What additional body should I get to go with my A7RIII?

[ABourne]

Brand new to the forum so looking forward to participating. I've owned Sony mirrorless since the NEX 6. Bought the a6000, then the a6500. Moved to the A7RIII when it came out and it has been my principal camera since then. I now coo-own and operate a photo art gallery in ABQ and am feeling the need to have a second full-frame body. Should it be another a7rIII, the A7RIV, or the A7RV? I'm starting to get more commissioned work for larger images (I have an Epson Surecolor 7000 24") so would like to get this group's thoughts on the matter. Current lens lineup includes Sony 12-24G, 24-105G, 100-400GM, 50, 90 macro, and a Canon 24 TSII with Metabones adapter (not that the lenses matter in the body choice). Thanks in advance for your opinions!

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

If you're happy with the RIII, you will definitely be very impressed with the RV. Going from that to that myself recently was only a great decision I think. The RV just feels as it should, the bigger, smarter sibling. The slightly larger body, better evf and screen alone make it a brilliant upgrade. But the IQ, AF and overall experience just really top it off as something extremely special.

I always felt that the RIII was like an extension of my body, but the RV just enhances that feeling even more. It's just such a pleasure to use and as I said, if you're impressed with the RIII then the RV will definitely put a big smile on your face. It's a lovely little instrument that's for sure!

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Hi Allen you don't indicate the theme and or genre(s) you focus on for your gallery.

This may well influence the most suitable further camera....your lens line up seems to indicate portraiture, land/city scape and macro for sure
But no indication for action/wildlife......if this applies.

 

[Brownie]

I'm starting to get more commissioned work for larger images (I have an Epson Surecolor 7000 24") so would like to get this group's thoughts on the matter.

Welcome!

Don't get hung up on megapixels. Get a camera based on all functions. Speed and accurate AF are two of the most often pursued.

This image was made on a A7M4 (33MP) with a Minolta A-Mount 28-135. It is currently hanging in my office printed 22 x 28 and looks fantastic. I have 20MP images from M-4/3 printed to 16 x 20 and 24 x 30, 6MP images printed to 8 x 10 that could easily go to 11 x 14.

If landscapes are your thing, then any of the cameras you mention would be fine. If you need speed, look at the 9's and the 1. If you need a middle of the road do everything well with no specialty, look at the M4.

In addition to the M4 I have an A7RIII. The M4 is by far the more advanced camera with much faster AF. It also writes a lot faster, partly due to the lower resolution sensor and partly due to the newer processor. It is my main camera with the RIII a backup. The M4 also has the best DR of the 7 series, but not by a huge amount (Except at ISO 400, where it blows all the others away). I've decided I want more speed so am waiting for Sony to announce the A9III to see what they come up with. If I get one, the A7RIII will go.

DSC08002 by telecast, on Flickr

 

[Landshark99]

If you like the A7RIII and want to add a second body I would go with the A7RV it follows the logical growth path of the R series, very capable camera

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Another thing to add. The RV has the 26mp lossless medium format which is still utilising the entire sensor. Hence making it a solid high and mid megapixel full frame camera in one.



Another thing that did surprise me was the speed with a CF Express card at the full raw 61mp too. I'd say 60% quicker than the A7RIII with a UHS-II card. Pretty astonishing to say the least..!

 

[ABourne]

Hi Allen you don't indicate the theme and or genre(s) you focus on for your gallery.

This may well influence the most suitable further camera....your lens line up seems to indicate portraiture, land/city scape and macro for sure
But no indication for action/wildlife......if this applies.

Thanks so much for your reply. Until moving to New Mexico, my main interests were abstract industrial surfaces, architecture and relaterVd urban subjects. Now, with the gallery, I shoot a lot of landscapes, especially since our location attracts many out-of-state visitors looking for that NM shot. I have also taken great pleasure in photographing the many birds (roughly 42 so far) that visit our property. For that I mainly use the 100-400GM with the 1.4 teleconverter. I rarely use the 90mm and am considering selling it. I didn't mention in my post that my most used lens is the 24-105 G. I'm inclined towards the ArV at this point and keeping the ArIII as backup.

 

[ABourne]

Welcome!

Don't get hung up on megapixels. Get a camera based on all functions. Speed and accurate AF are two of the most often pursued.

This image was made on a A7M4 (33MP) with a Minolta A-Mount 28-135. It is currently hanging in my office printed 22 x 28 and looks fantastic. I have 20MP images from M-4/3 printed to 16 x 20 and 24 x 30, 6MP images printed to 8 x 10 that could easily go to 11 x 14.

If landscapes are your thing, then any of the cameras you mention would be fine. If you need speed, look at the 9's and the 1. If you need a middle of the road do everything well with no specialty, look at the M4.

In addition to the M4 I have an A7RIII. The M4 is by far the more advanced camera with much faster AF. It also writes a lot faster, partly due to the lower resolution sensor and partly due to the newer processor. It is my main camera with the RIII a backup. The M4 also has the best DR of the 7 series, but not by a huge amount (Except at ISO 400, where it blows all the others away). I've decided I want more speed so am waiting for Sony to announce the A9III to see what they come up with. If I get one, the A7RIII will go.

DSC08002 by telecast, on Flickr

Thanks for your comments. I'm not a pixel peeper and get what you're saying. Most of what I show in our gallery is 16x24, 10x30, 16x48...and up for custom images (right now doing a 24x72 pano of the Taos area). Get some 30x40 requests, too. So far, the ArIII has been great; it's only my fear of something going wrong right when I need it that suggests getting another body. Another III is certainly an option, but I'd like to take advantage of the improvements that you and others are noting. (Nice barn photo, btw!)

 

[ABourne]

Another thing to add. The RV has the lossless medium format which is still utilising the entire sensor. Hence making it a solid high and mid megapixel full frame camera in one.

Another thing that did surprise me was the speed with a CF Express card at the full raw 61mp too. I'd say 60% quicker than the A7RIII with a UHS-II card. Pretty astonishing to say the least..!

Good info! Thank you. Reducing buffer time would be very helpful.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Thanks so much for your reply. Until moving to New Mexico, my main interests were abstract industrial surfaces, architecture and relaterVd urban subjects. Now, with the gallery, I shoot a lot of landscapes, especially since our location attracts many out-of-state visitors looking for that NM shot. I have also taken great pleasure in photographing the many birds (roughly 42 so far) that visit our property. For that I mainly use the 100-400GM with the 1.4 teleconverter. I rarely use the 90mm and am considering selling it. I didn't mention in my post that my most used lens is the 24-105 G. I'm inclined towards the ArV at this point and keeping the ArIII as backup.

Understand Allen....it doesn't seem you are requiring top of the range shutter fps speed however if you want camera longevity for birds in flight and or actionshots(soccer, us football,sports, gymnastics etc) at some future time, the ar7iv and ar7v are limited to 10fps in raw and will limit your ability to produce the image range to select the optimum frozen action position. For a commercial operation this is important in my view and as a wildlife action photographer myself bird wing positions can make the difference between a great and OK shot and likewise a baseball shot of the critical ball versus bat impact point for example.

Additionally the ar7iv has action focus speed/efficiency limitations along with low light dynamic range limitations, although as I understand it the ar7v as the newer iteration of the A7r range has essentially addressed these issues.

Bottom line and again in operating a commercial operation where max quality is correlated with max sales I would recommend the Sony A1 which can operate at 30fps in raw, it has a 50 mp resolution with the the A7riv and ar7v both at 60 mp but substantially lower shutter fps as above. The low light/dynamic range of the A1 which is also excellent in my opinion.

The latest A1 firmware which has substantially improved subject AI and rumours are a further firmware upgrade may be forthcoming in the future. The A1' video capabilities which are equally impressive.

Hope this helps your decision going forward, the cost of the A1 which is higher than the A7's but as a user myself find it to be more than worthy of its sony lead professional camera label.

 

[iamdlewis]

Most of what I show in our gallery is 16x24, 10x30, 16x48...and up for custom images (right now doing a 24x72 pano of the Taos area). Get some 30x40 requests, too

All of the Sony cameras can print images that look good up to 30x40, I can say that because I have a print that large from an A6000 using the kit 55-210 lens. I also have 2 great looking prints that are 30x19 from the 15mpx Samsung Galaxy S5. So as basically everyone has said figure out what the needs you have that you cannot cover with the A7riii and get whichever body fills those needs.

 

[Loren]

Brand new to the forum so looking forward to participating. I've owned Sony mirrorless since the NEX 6. Bought the a6000, then the a6500. Moved to the A7RIII when it came out and it has been my principal camera since then. I now coo-own and operate a photo art gallery in ABQ and am feeling the need to have a second full-frame body. Should it be another a7rIII, the A7RIV, or the A7RV? I'm starting to get more commissioned work for larger images (I have an Epson Surecolor 7000 24") so would like to get this group's thoughts on the matter. Current lens lineup includes Sony 12-24G, 24-105G, 100-400GM, 50, 90 macro, and a Canon 24 TSII with Metabones adapter (not that the lenses matter in the body choice). Thanks in advance for your opinions!

I shoot and would suggest an A7R4 because of some of the features like eye autofocus advancements that work amazing. I moved up from an A7R3. I don't see a lot of necessary improvements for the A7R5 but I'm sure there are some, but it's a lot more expensive. The one bad thing about an A7R4 is there is no internal GPS location. You can wirelessly connect it to your cellphone's GPS but then you can't use a wireless remote switch. Not sure, but I think the A7R5 has GPS location if you require that