Sony A7ll vs A7lll Is the extra $1000 worth it? (Page 2): Then he’ll hafta settle for an a9.

User ID

BebuLamar wrote:

I was about to say the same but I think Sony doesn't make the A7IV but only the A7RIV.

Then he’ll hafta settle for an a9.

User ID

MDI Mainer wrote:

Obviously the OP thinks one of has the "smoking gun" argument for the III.

Like I just shot my a7II.

w00dy4012 Loc: Thalia, East Virginia

LEWHITE7747 wrote:

Trying to convince my friend that the lll is 5 times the camera than the ll. The lll is the one that made Sony a serious rival in the camera world. They have done nothing but become a magor player since the A7lll was intorduced.

The a7ii is still a very capable camera, but the a 7iii is much better. If cost difference is not a concern, the a7iii is definitely the better choice.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

LEWHITE7747 wrote:

Trying to convince my friend that the lll is 5 times the camera than the ll. The lll is the one that made Sony a serious rival in the camera world. They have done nothing but become a magor player since the A7lll was intorduced.

Yes and No.

Jerrin1 Loc: Wolverhampton, England

I have been fortunate to own several Sony FF mirrorless cameras, including: A7II, A7III, A7R4 and A9. I purchased an A7III for wildlife photography and required a companion camera. Having read that the A7II was also good for wildlife, I purchased one (at a very good price). After a few weeks I realised that it wasn't the camera for me. Perhaps others will disagree, but I found it inferior in every way to my A7III. The AF was just too slow and less accurate than my A7III. I sold it on and purchased an A9, so my A7III became the companion camera.

gwilliams6

jerryc41 wrote:

Maybe factual comparisons will persuade him.

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/preview/sony-a7ii-vs-a7iii/
https://cameradecision.com/compare/Sony-Alpha-A7-III-vs-Sony-Alpha-7-II
https://shotkit.com/sony-a7-ii-vs-sony-a7-iii/
https://expertworldtravel.com/sony-a7ii-vs-a7iii/
https://www.alphashooters.com/compare/sony-a7ii-vs-a7iii/

Thanks, facts dont lie.

gwilliams6

The much longer battery life, MUCH better autofocus, better low light performance, dual card slots, better ergonomics ,better weather sealing and so much more. The A7III is a quantum leap forward from the A7II. No contest here.

Cheers

FYI, I have owned A7RII, A7RIII, A7III, A9, and currently own A7RIV, A1, and A7SIII.

(Download)

BushDog Loc: San Antonio, TX

I’ve had or have:
A7Rii (sold)
A7Sii (sold)
A7Riii (two copies -still have)
A7Riv (still have)
A7Siii (still have)
A1 (still have)
This is just my opinion but the older “W” battery in the ii versions drove me nuts. I was constantly carrying around three, four or five extra batteries because they lost their charge so quickly. The longer holding charge starting with the newer “Z” battery made a huge difference.

gwilliams6

BushDog wrote:

I’ve had or have:
A7Rii (sold)
A7Sii (sold)
A7Riii (two copies -still have)
A7Riv (still have)
A7Siii (still have)
A1 (still have)
This is just my opinion but the older “W” battery in the ii versions drove me nuts. I was constantly carrying around three, four or five extra batteries because they lost their charge so quickly. The longer holding charge starting with the newer “Z” battery made a huge difference.

Where have you been BushDog, I feel like I am the only Sony person here at times in UHH discussions that are so dominated with Canon and Nikon folks , fanboys and fangirls, LOL

(I did shoot pro Nikon and Canon for 40 years before moving to Sony in January 2017)
Cheers

LEWHITE7747 Loc: 33773

gwilliams6 wrote:

Thanks, facts dont lie.

Thanks for the great documentation--leaves little to the argument that the lll is far superior.

BushDog Loc: San Antonio, TX

gwilliams6 wrote:

img src="https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/images/s... (show quote)

LOL - there are some of us around. 😄
Like you, I’ve also shot with other brands over many years. Mostly Canon but also Nikon, Olympus, Fuji & Ricoh.

So as not to completely hijack the OP’s thread, I’ll throw out this observation:
I absolutely love my a7Riii bodies. I just love the images that sensor creates. And the price on that body has come way down.

tropics68 Loc: Georgia

LEWHITE7747 wrote:

Trying to convince my friend that the lll is 5 times the camera than the ll. The lll is the one that made Sony a serious rival in the camera world. They have done nothing but become a magor player since the A7lll was intorduced.

I have never owned a 7III but did buy a 7II a couple of years ago. I was not impressed in the least so I sold it after about 3 months. My ancient A6000 takes better pictures IMHO.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

LEWHITE7747 wrote:

Thanks for the great documentation--leaves little to the argument that the lll is far superior.

I don’t think anybody said the III wasn’t superior.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

LEWHITE7747 wrote:

Thanks for the great documentation--leaves little to the argument that the lll is far superior.

The only argument I see is between you and your friend. Your friend wants a II and for some reason you feel the need to force your friend to buy a III, which your friend doesn’t want.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

LEWHITE7747 wrote:

Trying to convince my friend that the lll is 5 times the camera than the ll. The lll is the one that made Sony a serious rival in the camera world. They have done nothing but become a magor player since the A7lll was intorduced.

I've had five Sony full frame mirrorless cameras going back to the A7R & A7S. The A7 II was by far the worst! Low light performance was terrible. The A7 III and A7R III are the best of the best. The A7 III is superb!!

bwa