

The photos I posted in the Red Bellied Woodpecker thread yesterday were made with the 7RM3 set to compressed RAW. Honestly, I see no issue and took no special effort in processing. I understand they're not a wide representation and artefacts might still show up under certain circumstances, but for the intended use I'm not seeing much of a downside. I also shot with the e-front curtain shutter off, which seemed to have no ill effect. I may be looking back at the 7R again. The sensor in that camera was supposedly the same sensor in Nikon's D850e and the Pentax K1M2, which is pretty good company.

Forgive the correction, please, but I'm sure you mean Nikon D800e - I owned one of those. It had a 36Mpixel sensor with a "cancelled" AA filter on top of it (the D800 had the real AA filter). The same sensor, or a similar one, was used in the D810, but without any AA filter (it was a nice improvement on the D800e - Nikon doing the same thing as Sony in using a sensor in two models - I didn't regret buying it).

The D850, on the other hand, has a 45Mpixel sensor.

 

[Brownie]

Yes, meant 800e.

 

[spudhead]

As a fresh owner of a (used, not stale!) A7.ii, it's a great camera at a great price. I could not afford to jump to 7.iii - but I wasn't aware when shopping that the 7R.ii has a BSI sensor, which is a pretty big positive. Other than regretting that fact* and knowing that last few hundred dollars would have been tough to scrape up - the 7.ii does very nice work.

I paid an e-M1 classic, two decent µ43 lenses and a couple hundred $$ for my 'BGN'-rated copy at KEH. It has a bit of screen delamination but under 28k shutter count - I dare not be unhappy about that! And now that I have an Excel workbook copy of the menus, I can puzzle out a more friendly button/dial setup

* Oh yeah, and 4k on the 7r.ii if you need it. Since I have no 4k display or TV, it's too much of a bonus for me to appreciate at the moment.

On the screen I replaced one on my a99ii I bought super cheap because of the delamination on the screen a couple of years ago and they are cheap or were I imported mine from the US and I found it easy to fit, result a99ii low shutter count £ 800.00 under used retail asking at the time I bought it

 

[spudhead]

I'm still on track to pick up a less expensive body as my EDC, something I can leave in the truck. I was pretty much sold on the A7R but the more I learn about it the less I like. The plastic lens mount, the lack of uncompressed RAW, and the lack of an e-first curtain shutter (100-400 APO seems to prefer it) are all marks against.

I've also looked at the A7RII as a possibility. It resolves the shutter and lens mount issues, but comes at a much higher price. And it still doesn't shoot uncompressed RAW.

The A7II fixes all three issues but has an anti-aliasing filter and the lower resolution sensor.

I know buying a several-generations old body will require compromises, I'm just not sure which of these are more acceptable to me.

The cost for the A7R and A7II are similar, while the A7RII is a few hundred more.

You folks who've used these cameras, (and preferably more than one), what are your thoughts?

I'm going to shoot some with my A7RIII in compressed RAW and see what I think about the files. FYI, this is for grab shots when I run across something during the day, not critical shooting.

Tim is the anti- aliasing filter such a big issue? that's the reason most people bash the a9, but it's never bothered me

 

[Brownie]

Tim is the anti- aliasing filter such a big issue? that's the reason most people bash the a9, but it's never bothered me

I notice the difference. The only reason to have one is to reduce moire, other than that it cuts detail. It was a pet peeve on a camera I used to own, the images never looked as clear or quite as nice as I wanted. Made the switch to a sensor without one and it made a big difference. While I'm sure there were other differences, new sensor, processor, etc. I just decided that I would try to stay away from AA filters since moire was never an issue for me. I like sharp, so why handicap myself from the get-go?

 

[AlphaWorld]

I notice the difference. The only reason to have one is to reduce moire, other than that it cuts detail. It was a pet peeve on a camera I used to own, the images never looked as clear or quite as nice as I wanted. Made the switch to a sensor without one and it made a big difference. While I'm sure there were other differences, new sensor, processor, etc. I just decided that I would try to stay away from AA filters since moire was never an issue for me. I like sharp, so why handicap myself from the get-go?

I didn't like the idea of the AA filter, but engineers seemed to think it was necessary. My own assessment is that it may have been necessary in the stone age of digital, when sensors were 8 megapixels or less, because stair-stepped aliasing was really obvious. I believe it becomes less and less useful as resolutions increase. On 24Mpixel it seems questionable, and I will look for a sensor without an AA filter on anything higher. I think the D810 was my first mainstream digital body without an AA filter.

Canon made the dubious choice of including an AA filter on the 5Ds despite its 50Mpixel sensor (but the team were coming from the 5DIII and its 22Mpixel sensor - maybe they didn't have a lot of experience with high resolutions).

 

[Brownie]

And the winner is:

Nothing. Decided to stick with what I have for now to see what Sony introduces over the next several months. Reasoning: Winter usually results in less camera time, and I'd rather put the $600-$1000 towards an upgraded camera, leaving the A7RIII as the EDC.

Of course, this could change in the next ten minutes, so...

 

[Cαscαdian]

As a fresh owner of a (used, not stale!) A7.ii, it's a great camera at a great price.

Reply to self. Leaning too late just how many bonus features the a7r2 has that I'd make use of, with few drawbacks other than a bit more cash. Perhaps the R mk.5 will flush out a few deals that I can peruse.

 

[Brownie]

Reply to self. Leaning too late just how many bonus features the a7r2 has that I'd make use of, with few drawbacks other than a bit more cash. Perhaps the R mk.5 will flush out a few deals that I can peruse.

They'll get less expensive some, but probably not a whole lot. They seem to keep their value pretty well.

I don't know your financial situation, but if this is your main camera you may want to save a bit more for a 7RM3. Same sensor but improved everything else, including the battery. The R3 was the first one to use the FZ-100 which has a lot more life than the 50. DPR has named it the best buy for used FF cameras.

They both have the same number (399) of PD points, but for CD the R2 has 25, where the R3 has 425. You also get pixel shift with the R3, although they have to be combined in post, the camera doesn't do it. (something you'll recall from your M-4/3 days, if you are who I think you are!)

MPB currently has 41 in stock, running from $1300 in GC to $1500 for LN. Since you already have the M2, which is a fully capable camera in its own right, it may be worth a bit longer wait before upgrading.

Here's a comparison of the two:

Sony A7R II vs A7R III - The complete comparison - Mirrorless Comparison

Updated on: May 5th, 2019 The Sony A7R mark II is probably the mirrorless camera I’ve used more than any other since I began reviewing photography gear five years ago. When it was announced in June 2015, it looked like it was going to be a real game-changer, so I ... Read more

mirrorlesscomparison.com

 

[juan]

I guess I'll stick this in this old thread -
I have an a7R2 with the latest firmware. Has anyone figured out how to display the image number on the camera? For instance, I can make it display something like 1/3 meaning image one of three shot, but I cannot get it to show me DSC1103. Why do I want this? Because I shoot manual on old lenses that do not record focal length or f/stops in the EXIF and I'd like to keep up with what I've done by writing what I've shot in a notebook as with my LF cameras. This is a problem because when I load the images into my software, it only shows the DSC numbers. Searching the Internet, this seems to have been a problem unsolved for years.