Sony A7R III What would you do?

[WhatsAnFstop?]

Hello all! I am a newbie not only to this forum but to photography, so thank you in advance for your forebearance ; )
My wife gifted me with the choice between the A7 III and the A7R III last weekend for my birthday, plus the Sony 24-240 lens. Yes, she is definitely a keeper!
My enthusiasm for this new undertaking was ignited by our acquisition of a rustic little cabin in the Northern California Coastal Redwoods. It feels like being on the forest moon of Endor, living with the Ewoks. Amazing!
The 7R was on sale for only $300 more than the 7, and I am in the enviable position of being able to keep either camera.
If you were me, which would you choose?
Thank you in advance!

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

I'd go with the R, because it has the greater resolution.

 

[Andrew]

Having the 7 now I think I would choose the R over it for cropping, I think the 7 has more autofocus points so if sports is your thing stick with the 7

 

[royd63uk]

wildlife or landscape?

 

[Reciprocum]

With that lens the R will go to waste anyhow, so 7

Edit: if you don't spend about as much in glass as you do in the body you will end up with an unbalanced system. One of the items will be a choke-point to the other. With the 24-240 the lens will clearly be the choke-point especially with an A7R3.

As a rule of thumb: zooms have worse IQ than primes. The longer the zoom range of a zoom the worse it's optical qualities will be (because of the compromises made to achieve that great of a range).
I would suggest going with the A7iii and use the saved money to go with the 24-105 zoom instead.

Sony 24-105mm vs 24-240mm Lens Comparison on Sony A7III Camera detailed review (Updated)

This video compares 24-105mm vs 24-240mm walkaround lens on Sony A7III Camera. Its great video to select one of these lenses and see how Sony A7III performs ...

www.youtube.com

 

[WhatsAnFstop?]

wildlife or landscape?

Both, but the wildlife will probably be more likely slow-moving than fast-paced, since at 63 years old I am slow moving and no longer fast-paced

 

[Brownie]

With that lens the R will go to waste anyhow, so 7

Edit: if you don't spend about as much in glass as you do in the body you will end up with an unbalanced system. One of the items will be a choke-point to the other. With the 24-240 the lens will clearly be the choke-point especially with an A7R3.

As a rule of thumb: zooms have worse IQ than primes. The longer the zoom range of a zoom the worse it's optical qualities will be (because of the compromises made to achieve that great of a range).
I would suggest going with the A7iii and use the saved money to go with the 24-105 zoom instead.

Sony 24-105mm vs 24-240mm Lens Comparison on Sony A7III Camera detailed review (Updated)

This video compares 24-105mm vs 24-240mm walkaround lens on Sony A7III Camera. Its great video to select one of these lenses and see how Sony A7III performs ...

www.youtube.com

There is an awfully broad brush-stroke being applied here. Some of this has truth, some is exaggerated, some is plain wrong.

In the old days we used to say to upgrade your glass instead of your body. That remains true. However, to say "spend about as much in glass as you do in the body you will end up with an unbalanced system" is patently false. I was told that when I purchased my favorite walking around lens. I was told to buy the pro version or I'd be sorry. It was utter nonsense.

It's true that superzooms tend to get soft toward the long end. They can also have problems in other places, it's the nature of the beast. But that doesn't make them unusable, quite the contrary.

I started to watch the video in your link. As soon as the reviewer said he had been confused by which one to buy, I stopped. This is just someone who thinks he has enough knowledge to advise people as a content creator. When I want to know something I look to specific people that I trust. This link takes you to Ken Rockwell's review of the 24-240. Pay particular attention to the shot captioned:

"Singer in the park at night, 28 July 2017. Sony A9, Sony 24-240mm at 240mm wide-open at f/6.3 at 1/125 at Auto ISO 6,400, Perfectly Clear. bigger or full-resolution file.

Shot from the cheap seats at night: no problem."

Mr. Rockwell points out early in the review (and quite correctly)

The Sony 24-240mm is sharp, autofocuses over the entire frame, focuses silently and essentially instantly on my Sony A9, focuses super-close, operates its diaphragm silently and covers every focal length I need. While I can spend more on the heavier and much more expensive 24-70/2.8 GM and 70-200/2.8 GM, the pictures are the same 95% of the time and this 24-240mm is much easier and much more fun to carry all day - and this 24~240mm has 20% more telephoto range than those two lenses combined! If it's less effort to carry, I'm more relaxed and make better pictures.

He goes on to say:

While people who sit behind desks all day might have the luxury of browsing MTF charts or have the time to notice that this lens might not be quite as sharp in the corners wide-open in a laboratory as the huge 24-70/2.8 GM and even bigger 70-200/2.8 GM, for those of us who have to shoot and to produce saleable photos every single day instead of just talking about it, this lens lets me do it all. I've had no problems licensing photos to major international pharmaceutical companies for thousands of dollars each — and those were shot with a kit lens! The only people who blame bad photos on their lenses are bad photographers, or people trying to sell you expensive lenses.

Now, some may not like Mr. Rockwell, that's fine. However it's pretty tough to argue his results.

Sony 24-240mm Review

In this case we have a new user who is seeking a one-lens solution to get started. The 24-240 is going to give him more than enough IQ to post photos on the internet, print, and do everything else he would want to do.

As to which camera? Neither one is the wrong choice. For the $300, I'd be tempted to keep the RIII.

 

[WhatsAnFstop?]

I am indebted to all of you for being so knowledgeable and helpful. With every post I get a little smarter

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Zooms these days really aren't loads worse than primes, in fact, they are just as sharp in some cases. I think whatever you shoot resolution wins every time, but more especially for landscape.

 

[Paul stuart]

Go with r series every time it is a more premium product better evf rear screen ,class leading sensor ,only down side will be tracking with birds compared to newer models the c -af in normal modes is very respectable ,40 mp is kind of the sweet spot between resoloution and iso performance ,although you can never dismiss to much resoloution 60 mp on the r4 is a very good thing to have being able to crop x2 and retain acceptable detail ,but a full size hi res image is where the images really shine.

 

[Paul stuart]

Go with r series every time it is a more premium product better evf rear screen ,class leading sensor ,only down side will be tracking with birds compared to newer models the c -af in normal modes is very respectable ,40 mp is kind of the sweet spot between resoloution and iso performance ,although you can never dismiss to much resoloution 60 mp on the r4 is a very good thing to have being able to crop x2 and retain acceptable detail ,but a full size hi res image is where the images really shine. in fact it is nearer 43mp ,for the r3 still enjoy mine

 

[Trisroy]

Go with r series every time it is a more premium product better evf rear screen ,class leading sensor ,only down side will be tracking with birds compared to newer models the c -af in normal modes is very respectable ,40 mp is kind of the sweet spot between resoloution and iso performance ,although you can never dismiss to much resoloution 60 mp on the r4 is a very good thing to have being able to crop x2 and retain acceptable detail ,but a full size hi res image is where the images really shine.

I was thinking of upgrading, and after a bit of research thought id go for the R

 

[Jeff A]

Both, but the wildlife will probably be more likely slow-moving than fast-paced, since at 63 years old I am slow moving and no longer fast-paced

I hate when you Youngsters talk that way!