Sony Dilemma and advice needed please: I am in the 'lucky' position of being able to consider an upgrade to my Alpha 7 with either the A7R11 or the A7S11. The bodies are identical from...

pelmes Loc: UK

I am in the 'lucky' position of being able to consider an upgrade to my Alpha 7 with either the A7R11 or the A7S11.
The bodies are identical from what I have read with either great resolution (43) or great sensitivity for low light shots.
Is there something I am missing. I shoot mainly landscape with an occasional wedding/social function.
which way should I go?

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Maybe this can help you decide?

https://www.cinema5d.com/sony-a7s-ii-vs-a7r-ii-test-which-one/

pelmes wrote:

I am in the 'lucky' position of being able to consider an upgrade to my Alpha 7 with either the A7R11 or the A7S11.
The bodies are identical from what I have read with either great resolution (43) or great sensitivity for low light shots.
Is there something I am missing. I shoot mainly landscape with an occasional wedding/social function.
which way should I go?

pelmes Loc: UK

STAN,
Many thanks for the link. I am thinking R.
Mainly still shots over video.
Many Thanks
Peter

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Peter, I would go R just for the 40 something megapixels.

pelmes wrote:

STAN,
Many thanks for the link. I am thinking R.
Mainly still shots over video.
Many Thanks
Peter

ozdude Loc: Brisbane Australia

Go the R. Landscape monster!

Peekayoh Loc: UK

Sony did say that the pixel density of the a7s was chosen primarily for best video. The sensitivity is higher than that of the a7Rm2's 42Mpix sensor but not by a considerable amount.

I really can't see any reason why you would even consider the a7sM2 given that your primary use is for Landscape.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

pelmes wrote:

I am in the 'lucky' position of being able to consider an upgrade to my Alpha 7 with either the A7R11 or the A7S11.
The bodies are identical from what I have read with either great resolution (43) or great sensitivity for low light shots.
Is there something I am missing. I shoot mainly landscape with an occasional wedding/social function.
which way should I go?

Go to comparisons.

Read comparisons and specs, and decide what features are important to you.
(Reviews) https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCameraStoreTV/videos
http://cameras.reviewed.com/
http://camerasize.com/
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
http://snapsort.com/compare
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/cameras?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu

chapjohn Loc: Tigard, Oregon

I use the A7Rm2 and it does well in low light. The newer sensor technology allows the use of high ISO's (6400) with very little noise if you can see it. Any noise is easily handled in post. I usually shoot with auto ISO and auto WB making any corrections in post.

If you are not already using Capture One for postprocessing as you upgrade your camera it might also be good to get into using CO.

jackpi Loc: Southwest Ohio

If you take most of your photos handheld at night, pick the A7Sii.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

pelmes wrote:

I am in the 'lucky' position of being able to consider an upgrade to my Alpha 7 with either the A7R11 or the A7S11.
The bodies are identical from what I have read with either great resolution (43) or great sensitivity for low light shots.
Is there something I am missing. I shoot mainly landscape with an occasional wedding/social function.
which way should I go?

Landscape - resolution

Social functions ( inside) - sensitivity

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

I currently have a a65 but am looking to upgrade to a a99ll. I had the pleasure of using a a7rll this past spring. I primarily shoot Mother Nature and. Sometimes people (weddings) . Although I like the extream low light ability of the S, I absolutely would go for the R. It's low light capability is far superior to film and my present a65 that I would be happy. The 42 meg pix gives you more options for capturing Mother Nature. Photos look great on a 55" or larger 4K tv. I can really see the difference on my Mac between the 40+ mp of the R vs the 20+ of the S or my 65. Of cours, messing with that much data slowes the computer down. Happy shooting.

Dan De Lion Loc: Montana

-----

If you shoot most of your pics on a very steady 20 pound tripod, always shoot at f5.6 or faster, and use the very finest lenses, then get the R version. If you don't do all three of the above you are wasting your money on the R while suffering from bloated files and poorer results. The same reasoning goes for Nikon's 36mph bodies and Canon's 49mp bodies.

-----

pelmes Loc: UK

Thanks to all the fellow 'hogs' who have taken the time and trouble to help me.
it is much appreciated. Will be ordering the R later today with lens converter for A mount to E mount.

ebercovici

The AR7ii has much better resolution, which is very important for large prints or severe cropping. It is a better all-around choice for photos. It has great light sensitivity and would seem to be the better choice for you. The AS7ii is better for video and low light photos. It has much better light sensitivity but lower resolution.