Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi, I am a new member here and new to Sony and have been looking to pickup a 2nd hand full frame body - either the a7 or a7s. I've been told that the a7s is better in low light, while the a7 has higher resolution. I would be using the camera for 75% stills and 25% video and I'm not sure which way to go. I won't be printing super large prints and most of my stills will be produced for social media and my website portfolio. I like the idea of better low light and am leaning towards the a7s. Is there someone here who as owned both who could give an opinion on which body would be the one to go for. Regarding budget, I've been offered both bodies from a work colleague at the same price - $650 AUD. I don't have the budget to move up the line to the a7sII or a7II at this stage, so those are not options. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated... 

Cheers, Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

I had the A7, it's a great camera for photography, I could not tell you how it behaves in the video.
The quality of autofocus is certainly not at the level of those today but, again, for non-dynamic photography is fine.
I did not have the A7S, so I would not know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are lots of reviews out there..... If I were you I would at least go for the second generation of the A7 series. The first generation of these cameras has poor ergonomics and the flange where you mount the lenses on is weak, so much so that there are aftermarket flanges to replace the original one. I had the A7ii, and found that rather noisy at higher iso ( low light). I now have the A7Riii, which also produces noisy pictures over iso 1600-2000. Since I do a lot of birding from a hide-out in a forest ( always dark) I am definitely considering an A7Sii as a second body, but will wait a while until the A7Siii comes out. Prices of second hand A7Sii will definitely drop then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the A7ii, and traded it in for an A7Rii.  Huge improvement in pixels, and low light.  

I later added the A7S, and it is sooo much better in low light, both photos and video.  

You'll see from my gallery that I mostly shoot in the dark. 

12MP is plenty for social media use, you just have to compose correctly, where with a very high MP camera you can shoot wide, and compose in post.

 

JCC

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I currently shoot A9 and A6500 but I've owned both the A7 and A7S. I found the A7 a joy to shoot with. There's something special about the weight/feel of that camera. It's great for general photography of stationary or slow moving subjects in good light. The A7S produces beautiful images but they cannot be cropped as much as the A7. However the A7S is a much better video camera especially in low light! It produces clean 1080P but if you need 4K you'll have to use an external recorder.

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
  • Posts

    • I'd suggest you start by running a simple test.  Take pictures of a typical scene/subject and each of the JPEG settings your camera offers.  Then compare them in the output that you normally produce.  You may or may not see a difference.  I normally shoot at the highest JPEG level and save that file -- but make a smaller file (lower resolution) for normal/typical use. There's plenty of editing that you can do with JPEGs on your computer -- depending on your software -- and there are features in your camera that can help out, as well.  That depends on your camera.  Put them together, and it might meet your needs.  For example, your camera probably has several bracketing features that will take the same shot with different settings with one press of the button.  Then you can select the best JPEG to work with on your computer.  I frequently use this feature to control contrast.
    • If you set up some basic presets in your processing software and use batch processing, you don't need jpeg at all. I shoot RAW only, use (free) Faststone Image Viewer which will view any type of image file to cull my shots, and batch process in Darktable. I can start with 2000-3000 shots and in a matter of a few hours have them culled, processed, and posted. A handful of shots, say a couple hundred from a photo walk, are done in minutes.  This saves card space, computer space, and upload time.  The results are very good for posting online. When someone wants to buy one or I decide to print it, I can then return to the RAW file and process it individually for optimum results.  I never delete a RAW file. Sometimes I'll return to an old shot I processed several years ago and reprocess it. I have been very surprised how much better they look as my processing skills improved.  
    • If you're only publishing small-sized photo's or viewing on a phone / computer screen, 12-ish MP should be more than enough for your needs. Since with JPEG, the ability to 'fix' stuff on the computer is very limited anyway, you're not giving up much except the ability to crop/recompose after taking the shot. If you tend to crop often or might print large, shoot fine quality instead as JPEGs don't take up a lot of space anyway. I tend to shoot RAW+JPEG. After a trip/shoot, I download my photos to my computer and quickly scan through my JPEGs to select my keepers. The JPEGs are fine for 90% of my needs but at times there are one or two 'WOW'-shots that I might one day print large. I'll edit the RAW of these photos to my hearts content, generate a JPEG, then delete all RAWs to clear up space.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...