Choosing between A7 and A7R, need help please!!

[slpianoproject]

I know this post can be a little long but you might have to read it all if you want to help me properly choose between the two! I'll try to put a TLDR at the end. BTW english isnt my main language so i'll do my best


Hi everyone,

On monday I'm going to my local camera store to pick up an A7 (or an A7R). I am currently using a sony a57 so it'll be a big step up. I have read and watched all the reviews I could have found I am really confident I will be happy with this camera. Even tho I know i'll buy one of the two, i'm still thorn between them. This is where I need help because the camera dealers near me don't seem to sell alot of sony gear and from past experiences they are not very knowledgeable about sony products.

About me:

First of all I am an amateur / hobbyist photographer and videographer. The a57 was actually a Christmas gift for my GF and I ended up using it 20x times more than her and developing an interest for photography (always had interest for video). My work is mostly portraits/family, landscapes and night photography/long exposures. I don't shoot events and I don't plan to, neither I'm planing to shoot sports or wildlife etc... Even tho I'm just an amateur, I'm heavily critical of my work and careful about my compositions/focus/expositions etc. For example, I would never share a picture that is slightly out of focus or that shows some minor flaws that photographers would see but other people won't lol. My GF thinks I'm a freak but I bet you all understand me

The reason I want an A7 or A7R is purely for image quality. For various reasons the a57 doesn't cut it. Just to cite an example 4 months ago I went on top of a mountain 1 hour from home to shoot photos of the milky way. With my tokina 11-16 f2.8 on the a57 I had to go like f2.8/15-25 secs/ISO 1600 if i remember correctly and the images were completely unusable due to noise even tho I tried alot of different settings, lower the ISO to 800, long exposure NR on/off to fix in post etc... Pictures could have been great... some of em really good but due to the limitations of my camera I wasted 3-4 hours of my time and now I know for a fact I wont be able to get decent milky way images out of this camera. I could cite tons of examples like that but this post already is getting long so:

On to the subject :

Considering I am after optimal image quality and great low light performance you'ld say A7R is the best choice for me. Between A7 and A7R high ISO performance is surprisingly close and the A7R with its 36 mpx w/o AA filter shows way more detailed pictures than the A7. Personally I could care less if the A7 focuses 0.2 secs faster and has phase-detect AF because I don't tend to shoot fast moving subjects and when AF doesn't work properly it doesn't bother me at all to switch to MF (thanks to sony's wonderfull focus peaking). That being said, the A7R has some drawbacks for me that makes me lean towards the A7 here's why:

- I read in alot of reviews that shooting on a 36 mpx sensor requires a way steadier technique than smaller mpx sensors and its better to use a tripod. Since the A7's are lightweight and I usually just bring my subject outside for some kinda candid handheld photoshoot, I'm kinda scared I might waste some potentially good shots due to poor technique. I know technique can be learned but...

-Me and my GF are having a baby coming in 2-3 weeks and my office is now our baby's room. Consequently I work on a 15inch Macbook Pro wich has very limited hard drive space. 36mpx Raws vs 24mpx raws are bigger to store and manage. On top of that, my MBP tend to be on the slow side when it comes to editing the 16mpx raws from the a57, can't imagine 36 ones. No budget to upgrade the MBP for now.

-I don't plan to print larger than 16 by 20 and both cameras can handle it. Most of my work is published on the web so if its not heavily cropped the difference between 36 and 24 mpx shouldn't be visible (might be wrong on that one)

-For video, while they have the same exact extremely sexy features, IQwise the A7R outperforms the A7 by a margin when it comes to sharpness, moire and aliasing. While the A7R is better, both completely destroy my a57 for video so....

-The price difference. On my a57 the 50mm f1.8 from Sony is the lens I use the most . Therefore I plan to buy the A7 or A7R body only with adapter for alpha lenses and the Zeiss 55mm f1.8 and build from that. This sets me at 4080$ for A7R and 3300$ for A7. I'm not on a tight tight budget but with the baby coming I could use that 780$ elsewhere.

Finally I lean more towards the A7 since its almost 800$(with taxes) cheaper where I live and while I'm after great IQ, the A7R might just be overkill. My question is are my concerns valid or I'll end up regretting not putting the 800$ extra to get one of the best IQ camera on the market right now. What do you think?

Thanks in advance!!!!!

TLDR: I want A7/A7R for better image quality from my a57 and I'm thorn between saving 800$ by getting A7 for great IQ, easier files to manage and more forgiving sensor mpx count or getting A7R for best of the best IQ with the chores that comes with it. Picky Amateur/hobbyist here.

 

[blue_skies]

You summarized your reasons in your own conclusion: get the A7!

The A7 is more camera than you expect, and it will impress you. Do get it with the 28-70 kit lens - you will use it more than you think, plus it is a 'cheap' add-on.

The A7r is more impressive, but the lack of EFC and PDAF are big nuisances. Unless you do landscape, cityscape, architecture, and so on, you may never need the 36Mp, but the EFC and PDAF are welcome add-ons on the A7.

If you crop, the A7r impresses, but the pixel-sharpness is indeed (a bit) more tricky to achieve. And, in full image view, you can hardly tell the A7r images apart from the A7.

I think that you will be quite happy with the A7.

 

[miro3]

sounds like A7r is for you!

 

[ianbrown]

I have used both these cameras and what you have stated is pretty accurate

The A7R will give you extra resolution and is mainly useful "if" you crop, print very large or will be using APS -C Lenses as this will give you 15pm v 10mp. Ok it's slightly better made but if you feel both you won't notice the difference.

The A7R doesn't always nail focus, it's not a fault of the camera it just takes better technique. I shot over 1000 images on each over a 4 week period and got the odd OOF shot from the 7R but none on the A7.

The A7R' s 36mp is seductive but if you can get your head to rule your heart then I would get the A7, even if they were the same price, but that's just me.

see some comparisons I did here

A7 v A7R which of these images are best?

Only snaps before I get flamed! I have been trying to see which camera gives best results "handheld" and for me I think the A7 with the 35mm appears to give better corner performance, but is this because I had a couple of cups of coffee? Feedback and opinions appreciated Only the one's of the...

www.dpreview.com

plus when it goes wrong with the A7R here

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

Good luck with your choice

Ian

 

[quezra]

Well first off, congratulations on the baby! I'm sure either camera will be great. Not owning the A7r I can't give you an objective assessment but I think the PDAF on the A7 only gives a real advantage in good light, and the difference in AF speeds in marginal light will be hard to detect. As a 'hobbyist' I think it's hard to justify going for the higher body of a first generation camera knowing that in 2-3 years there'll be some serious upgrades/corrections. I'd rather save that for lenses, with an 85 on the horizon (since you like your 50mm on APS-C), the savings may already cover most of that lens right there.

 

[LoneReaction]

If you need to ask, you are better off with the A7.
I had pondered a long time too and my head won out my heart. Most of my photos are on Flickr or Facebook, and even if I do print, 24MP is enough. If the A7r had electronic first curtain and faster flash sync speed, I may have gone with the A7r.

Anyway, whichever one you choose, you will be very happy. Also remember to budget for those fantastic FE glass

--
Flickr photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tylclement/

 

[Astrophotographer 10]

Hard to say as I have only the A7r. But I have a similar view that IQ is everything and all else is secondary. That is the guts of the camera.

Firstly hard to get a sharp shot with an A7r I think is mostly false data. If you get a blurry shot with an A7r then you would get a blurry shot with an A7 but it may not stand out as much as the sensor is less resolving. So you are seeing sharpness more with an A7r.

First curtain shutter - I suppose its a worthwhile feature.

Basically for both of the above you simply use the A7r in S mode and set the shutter speed to 1/320th sec as your minimum. Then set aperture to suit the DOF requriements for your shot and set the ISO to auto to be the balancing exposure setting. Works well as a strategy.

File sizes are large and I find processing A7r images slow on my i7 laptop and Lightroom.I'll have to try the Sony software to see if its any faster.

The FE 35mm Zeiss lens is a gem and I expect the Zeiss FE24-70 F4 will be a gem also. They may be all you ever need.

I find AF on the A7r is fine. A bit faster than Nex 6.

As far as the cost difference goes - how much that extra 36mp sensor is worth to you is up to you.

For me, I had a D800e for a year and a half and having that 36mp sensor again in a compact body was a dream camera for me. Once you shoot with that beautiful (highest rated sensor on DXOmark) there is no looking back. You are spoilt rotten.

There are benefits simply from no AA filter apart from the extra MP in the A7r. No AA filter is what Nikon is putting out in most of their cameras now. There is a significant gain in sharpness from that alone. For Nikon it was endless threads about D800 versus D800e. I could always tell the D800e images as they had increased sharpness, more micro contrast, a snap and pop to the overall image and better colour in shadow or dim areas.

As far as low noise night exposures go the A7r is superb. A tad noisier than the D800e but I put that down to the fact that the A7r is brighter at ISO6400 than the Nikon D800e and also more detail and contrast than the D800e. Both are superb but wow 36mp in a compact body.

Is it really a question?

I predict if you get the A7 you will love it but you will continually lust after the A7r and think you should've gotten it.

If you are still not sure I suggest renting both cameras for a weekend and you will be able to make an informed decision by Monday.

Greg.

 

[DFPanno]

Seems like you have simply posted your answer.

Ya pays yer money and ya makes yer choice.

 

[Clayton1985]

sounds like A7r is for you!

+1.

 

[npires]

Sounds like you're in the same boat as me deciding between the two. Landscapes as the main interest and wanting full proper quality. I'd save up and get the A7R instead and focus on improving your technique to work around it's limitations.


Congrats on the incoming baby too

 

[zilver]

The A7R has very slightly better dynamic range in low light but I feel the A7 is a better all around camera which also has a very excellent image quality. For most pictures you won't even be able to tell the difference.

The money could be used elsewhere or on the excellent 35mm. As an added side bonus you would be able to take your baby's picture a little easier with the faster shutter of the A7.

 

[DP13Photo]

I chose the A7 and have no regrets.

I think you'll be satisfied with either one, unless you haven't done enough research given the infancy of this camera system.

The deal with the kit lens is the way I went.

Dave

 

[osv]

the a7r can be very tough on wide angle glass, it's hard to find legacy 24mm dslr primes, for instance, that don't look like mush on the sides, when shooting landscapes at infinity... just a heads up.

i like the idea of a7r in crop mode, for family stuff, maybe with one of those cheap sigma lenses, they are really sharp, and dirt cheap, and you get autofocus.

you'll have to upgrade the storage space on that mac, regardless of which camera you get.

 

[Brian_Smith]

I think your analysis is quite thorough and accurate.

You are absolutely correct - most of the differences between the cameras is minor. The level of detail from the A7R is probably the largest difference between the two and yet the A7 is very, very good in that respect.

You'll be happy with either camera.

I will make one suggestion - no matter which camera you choose. Don't worry about the HD space on your computer - get an external hard drive for your photos. Better yet, get two for redundancy. Hard drives are extremely cheap in the scheme of things.

 

[ncsakany]

I know this wasn't your question, but allow me to offer some thoughts:

1) you'll have the best 35mm image quality currently available.

2) 35mm is a very, very versatile focal length. I've traveled with the RX1 extensively and never missed another focal length. You can always crop; the RX1 is extremely sharp down to pixel level

3) you can pick up a like-new used one for around $1,800. Try it and you can always resell it if it's not to your liking; this is like renting it for free

4) silent leaf shutter, great for photographing sleeping babies (though when mine was asleep you could operate a chainsaw next to him, so YMMV)

5) better battery life

6) did I mention that stellar Zeiss lens on it? Yes? Well I'm mentioning it again.

7) with the money you save you can get a decent NAS for file storage, s that you won't have to worry about your MBP.

 

[Brian_Smith]

the a7r can be very tough on wide angle glass, it's hard to find legacy 24mm dslr primes, for instance, that don't look like mush on the sides, when shooting landscapes at infinity... just a heads up.

Hello Dan,

The only wide angle lens that I've used on the A7R that I've noticed any softness at the the extreme edges is when shooting full frame with the APS E 10-18 f/4 OSS - which is hardly a surprise since that lens was never designed to cover full frame.

I've not seen any softness at all with either the CZ 24-70 or CZ 16-35 using the LA-EA3 or with a Leica 24/2.8 or Zeiss 18/4 M (though you do have to correct for noticeable vignetting on the latter.)

It's quite possible that any edge softness with DSLR wide primes is an issue with the lens or the adapter. The A7R will certainly show any flaws that a lens or adapter may have.

 

[cosmonaut]

I prefer the a7R as I shot mostly landscapes. It has no electronic first curtain so it's a bit louder but the extra resolution leads to more detail. If you get it get the glass to make it shine or your wasting your time.

Mine focuses fine even with the 70-400mm attached. No issues unless you are going to shoot sports or something.

--
www.gregmccary.com

 

[viking79]

On to the subject :

That being said, the A7R has some drawbacks for me that makes me lean towards the A7 here's why:

- I read in alot of reviews that shooting on a 36 mpx sensor requires a way steadier technique than smaller mpx sensors and its better to use a tripod. Since the A7's are lightweight and I usually just bring my subject outside for some kinda candid handheld photoshoot, I'm kinda scared I might waste some potentially good shots due to poor technique. I know technique can be learned but...

Your shots won't show more blur from hand movement than the A7 if you resize the A7r output to 24 MP (unless it is shutter blur, but that is different). Sure, it is more noticeable at the pixel level on the A7r, but your pixels are smaller.

If you only look at pixel level sharpness without considering final image, you might as well use something like a D700 with 12 MP which will look extremely sharp at pixel level without processing. You aren't resolving as much detail though.

Appearances are deceiving. They look sharper when you zoom in, but you can add sharpening to the higher resolution sensor image and if you resize it to the same resolution it should look about the same.

-Me and my GF are having a baby coming in 2-3 weeks and my office is now our baby's room. Consequently I work on a 15inch Macbook Pro wich has very limited hard drive space. 36mpx Raws vs 24mpx raws are bigger to store and manage. On top of that, my MBP tend to be on the slow side when it comes to editing the 16mpx raws from the a57, can't imagine 36 ones. No budget to upgrade the MBP for now.

Do you have USB 3 or thunderbolt? Those will give you external storage as fast as internal drive.

-The price difference. On my a57 the 50mm f1.8 from Sony is the lens I use the most . Therefore I plan to buy the A7 or A7R body only with adapter for alpha lenses and the Zeiss 55mm f1.8 and build from that. This sets me at 4080$ for A7R and 3300$ for A7. I'm not on a tight tight budget but with the baby coming I could use that 780$ elsewhere.

Just remember they don't have a lens equivalent to the 50mm f/1.8 on the A7, which used on the A57 will look like a 75mm f/2.8 used on the A7. If you get the adapter you can actually use your existing 50mm f/1.8 for a time.

Finally I lean more towards the A7 since its almost 800$(with taxes) cheaper where I live and while I'm after great IQ, the A7R might just be overkill. My question is are my concerns valid or I'll end up regretting not putting the 800$ extra to get one of the best IQ camera on the market right now. What do you think?

Both seem to be good values. Either have 2 or 3 times the pixels of the D700, which I considered excellent.

Eric

 

[osv]

It's quite possible that any edge softness with DSLR wide primes is an issue with the lens or the adapter. The A7R will certainly show any flaws that a lens or adapter may have.

it certainly does show the flaws! i came from a crop sensor camera, i never knew how extreme decentering could really be :-/

here is an example of what i'm talking about, i have three copies of this same 28mm f2 lens, it never fully cleans up on the sides, at any aperture... it's an impressive looking piece of glass, with a nice focus throw, it was expensive back in the day.

maybe these issues were there with film also? we just couldn't pixel-peep it as well.

i know that there is good glass that doesn't do this, as you pointed out, but it's pricey, and imho, it's the exception rather than the rule.

--
dan

 

[DFPanno]

I would bet that this is excellent advice for a lot of people.

Amazing how many will slap a 35mm on an ILC and rarely remove it. If that's the case then the RX1 is superb.