Jump to content

A7Sii is terrible

anoel

By anoel,
in Sony Alpha Full Frame Cameras

 Share

Recommended Posts

anoel Rookie

anoel

Posted
Posted

This is barely better than the original A7s - any frame rate improvements (120 fps) include a 2.2x crop factor and the camera can't output any frame rates higher than 60fps for recording via HDMI anyway. 

 

Any reasons to keep this thing?

 

I love the stabilizer, but I'd rather have it on the A7R2, are there any advantages to the S2 other than iso?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Golem Mentor

Golem

Posted
Posted

ISO is its raison d'etre. Return it. No other

advantage. It's see-in-the-dark ability is so

amazing that it needs no other advantage.

And to get that, you hafta settle for 12MP,

which is enuf for cine, but is rather limiting

for some stills shooters. Try the a7R-II.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
reyh66 Apprentice

reyh66

Posted
Posted

I had experience with A7S and did not go with A7S2 for this very reason, I posted in many forum that the ISO noise is not much difference on A7R2 because most people wont even go beyond ISO12800. I was glad that I made a very good decision to replace it with A7R2..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • Cameratose
      Lens upgrade suggestions

      By Cameratose · Posted

      The 200-600 is heavy. If you're not used to the weight, it can be daunting over a period of time. Since the lenses are the same in speed, you aren't gaining any low-light performance. But as Pieter suggests, what about the short end? Is 200 going to be a problem? Are you shooting from the sidelines or from the stands? If after reviewing your most commonly used focal length you find 200 won't do it, then you could look at the Sigma 60-600 Sport. It's about the same price as the Sony and would give you more at the wide end but is a bit heavier yet.  Two other options would be the Sigma 150-600 and the Tamron 150-500. Both are similar in weight to the others, maybe a touch lighter.   Lastly, and if reach is your problem, then this may not work, you could look at the Tamron 50-400. It's an amazing lens, sharp from end to end, considerably smaller and lighter than the others, and costs less. I use it all the time, thousands of shots, and it never disappoints. But 400 may not be long enough for you.  FWIW, I have the 200-600. It gets taken out about 3 times a year, while the 50-400 goes with me every time. If you go with one of the larger lenses, plan on using a monopod just to help with supporting it for a few hours.     
    • Pieter
      Lens upgrade suggestions

      By Pieter · Posted

      Some questions to help you formulate the answer to your own question: In what sense do you feel your 70-350 is lacking? What do you hope to gain from this 'upgrade'? What % of your shots are in the 70-200 range? If this % is significant, the 200-600 is not an option unless you carry two cameras or don't mind lens swapping. What % of your shots is at 350mm and potentially could have benefitted from more reach? Do you need high resolution shots or is cropping in post an option to fix your compositions? Would carrying a lens over twice as big and over 3 times as heavy have a negative impact on your photography (think of fun, mobility, physical strain, packing volume)?
    • EVPaz
      Lens upgrade suggestions

      By EVPaz · Posted

      Im looking to upgrade my Lens for high school football games, I currently have the Sony - E 70-350mm F4.5-6.3 G OSS Telephoto Zoom Lens for E-mount.   I am comparing the Sony e70-350 telephoto zoom lense to Sony 200mm-600mm G OSS.   Help and suggestions please!

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...