Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: A7r vs. A7rII for low iso tripod work

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Berkshires, MA
    Posts
    262
    Post Thanks / Like

    A7r vs. A7rII for low iso tripod work

    Wanted to get feedback from new A7rII users about the difference I might see between the A7r vs. A7rII for tripod mounted landscape work at low iso. It seem that for this type of work, as long as vibration prone shutter speeds are avoided on the A7r, that the A7r will be nearly as good a choice with slightly less resolution. Any other thoughts on advantages of the new a7rII body vs A7r? Build quality sounds more robust, and I don't have to switch the lens mount out for the tough E mount, but currently I can buy 3 used A7r's and still have money left over vs the cost of the new body.
    Shaun O'Boyle
    new.oboylephoto.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,601
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: A7r vs. A7rII for low iso tripod work

    I don't have an A7RII and do not plan to buy one (no need for it for my use) but..if I were you, I would take an A7rII to antartica instead of a bagful of A7r. That together with an A7. The reason being, no one knows if the SSS (aka "IBIS") will freeze/malfunction over there.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    596
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A7r vs. A7rII for low iso tripod work

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    I don't have an A7RII and do not plan to buy one (no need for it for my use) but..if I were you, I would take an A7rII to antartica instead of a bagful of A7r. That together with an A7. The reason being, no one knows if the SSS (aka "IBIS") will freeze/malfunction over there.
    There have been A7IIs in Antartica without reports of IBIS malfunction due to weather so I doubt that will be a problem with A7RII.

    As for the OP's question. I had an A7R and sold it to get an A7II and now also have an A7RII. The RII is a very nice camera. It seems to me that resolution is important for landscape. However, the merge feature added to Lightroom makes doing multi-shot landscape images easy. Its a tough call.

    Since I make custom profiles for my cameras the unique character of a particular camera sensor I not something about which I am concerned.

    Seems that the secondary uses you have may be the tipping factor.

  4. #4
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,601
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: A7r vs. A7rII for low iso tripod work

    Quote Originally Posted by dmward View Post
    There have been A7IIs in Antartica without reports of IBIS malfunction due to weather so I doubt that will be a problem with A7RII.
    Interesting. Links, please!

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,298
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A7r vs. A7rII for low iso tripod work

    My A7r seems fine with the original mount.

    For my Leica R lenses of 280 mm focal length I avoid using them in portrait orientation on the A7r due to shutter shock.

    Also, using the FE 90/2.8 G MACRO OSS lens will give the A7r pitch and yaw image stabilization. Of course, on a tripod one should switch OSS off. Anyway, I find that lens feature makes the A7r more useful for non-tripod use.
    With best regards, K-H.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    230
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A7r vs. A7rII for low iso tripod work

    I pretty much work 100% with a tripod and have upgraded from A7r to the A7rII. Think the 7rII beats it's predecessor in every way except manual focus magnification in my mind. Certainly was easier to maximise focus through a shot on the 7r. Only had mine for about a month and has been winter here and I have been recovering from 3 broken ribs so haven't been out much but I wouldn't want to go back to 7r, just traded mine for a couple of Canon lenses. Think if you look at $ it would make it hard not to go with 7r but I am a user experience type of guy and much prefer feel, button placement and shutter on the new one. Obviously the files as well
    David
    Auckland, NZ.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    363
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: A7r vs. A7rII for low iso tripod work

    An interesting one, for travel shooters. I think everyone is going closely over this question: 'what do you really get for YOUR work in making the change?' In pure image quality terms, less than might be made up in other ways. I feel this closeness is there in IQ at base ISO, as the generally reliable DxO sensor tests indicate the only real gains (as in noticeable gains) come in the bulge from ISO 800-1600 upwards, and even then only in DR.

    http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compa...-II___917_1035

    If you are happy enough with output resolution from the 36mp item, it moves to the gains in operational and build factors. No one disputes these very real gains which will result in better h/held output, the reviews and owner reports have plenty, so no need to go over this ground.

    So let's look at the other side. How do you feel about carrying a $3200 body as the only body, with no backup? Even taking a backup is many dollars extra tied up, and if your economy is souring many are unable to do it. I love the idea of extra bodies for travel, even though my Sonys are ever reliable, so two a7r bodies enters the picture with less risk capital for that slip or slosh moment. And your two favorite lenses each with no/minimal exposure to the elements from lens changes is just a great thing to have, if each fits in a small bag. This line of reasoning applies purely to shooters who work around the 'issues' of the a7r with little consternation - we all differ here.

    Lastly, opportunity costs - the things you can do with the money if you settle for the now stale (and effectively discredited, and therefore cheaper!) a7r. It might be around $2000 or so, more in non-US regions. That is a lot of state of the art lenses and the capabilities they bring to the table to improve the final results. The two Batis lenses are a little under-priced compared with alternatives, and are far better for usability and overall versatility/quality of output, somewhat weather sealed too.

    If we factor in even a half stop extra from OIS in either Batis 85 or 90 macro, it goes some way to helping in low light. These lenses will hold value very strongly. So the 'head' rather than 'heart' might argue going that way, perhaps with different lenses to suit you. My dad used to say that a real good older car is best because 'it doesn't owe you anything'. I doubt may FE users will not get an a7rII someday, but the exact day that happens might vary due to other ways to manage your 'spend'. cheers, and have a great trip!

    'In an age of multiple and massive innovations, obsolescence becomes the major obsession. '
    - Marshall McLuhan
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    596
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A7r vs. A7rII for low iso tripod work

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Interesting. Links, please!
    Read the articles on the Luminous Landscape site.

  9. #9
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: A7r vs. A7rII for low iso tripod work

    Well it may not be that diffrent in a sense since some features are not needed but certainly first curtain solves the hassle of shutter shock. But even beyond that I'm way past the A7r mentally and really love the new body and all its features. The other thing your not always always on a tripod at least I'm not so the new body serves many types of shooting. The A7r is still a great image maker so don't get me wrong but this in my mind is a huge upgrade. I think all 3200 hundred of it too. I don't mind paying for a great product but the 2200 I spent on the A7r was sort of a rip off since I could not wait to replace it. Not saying I did not great great images out of it , I certainly did but the older I get the least workarounds I want to deal with.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,601
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: A7r vs. A7rII for low iso tripod work

    A7R was a ripoff? Well, it is my least used camera at the moment and I have all the original A7series cameras.

  11. #11
    Senior Member The Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    955
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A7r vs. A7rII for low iso tripod work

    If I could have afforded the freight I would have upgraded to the A7rII.
    It is just a better overall camera.
    That said I decided to stick w the A7r and bought a Batis 25.
    I do mostly what you talked about, i.e. Landscape on tripod at low ISO, and have been
    pleased w what the combo mentioned has to offer.
    When the price of A7rII inevitably drops to more reasonable levels I might consider the upgrade.
    Right now the Batis is rarer than the A7rII so I feel lucky to own one.
    Good luck w your decision.

  12. #12
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,801
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: A7r vs. A7rII for low iso tripod work

    I have all of the A7 series with the exception of the original A7. With respect to the A7r on a tripod at low ISO vs A7rII, well I think that the only real difference comes down to the EFCS which was the achilles heel with the A7r if you happened to get the wrong shutter speed / lens combination. Qualitywise I'm not sure that I've seen huge differences between them yet but that said I've only had the A7rII for a few weeks.

    I personally did the upgrade primarily because of the better AF, better EVF, IBIS and overall better ergonomics. None of these matter much if you're shooting off of a tripod. For me the ergonomics was a big deal because I found myself loving the A7II in a way that I didn't love using the A7r, but that may just be down to my hand size etc. The comfort factor meant that the A7r stayed at home and I would travel with my A7II and A7s (which is special because of the low light support and image 'look'). Now that I have the A7rII I'm expecting that I'll end up no longer using the A7II so much and the A7r will end up with a full spectrum conversion.

    From an IQ perspective, if I knew that I'd only ever be shooting under controlled conditions on a tripod and didn't care about the ergonomics, then I'd recommend a couple of A7r's vs a single A7rII but it really is a personal decision. With the A7r's I'd also ensure that you get the tough eMount for them for longer term reliability.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •