Is the A7Rii a viable camera for me?

I have been straddling the fence shooting with a combination of Sony APSC (A6400 and A6500) cameras and have a plethora of great full-frame and APSC, Sony, Third Party, and Legacy lenses.

Most of my Canon gear has been sold but, I am presently hanging on to a Canon 5D Mark-2 and a 7D Mark-2, with Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS ii, Canon 100mm f/2.8 Non-L Macro lenses along with a Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 ATX lens which I dearly love.

I am seriously considering cutting the strings to Canon totally and selling the rest of my Canon gear.

My plans would be to invest the proceeds of the sale of this gear (as well as other Canon gear previously sold) into a Sony full-frame mirrorless camera and either the Sony 200-600mm or 100-400mm lens.

I'd like to stay a low as I can price-wise for the Sony gear. A used A7Rii can be had in the area of $1,000 while a used A7ii would cost at least $700 more and a new A7iii would cost at least an extra thousand bucks.

The A7Rii does have eye AF (which is one of the reasons that I opted for Sony mirrorless in the first place) and the price really seems appealing, especially since I don't do video (low battery capacity is no problem for me nor the slower operation of the A7Rii).

I would use the A7Rii for product photography, for landscapes and for studio shoots with a model. The full-frame camera combined with my APSC gear would give me a greater versatility in equivalent focal length...

I no longer shoot professionally, so a single card slot doesn't bother me and I don't plan to shoot fast action.

My dilemma is between choosing an A7iii or going for an A7Rii and saving from $700 to $1,000 dollars... My mind says to choose the less expensive camera awhile my GAS says go for broke!

I use an a7II... really like it. That said, the price difference between the II and III used are down to about $600 at B&H and Adorama.... making the III pretty intriguing. Even used.

The main thing I like about sticking with the old stuff.... is they all use the same battery. So what ever I shoot, I just need to pack one type of battery. And since I shoot manual, I get double the milage versus what it is supposed to get.

Just my two cents. The II is still a good camera.

Will 24MP from the A73 provide you happiness in studio? If so I'd suggest the A73 for universal use both in fast action, incredible high dynamic range and high iso performance.

A7r2 uses the smaller battery and will show it's age. The new features that sony is putting out in newer cemeras in fresh firmware is quite a step forward.

The A73 is getting more on par with a Canon 5dmk4 which I still own. 24MP in the A73 is still sufficient and easier for my computer post work flow.

The eye AF of A7r ii may not be as excitingly performant as you think (being the beginning of eye AF implementation.). The eye AF in the third generation Sony cameras is much better and more usable. If eye AF is the reason you want to move to Sony, I would recommend one of the A7 iii, A7r iii, A6400 or A9.

Apparently, Sony may be coming up with some new advanced APSC E-mount camera(s) by the end of August.

RPCrowe wrote in post #18913903
I would use the A7Rii for product photography, for landscapes and for studio shoots with a model.

My dilemma is between choosing an A7iii or going for an A7Rii and saving from $700 to $1,000 dollars... My mind says to choose the less expensive camera awhile my GAS says go for broke!

The interesting thing is all these applications don't require super fast eye AF... if at all. The other thing is that "fastest" lens being discussed so far is a 2.8... so again, accuracy between eye af and face detect is moot. 2.8 is fat enough that the eye should always be in focus for studio type work. Hence why I don't think the extra money is needed because it won't be used or be that critical. No f1.2 or 1.4 lenses are being considered.

If they are in the near future..... then yes, the IIIs better eye AF might be worth the upgrade.. Or spend the extra on a super fact EF mount portrait lens. There are a lot of options out there. I use the 85 f1.8 G and love it. Not sure why I would need to spend the extra money for the GM.

Anyway....

Both are great cameras. Don't think you will be too upset by owning either.