Anyone else debating the A7s or A7II?

I thought A7s was already a godsend and then out comes the A7II. Should I jump on the cheaper A7II or continue to save to get the A7s? Thanks in advance, been a long time Canon user but wanna try this bad boy out.

Depends. Do you really need the high ISO performance of the A7S? If you shoot static objects, the IBIS on the A7II lets you use slower shutter speeds (and thus lower ISO values) which can (partially) compensate for the high ISO performance of the A7S.

I had the same conflict in my head for about a day or two, but for the the a7S is still the clear better choice. High ISO can't be replicated by image stabilization. Most of the stuff I shoot is moving, therefor the IS isn't all that useful, high ISO always is. You have to ask yourself what's more important.

Also, there's a company on Ebay that's selling a7S' for $2k right now, just need to move my a7R and I'm going to jump on it

I mostly shoot portraits and automotive which are mostly static for the most part. I guess the biggest question I'm still pondering is it a big deal to lose all that cropping power? I try to get the framing right from the time I take the shots but I still find myself cropping here or there when I'm editing. I mean I don't crop heavily all the time but it's a nice thing to have. I'm leaning towards the A7s solely because I'm one of those who shoots without a tripod 99.9% of the time at any time during the day. Will it be a big deal in PP to go to 12mp versus always having 22/24 mp? Also thanks for letting me know bout that eBay deal EverydayGetaway, that makes the price seem a bit better than $2,500 when the other models are under $2,000!

Vixen89 wrote in post #17386785
I mostly shoot portraits and automotive which are mostly static for the most part. I guess the biggest question I'm still pondering is it a big deal to lose all that cropping power? I try to get the framing right from the time I take the shots but I still find myself cropping here or there when I'm editing. I mean I don't crop heavily all the time but it's a nice thing to have. I'm leaning towards the A7s solely because I'm one of those who shoots without a tripod 99.9% of the time at any time during the day. Will it be a big deal in PP to go to 12mp versus always having 22/24 mp? Also thanks for letting me know bout that eBay deal EverydayGetaway, that makes the price seem a bit better than $2,500 when the other models are under $2,000!

The pixel density is like shooting a 4.7MP 1.6x crop APS-C, or a 5.3MP 1.5x crop. That's kind of coarse by today's standards, but the A7s has a lot less high-ISO read noise per unit of sensor area than any current APS-C or FF camera, so it definitely will have its areas of superiority, even if you need to put a TC on it, because the bottom line is that for any given lighting, subject distance, and shutter speed, the subject noise quality is going to be most directly relevant to two things - the size of your physical aperture in mm (not f-stop!), and the noise per unit of sensor area.

I rented the A7S and while I was highly impressed, I don't need those high ISOs that often to warrant spending that much money, esp. since those A7s loose value pretty quickly.

On the other hand, I don't think highly of the A7 II at all. I rented that too and found it lacking compared to Fuji and Olympus (except for the sensor). I think Sony still isn't there with the A7 series.

johnvanr wrote in post #17386806
I rented the A7S and while I was highly impressed, I don't need those high ISOs that often to warrant spending that much money, esp. since those A7s loose value pretty quickly.

On the other hand, I don't think highly of the A7 II at all. I rented that too and found it lacking compared to Fuji and Olympus (except for the sensor). I think Sony still isn't there with the A7 series.

That's interesting.. I rented the A7/A7r when I had the Fuji X-T1 / x100s. I immediately preferred the IQ, customizability and ergonomics of the A7's over Fuji's offerings. Have never bothered with Oly given the small sensor size but I know some people absolutely love those cameras.

The A7s has a contrast AF system. I really want the high ISO performance of the A7s for indoor family documentation and other environments but the contrast AF has made me decide to wait. The A7II is great after Sony took the IBIS from the back door since they are now shareholders in Olympus. IBIS is great but it still does not compensate for motion blur (no flash photography) if you compare it to ramping up the iso in the A7s to gain faster shutter speeds.

I'll definitely buy an alpha series before touching a fuji. I've test run the XT1 but I still feel more love towards the Sony full frame.

Contrast detect really sucks :P You will be more prone to front/back focus. You simply cannot beat phase detection. A7ii will be the one for me to consider if I had to pull the trigger right now.

My oly em-5 has contrast detect and there are many family photo's I've taken missing the shot. With my dslr I can hold my phase detect canon and hold my 2yr old daughters hand and take photos with ease with virtually perfect hit rate. I've tried on many occasions using my oly em-5 to take identical shots and I'd miss an easy 75% of those types of photos. Sure this is an situation to take photos but it definitely displays the weakness of contrast detect for some photo's I take.

Since Sony seems as aggressive in changing models like apple products :P I'm assuming sony will pump out an A7smk2 very soon.

For me it was a hard choice too.

The A7s has higher ISO settings, but the noise performance is only slightly better at same ISO than on the 7II - based on same resolution (-> DXO).
But the A7II I has additionaly the stabiliser, which is worth likely 1 or 2 exposure values (EV) with manual lenses on slow or steady objects - when focal length is set correctly.
On the other side the dynamic range the Sony Alpha 7s gives at high ISO is great, much better than the A7II!

Furthermore I think I would like the A7II ergonomics better.
AF is not of my interest.
The images I get with my EOS 5D are good, I do not need much croping. So probably the A7s would be a very good choice for me too.

From 7s very high ISO sample, there is no magic - I don't think 7s is much better than my 7r with the same ISO. Those ultra high ISO has very few practicality anyway.

Unless you want to shoot 4K video, personally I will pick 7II.

x_tan wrote in post #17389391
From 7s very high ISO sample, there is no magic - I don't think 7s is much better than my 7r with the same ISO. Those ultra high ISO has very few practicality anyway.

Unless you want to shoot 4K video, personally I will pick 7II.

People say this a lot, but it's just straight up not true. While the grain and pattern noise between the a7S and a7R are pretty similar at equal ISO up to about 6400, the a7S is significantly cleaner beyond that and far more importantly (imo) it has a lot more color detail from ISO3200 onward.

As for the practicality of ISO12,800+, that depends entirely on the shooter's needs. Most of us think of anything beyond ISO6400 as impractical because we've been conditioned to think photos at those higher I'M values are basically worthless, with the a7S that's no longer the case.

I really wish the a7R was just as good as the a7S at higher ISO, then I wouldn't need to sell mine, but it just isn't...

The OP has already stated enough reason that the a7 II is a better fit. But, I agree that for many scenarios, simply dialing down the shutter speed is unacceptable. There are also scenarios where 12 MP is indeed way too coarse, so I have concluded that the best answer for me is to have an optimized low-ISO solution and an optimized high-ISO solution. Fortunately Sony has us covered for that!

I spent a good part of my weekend evaluating a7S high-ISO files and am quite impressed. The thing that really stands out for me is that the a7S' noise pattern at ISO 6400 and above is actually quite pleasant on the eyes. I am typically noise-phobic, it usually just looks bad. But, with the a7S I see a nice organic monochromatic noise pattern that brings a little charm to the captured image. Seeing those full-resolution samples (on Flickr) left me wanting the a7S.

For high ISO work 12MP is actually quite fine. 24MP or 36MP is pretty much wasted if the noise destroys all the detail anyway. I could be wrong, but my guess is that at ISO 6400 and above, the a7S would deliver a better/bigger/more-acceptable print than an a7R.

I agree that the a7S contrast-detect AF is inadequate. I'm hoping for an a7S II that fixes that shortcoming.

One of the biggest reasons I want to add an a7S (or a7S II) to my kit is to help offset the aperture limitations with current FE mount zoom lenses. An a7S with a range of f/4 zooms might be comparable to an 5D III with a range of f/2.8 zooms (talking light-gathering ability, not DOF). I like Gary Fong's suggested practice for shooting the a7S: put it in manual mode, select desired aperture and shutter speed, and use auto-ISO. I wouldn't do that with my a7R, but sounds great for an a7S with exceptional ISO performance.

ZoneV wrote in post #17389307
For me it was a hard choice too.

The A7s has higher ISO settings, but the noise performance is only slightly better at same ISO than on the 7II - based on same resolution (-> DXO).
But the A7II I has additionaly the stabiliser, which is worth likely 1 or 2 exposure values (EV) with manual lenses on slow or steady objects - when focal length is set correctly.
On the other side the dynamic range the Sony Alpha 7s gives at high ISO is great, much better than the A7II!

You first statement seems to disagree with your last one. The DR results are the ones most directly related to visible noise. "SNR18%" is not a very good indicator of visible noise because it is based mainly on shot noise which is not as big a visible problem as read noise, which factors very weakly into SNR18% results. The A7s is at least 1.5 stops better in DR at its highest ISOs than an extrapolation of the A7II curve. That is where any significant difference lies.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17389482
As for the practicality of ISO12,800+, that depends entirely on the shooter's needs. Most of us think of anything beyond ISO6400 as impractical because we've been conditioned to think photos at those higher I'M values are basically worthless, with the a7S that's no longer the case.

There's a wide range of needed shutter speeds and necessary apertures, even outdoors in the daytime. With slow, hand-holdable telephotos and active subjects, you might need 1/500 at f/9 in a shaded area on a partly cloudy day. Happens all the time to me in the late spring through early fall. My 6D has gone to ISO 25,600 with auto-ISO many times in such situations.

John Sheehy wrote in post #17389764
There's a wide range of needed shutter speeds and necessary apertures, even outdoors in the daytime. With slow, hand-holdable telephotos and active subjects, you might need 1/500 at f/9 in a shaded area on a partly cloudy day. Happens all the time to me in the late spring through early fall. My 6D has gone to ISO 25,600 with auto-ISO many times in such situations.

Exactly, there's definitely a need for high ISO performance for a lot of shooters. For me it's in dimly lit venues or gymnasiums.