Sony A7s vs Sony A7II

Guys, I'm so torn on having to choose which one to purchase.

A7s with its high ISO and A7ii with its IBIS.

I normally shoot the following very casually:

• More of candid shots of moving object (people) indoor (sometimes outdoor).
  
• More of indoor wedding/birthday venue.
  
• Occasionally landscape photography.
  
• Occasionally Macro photography.
  

Anyone?

Well. for moving objects or subjects a higher shutter speed is important, as is the AI focus. ISO comes into when the light is not bright sunlight. Up till now, Canon AF lenses were not fast performers through the various adapters, but reports are that the a7RII will AF much faster, imperative for sports and activities. Sony AF lenses will also do quite well, possibly even better with the new focusing matrix on the RII.
But for the best results, hardly anything can beat the top of the line Canon and Nikon cameras mated with their best long lenses. You don't have to spend a fortune on bodies since used ones are less expensive these days because of the number of new things coming out. Good lenses like the Canon 300mm f2.8 IS L will not be cheap. Doing sports does require some dedication and expenditure.

depends on your lenses. If you have really fast lenses, you may not need super high ISO as much as compared to slow lenses like zooms. I you shoot slower lenses, get the A7s, otherwise, shoot the A7ii, that IBIS helps a ton, you can shoot 1/80 reliably (for people), using primes that dont have stabilization. With my personal configuration of all F2 and faster primes, 1/80 gives me good amount of light, that I'm seldom using ISO's above 6400 for events, and at that ISO, the A7ii's performance is very good.

if you need high shutter speeds and action indoors, the A7s wont be beat in IQ, however the A7ii has advantages with focusing, since it can do phase detect with native lenses.

Unless you have a very specialized need for extremely high ISO, the a7II is the better camera all around. Aside from IBIS, the AF system is much better

I think this is splitting hairs, both can do what you will be asking from it on that list.

Will you ever be blowing up your landscape shots for print? 12 mp won't be bad as long as you don't have to crop a bunch, but the 24mp offers more cropping ability.

Totally depends on your type of shooting and processing. The original A7 and A7r would also work fine, if you buy native lenses to go with it. Could start with an A7r, give it a go, and then change depending on how that does or doesn't fit your bill, and then have it as a landscape camera.

I'd try to get your hands on some different models and play with them and see what you do or don't like. some prefer the handling of the A7II over the original three A7's - IBIS could be most important if your shooting style needs it.. No right or wrong answer here, just what fits your needs best. If you need tracking, then again, the A7II is a better option, but you may not need that. Getting an A7r and buying good lenses may get you by for now, and then expand after the A7II and A7rII drop in price a bit (and they will )

ksbal wrote in post #17659017
Will you ever be blowing up your landscape shots for print? 12 mp won't be bad as long as you don't have to crop a bunch, but the 24mp offers more cropping ability.

I don't intend to make a poster or street advertisement so I don't need full-blown picture per say.

ksbal wrote in post #17659017
If you need tracking, then again, the A7II is a better option, but you may not need that.

Do you mean GPS tracking? I thought both doesn't have GPS tracking feature in it?

ksbal wrote in post #17659017
Totally depends on your type of shooting and processing. The original A7 and A7r would also work fine, if you buy native lenses to go with it. Could start with an A7r, give it a go, and then change depending on how that does or doesn't fit your bill, and then have it as a landscape camera.

I was hoping to pair the camera body with kit lens 28-70 f3.5-5.6; I understand that the kit lens is excellent enough lens for all-purpose. From my past experience, when it comes to purchasing lens, bigger aperture lens tend to be more expensive (overall speaking), so I was hoping that the camera body will be able to compensate the cheaper lens with smaller aperture by jacking up the ISO. Is this wrong way of thinking?

Charlie wrote in post #17658228
depends on your lenses. If you have really fast lenses, you may not need super high ISO as much as compared to slow lenses like zooms. I you shoot slower lenses, get the A7s, otherwise, shoot the A7ii, that IBIS helps a ton, you can shoot 1/80 reliably (for people), using primes that dont have stabilization. With my personal configuration of all F2 and faster primes, 1/80 gives me good amount of light, that I'm seldom using ISO's above 6400 for events, and at that ISO, the A7ii's performance is very good. if you need high shutter speeds and action indoors, the A7s wont be beat in IQ, however the A7ii has advantages with focusing, since it can do phase detect with native lenses.

Yes, I understand where you coming from Charlie; the thing is I am starting from clean slate; I have no body and I have no lens

I just sold my Canon 7D and all the lenses so yes, it's a fresh new start.

As I mainly be taking candid photos of people indoor, you are right; I do need fast lenses but fast lenses are usually quite expensive and i was hoping that the high ISO from A7s can compensate for that.

The lens that I am thinking to get initially is: 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 ... small aperture so A7s probably be the better choice here for indoor shooting under dim lighting.

The next lens in-line is: 55mm f1.8 ... bigger aperture so A7ii can probably cope with indoor shooting under dim lighting.

kakegawa wrote in post #17659111
I don't intend to make a poster or street advertisement so I don't need full-blown picture per say.

Do you mean GPS tracking? I thought both doesn't have GPS tracking feature in it?

I was hoping to pair the camera body with kit lens 28-70 f3.5-5.6; I understand that the kit lens is excellent enough lens for all-purpose. From my past experience, when it comes to purchasing lens, bigger aperture lens tend to be more expensive (overall speaking), so I was hoping that the camera body will be able to compensate the cheaper lens with smaller aperture by jacking up the ISO. Is this wrong way of thinking?

Yes, I understand where you coming from Charlie; the thing is I am starting from clean slate; I have no body and I have no lens

I just sold my Canon 7D and all the lenses so yes, it's a fresh new start.

As I mainly be taking candid photos of people indoor, you are right; I do need fast lenses but fast lenses are usually quite expensive and i was hoping that the high ISO from A7s can compensate for that.

The lens that I am thinking to get initially is: 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 ... small aperture so A7s probably be the better choice here for indoor shooting under dim lighting.

The next lens in-line is: 55mm f1.8 ... bigger aperture so A7ii can probably cope with indoor shooting under dim lighting.

IMO, the part I bolded and underlined... yes, it is.

If you're planning on just using a slow lens and doing general purpose point and shoot photography with it, you'd be better suited with something like an a6000 imo. True, the a7 line in general will give you a bit better high-ISO performance, but an untrained eye would be hard pressed to tell the difference, modern APS-C sensors have come a long way.

That said, most of the differences as far as pros and cons for the a7ii and a7S for stills photography are completely subjective. I had to make the same choice and went with the a7S largely because of the smaller and for my hands better form factor (I'm one of the rare few who like the original shutter-button placement) and because I knew that I needed the better super-high aperture performance because when I shoot in low light I'm shooting moving subjects most of the time, so I need shutter-speeds faster than 1/60s anyway, so IBIS isn't that useful for me most of the time.

Most people would probably find the a7ii to be the better all around camera though, so really, it depends on who you ask.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17659318
If you're planning on just using a slow lens and doing general purpose point and shoot photography with it, you'd be better suited with something like an a6000 imo.

Let us take this analogy:

• It's 1 am in the morning.
  
• You are in a graveyard and your intention is to shoot portrait of your friend (just bear with me).
  
• You forgot to bring both your flash and your tripod; so you'll do handheld. Can't use tombstone as a tripod.
  
• Very minimum garden park light.
  
• The only lens you have is 28-70mm f3.5-5.6.
  

Sold my A7II and bought an A7S. The shots I was struggling to take with A7II are now easily possibl ewith A7S.

I am using Canon 70-200mm F/4, 50mm 1.4 and 100mm 2.8 using an adapter. Recently I bought myself a 28mm F2 FE lens mainly for night/astrophotography​.

kakegawa wrote in post #17660140
Let us take this analogy:

• It's 1 am in the morning.
  
• You are in a graveyard and your intention is to shoot portrait of your friend (just bear with me).
  
• You forgot to bring both your flash and your tripod; so you'll do handheld. Can't use tombstone as a tripod.
  
• Very minimum garden park light.
  
• The only lens you have is 28-70mm f3.5-5.6.
  

The question: which of the following will you bring? A7ii, A7r or A7s?

easy, A7s.

but, lets say that you have a 50mm F1.8 vintage lens....... then the A7ii might be better. Having a really slow lens in the dark is a recipe for disaster. Shooting the A7ii @ ISO 6400 will be better than shooting the A7s @ 51200, 3 stops difference.

Didn't quite get you! You meant to say that A7II and f1.8 lens at ISO 6400 is better than A7s and f5.6 lens at ISO 51000?

From dpreview.com, you can see this comparison of A7S vs. A7II

Thanks; so I gathered that A7s is designed mainly for videographer, whilst A7ii for still photographer.

In this sort of venue, do you think shooting handheld (no flash) with A7ii and 28-70 f3.5-5.6 will suffer?

kakegawa wrote in post #17662897
Thanks; so I gathered that A7s is designed mainly for videographer, whilst A7ii for still photographer.

In this sort of venue, do you think shooting handheld (no flash) with A7ii and 28-70 f3.5-5.6 will suffer?

That's not really true... it was designed for both, but the video guys fell in love with it and most of the photo guys scoffed at the 12mp sensor so people started claiming it was video centric... it isn't, it is very much a stills camera with a very good set of video options.

Wilt wrote in post #17662148
From dpreview.com, you can see this comparison of A7S vs. A7II

dpreview summarizes, "We also found the a7 II to have 1-2 stops worse ISO performance than an a7S or D750, shown in our studio scene & confirmed by DXO. This poor ISO performance was more forgivable in the original a7 lineup, perhaps, but not 4 cameras in. Especially given all the competition- the 6D, D750, a7R, and a7S all outperform it by a good margin."

This.

I had the a7R prior to my a7S and most argue that the a7R is better than the a7 in high ISO... IMO the a7R was pretty awful at high ISO work, it was a major difference when I moved to the a7S.