Only thing I'd say, if you're planning on shooting mostly video, spring for the a7Sii while you'll loose out on the phase detect autofocus you'll gain in better low-light video performance and less rolling shutter (this is due to the 12mp instead of 24mp sensor).
Great video! The A7ii is my first full frame camera and this helped me appreciate it more. The $20 off code is not working... I'm a sucker for a discount! Any advice?
a7 iii is MUCH better than the first and the second. That's their biggest jump they have made, in all terms: build quality, battery life, sensor, autofocus, video, 2 card slots, etc... I would just recommend to invest some more money but get the third version instead of first two (I had all of them). Edit: in my country on used market a7ii is around $700 and a7iii is around $1000, so it's kinda nobrain choice here, but even if it's twice more expensive - it's worth it. Edit: Yes, z5 is also a good option, It's close but not better than a7iii imo.
100% true. a7iii is a great camera, and workhorse. All of my HOW FOH event shoots, and other fun things, the a7iii is vastly superior to the a7 and a7ii. Battery is great too.
100%, I did suggest the A7III (along with the alternative of the Nikon Z5) on his threads post when he was asking for suggestions. I suggested the Z5 as it's even more versatile given the Z mount's flange distance of 16mm vs E mount's 18mm. You can absolutely adapt E mount to it, while still leaving the door open for Z mount glass. I had the A7II, still have the III, and picked up a ZF as well. Both are great cameras, and both are significant improvements over the A7II
This era of Sony (Nex 7/a6000/a7) ushered in a generation of photographers because they made super performative cameras that were wallet friendly and had tons of lens options for cheap. Myself and many others picked one of these cameras as their camera of choice after learning they liked to take photos on apps like Instagram. The old guard was always incredibly critical of Sony's mirrorless cameras while Sony ate everyone else's lunch putting out really great cameras while Nikon and Canon sat on their thumbs. I've moved onto other things, but I will always have an e-mount camera in my drawer with plenty of adapters for all my vintage lenses. Great camera system.
They caught up though. I've been wanting to upgrade to a full-frame Sony for a long time, but the recent Canon mirrorless have been getting in the way of an obvious choice.
The a7ii was the first real camera I purchased over 8 years ago. I bought the cheap Sony 50mm f1.8 for it and to this day I still use it and think it takes amazing photos. People crap on both the camera and lens all the time but they're simply wrong. It's a great camera, and great lens.
People crap on it for good reason. I own it. I should have a waited just a few years when all the Brands had much better Gear offerings. People recommending the a7ii usually have ZERO idea what they are talking about.
@ Just because you dislike the camera, doesn’t make it crap. You want to compare it to newer, more capable bodies? Go ahead. But if that’s the basis of your opinion, every camera that ever existed before now is crap by comparison to the newest available. Don’t like it, don’t use it.
I sold my Fuji x100v during the craze, and bought a a7iii Can’t deny the incredible autofocus, is so much better. Paired with a compact pair of lenses, its about the same size, and way more versatile.
I bought it on release and it was a tank! Bought it for school, started my business with it and only retired it a year ago but picking it back up as a hobby camera. If you are on the fence, get one. Just keep in mind, whilst it is a really fun camera, the battery life is horrible but if you can get 2 extra batteries you are set. Have fun! :)
How did it treat you are a more work horse camera for your business.I would like to form one and wanted to get the best bang for my buck considering I’m young and not made of money.Thanks!
One of the best things about the Sony Alpha system are the Voigtländer lenses made for it, which even communicate electronically with the camera. I use the 10mm f5.6 and the 65mm APO-Macro. As for Sony color, I always use RAW, and before editing them, the images look extremely "plain" and low-contrast, but once edited, I think the colors are fine.
The Sony A7II is my main camera. I use it exclusively with vintage lenses. Try a few X-Fujinon and Contax Carl Zeiss lenses and you are in for a treat! Greeting from Liechtenstein.
I shot film for years and only ever owned point and shoot Digitals and cellphones. So, this being my first Digital SLR... it's like light years ahead for me. It's all about getting out and creating. Capturing those moments. Advancing your craft. Using whatever you can to do so. This channel made me get out my older Sony cameras again and shoot with them. Get out and shoot. That's the point. Don't listen to anyone about the gear you should have. You'll find what you need through experience.
It's weird that Sony gets so much crap. Even Sony fanboys talk crap about older models. I see people on forums steering people away from third gen Sonys for simple general photography needs because the autofocus "isn't fast enough" lmao. The Sony community is pretty toxic. Full of young kids with too much money and severe gas that obviously haven't been shooting for long but are "pros" that require the latest and greatest to take photos of their cars lol. I'd like to see them do a paid sports assignment with a film camera and no AF like many of us used to do.... This isn't my A1 though! I can't use this! I shoot Sony and Canon but don't claim any of the fanboy people lol
I think Sony's insane rate of improvement has spoiled us a bit. I love how small my OG A7 is compared to my A7 IV (feels almost like a FF compact camera), but the gulf in features, AF performance, and IQ due the lack of the green cast in the RAWs is absurd.
Agree that there's too much gearheaded-ness but disagree that people lead away from older models too much. I agree with anyone that steers people away from a6000 and earlier, and a7ii and earlier, as there's just better value options in dslr's, it's just throwing people into a system they shouldn't be looking for a "super-budget" option in, more of a value question than a performance question.
For vintage lenses, of all the 3 different Sony bodies I’ve owned, the A7S was hands down the best sensor for stills and old glass. It rendered much more nicely and was a beast for gig photography :)
A7S series has a lower MP count. I think 12mp for stills? Larger photons on the sensor generally capture more light. So it makes the A7S sensors better in low light and less MP is less demanding on optical designs.
@@nicholassmith7723 and @madladsanonymous The A7S sensor just renders, to my eyes at least, more pleasingly with old lenses. I’ve had the A7 and A7ii, and 12mp is more than enough if you use your feet and don’t rely heavily of cropping. As someone who works band photos in a pit or the crowd, the stills and sensitivity of the A7S is a win win. I still shoot the Canon 5D for example. It was an amazing camera then, and is now. I was sceptical of the A7S for stills, but it really is very good.
@@MadLadsAnonymous I’ve owned the A7, A7ii and A7S… all with vintage manual lenses (my personal preference). The A7S just rendered so much more pleasingly. I’m a photographer who uses my feet, so don’t rely on heavy cropping etc. The noise control, particularly for my line of close quarters sweaty mosh pit gig work was superb.
@@nicholassmith7723 12mp is more than enough. 4K TV is just over 8mp. And if you are only posting to socials, how many megapixels does anyone really need?
I’ve got the original Sony A7 and I’ve had it for about 5 years now. It’s amazing, I do miss the sensor stabilisation, but I’m hoping to one day eventually have enough to upgrade. I’m just really torn as to whether to get the A7 II as the upgrade or to just save up and get the MKIV. Yeah the autofocus is a little off but it’s still not as bad as you think. Menus are a bit hard to navigate but the MK3 and MK4 looks like a great inprovement. They just work. The only thing I notice with my A7 is you get some sensor reflection in some settings (known issue they fixed in the MK2 onwards). I absolutely love Minolta lenses too so it’s just a great fit. Honestly if you’re getting into full frame they’re incredible.
After a lot of research, I found that the best bang for the buck is the A7RII. Excellent stabilised 42MP BSI sensor can keep up with many modern cameras. The dynamic range is pretty amazing. Yeah, the NP-FW50 battery is small, but not nearly as dramatic as people make it out to be.
@@alibarancelik8903 O.o will give that a look when I look at upgrading. I've got about half a dozen of the NP-FW50 batteries so that is the other side that is making me consider the A7III or below. Is there a lot of noising in the R version? - just thinking for low light photography as the pixel size will be a lot smaller?
@@sirscorgie I'd say the noise performance is noticeably better than 20-ish MP FF sensors of the time. This is also a BSI sensor, so better than normal sensors in the dark. Even when there is a lot of noise, since the pixels are smaller, noise distribution is smoother and de-noising keeps more detail. The sensor amp also has a second gain stage at ISO640, so shooting at 640 has less noise than shooting lower and increasing exposure in editing. Sounds counterintuitive, but that's what I see. It's not magic, but it's pretty good. Especially for about 700€.
I had an A7II and an A7, ditched the II as battery life was shocking and bought a higher grade A series for serious work, but kept the A7 as it was the closest I’d been to shooting 35mm film in a simple, compact digital camera body with few bells and whistles. Still love to shoot with it, and also use various Fuji, but the FF sensor and lenses will always out perform APS-C.
This was my first full frame mirrorless. It was excellent. I got some really great pics! Autofocus was meh for me. More frustrating than I expected. The next gen of Sonys autofocus stomps all over the A7II. I just picked up a Canon 5D classic. That focus is better with that too, imo. Simple, but locks on. You are right about the images and sensor. I used it for everything, and some of my favorite photos of all time were with the A7II. I’ve been shooting the A7rIII for years now, and that was a very worthwhile upgrade across the board. Been loving my 5D classic though!
Nice pick, I also bought A7II a while back. Bought it specifically for vintage and modified lenses that just didnt give the full experience on aps-c sensor (especially those modified lenses). Its still my exclusively vintage lens camera. And I love it, its absolutely great camera and a lot of fun to shoot with. Menu is completely fine, same as it always was on Sony (been shooting on Sony system for more than 15 years now, right when they released their first entry level one, a300. Either I forgot what menu was on the oldest models or all of them had the same menu layout and logic). In fact when I bought Nikon DSLR (because its basically impossible to find any Sony DSLR now and I just refuse to live without any DSLR :) ), I find Nikon menu extremely confusing in comparison. So I suppose its not really about menu but what people are accustomed to, so when they switch brand (and Sony was quite small player back in DSLR so most negativity towards Sony menu probably comes from people who switched brand) it will be confusing at first. Colours - most funny part is that when lab tested Sony was amongst the most colour accurate brands and in blind test they were often prefered outcome. So I concider 'Sony colours are trash' is BS and fanboyism from other brand users. AF - cant speak about A7II, never used it with anything but manual focus lenses, but from what I have/had from Sony (a300, a230, a560, a68) what i have from other brands (D7200) and numerous other models and brands I have borrowed for a moment from someone, I have never had an issue with AF being underperforming on any camera. All of them focus well (unless its too dark for them). So I expect that A7II having 'bad autofocus' is the case just in direct comparison to current systems (which obviously seen a lot of advancements in autofocus, I would even dare to say almost all the advancements of last 10 years in digital photography camera world were autofocus and video features). Overall I think if you pick any DSLR/SLT/Mirrorless camera released in last 15 years you will get a pretty good autofocus.
Great video. Glad you did this one. I bought an a7II in 2020 with the 28-70 kit lens, and I have never regretted the decision. I had the a6000 and wanted to try full-frame for my vintage lens collection. At that time, one could still buy a new one from Amazon here in Canada and the price was exactly 1/2 of the a7III. The a7II prices asked on eBay and KIJIJI were the same as a new one, so why buy used? There were some features of the a7III that did not matter to me, like 2 card slots, 4k video and the bigger battery so I went with the a7II. Actually, the small battery is a benefit in a way because they fit both my cameras and they are cheap to buy. I'm very happy with the photos I get from my a7II, especially portrait shots with my Viltrox 85mm f1.8.
I bought a used A7R a few years ago and absolutely love it. Having first got into full frame digital way back with the Nikon D700, the A7R was a god send in size and ergonomics. I wish I had gone for the A7R II with the built-in stabilisation but it is what it is. Great video!
Oh yes, the newer models can do a lot but... these models are just fine for many people too. And you get one of the cheapest FULL FRAME experiences. So, FUN!
people love to badmouth the A7 mark 1, but if you can get it for cheap it still holds up far above similarly priced cameras. I scored one for only $200 with spare batteries on a local offerup deal and have been in love with it ever since. Yes the batteries don't last long, but after saving at minimum $300 I got a camera with essentially the same functionality minus some improvements. And also for being my first mirrorless full-frame, it's far exceeded my needs when paired with cheap vintage lenses.
on the point of people saying the sony colours are terrible, i have to say that this is exactly why i like shooting with sony as someone coming from canon, yes the jpegs out of my canon look way more saturated than from my sony which tends to make them look better, but i like the more dull look as then its basically a empty canvas for me to edit, even the raws from my canon look more saturated than from my sony, it being less saturated makes me want to edit them to see what i can get out of it i do not think its a bug i think its a feature.
Got the A7s for 370€ and i am super happy with it for filming. Also one if the lightest ff cameras. I got the vario tessar 24-70/4 lens which is great for anything really
About the colors, there's a youtuber- Veres Deni Alex, that made film simulations for Sony cameras that are just picture profiles, so you can have kinda film look straight out of the camera. I found some of them really good, it's always good to try things out :). Awesome video as always!
I would say that never judge camera by reviews. You should always try it first. Like I did with my lumix S5(I have it 2 months now). Everybody was saying that AF in video is unusable but despise that I decided to buy it because of Price/Features. And AF is greate. Yes it hunts here and there it is not perfect but for me it works 90% of the time. So if you eying some specific camera best thing to do would be to find the way to try it for yourself.
Autofocus complaints are always hilarious for me as a fellow Pentaxian. I feel like I need need to push my old K-30 through the internet and just say ‘No, this is slow!’ As for Sony menus, I was able to find things in my RX1R easily enough. This was also with the camera being entirely in Japanese with no option to change.
yeah haha I'm used to getting along just fine with basic autofocus. I get the arguments for stuff like wildlife, which I do with Pentax but understand the benefits of better AF, but for a lot of other photographers I don't get why it's a big deal. Not like they're all shooting motorsports or anything...
@@snappiness It's simple. The significantly better AF is not that much more expensive (even the cheaper a6100 outperforms the a7ii) and since most people come from phones where the AF is basically instant it is very much a pain point. As for the a7ii, it is a great camera for adapting tho the a7rii is not much more expensive and you benefit from the better shutter. The a7iii goes for $800-$1000 used and runs circles around this thing, even if we ignore the AF. Easy spot metering with the stick, larger battery, better stabilization and better ergonomics.
@@muzlee7479I got an a7ii for $515 boxed with less than 1000 shutter activations. Even right now, over a year later a similar condition a7iii is $1150+ if you're buying heavily used, on the edge of broken cameras, sure maybe you can get within a few hundred, but at that point you could buy an almost broken a7ii for much less than $500.
i have and A7sii i that i got for 800$ from 2014 and it's incredible!! Oldest full frame camera i know that can do 4k video. Pretty much only have Canon FD lenses to use with it, and with that 12MP sensor combined with stabe it is a low light BEAST for photography and video.
A new Snaps video makes wallet lighter! 🤣 I never got into the Sony ecosystem, but that camera does some nice things and for the price! Always thanks for sharing and keep the content flowing! 24 megapixel and 1080p that has been my limit for the last 5 years.
Sony is a frustrating brand because they are so good at so many things, but they also miss easy opportunities to capture more variants of users. They're not the only ones guilty of this, but they are the most frustrating because they are so close to having a perfect system. I love adapting manual glass to mines and would love to have a more robust A7C, but they don't know who they want to cater to. I've used their cameras for years. I love the lens options, bleeding edge specs, but I feel like they lack intentionality and focus that would otherwise draw a Leica/Fuji/Hasselblad user. The color science was okay, but was clearly enough of an issue for them to change the color science in practically every body/generation of A7. I would love to see them get back to making more specified bodies like the RX1 etc.
I picked the A7ii up when it came out and it's been my main "professional" camera since. Funny reminder of how old it is to see it on this channel! Definitely agree with your round up on this though.
This was my first full-frame. I loved it. Only the poor video and battery were really good reasons to upgrade it. Else, I would still use it. Very capable camera!! Regarding AF: It is bad in video, because it doesn't stick. It tends to shift around, it's not reliable. In photo mode, it's perfectly fine.
I've had the A7, A7ii, A7rii, A7c and currently A7cii and A7iv. I've definitely noticed the colour getting better over the years. I don't bother using auto wb as it seems to be way too cool most of the time.
This has been my main camera since 2020. I own one Sony lens and I don't ever really use it. All of my 100+ lenses are classic, vintage, projector or third part modern. Focus peaking, stabilization and price in the used market were my main reasons for buying it and I have yet to grow tired of it.
I used to have the first A7 and I never had any problem with the jpg colours, in fact I took some of my best shots ever with it. Now I really regret selling it 😅
This was my first 'proper' camera once i started taking photography seriously. I still regret selling my a7II and wish I kept it. was great for portraits especially when using the focus peeking with manual focus lenses. Im a much better photographer thanks to my 4 or so years with it. Thanks for the video!
The main drawbacks (IMO) of this camera are phase-detection AF point coverage, video that is "line skipped" instead of downsampled, and eye-AF working only in single-shot AF. However, for slow-paced shooting, it is more than enough. It can also be used as a nice webcam for short calls (because of battery life).
@@ShaneCranor, obviously, a successor like the a7III or even a7IV would be a big step up in this directions, but you need to stretch your budget beyond $500. Also, you can try an a7SII - it can be found for around the same price as the subject, but I don't really know how the AF is doing because it only has contrast-detection AF. It's more suited for video (12MP) and has 4K. Your needs and budget should be defined for more "tailored" recommendations, and I can speak only for Sony as I have some experience with them, so - I'm biased.
I was avoiding Sony for a long time for exactly the reasons you mention, but then I got an A7r for very cheap, shot it for a while, and now I actually like it. Has even bought two more Sony cameras..
I was wondering when someone would start looking again at these earlier a-series cameras. I’ll never part with my a7Rii; it’s as small as some “compacts,” is killer in low light, has that 40mp, great autofocus (if rather awful tracking), and takes beautiful pics. It’s a fabulous backup to my a7iv and good on its own. Would certainly make an amazing starter camera for a budding enthusiast. Oh, and the menu bothers me not at all; I customized multiple buttons.
The autofocus is probably not as good compared to modern cameras, but then again, modern cameras have insanely fast and accurate autofocus. But if you were to compare all of the past Sony mirrorless camera to the other brands and models in the same year of release, Sony autofocus is easy better than its peers.
Last year I picked up the original A7 because I wanted to see what I'd been missing out on. For context, I own older Canon and Nikon DSLRs, my main system is Fujifilm, I've shot Pentax DSLRs (the K-1 is amazing) and Olympus/Panasonic m4/3, and the first digital camera I owned was the classic Sony F707 (which I loved). Oh, and I have a Sony a800 that I shoot Minolta lenses on. I've not been anti-Sony, just uninterested in the mirrorless end of things. I'd heard the same things about the menus, the color science, etc., and a number of shots I'd seen online from Sony bodies didn't impress me. But I was looking to be proven wrong. Once I had the A7 in hand and shot with it almost exclusively for about a month, I ended up selling it back, considering the amount I lost in the transaction to MPB like a rental fee. Like you, I used the menu system and (maybe because I'm a guy who's lived and worked in tech for decades) it was totally fine and didn't bother me at all. I think this concern is overblown. I did find the base color output was almost always off from what I liked and was used to on my other cameras. It could be more green, more magenta, more blue - the conditions of the scene varied and so the baseline did as well. Occasionally I'd get a shot that I felt really nailed what the original scene had looked like, but I definitely was applying more editing to my shots than the default amount I spent on ANY other camera system. Note that I was only shooting RAW and never tried the JPGs. I felt like I gave the camera a fair shot (no pun intended) and it just never rose to anywhere near the level of hype of heard about this system. I know people will probably say "wait till you try the A7III!" or similar. They're probably right. I just remain uninterested. I felt like I had to do too much work to get the output to look how I wanted. If I shot pro sports or high-speed wildlife for a living, I'd pick up an A9 or an A1, no questions asked. But as someone documenting my life, my family, and my travels, (with some occasional portrait work) I don't need killer AF, which as far as I can tell is the real selling point for Sony. My advice for someone who wants to break into full-frame on a budget and doesn't care as much about video: forego mirrorless and pick up a Canon 5D MkII - every time I think I'll sell that camera I shoot with it and love the output while barely retouching it. It's crispy, vibrant, and contrasty, with totally sufficient megapixels (the MkI feels very aged at this point, IMO). You can get killer red-ring EF lenses for it for a good price that you could adapt later to mirrorless systems.
I find absurd that this camera, when I was buying Sony for the first time at the end of 2020, was 500 and now, at the end of 2024, is still 500. In the end I got an a6300 for 100 more as, at the time, I had only aps-c Pentax lenses to adapt with the soon to come la-ke1
James, great video as usual! A7ii was my first "modern" DSLR I bought a few years ago. I have a Sony 24-70 that does a very nice job, but like a lot of owners, it's mainly used with one of my vintage lens. Focus peaking and punch-in make it a breeze to use. And it takes some very nice photos!
I bought that camera earlier this year. I love it. I don't really shoot anything fast moving aside from maybe birds or some other wildlife, but it usually keeps up with that pretty well. The files can take a lot of pushing and pulling as well!
I picked up an A7ii back in 2017 when they were probably double the price and even then I thought it was a hell of a deal for such a good camera. I've been using it ever since and never felt the need to upgrade. I've tried out the iii and iv but one thing I didn't like is that they have definitely gotten bulkier, especially thickness and weight wise. Its amazing to me that its coming up on 10 years old this month.
This was my first full frame camera and I loved the image quality. I gifted it to my niece who is into photography but some days I really wish I still had it in my arsenal.
Hey alright, been looking forward to this one. I appreciate your tempered opinion, our expectations are ridiculous when it comes to modern camera bodies. So much great gear out there for cheap, I'm happy to pick up the scraps when it gets brushed aside for something "better". (Long time Minolta/Sony user)
Minolta since 66, Sony since 15 & big-L since 84 or 85; suddenly my a7iv is almost 3 yrs old. Still looking for a late Sony body that would directly use A-mount Minolta lenses, esp the 100-300 APO. Don't care for exact # Mpx, & non of Sony's A-E adapters work btw certain lenses & some bodies. { a Sony behavior of its cassette recorders in the late 60's; u never got complete features in one single model ! }
I recently bought Souny A7IIS as my first FF camera to satisfy my GAS. The AF depends on the lens. It's excelent with Tamron 35-150 and awfull with Sony 50/1.8. And it's ok with kit 28-70.
The "S" model only have contrast AF the "plain" II have similar Hybrid system as the R model. But many people don't realise this, just assume that all 2gen have the same system. With that said, the S is also a great camera.
I just picked one of these up a couple weeks ago, and I am loving it. Maybe not the most creative work flow, but it’s comfortable to hold and easy to use.
Great video! As an A7ii owner that has been tempted to “upgrade” this really helped put a fresh perspective out there. I often forget how capable this camera is irregardless of the criticism. :)
I've had my A7II for 5 years now, i love using it with my vintage lenses. It's great camera, but it cant keep up with my demands anymore. AF is slow and inaccurate, the batteries suck, burst mode is slow and lack of touch screen focus is also a bummer. Still love it though! If I were to get a newer Sony, I'd still keep this for use with vintage lenses as that's where it shines for me.
Sony took over Minolta. And Minolta had soul! The Minolta MD lens line-up is slept upon. It was the first lens line-up with consistent colours and was optimised for micro-contrast and bokeh in the same way Leica did it back in the day. Ultimately it led to a cooperation between Leica and Minolta. Thy shared patents and made cameras and lenses together... If you enjoy shooting vintage lenses... Get old Minolta glass. It really pairs well with the A7 line!
I have the R version of this camera, I agree with every word said. I think that I wouldn't recommend it as s first camera, but if you want to upgrade from APS-c to full frame, YES.
I bought the a7ii for video when I was just starting out. Paid 1000 for a kit lens and some memory cars. Now that I updated to the a7siii I find the a7ii battery life is the biggest drawback of the camera. And it's fussy with third party batteries. And Sony has switched to a more unified battery format across the line. So it mostly sits in my drawer but now that I have been getting back into photography thanks to you, I bought that cybershot dsc-v3, I think I might look into some more vintage lenses that don't extend so far off the body. I like to take photos when I travel but I often get approached by people when I use the bigger lenses and while I'm happy to answer questions, sometimes I just want to blend in and take photos without being asked what I'm doing and why I'm taking pictures in public places. I don't take pictures of random people, but I understand why someone would be a bit more skeptical of someone with a professional looking camera. But the iPhone 16 Pro max has been amazing and in a lot of ways replaced the a7ii. I can edit raw images on my phone and post to Instagram. But I still enjoy the big tactile feel of Sony bodies
For some it might be better to use a bit more and get the Sony A7III, becuase the battery life is longer in the newer model. I like the Sony system, because there are so many Lenses you can play with and the Cameras are very good. For me Sony Cameras are NOT boring, it is an excellent TOOL !!!
Knowing I had a comment on threads that contributed even less than 1% to this video getting made. this was a lovely, realistic review for what this camera is and can be used as.
I always wanted a Sony growing up and finally picked up an a7rii and I love the size and the quality is still as crazy as I remember. It's so great to actually be able to afford one now. I actually was thinking of going to the iii but after holding one in store I really couldn't imagine lugging around such a beast. Also shot Fuji but I got frustrated at the crop factor as I got more and more into vintage lenses too
I looked into buying a used A7ii. The main issue was the batteries. If memory serves me correct they were undersized. So any money you save on the body needs to go towards more batteries. I personally wouldn’t buy anything’s older than an A7iii.
Bought an a7rii 2 years ago for 700$, and i love it. the image quality is amazing, and the small form factor is a huge plus. it can shoot 4k if i need. Yes autofocus is slighty slower, but it really dont mind it.
I >just< bought the A7 iii from mpb. It's not even here yet. But a lot of what you were talking about in this video, I'm picking this up for that reason. (one huge difference was battery life - they put the bigger battery in), etc. But again, I paid $1000 instead of $500.
I use my first gen A7 and some vintage lenses to shoot concerts. The first one looks a bit different from later models w the satin finish. Reminds me a bit of my Minolta XE7
Great job on the video. 👍 I've done something similar recently with the Sony a7S, though it has a lot of drawbacks compared to the A7ii. Got it out of curiosity for its 4k HDMI output, but the camera has contrast based autofocus and no IBIS.
Any family looking to get their child interested in photography can't go wrong with this camera for about $600. That's cheap. While those with a lot of experience may consider the Sony body boring, just put one in the hands of a youngster and see the smile on their face as they work on their first video masterpiece. We miss the point of what a camera is. It is a tool used to accomplish a task. Even hammers are boring, but they can be used to build homes.
Great video !!! Can you possibly provide a link to that third party manufacturer of the lens you were referring to. No sure how you spell or pronounce the name. thanks
The A7II is still great camera for photography, for some reason it got quite hated, sure it's not as good like the A7III but it came in the time where DSLRs were still king and mirrorless cameras were just getting traction. For product, real estate and landscape photography is still great and very usable. Battery life is weak but i solved by using a dummy battery and a PD powerbank.
Tech art makes an adapter that lets you autofocus manual lenses like FD or really anything. Only works for photo but it is pretty good. People complain about the speed but they’re just techno specsheet chasers imo
I am a professional photographer and still use an A7S (mark 1) for all my photo work. It was used as a backup camera in a news camera operators kit for the last 9 years, and it's still kicking on. All 12MPs.
I like the A7II. It doesn’t suit everybody but I’m not everybody. I use the camera to photo live play rehearsals - hand held, no flash, theatre lighting etc. The A7II was built as a professional camera and it still shows. Lesser cameras will not cut it. I know - I’ve tried them. I fix the shutter speed, I choose my aperture, the A7II selects the ISO and I let it do its work. The pictures are sharp, clear and not grainy. It never goes over 6400 - it has to be very dark to do that. An actress looked at my pictures online and said they’re very colourful aren’t they? No other comment. Well so much for poor colour science! It depends on which screen or printer you are using. I have a desktop computer monitor and a television, both made by Samsung. The same picture looks different in both. Its very subjective. Bottom line: nobody knows or cares what camera you are using - they don’t even ask. It's the results that matter. It’s the singer, not the song. If you need your camera for video work - don’t buy this camera. I don’t do video, so it suits me not you. Look at something like the Sony A6400 for it’s 4K video. The A7II doesn’t do 4K. Need more than 5 frames per second? I don’t - but if you do, look elsewhere. I need a slower frame rate to photograph actors. I don’t need five photos of an actor blinking. I say that the Sony A7II is an excellent camera. It is suitable for me. But it might not be right for you or your style of photography.
Awesome video! I'm now remembering back to the discussion we had when I said despite owning a lot of Sony cameras I don't get particularly inspired by them. I'm glad that you enjoyed this one so much and you reminded me a lot of the reasons why I still use them. If you do get tempted to try some of the good AF Sony's on a budget, my recommendation would be the A9. It's also pretty old (2017) and can be picked up pretty cheaply. The speed of the focusing, the tracking and the burst speed are pretty amazing, but getting a stacked sensor for the price is insane! I love the precision of the silent shutter with audio feedback. Sounds counter-intuitive, but I never wanted to go back after using it. PS. Try out that Sigma lens for Bokeh Panos and let's have another chat :)
"it was actually made in 2014" feel like a better fit to that would have been "it was actually released in 2014"... because Sony kept up production of the A7 II until late 2021. You could buy it new for ~$900 body-only in 2019 (I did, and also started off with the Rokinon 35 f/2.8). 5 years later, and a bunch of the quirks of this camera have built up into grating on me every time I pick it up. Yes, I don't like the colors... although, trying out 4 different editors (rather than renting lightroom) has certainly exacerbated that. I've also spent the last couple of years frustrated at the number of button smashes required to know for sure the back key-pad is active for adjusting where the autofocus point is (I prefer setting it, than relying on the camera), or adjusting the autofocus area size... after getting to play with an Canon 5D Mark III for a week. which brings me to the real comment: I look forward to one of your future videos on the "unloved" Nikon Z5. which currently is "only" $200 more; has better colors (I think) {no idea about autofocus}... and has a shallower flange distance than the Sony. Thus, one could adapt all the old vintage glass you mentioned here... _and_ the Sony E-mount glass you might have around. Or, at least that's the theory I've landed on after two-ish years watching the camera market and pondering. A theory I might soon test on my own... once I get the courage, and mpb trade-in bucks, to make the switch. Really, it's just a matter of time, since I've already picked up an D3200 to relearn 'the Nikon way' in advance.
A7ii is still pretty good. I'm still doing wildlife photography on this camera with Sony 200-600mm lens. Sometimes the autofocus sucks but thats all right for me now. 5fps is another problem but its not end of the world for me. Even with 5fps I've captured a lot of birds in flight photos.
Only experience I have with sony is the a6000 and was not a fan of the colors. It was harder to adjust colors to my liking than others I have used. There was some magenta and green in certain photos that shouldn't have been there. That said, it still is a good camera and doubt most people care. And as you have said it is most likely white balance most of time.
Recently went from the A7 II to the IV. The newer model is so much more modern in every way, except for the compact form factor. The A7II just fit so well in my hand and felt so much more robust, and i kinda miss it in a way.
I bought it in 2017 with the 50.18. To be honest that lens focuses slow in not perfect lighting, the camera autofocus was good but no amazing. but the images oh the images! I think they are 95% of what a current A7iv with a 50 1.4 gets you. Now there is more tech, AI, in camera optical stabilization, monitor and viewfinder quality megapixels, faster writing speeds, etc. But that combo is gives you all the image quality you need for professional results. Of course is more comfortable reliable and faster to work with newer tech, but the image quality has not improved that much (I know own a A7cr and got plenty of lenses).
I owned this camera back in 2017, and the autofocus was just not good. I failed to capture so many shots with this camera that I have zero regrets about selling it. If you're mainly interested in adapting manual or vintage lenses, then the poor autofocus might not be a significant issue. However, I would highly recommend spending a little more to get an A7C or A7III if you need reliable autofocus. Those are the bare minimum models if you want to maintain your sanity and avoid throwing this camera out the window. You’ll thank me later.
I have all first gen A7, A7r and A7s because its so small and powerfulls, A7 has briliant colors and A7r still have best dynamic range with minimal noise, most better than today cameras. I love A7 with Zeiss 55mm/1.8 best travel combo ever... and A7s for video ors bad light condition, shoot on 12000 iso is like 800 with A7...
Great video! I've been wanting to switch to a full-frame mirrorless, and the A7 looks promising. Since I want to use my Nikon SLR lenses, I was wondering if any features are limited because they’re not Sony lenses (for example, on my Nikon D90, aperture priority doesn’t work with lenses without a CPU). Also, does the A7 offer exposure preview with non-CPU lenses?
Buy the pexar frame now for $20 off! And use the code [pexarframe] for an extra 5% off! (valid until Nov. 10th) - s.whaee.com/QI2FBBY
Only thing I'd say, if you're planning on shooting mostly video, spring for the a7Sii while you'll loose out on the phase detect autofocus you'll gain in better low-light video performance and less rolling shutter (this is due to the 12mp instead of 24mp sensor).
Snappiness can u give me it
Now shoot the Sony a99 ii fun fact in the website cameradecision the site says the best rated DSLR is the Sony A99 ii
Great video! The A7ii is my first full frame camera and this helped me appreciate it more. The $20 off code is not working... I'm a sucker for a discount! Any advice?
I saw this and my heart dropped because I've been wanting to get one of these on a deal and now the price is going to shoot up 😂
It won't. This is one of the most sold cameras of the last 10 years. If you keep searching, you find one for 350-400 all the time ;)
a7 iii is MUCH better than the first and the second. That's their biggest jump they have made, in all terms: build quality, battery life, sensor, autofocus, video, 2 card slots, etc... I would just recommend to invest some more money but get the third version instead of first two (I had all of them).
Edit: in my country on used market a7ii is around $700 and a7iii is around $1000, so it's kinda nobrain choice here, but even if it's twice more expensive - it's worth it.
Edit: Yes, z5 is also a good option, It's close but not better than a7iii imo.
100% true. a7iii is a great camera, and workhorse. All of my HOW FOH event shoots, and other fun things, the a7iii is vastly superior to the a7 and a7ii. Battery is great too.
The a7IV has less dynamic range than the a7iii for some reason.
Truth
100%, I did suggest the A7III (along with the alternative of the Nikon Z5) on his threads post when he was asking for suggestions.
I suggested the Z5 as it's even more versatile given the Z mount's flange distance of 16mm vs E mount's 18mm. You can absolutely adapt E mount to it, while still leaving the door open for Z mount glass.
I had the A7II, still have the III, and picked up a ZF as well. Both are great cameras, and both are significant improvements over the A7II
The a73 is twice the price though
I've lived long enough for digital photo frames to enter the zeitgeist a second time 💀
This era of Sony (Nex 7/a6000/a7) ushered in a generation of photographers because they made super performative cameras that were wallet friendly and had tons of lens options for cheap. Myself and many others picked one of these cameras as their camera of choice after learning they liked to take photos on apps like Instagram. The old guard was always incredibly critical of Sony's mirrorless cameras while Sony ate everyone else's lunch putting out really great cameras while Nikon and Canon sat on their thumbs.
I've moved onto other things, but I will always have an e-mount camera in my drawer with plenty of adapters for all my vintage lenses. Great camera system.
They caught up though. I've been wanting to upgrade to a full-frame Sony for a long time, but the recent Canon mirrorless have been getting in the way of an obvious choice.
I have been using my a7 II for two years using only vintage lenses, can confirm it perfectly does the job
The a7ii was the first real camera I purchased over 8 years ago. I bought the cheap Sony 50mm f1.8 for it and to this day I still use it and think it takes amazing photos. People crap on both the camera and lens all the time but they're simply wrong. It's a great camera, and great lens.
People crap on it for good reason. I own it. I should have a waited just a few years when all the Brands had much better Gear offerings. People recommending the a7ii usually have ZERO idea what they are talking about.
@ I recommend it, and I know exactly what I’m talking about.
@@GasWorksISO Apparently not.
@ Just because you dislike the camera, doesn’t make it crap. You want to compare it to newer, more capable bodies? Go ahead. But if that’s the basis of your opinion, every camera that ever existed before now is crap by comparison to the newest available. Don’t like it, don’t use it.
@@natureredux1957 do elaborate.
I sold my Fuji x100v during the craze, and bought a a7iii Can’t deny the incredible autofocus, is so much better. Paired with a compact pair of lenses, its about the same size, and way more versatile.
I bought it on release and it was a tank! Bought it for school, started my business with it and only retired it a year ago but picking it back up as a hobby camera. If you are on the fence, get one. Just keep in mind, whilst it is a really fun camera, the battery life is horrible but if you can get 2 extra batteries you are set. Have fun! :)
How did it treat you are a more work horse camera for your business.I would like to form one and wanted to get the best bang for my buck considering I’m young and not made of money.Thanks!
One of the best things about the Sony Alpha system are the Voigtländer lenses made for it, which even communicate electronically with the camera.
I use the 10mm f5.6 and the 65mm APO-Macro. As for Sony color, I always use RAW, and before editing them, the images look extremely "plain" and low-contrast,
but once edited, I think the colors are fine.
The Sony A7II is my main camera. I use it exclusively with vintage lenses. Try a few X-Fujinon and Contax Carl Zeiss lenses and you are in for a treat! Greeting from Liechtenstein.
Pentax super takumar are cheap and have glorious film like qualities. Just need an adapter.
Couldn’t agree more.
@@chrisbennett814 omg i'm running an A7ii with a Takumar 55 f1.8 and yes it's incredible to shoot and film
The FD/FL system has a few gems too. My FD 135/2.8 is almost comically sharp at the centre.
I shot film for years and only ever owned point and shoot Digitals and cellphones. So, this being my first Digital SLR... it's like light years ahead for me. It's all about getting out and creating. Capturing those moments. Advancing your craft. Using whatever you can to do so. This channel made me get out my older Sony cameras again and shoot with them. Get out and shoot. That's the point. Don't listen to anyone about the gear you should have. You'll find what you need through experience.
It's weird that Sony gets so much crap. Even Sony fanboys talk crap about older models. I see people on forums steering people away from third gen Sonys for simple general photography needs because the autofocus "isn't fast enough" lmao. The Sony community is pretty toxic. Full of young kids with too much money and severe gas that obviously haven't been shooting for long but are "pros" that require the latest and greatest to take photos of their cars lol. I'd like to see them do a paid sports assignment with a film camera and no AF like many of us used to do.... This isn't my A1 though! I can't use this!
I shoot Sony and Canon but don't claim any of the fanboy people lol
I think Sony's insane rate of improvement has spoiled us a bit. I love how small my OG A7 is compared to my A7 IV (feels almost like a FF compact camera), but the gulf in features, AF performance, and IQ due the lack of the green cast in the RAWs is absurd.
I agree. I only do vintage adapting so I actually am looking to downgrade my 'vintage fun kit' to an a7R ii :)
Agree that there's too much gearheaded-ness but disagree that people lead away from older models too much. I agree with anyone that steers people away from a6000 and earlier, and a7ii and earlier, as there's just better value options in dslr's, it's just throwing people into a system they shouldn't be looking for a "super-budget" option in, more of a value question than a performance question.
They aren't the problem, you are.
@@natureredux1957 touch a nerve? Lmao
For vintage lenses, of all the 3 different Sony bodies I’ve owned, the A7S was hands down the best sensor for stills and old glass. It rendered much more nicely and was a beast for gig photography :)
@@derrenleepoole Why do you think that is? What makes the A7S sensor unique over the A7 II or III?
A7S series has a lower MP count. I think 12mp for stills? Larger photons on the sensor generally capture more light. So it makes the A7S sensors better in low light and less MP is less demanding on optical designs.
@@nicholassmith7723 and @madladsanonymous The A7S sensor just renders, to my eyes at least, more pleasingly with old lenses. I’ve had the A7 and A7ii, and 12mp is more than enough if you use your feet and don’t rely heavily of cropping. As someone who works band photos in a pit or the crowd, the stills and sensitivity of the A7S is a win win. I still shoot the Canon 5D for example. It was an amazing camera then, and is now. I was sceptical of the A7S for stills, but it really is very good.
@@MadLadsAnonymous I’ve owned the A7, A7ii and A7S… all with vintage manual lenses (my personal preference). The A7S just rendered so much more pleasingly. I’m a photographer who uses my feet, so don’t rely on heavy cropping etc. The noise control, particularly for my line of close quarters sweaty mosh pit gig work was superb.
@@nicholassmith7723 12mp is more than enough. 4K TV is just over 8mp. And if you are only posting to socials, how many megapixels does anyone really need?
I’ve got the original Sony A7 and I’ve had it for about 5 years now. It’s amazing, I do miss the sensor stabilisation, but I’m hoping to one day eventually have enough to upgrade. I’m just really torn as to whether to get the A7 II as the upgrade or to just save up and get the MKIV.
Yeah the autofocus is a little off but it’s still not as bad as you think. Menus are a bit hard to navigate but the MK3 and MK4 looks like a great inprovement.
They just work. The only thing I notice with my A7 is you get some sensor reflection in some settings (known issue they fixed in the MK2 onwards).
I absolutely love Minolta lenses too so it’s just a great fit. Honestly if you’re getting into full frame they’re incredible.
After a lot of research, I found that the best bang for the buck is the A7RII. Excellent stabilised 42MP BSI sensor can keep up with many modern cameras. The dynamic range is pretty amazing. Yeah, the NP-FW50 battery is small, but not nearly as dramatic as people make it out to be.
@@alibarancelik8903 O.o will give that a look when I look at upgrading. I've got about half a dozen of the NP-FW50 batteries so that is the other side that is making me consider the A7III or below.
Is there a lot of noising in the R version? - just thinking for low light photography as the pixel size will be a lot smaller?
@@sirscorgie I'd say the noise performance is noticeably better than 20-ish MP FF sensors of the time. This is also a BSI sensor, so better than normal sensors in the dark. Even when there is a lot of noise, since the pixels are smaller, noise distribution is smoother and de-noising keeps more detail. The sensor amp also has a second gain stage at ISO640, so shooting at 640 has less noise than shooting lower and increasing exposure in editing. Sounds counterintuitive, but that's what I see. It's not magic, but it's pretty good. Especially for about 700€.
A7 original user here. Only use manual vintage glass on it - and I love it 🙂
I do the same! Mostly with vintage Minolta lenses, as I have a decent collection from my film cameras. The results are fantastic. I love the OG A7!
I only use modern autofocus lenses and happy with them, the A7 is only struggling seriously in low light conditions
I had an a7 OG for a while, was alot of fun on vintage glass! I found it somewhat unergonomic to use. The EVF was kinda awful though
I had an A7II and an A7, ditched the II as battery life was shocking and bought a higher grade A series for serious work, but kept the A7 as it was the closest I’d been to shooting 35mm film in a simple, compact digital camera body with few bells and whistles. Still love to shoot with it, and also use various Fuji, but the FF sensor and lenses will always out perform APS-C.
This was my first full frame mirrorless. It was excellent. I got some really great pics! Autofocus was meh for me. More frustrating than I expected. The next gen of Sonys autofocus stomps all over the A7II.
I just picked up a Canon 5D classic. That focus is better with that too, imo. Simple, but locks on.
You are right about the images and sensor. I used it for everything, and some of my favorite photos of all time were with the A7II.
I’ve been shooting the A7rIII for years now, and that was a very worthwhile upgrade across the board. Been loving my 5D classic though!
Nice pick, I also bought A7II a while back. Bought it specifically for vintage and modified lenses that just didnt give the full experience on aps-c sensor (especially those modified lenses). Its still my exclusively vintage lens camera. And I love it, its absolutely great camera and a lot of fun to shoot with.
Menu is completely fine, same as it always was on Sony (been shooting on Sony system for more than 15 years now, right when they released their first entry level one, a300. Either I forgot what menu was on the oldest models or all of them had the same menu layout and logic). In fact when I bought Nikon DSLR (because its basically impossible to find any Sony DSLR now and I just refuse to live without any DSLR :) ), I find Nikon menu extremely confusing in comparison. So I suppose its not really about menu but what people are accustomed to, so when they switch brand (and Sony was quite small player back in DSLR so most negativity towards Sony menu probably comes from people who switched brand) it will be confusing at first.
Colours - most funny part is that when lab tested Sony was amongst the most colour accurate brands and in blind test they were often prefered outcome. So I concider 'Sony colours are trash' is BS and fanboyism from other brand users.
AF - cant speak about A7II, never used it with anything but manual focus lenses, but from what I have/had from Sony (a300, a230, a560, a68) what i have from other brands (D7200) and numerous other models and brands I have borrowed for a moment from someone, I have never had an issue with AF being underperforming on any camera. All of them focus well (unless its too dark for them). So I expect that A7II having 'bad autofocus' is the case just in direct comparison to current systems (which obviously seen a lot of advancements in autofocus, I would even dare to say almost all the advancements of last 10 years in digital photography camera world were autofocus and video features). Overall I think if you pick any DSLR/SLT/Mirrorless camera released in last 15 years you will get a pretty good autofocus.
Great video. Glad you did this one. I bought an a7II in 2020 with the 28-70 kit lens, and I have never regretted the decision. I had the a6000 and wanted to try full-frame for my vintage lens collection. At that time, one could still buy a new one from Amazon here in Canada and the price was exactly 1/2 of the a7III. The a7II prices asked on eBay and KIJIJI were the same as a new one, so why buy used? There were some features of the a7III that did not matter to me, like 2 card slots, 4k video and the bigger battery so I went with the a7II. Actually, the small battery is a benefit in a way because they fit both my cameras and they are cheap to buy. I'm very happy with the photos I get from my a7II, especially portrait shots with my Viltrox 85mm f1.8.
camera's price is always a wild field on tech market tbf
I bought a used A7R a few years ago and absolutely love it. Having first got into full frame digital way back with the Nikon D700, the A7R was a god send in size and ergonomics. I wish I had gone for the A7R II with the built-in stabilisation but it is what it is. Great video!
Oh yes, the newer models can do a lot but... these models are just fine for many people too.
And you get one of the cheapest FULL FRAME experiences.
So, FUN!
I sold my a6000 for $600AUD (a profit of $200) last year, got a 3rd hand a7 for $370 then sold it and got an a7Rii for $550.. Love the thing to bits.
sony blows though. boring as sh8t
@@nevertwenty Not as boring as your shots
Selling an a6000 for that much should be a crime
people love to badmouth the A7 mark 1, but if you can get it for cheap it still holds up far above similarly priced cameras. I scored one for only $200 with spare batteries on a local offerup deal and have been in love with it ever since. Yes the batteries don't last long, but after saving at minimum $300 I got a camera with essentially the same functionality minus some improvements. And also for being my first mirrorless full-frame, it's far exceeded my needs when paired with cheap vintage lenses.
on the point of people saying the sony colours are terrible, i have to say that this is exactly why i like shooting with sony as someone coming from canon, yes the jpegs out of my canon look way more saturated than from my sony which tends to make them look better, but i like the more dull look as then its basically a empty canvas for me to edit, even the raws from my canon look more saturated than from my sony, it being less saturated makes me want to edit them to see what i can get out of it i do not think its a bug i think its a feature.
Got the A7s for 370€ and i am super happy with it for filming. Also one if the lightest ff cameras. I got the vario tessar 24-70/4 lens which is great for anything really
About the colors, there's a youtuber- Veres Deni Alex, that made film simulations for Sony cameras that are just picture profiles, so you can have kinda film look straight out of the camera. I found some of them really good, it's always good to try things out :).
Awesome video as always!
I love mine!
I would say that never judge camera by reviews. You should always try it first. Like I did with my lumix S5(I have it 2 months now). Everybody was saying that AF in video is unusable but despise that I decided to buy it because of Price/Features. And AF is greate. Yes it hunts here and there it is not perfect but for me it works 90% of the time. So if you eying some specific camera best thing to do would be to find the way to try it for yourself.
Good advice - glad you're happy with the S5. That series looks very cool.
Autofocus complaints are always hilarious for me as a fellow Pentaxian. I feel like I need need to push my old K-30 through the internet and just say ‘No, this is slow!’ As for Sony menus, I was able to find things in my RX1R easily enough. This was also with the camera being entirely in Japanese with no option to change.
yeah haha I'm used to getting along just fine with basic autofocus. I get the arguments for stuff like wildlife, which I do with Pentax but understand the benefits of better AF, but for a lot of other photographers I don't get why it's a big deal. Not like they're all shooting motorsports or anything...
@@snappiness It's simple. The significantly better AF is not that much more expensive (even the cheaper a6100 outperforms the a7ii) and since most people come from phones where the AF is basically instant it is very much a pain point.
As for the a7ii, it is a great camera for adapting tho the a7rii is not much more expensive and you benefit from the better shutter. The a7iii goes for $800-$1000 used and runs circles around this thing, even if we ignore the AF. Easy spot metering with the stick, larger battery, better stabilization and better ergonomics.
@@muzlee7479I got an a7ii for $515 boxed with less than 1000 shutter activations. Even right now, over a year later a similar condition a7iii is $1150+ if you're buying heavily used, on the edge of broken cameras, sure maybe you can get within a few hundred, but at that point you could buy an almost broken a7ii for much less than $500.
Thanks James for the nice and detailed review❤❤❤ Proud to see that your pictures look so nice on our frame! 🤩🤩🤩
Had my A7 Mk2 for about 5 years now and I love it,I use it with vintage manual lenses and old Minolta A mount glass using the LA-EA4 adapter
i have and A7sii i that i got for 800$ from 2014 and it's incredible!! Oldest full frame camera i know that can do 4k video. Pretty much only have Canon FD lenses to use with it, and with that 12MP sensor combined with stabe it is a low light BEAST for photography and video.
The Sony/Zeiss 35 2.8 & 55 1.8 are absolutely glorious. Both have that proper 'Zeiss look'
Very agreed on the 55 1.8. It's E mount's de facto budget king normal prime, because the FE 50 1.8 is a bit crap.
I used the 55 1.8 but besides the terrible ca's it looked like any other 50mm prime to me
@@Soundwave857 Agree.
The hype this lens gets is not disserved, it`s nothing special and has terrible CA.
A new Snaps video makes wallet lighter! 🤣 I never got into the Sony ecosystem, but that camera does some nice things and for the price! Always thanks for sharing and keep the content flowing! 24 megapixel and 1080p that has been my limit for the last 5 years.
Sony is a frustrating brand because they are so good at so many things, but they also miss easy opportunities to capture more variants of users. They're not the only ones guilty of this, but they are the most frustrating because they are so close to having a perfect system. I love adapting manual glass to mines and would love to have a more robust A7C, but they don't know who they want to cater to.
I've used their cameras for years. I love the lens options, bleeding edge specs, but I feel like they lack intentionality and focus that would otherwise draw a Leica/Fuji/Hasselblad user. The color science was okay, but was clearly enough of an issue for them to change the color science in practically every body/generation of A7. I would love to see them get back to making more specified bodies like the RX1 etc.
I picked the A7ii up when it came out and it's been my main "professional" camera since. Funny reminder of how old it is to see it on this channel! Definitely agree with your round up on this though.
This was my first full-frame. I loved it. Only the poor video and battery were really good reasons to upgrade it. Else, I would still use it. Very capable camera!!
Regarding AF: It is bad in video, because it doesn't stick. It tends to shift around, it's not reliable. In photo mode, it's perfectly fine.
I've had the A7, A7ii, A7rii, A7c and currently A7cii and A7iv. I've definitely noticed the colour getting better over the years. I don't bother using auto wb as it seems to be way too cool most of the time.
I’m still using the Sony A7 classic for casual photography. It’s a nice compact body and works great with new or vintage lenses.
This has been my main camera since 2020. I own one Sony lens and I don't ever really use it. All of my 100+ lenses are classic, vintage, projector or third part modern. Focus peaking, stabilization and price in the used market were my main reasons for buying it and I have yet to grow tired of it.
I used to have the first A7 and I never had any problem with the jpg colours, in fact I took some of my best shots ever with it. Now I really regret selling it 😅
I've converted an A7R for full spectrum. Love it!
it is the best camera for adapting vintage lenses as well, most cover fullframe and you can get some amazing results
This was my first 'proper' camera once i started taking photography seriously. I still regret selling my a7II and wish I kept it. was great for portraits especially when using the focus peeking with manual focus lenses. Im a much better photographer thanks to my 4 or so years with it. Thanks for the video!
The main drawbacks (IMO) of this camera are phase-detection AF point coverage, video that is "line skipped" instead of downsampled, and eye-AF working only in single-shot AF. However, for slow-paced shooting, it is more than enough. It can also be used as a nice webcam for short calls (because of battery life).
What would you recommend instead?
@@ShaneCranor, obviously, a successor like the a7III or even a7IV would be a big step up in this directions, but you need to stretch your budget beyond $500. Also, you can try an a7SII - it can be found for around the same price as the subject, but I don't really know how the AF is doing because it only has contrast-detection AF. It's more suited for video (12MP) and has 4K. Your needs and budget should be defined for more "tailored" recommendations, and I can speak only for Sony as I have some experience with them, so - I'm biased.
I was avoiding Sony for a long time for exactly the reasons you mention, but then I got an A7r for very cheap, shot it for a while, and now I actually like it. Has even bought two more Sony cameras..
I was wondering when someone would start looking again at these earlier a-series cameras. I’ll never part with my a7Rii; it’s as small as some “compacts,” is killer in low light, has that 40mp, great autofocus (if rather awful tracking), and takes beautiful pics. It’s a fabulous backup to my a7iv and good on its own. Would certainly make an amazing starter camera for a budding enthusiast. Oh, and the menu bothers me not at all; I customized multiple buttons.
The autofocus is probably not as good compared to modern cameras, but then again, modern cameras have insanely fast and accurate autofocus. But if you were to compare all of the past Sony mirrorless camera to the other brands and models in the same year of release, Sony autofocus is easy better than its peers.
we are kinda spoiled tbh. But for camera like this might be better to use afs on the center area anyway.
Last year I picked up the original A7 because I wanted to see what I'd been missing out on. For context, I own older Canon and Nikon DSLRs, my main system is Fujifilm, I've shot Pentax DSLRs (the K-1 is amazing) and Olympus/Panasonic m4/3, and the first digital camera I owned was the classic Sony F707 (which I loved). Oh, and I have a Sony a800 that I shoot Minolta lenses on. I've not been anti-Sony, just uninterested in the mirrorless end of things. I'd heard the same things about the menus, the color science, etc., and a number of shots I'd seen online from Sony bodies didn't impress me. But I was looking to be proven wrong.
Once I had the A7 in hand and shot with it almost exclusively for about a month, I ended up selling it back, considering the amount I lost in the transaction to MPB like a rental fee. Like you, I used the menu system and (maybe because I'm a guy who's lived and worked in tech for decades) it was totally fine and didn't bother me at all. I think this concern is overblown. I did find the base color output was almost always off from what I liked and was used to on my other cameras. It could be more green, more magenta, more blue - the conditions of the scene varied and so the baseline did as well. Occasionally I'd get a shot that I felt really nailed what the original scene had looked like, but I definitely was applying more editing to my shots than the default amount I spent on ANY other camera system. Note that I was only shooting RAW and never tried the JPGs. I felt like I gave the camera a fair shot (no pun intended) and it just never rose to anywhere near the level of hype of heard about this system. I know people will probably say "wait till you try the A7III!" or similar. They're probably right. I just remain uninterested. I felt like I had to do too much work to get the output to look how I wanted. If I shot pro sports or high-speed wildlife for a living, I'd pick up an A9 or an A1, no questions asked. But as someone documenting my life, my family, and my travels, (with some occasional portrait work) I don't need killer AF, which as far as I can tell is the real selling point for Sony.
My advice for someone who wants to break into full-frame on a budget and doesn't care as much about video: forego mirrorless and pick up a Canon 5D MkII - every time I think I'll sell that camera I shoot with it and love the output while barely retouching it. It's crispy, vibrant, and contrasty, with totally sufficient megapixels (the MkI feels very aged at this point, IMO). You can get killer red-ring EF lenses for it for a good price that you could adapt later to mirrorless systems.
I find absurd that this camera, when I was buying Sony for the first time at the end of 2020, was 500 and now, at the end of 2024, is still 500. In the end I got an a6300 for 100 more as, at the time, I had only aps-c Pentax lenses to adapt with the soon to come la-ke1
I hope in a couple of years I can sell it for 500€ aswell haha
I don’t consider myself a photographer but I enjoy how you talk about cameras and make cameras interesting.
I love digital frames. We have several around our house. And I agree, I love seeing my photos off the camera through those frames.
James, great video as usual! A7ii was my first "modern" DSLR I bought a few years ago. I have a Sony 24-70 that does a very nice job, but like a lot of owners, it's mainly used with one of my vintage lens. Focus peaking and punch-in make it a breeze to use. And it takes some very nice photos!
I bought that camera earlier this year. I love it. I don't really shoot anything fast moving aside from maybe birds or some other wildlife, but it usually keeps up with that pretty well. The files can take a lot of pushing and pulling as well!
I picked up an A7ii back in 2017 when they were probably double the price and even then I thought it was a hell of a deal for such a good camera. I've been using it ever since and never felt the need to upgrade. I've tried out the iii and iv but one thing I didn't like is that they have definitely gotten bulkier, especially thickness and weight wise. Its amazing to me that its coming up on 10 years old this month.
This was my first full frame camera and I loved the image quality. I gifted it to my niece who is into photography but some days I really wish I still had it in my arsenal.
Hey alright, been looking forward to this one. I appreciate your tempered opinion, our expectations are ridiculous when it comes to modern camera bodies. So much great gear out there for cheap, I'm happy to pick up the scraps when it gets brushed aside for something "better". (Long time Minolta/Sony user)
Minolta since 66, Sony since 15 & big-L since 84 or 85; suddenly my a7iv is almost 3 yrs old. Still looking for a late Sony body that would directly use A-mount Minolta lenses, esp the 100-300 APO. Don't care for exact # Mpx, & non of Sony's A-E adapters
work btw certain lenses & some bodies. { a Sony behavior of its cassette recorders in the late 60's; u never got complete features in one single model ! }
@@user-pg5rt7ju4f I have the full frame A-E adapters for my A7iii but I still enjoy using my A77ii with native a mount glass.
@@user-pg5rt7ju4f I've got the AE adapters for my A7iii but I still enjoy shooting my a-mount glass on my A700 and A77ii.
I recently bought Souny A7IIS as my first FF camera to satisfy my GAS. The AF depends on the lens. It's excelent with Tamron 35-150 and awfull with Sony 50/1.8. And it's ok with kit 28-70.
The "S" model only have contrast AF the "plain" II have similar Hybrid system as the R model.
But many people don't realise this, just assume that all 2gen have the same system.
With that said, the S is also a great camera.
I just picked one of these up a couple weeks ago, and I am loving it. Maybe not the most creative work flow, but it’s comfortable to hold and easy to use.
Great video! As an A7ii owner that has been tempted to “upgrade” this really helped put a fresh perspective out there. I often forget how capable this camera is irregardless of the criticism. :)
Man I didn’t know it had gotten that cheap…I might have to pick up one as a back up to my a7iii, i currently use an a6000 as my back up.
I've had my A7II for 5 years now, i love using it with my vintage lenses. It's great camera, but it cant keep up with my demands anymore. AF is slow and inaccurate, the batteries suck, burst mode is slow and lack of touch screen focus is also a bummer. Still love it though! If I were to get a newer Sony, I'd still keep this for use with vintage lenses as that's where it shines for me.
Sony took over Minolta. And Minolta had soul! The Minolta MD lens line-up is slept upon. It was the first lens line-up with consistent colours and was optimised for micro-contrast and bokeh in the same way Leica did it back in the day. Ultimately it led to a cooperation between Leica and Minolta. Thy shared patents and made cameras and lenses together...
If you enjoy shooting vintage lenses... Get old Minolta glass. It really pairs well with the A7 line!
I've been using my A7ii since 2015. The only modern feature I really want is the improved AF for nailing focus on my cats' eyes at wide apertures.
I have the R version of this camera, I agree with every word said. I think that I wouldn't recommend it as s first camera, but if you want to upgrade from APS-c to full frame, YES.
I bought the a7ii for video when I was just starting out. Paid 1000 for a kit lens and some memory cars. Now that I updated to the a7siii I find the a7ii battery life is the biggest drawback of the camera. And it's fussy with third party batteries. And Sony has switched to a more unified battery format across the line. So it mostly sits in my drawer but now that I have been getting back into photography thanks to you, I bought that cybershot dsc-v3, I think I might look into some more vintage lenses that don't extend so far off the body. I like to take photos when I travel but I often get approached by people when I use the bigger lenses and while I'm happy to answer questions, sometimes I just want to blend in and take photos without being asked what I'm doing and why I'm taking pictures in public places. I don't take pictures of random people, but I understand why someone would be a bit more skeptical of someone with a professional looking camera.
But the iPhone 16 Pro max has been amazing and in a lot of ways replaced the a7ii. I can edit raw images on my phone and post to Instagram. But I still enjoy the big tactile feel of Sony bodies
I bought the A7 R2 recently for 800£ it had only 14 000 shutter counts and it is the best camera for me.
For some it might be better to use a bit more and get the Sony A7III, becuase the battery life is longer in the newer model. I like the Sony system, because there are so many Lenses you can play with and the Cameras are very good. For me Sony Cameras are NOT boring, it is an excellent TOOL !!!
Z-type battery was a game changer back then, the decision to bumped up their power was a golden shot and it shown until today standard.
Knowing I had a comment on threads that contributed even less than 1% to this video getting made.
this was a lovely, realistic review for what this camera is and can be used as.
My first choice for shooting with manual focus lenses. I use it more than my A9.
I always wanted a Sony growing up and finally picked up an a7rii and I love the size and the quality is still as crazy as I remember. It's so great to actually be able to afford one now. I actually was thinking of going to the iii but after holding one in store I really couldn't imagine lugging around such a beast.
Also shot Fuji but I got frustrated at the crop factor as I got more and more into vintage lenses too
I literaly got a sony a7 mk1 this week and its a game changer for someone who had an canon t1i for a very loong time
I looked into buying a used A7ii. The main issue was the batteries. If memory serves me correct they were undersized. So any money you save on the body needs to go towards more batteries. I personally wouldn’t buy anything’s older than an A7iii.
Bought an a7rii 2 years ago for 700$, and i love it. the image quality is amazing, and the small form factor is a huge plus. it can shoot 4k if i need. Yes autofocus is slighty slower, but it really dont mind it.
I >just< bought the A7 iii from mpb. It's not even here yet. But a lot of what you were talking about in this video, I'm picking this up for that reason. (one huge difference was battery life - they put the bigger battery in), etc. But again, I paid $1000 instead of $500.
The amount of value you can get from 10year old gear is so good. I wish there was a magic lantern community for sony gear.
I use my first gen A7 and some vintage lenses to shoot concerts. The first one looks a bit different from later models w the satin finish. Reminds me a bit of my Minolta XE7
the XE-7 & the Leica R3 ( & the srT101 ) are the best looking film-bodies !
I bought an A7m2 several years ago- it is easy to adapt vintage m39 and m42 glass, love the focus peaking
Great job on the video. 👍 I've done something similar recently with the Sony a7S, though it has a lot of drawbacks compared to the A7ii. Got it out of curiosity for its 4k HDMI output, but the camera has contrast based autofocus and no IBIS.
It's also a lot tinier, extraordinary ISO performance, smaller file size, and silent shutter.
Any family looking to get their child interested in photography can't go wrong with this camera for about $600. That's cheap. While those with a lot of experience may consider the Sony body boring, just put one in the hands of a youngster and see the smile on their face as they work on their first video masterpiece. We miss the point of what a camera is. It is a tool used to accomplish a task. Even hammers are boring, but they can be used to build homes.
You should check out the Viltrox 28mm f/4.5. It's super small and super inexpensive.
Great video !!! Can you possibly provide a link to that third party manufacturer of the lens you were referring to. No sure how you spell or pronounce the name. thanks
The A7II is still great camera for photography, for some reason it got quite hated, sure it's not as good like the A7III but it came in the time where DSLRs were still king and mirrorless cameras were just getting traction.
For product, real estate and landscape photography is still great and very usable. Battery life is weak but i solved by using a dummy battery and a PD powerbank.
Tech art makes an adapter that lets you autofocus manual lenses like FD or really anything. Only works for photo but it is pretty good. People complain about the speed but they’re just techno specsheet chasers imo
I am a professional photographer and still use an A7S (mark 1) for all my photo work. It was used as a backup camera in a news camera operators kit for the last 9 years, and it's still kicking on. All 12MPs.
I still have the a6000 along with my A9MKI and a6700 the A9 MKI is dropping in price rapidly and is still a supreme camera
I bought the A7II new in 2014, only ever using 1950s Nikkor S rangefinder lenses. Serious quality images in a travel size package.
I like the A7II. It doesn’t suit everybody but I’m not everybody. I use the camera to photo live play rehearsals - hand held, no flash, theatre lighting etc. The A7II was built as a professional camera and it still shows. Lesser cameras will not cut it. I know - I’ve tried them. I fix the shutter speed, I choose my aperture, the A7II selects the ISO and I let it do its work. The pictures are sharp, clear and not grainy. It never goes over 6400 - it has to be very dark to do that.
An actress looked at my pictures online and said they’re very colourful aren’t they? No other comment. Well so much for poor colour science! It depends on which screen or printer you are using. I have a desktop computer monitor and a television, both made by Samsung. The same picture looks different in both. Its very subjective. Bottom line: nobody knows or cares what camera you are using - they don’t even ask. It's the results that matter. It’s the singer, not the song.
If you need your camera for video work - don’t buy this camera. I don’t do video, so it suits me not you. Look at something like the Sony A6400 for it’s 4K video. The A7II doesn’t do 4K. Need more than 5 frames per second? I don’t - but if you do, look elsewhere. I need a slower frame rate to photograph actors. I don’t need five photos of an actor blinking.
I say that the Sony A7II is an excellent camera. It is suitable for me. But it might not be right for you or your style of photography.
Awesome video! I'm now remembering back to the discussion we had when I said despite owning a lot of Sony cameras I don't get particularly inspired by them. I'm glad that you enjoyed this one so much and you reminded me a lot of the reasons why I still use them. If you do get tempted to try some of the good AF Sony's on a budget, my recommendation would be the A9. It's also pretty old (2017) and can be picked up pretty cheaply. The speed of the focusing, the tracking and the burst speed are pretty amazing, but getting a stacked sensor for the price is insane! I love the precision of the silent shutter with audio feedback. Sounds counter-intuitive, but I never wanted to go back after using it.
PS. Try out that Sigma lens for Bokeh Panos and let's have another chat :)
"it was actually made in 2014"
feel like a better fit to that would have been "it was actually released in 2014"... because Sony kept up production of the A7 II until late 2021. You could buy it new for ~$900 body-only in 2019 (I did, and also started off with the Rokinon 35 f/2.8).
5 years later, and a bunch of the quirks of this camera have built up into grating on me every time I pick it up. Yes, I don't like the colors... although, trying out 4 different editors (rather than renting lightroom) has certainly exacerbated that. I've also spent the last couple of years frustrated at the number of button smashes required to know for sure the back key-pad is active for adjusting where the autofocus point is (I prefer setting it, than relying on the camera), or adjusting the autofocus area size... after getting to play with an Canon 5D Mark III for a week.
which brings me to the real comment: I look forward to one of your future videos on the "unloved" Nikon Z5. which currently is "only" $200 more; has better colors (I think) {no idea about autofocus}... and has a shallower flange distance than the Sony. Thus, one could adapt all the old vintage glass you mentioned here... _and_ the Sony E-mount glass you might have around.
Or, at least that's the theory I've landed on after two-ish years watching the camera market and pondering. A theory I might soon test on my own... once I get the courage, and mpb trade-in bucks, to make the switch. Really, it's just a matter of time, since I've already picked up an D3200 to relearn 'the Nikon way' in advance.
The first 20 seconds is basically why I follow your channel.
A7ii is still pretty good. I'm still doing wildlife photography on this camera with Sony 200-600mm lens. Sometimes the autofocus sucks but thats all right for me now. 5fps is another problem but its not end of the world for me. Even with 5fps I've captured a lot of birds in flight photos.
Only experience I have with sony is the a6000 and was not a fan of the colors. It was harder to adjust colors to my liking than others I have used. There was some magenta and green in certain photos that shouldn't have been there. That said, it still is a good camera and doubt most people care. And as you have said it is most likely white balance most of time.
Recently went from the A7 II to the IV. The newer model is so much more modern in every way, except for the compact form factor. The A7II just fit so well in my hand and felt so much more robust, and i kinda miss it in a way.
No worries I'm prepared to trade 😂
I bought it in 2017 with the 50.18. To be honest that lens focuses slow in not perfect lighting, the camera autofocus was good but no amazing. but the images oh the images! I think they are 95% of what a current A7iv with a 50 1.4 gets you. Now there is more tech, AI, in camera optical stabilization, monitor and viewfinder quality megapixels, faster writing speeds, etc. But that combo is gives you all the image quality you need for professional results. Of course is more comfortable reliable and faster to work with newer tech, but the image quality has not improved that much (I know own a A7cr and got plenty of lenses).
Picked up an infrared converted A7 this summer, as much as I enjoy using mirrorless I don't think I'll abandons DSLRs yet.
I owned this camera back in 2017, and the autofocus was just not good. I failed to capture so many shots with this camera that I have zero regrets about selling it. If you're mainly interested in adapting manual or vintage lenses, then the poor autofocus might not be a significant issue. However, I would highly recommend spending a little more to get an A7C or A7III if you need reliable autofocus. Those are the bare minimum models if you want to maintain your sanity and avoid throwing this camera out the window. You’ll thank me later.
I have all first gen A7, A7r and A7s because its so small and powerfulls, A7 has briliant colors and A7r still have best dynamic range with minimal noise, most better than today cameras. I love A7 with Zeiss 55mm/1.8 best travel combo ever... and A7s for video ors bad light condition, shoot on 12000 iso is like 800 with A7...
Great video! I've been wanting to switch to a full-frame mirrorless, and the A7 looks promising. Since I want to use my Nikon SLR lenses, I was wondering if any features are limited because they’re not Sony lenses (for example, on my Nikon D90, aperture priority doesn’t work with lenses without a CPU). Also, does the A7 offer exposure preview with non-CPU lenses?
Minolta was such an innovative company. They pioneered autofocus and also apparently IBIS! It's such a shame they don't really make cameras anymore.
shot a lot with the a7ii and that combined with the sigma 35mm 1.4 art is still one of my abs fav combos