Sony A7S II For Photography

I know the a7s ii is better for video but is anybody using it for video and photo? Thoughts? I want to step up to 4k video but I also want good AF. Really, what I want is a camera that is good for photo and video. If the a7s ii isn't the answer, maybe the Panasonic GH5?

Or maybe what I want isn't possible and I have to get two bodies?

thx

I have the a7sii. Its ok for photography..AF is ok
If both are of equal importance i would suggest the a6500 .. (i own one). And its waaaay better AF.. and does the 4k video you need .. however if , youre doing alot of hot weather extensive time shooting then .. id be hesitant about the a6500

I think the gh5 will definitely be a better photo camera.. if you dont mind the m4/3 sensor.. it might even be a better video camera if high iso performance is not a concern for you

A7rii....

Does 4K, AF is similar to a6000 style but not as fast. While the 4K doesn't match the 4K in FF mode of the A7sii, it does in super 35 and hard to tell difference in video qualities. The fact that you can do 4K in FF and super 35, makes the A7rii pretty darn unique.

As Charlie said, the a7Rii is probably your best bet if you must have FF. The a7Sii is still great for stills and video though in my opinion. I had the first a7S and used it exclusively for stills (I was in the vast minority) and I loved it. I never really had an issue with it's AF, though I admittedly didn't shoot a lot of fast action with it. The files it produced were excellent though (12mp is plenty).

A couple of the few fast moving subjects I did shoot with it and still have on my flickr (both shots were with the Zeiss 55mm)

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/L2kS​a9

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/LhD5​sm

The only reason I see A7s is short for still photgraphy are: resolution and AF tracking performance. If resolution is not a concern which means you only use your pictures on computer screen or web and hvae no intention of making large prints, then A7s is as good as it gets with any other camera in image quality. This is the case for vast majority of people.

AF continuous tracking may not be that good however from what I have seen online, the low light AF performance of A7s (and A7sii) are amazing which is what I miss in my A6000.

raminolta wrote in post #18307582
The only reason I see A7s is short for still photgraphy are: resolution and AF tracking performance. If resolution is not a concern which means you only use your pictures on computer screen or web and hvae no intention of making large prints, then A7s is as good as it gets with any other camera in image quality. This is the case for vast majority of people.

AF continuous tracking may not be that good however from what I have seen online, the low light AF performance of A7s (and A7sii) are amazing which is what I miss in my A6000.

You can print great files from the a7S, I printed a few orders from shoots with mine. As for printing large; it depends on your intended use/viewing distance and expectations. If you're the type of person who likes to print huge and then stand 2 feet in front of it and stare (nothing wrong with that, everyone's got their thing) then no, you probably won't be as happy with 12mp. If you're like most people and view large prints on your wall from a seat in the room, or standing back a few feet (like you would in a gallery), you're not going to see much difference than if it were printed with more resolution.