A7 II maybe old but still can generate excellent IQ. Its DR and sharpness at base ISO are still better than APS-C cameras.
Eh it depends.
D7200 is pretty strong in DR and IIRC has no AA filter... sometimes it outresolves the D750 with the same lenses, which is generally unheard of.
DXO DR test doesn't reflect real-world DR. These days, Bill C. PTR is widely accepted more meaningful and more accurate to reflect in real-word DR.
I see A7 II DR is only better overall especially when ISO increases. Bear in mind that DR is not the only factor in overall IQ but also SNR, lens resolution on sensor...
I enjoyed and got lots of great photos from my A7II when I had it, but it's hardly the last word in image quality.
Still better than APS-C overall even not less in high ISO. DPR article only said it didn't exceed (obviously) over modern APS-C that usually is granted if sensor technology is in the same gen.
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6544832324/albums/a7iivsd500-x-pro2
Check my above gallery that comes from IR studio samples without any processing, default OOC RAW, default in Lr that everyone can independently duplicated. You can see A7 II high ISO is not less than APS-C if details also included that you cannot separate details from noises. Then bear in mind that well know Fuji x-trans high ISO cheat and details smearing.
You give Canon a lot of grief over its sensors and IQ but is the A7II sensor really that much better than the "awful" RP's? The only advantage it has is low ISO DR..
Yes that base ISO DR is critical that I use mostly in landscape type. For example I took virtually all evening photos on tripod at base ISO 100. RP after pushing beyond 2 stops look like opening a Pandora box ;-)
. RP sensor matches it on every other metric and has a much nicer noise grain at high ISOs.
I personally care less about high ISO that's why you don't see I ever posted many high ISO photos and not talking too much of it. To me which one has 'better' high ISO is just like which one is less evil, but still evil, lol.
I'd argue AF is better too (wider coverage, millions more points). And whatever price advantage it has on the body goes out the window once you start buying glass.
Not significant. How many RF lenses? They are very expensive. You have so many choices of cheaper native FE lenses from third party and Sony.
I think the A7II is good if you mainly shoot still subjects and are OK to adapt cheap/MF glass..
Many good cheap AF lenses as well such as from Samyang/Rokinon series that seems getting better and better.
. but I wouldn't spend more than the cost of a used A7II on any individual lens for it. Operationally it's a real downgrade from similarly priced APS-C bodies and the IQ boost is marginal. Main ace in the hole is how it adapts lenses and IBIS but outside of that meh.
I'd say choose a system is more important than a specific model. Once you locked in a system or brand with less potential growth the long term impact is much more severe. Sony FE system is most dynamic, most momentum these days and going forward in foreseen future.
