Handholding A7R II vs. A7 II

[Redford01]

I am headed to London and Paris at the end of the month and am not taking a tripod, but have both the A7R II and A7 II and will only be taking one, with the 24-70 and 16-35.

My question for those that have both and been using them off tripod is if you are finding that you need a higher shutter speed/ISO to compensate for the increased resolution-- 42MP vs. 24MP?

The quandary is which to take for the greatest chance of sharp images.

I posted this on DPR and did not get much response, and that that I did get was conflicting. Hopefully better response here. Thanks much.

RR

 

[Eoin]

Naturally both sensors will capture movement, it may be more apparent on the higher resolution sensor.
While both are capable of stunning image quality, the real quandary is ... how large do you need to print or crop in the final output?.

Will the 24mp allow you enough head room for what you wish to achieve, if not then the choice is simple IMO.
Because regardless, your technique will be the same with either camera. Old habits die hard as they say.

 

[Vivek]

Naturally both sensors will capture movement, it may be more apparent on the higher resolution sensor.

That would be the "gut" feeling but that may not be true.

The A7R II, for the first time since NEX, appears to have a real chassis and all metal to the boot. In addition to that, it is the first time, Sony expressly claimed an additional shutter dampening mechanism in the A7R II.

So, either the higher pixel density with the added benefits cancel out the effects (at worst) or actually performs better (at best).

Personally, when there is a choice, I would go with the higher priced/speced camera.

 

[Hausen]

For me the A7rII spends 95% of it's time on a tripod. IBIS seems to me to work very well when it isn't. If you aren't taking a tripod because of the size/weight maybe you should have a look at Manfrotto table top tripod, use mine all the time when I don't want the weight of a normal tripod, works really well even with my larger Canon lenses. If the results of your shots are important to you I wouldn't be without a tripod, but that is just me.

 

[Eoin]

Naturally both sensors will capture movement, it may be more apparent on the higher resolution sensor

That would be the "gut" feeling but that may not be true.

Hence our use of the word "may" ,

 

[Lucille]

I did quite a bit of lowlight shooting with the A7R MII and the Sony 28mm FE f/2, all hand held and as slow as 1/30sec, I got many many sharp shots and didn't need a tripod.

For me, I would have no hesitation using the A7R MII with the 24-70 and 16-35mm for a London and Paris trip.

 

[Zlatko Batistich]

Increasing resolution doesn't increase camera shake. The results will be the same at all normal viewing distances. The only difference is at the pixel level — that is, if you're looking at individual pixels — which is like viewing your images under a microscope. But even there, the difference is trivial. A one-pixel blur on the A7II will be a two-pixel blur (approx.) on the A7RII. Would that ever matter?

 

[Viramati]

Increasing resolution doesn't increase camera shake. The results will be the same at all normal viewing distances. The only difference is at the pixel level — that is, if you're looking at individual pixels — which is like viewing your images under a microscope. But even there, the difference is trivial. A one-pixel blur on the A7II will be a two-pixel blur (approx.) on the A7RII. Would that ever matter?

This is of course the relevant answer. I use the A7rII handheld nearly all the time and am very happy with the results and only occasionally use a tripod. Problems if any are usually more focus related than shake related if using the right technique. Obviously if you wan to shot at base iso in the lower aperture range inside dark buildings you will need a tripod otherwise save yourself the weight