Old question, new year - Cheap A7Rii vs A7iii?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
jonpais Senior Member • Posts: 1,896
Re: Old question, new year - Cheap A7Rii vs A7iii?

Nirurin wrote:

jonpais wrote:

Nirurin wrote:

jonpais wrote:

Nirurin wrote:

So I'm looking at breaking into the world of full frame, and it's pretty much between these two cameras.

I can get a decent used A7Rii for about £800-£900 (sometimes with a kit lens, which might not be great but it's usable and sellable later), while a new/nearly new A7iii body is more like £1250-1300.

While I know I'd love the faster and better AF of the A7iii, the big ol' 42mp sensor in the A7Rii is a temptation, and the saving in money could get me started on a lens or two.

I've read a lot on this comparison, but mostly the threads are from early 2019 or 2018, and in a lot of them the A7Rii was actually more expensive than the A7iii or similar in price... so things seem to have changed.

Just curious to see what people suggest / any opinions for me

(Use case is fairly general - landscapes, street, portrait, macro. Probably not much action, but would like to be able to lock onto pets and people when needed. Currently using a Fuji XT2, so if AF is equal to or better than that then it'd be fine.)

A high quality lens and good technique with the a7III will outperform a poor lens with mediocre technique with the a7R II any day of the week. Buying a high res sensor body and pairing it with low quality glass is a poor choice.


Are you forgetting that money exists?

A high quality lens (I assume you're talking GM here) plus the A7iii is going to be what... £3000 total? £2600 to be nice?

An A7Rii plus a 'decent' lens (lets say the 85mm? I'm told it's very good) is going to be... (quick google search)... £1100. Total. That's still £200 cheaper than a body-only A7iii.

You also seem to be implying that someone with an A7iii has good technique, while someone with an A7Rii has bad technique. Not sure why both your examples couldn't have good technique.

Will the £3000 option produce better image quality? Probably. Will anyone be able to tell the difference? That would be the question I don't know the answer to. But I'm not sure it's worth £1500 for the difference.

So as far as lenses go (back on topic here) I'll be using the same lenses on whichever body I buy. They'll be the decent-but-budget / midrange options.

I wasn’t referring to any particular lens at all. But the FE 85 is really really poor compared to the outstanding budget priced Samyang 85 1.4 in almost every way shape and form.

Interesting. Not what the reviews seem to say, though as it's Samyang it's very possible there's a large sample variation. Though saying the 85/1.8 is a really poor lens, when most people seem to only ever have great things to say about it, makes me wonder. I'd certainly get the Samyang over the Sony 85mm 1.4 though.

Someone here pointed out the many advantages of the a7 III over the a7r II but you just flat out ignored their post.

Sorry, it's difficult to reply to every post, but I did read it and followed up on some of the points.

you seem to have already made up your mind. The commenter says the a7r ii has:

  • slower operation

Seems to be similar to what I'm used to, so irrelevant.

  • slower AF

Potentially valid, if it's too slow to actually take pictures. Becomes a matter of if it's 'fast enough'.

  • slower FPS

Mostly irrelevant.

  • poor buffer

The buffer is enough. More is better, but not required.

  • only one memory card slot

Valid, though I currently only use one card anyway, however having the option to use two when needed is a 'nice to have'.

  • much less battery life

Only valid if I'm taking enough photos in a day to burn through two batteries, and have no way to recharge (which I usually do). Another 'nice to have'.

  • smaller grip

Same as what I'm used to.

  • 4k is "Probably" not as good as the A7iii (I say that because the A7Riii and A99ii have better 4k)

Seems fine to me. I believe it allows for SLog and the quality I've seen from it seems pretty good.

I could add that the larger file sizes of the a7r ii will be a pain.

Valid in theory, but I already handle much bigger files as a matter of course, so isn't something I consider.

Practically every single post of yours has been solely about money, nothing at all of substance.

I mean... money matters. Price per performance is probably the most important metric for anyone who has to actually consider a budget. Maybe that's not you, but you're in a minority.

Also, my posts have all been about Image Quality. Which I think is the most substantial of substances. You replies have been... whether the battery only takes 300 photos instead of 500, and only taking 8 frames per second instead of 11 frames per second. I (personally) would count those as 'nice to haves' and not 'need to have'.

If I have to wait an extra half second to turn the camera on, but it saves me £1000, and the pictures end up the same or better... I'm fine with that. You're not. Different people have different needs I guess.

I'm looking into that Samyang you mentioned though. A fairly light f1.4 is interesting. I'd have to buy it new though so it can be returned, as it seems the variation is pretty substantial.

TLDR; the expected reply by someone who dismisses weather sealing as a ‘niche’ [sic] feature!

There ísn’t a single shooter here who wouldn’t welcome better weather sealing, longer battery life, faster buffer, dual card slots, and faster more accurate autofocus. A camera is the sum of its parts: image quality doesn’t exist in a vacuum. I did own the X-T2 myself though; and when my best friend at the time and I switched to Sony, we sold off all our Fuji gear and never looked back.

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow