Is the Sony a7rii mirrorless camera good compared to other cameras in 2020?
I’m looking for a really good full frame camera for just photography (video dose the matter) and I noticed that the song a7r2 seems to be a great deal at just over $1000 And it’s over 40 megapixels. I’m wondering if its good for landscape photography. And how it compares to the Nikon z series and newer Sony full frames.
- SumiLv 71 month agoFavorite Answer
Do not forget to look at the lens lineup from Sony vs Nikon. Recently Nikon has not been getting all that good reviews of their Z lenses. Their bodies have been getting good reviews, though. Yes, you can adapt various brands of lenses via lens adapters, but often at the expense of AF performance. But since you're shooting landscapes, this will likely not be an issue unless you decide to shoot moving subjects.
The only camera within Nikon's Z series that competes with the A7R ii is the Nikon Z7 which is $2,500 just for the body only. So I'd say if you're comparing the Nikon mirrorless system for landscapes, this is the camera you should be looking at. Question is: Is the Nikon Z7 1.5x more camera than the Sony A7R ii. That's rather subjective, so I'll leave that decision up to you.
Here's a side-by-side comparison of main features of the A7R ii and the Z7: https://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-...
The Z7 has about 10% more resolution.
The Z7 has a lower base ISO of just 32 vs 100 on the Sony.
Both have 5-stop IBIS
Both shoot 14-bit RAW files - The Z7 provides with the option of shooting in 12-bit mode for smaller RAW files.
The Z7 has a potentially really useful feature, and that is a touch screen for focusing. Say your camera is really down low in some really awkward position. Just flip out the screen and comfortably touch the screen to focus. For me, this would be it and I'd go with the Z7 over the Sony in a heartbeat because I've got a bad back.
Both have an insane amount of focusing points. So many that it's overkill for a landscape photographer.
The LCD resolution on the Z7 is nearly twice that of the Sony.
The Z7 shoots at 9 fps vs 5 fps on the A7R ii. A landscape photographer would never use such a feature, but lets face it, you will likely be using this camera for many other types of photos, so having a faster frame rate will eventually be very useful. Note: just because the camera specs say X frames per second, this normally means in single-focus only. Drop the camera into continuous AF and the frame rate often dramatically falls.
The chart that I linked to shows that the A7R ii has +/- 5 stops auto bracketing, but the space is blank for the Z7. I'd be stunned if the Z7 does not have AB which is a critical feature for all landscape photographers who utilize HDR in their work.
The Z7 can use XQD cards, but for a landscape shooter have a fast read/write speed isn't necessary. I mean, I'm using a Pentax 645D which takes 10-15 seconds to write just one file. I think it's using Morse code or something. The only time I'm bothered by this is when I'm doing non-landscape work such as parties.
The Z7 utilizes USB3.2 vs USB2 in the A7R ii. This means if you transfer files directly from the camera, the Z7 will download files about 10x faster than the A7R ii.
While a landscape shooter will almost always be shooting at base ISO, there are times when you actually need to shoot at higher ISOs. Say you're photographing a landscape with a swaying wheat field in the foreground. At base ISO the wheat field is blurred, so the solution is raise the ISO and shoot a frame with the wheat frozen and then blend the images in post. According to dpreview's ISO comparison chart, the Z7 and the A7R ii both are on par with each other when it comes to shooting at high-ISO settings: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?...
- AndrewLv 71 month ago
I'd take a DSLR over a mirrorless any day, but the Sony's a class leader here.
Of course, whichever camera you buy, you'll still have to learn to use it properly.
- Anonymous1 month ago
I visited Amazon, and I find the A7Rii listed at about the same price as the Canon 6DMkii and the Nikon D750. If I have to pick among these 3 cameras for about the same price, I would pick the Nikon D750. because it is not only a better camera than the Sony and the Canon, but it will accept more autofocus lenses. Sony's E mount has not been around for as long as the Canon EOS or Nikon F mount, so there are fewer AF lenses available for it and many people use adapters (which cost money) so they can use lenses made for other lens mounts. I also prefer the reflex mirror over the electronic viewfinder. I am more of a wildlife photographer than a landscape photographer, so I prefer a camera that would accept autofocus telephoto lenses. Canon's EOS mount have been around for a while but they deliberately disable older non-Canon brand lenses (mostly Sigma brand lenses) by shutting the camera down when it detects one of those lenses.
Of course, a landscape photographer would prefer more pixels, but more pixels mean smaller pixels. Smaller pixels also mean a lower signal to noise ratio, so you will see more noise if you make big enlargements. Of course the reason people want smaller pixels is because they want to make big enlargements. Noise can be reduced by picking a lower ISO, and use a lower shutter speed. Not a problem for landscape photographers, but definitely not what I want as a wildlife photographer.
So, if most of your photography is going to be landscape photos, the Sony would fit your needs nicely, but do some research to make sure that the lens you may need is available and affordable in Sony mount first or you may need to figure in the cost of a lens adapter into your purchase price. The Nikon Z5 will not autofocus with older Nikon AF lenses because it does not have an in body autofocus motor. Since it has about the same pixel count as the D750, it is actually not as good a camera as the D750 for most kinds of photography.