Should you buy the Sony A7 II in 2021?

You’re new to photography or perhaps you’ve been shooting with crop sensors for a while, yet one thing camera people say has always stuck with you (whether true or false): in order to reach the next level and get the best quality you need to be like the pros and use a full frame camera. While these camera used to costs thousands of dollars not too long ago, nowadays you can pick up camera’s like the Sony A7 II, the Canon EOS RP and the Nikon Z5 for close to or slightly above a grand, new. Naturally, then, people are curious and in this article I want to focus on the A7 II in particular since it’s been out the longest and seems to be the most popular. Every day, I see people asking whether the A7 II is worth buying in 2021 and in this article I’ll try to answer that question.

Spoiler alert: no, probably not.

“I’ve saved up $1200. This is my first camera and I’d love to have a future proof body I can grow with”

I get it, it’s alluring to pick out the best body you can afford because you can always buy more lenses in the future, so why not get the A7 II with the kit lens. But is the A7 II truly the best body you can afford?

In a vacuum, the A7 II isn’t bad. Neither is the EOS RP or the Z5. No full frame camera is that bad, really. The point of this article isn’t to highlight the A7 II’s flaws (though we’ll get to them), the point is to place these cameras in context because they don’t exist in a vacuum. They exist at a price point where modern cameras with modern feature sets and sensors, albeit smaller, exist and this is where these cameras run into trouble. The A7 II was released late 2014, almost 7 years ago. Even when it came out it was seen as a rather modest update of the original A7 that added a slightly beefier body to accommodate the (rather weak) in-body image stabilization. That’s about it. Same sensor as the A7, same general image quality. Slightly better autofocus quality but a long cry away from later generation models. Other modern creature comforts are also missing. Touch? Better learn to tap that dial pad. Silent shutter for event and street photography? Nah. Tracking capabilities? Maybe if your subject walks really slow. Low light performance? Well, 2013-era low light performance. Auto-ISO Min. SS or Highlight Priority to finetune your automated controls (IMO modern era camera must-haves)? Forget about it. Video? 1080p60 at disheartening bitrates is what you’ll have to contend with, forget about 4k and forget about bothering with autofocus. In fact, maybe forget about video. Custom My Menu? Better learn to navigate those 50 tabs.

Let’s compare that to the A6400, its closest price competitor. The A6400 came out five years after the A7 II and features everything I just mentioned the A7II. In fact it goes a step beyond with real-time autofocus tracking, a tilting screen for vlogging and selfies, HLG and other picture profiles for more video customization, double the burst rate, Bluetooth, Animal Eye AF, built-in Flash, etc. It manages to do this in a smaller body with smaller lens options available to it while using the same battery (neither features particularly good battery life). For all this you give up two things: sensor size and IBIS. Sensor size is slightly shrouded in myths because yes a bigger sensor does generally feature better dynamic range and low light performance but this is really only relevant when comparing it to a smaller sensor of the same generation.

The A6400 benefits from Sony’s BSI (backside illuminated) sensor technology which really boosts its low light performance. So much so that the difference in low light performance is lot less than you might expect, maybe half a stop. Similarly, improvements in sensor technology also allowed the A6400 to catch up in dynamic range. While the A6400 is likely not as good as the A7 II in either aspect I would say it’s close enough for the differences to be rather negligible. The low light aspect is of particular interest because this really only applies when using lenses with the same aperture (well, really transmission value but let’s not get too technical). For the price of the A7 II with the 50mm F1.8 (the cheapest fast lens with autofocus you can get) you could get the A6400 with the Sigma 30mm F1.4 which is almost a stop ahead in terms of low light performance, putting the A6400 at equal performance or ahead not to mention operating much snappier. Unfortunately that’s not the end of your lens woes.

Lenses are the most important part of your kit. Buying a full frame camera to solely pair it with the kit lens is like buying an RTX-powered PC and using it with an old Dell office monitor, or buying the lossless FLAC version of the White Album and pairing it with some Apple dirty buds, or buying a McLaren and putting on the wheels of a Honda Jazz, and the engine of a Honda Jazz, and the transmission of a Lada. You get where I’m going with this… Let’s be frank here: while $1000 gets you a full frame camera, $1000 simply isn’t a full frame budget if you’re also trying to build out a kit which can actually make use of the added sensor real estate. While companies like Tamron and Samyang are doing their best to release competitive options for price-conscious buyers it’s not all that uncommon to spend at least $1000+ on a lens alone. If you’ve had to save a long time to amass $1200 then the 50mm F1.8 FE and the Sony 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 are the only realistic options available to you in the near future and these simply aren’t good lenses. At best they are highly mediocre, certainly not capable of showing off what full frame is all about. Meanwhile on APS-C you could get the Sigma trio (16mm, 30mm, 56mm) depending on what type of activity you’d like to shoot. Any one of these features image quality that you can easily sell to clients. The 30mm can be had for under $300 making it one of the best lenses in the entire camera industry if you’re a price-conscious buyer. The 18-135mm F3.5-.6 is actually pretty solid as well and would make for a fantastic all-in-one travel lens which also happens to feature OSS making the A6400’s lack of IBIS a moot point.

Visualization of a bottleneck. Credit: Sheen5911

Even if you feel like you might outgrow APS-C eventually you can take advantage of Sony’s one mount ecosystem and buy compact full frame lenses to use on the A6400. Yes they are more expensive to purchase but you’ll have the advantage of futureproofing your lens kit and you can still take advantage of a much more recent body until you do decide to upgrade.

“APS-C sounds nice but I’m all about the bokeh. I want that cinematic look. Besides, I might turn pro and then I’ll need to look the part”

Of course one thing that I, perhaps unfairly towards the A7 II, didn’t touch on is the fact that full frame sensors allow for a shallower depth of field at the same lens aperture and there’s no denying that this is a big draw towards full frame. I love my shallow depth of field, I own an F0.95 lens and I feel you. So fair enough, may I suggest you save a bit more? The A6400 isn’t the only body near the A7 II’s price point which happens to fix a lot of its flaws and deficiencies, back in 2015 Sony released the A7R II and wow, is it a big step up from the A7 II. In fact it’s such a step up that the fact it’s sitting within $200-300 of the A7 II is honestly kind of insane. Outside of the touch functionality, joystick and custom menu the A7R II fixes every flaw I pointed to on the A7 II. While it doesn’t feature the world’s best autofocus it’s certainly good enough for most applications outside of sports and it’s much improved over the A7 II. The 42 megapixel sensor is fantastic even in 2021, truly phenomenal, you’d have no issues making very large prints with this sensor. The sensor also features Sony’s BSI technology so low light performance is admirable and certainly right on the level of modern full frame cameras. This was the camera that put Sony on the map, demonstrating to the world that mirrorless cameras could be just as good as DSLRs (before demonstrating that mirrorless was the future with the A9). Unfortunately supply for these cameras new seems to dry up but there is definitely stock and refurbs available if you look around.

One thing to keep in mind though is that the higher megapixel sensor puts even more of a strain on your lens choice if you want the maximum available image quality so the 28-70 and 50mm f1.8 become even less recommended options. Again, $1000 is not a realistic full frame budget but $2000 could you the A7R II, the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 and maybe a couple of batteries, that is an excellent entry to the world of full frame.

I should add however that full frame will only ‘beat out’ smaller sensors in terms of how shallow the depth of field is when you’re using the same or a faster aperture lens (and accounting for the crop factor but again, let’s not get too technical). That Sigma 30mm F1.4 lens I previously mentioned will have a shallower depth of field than the 28-70mm kitlens when using it wide open. Hell, you’d be hard pressed to tell the difference between it and the Sony 50mm F1.8 FE. To get that full frame ‘look’ you’ll want very fast lenses, typically between F1.2 and F1.8 and those are, you guessed it, pricey.

Which one is full frame, which one is APS-C? Both samples have a beautiful focus rolloff.

“I don’t care for the latest and greatest features. I’ve been shooting cameras since the film days and the A7 II is like a spaceship compared to what I’m used to. Pros use 10 year old cameras anyway”

Good on you for recognizing that not every advancement in camera technology is a necessary one and if something isn’t broke, don’t fix it. There’s a reason Leica M bodies don’t even bother with autofocus, yet still manage to sell like hotcakes. But if you just want to adapt some 1960’s legacy glass you got at the thrift store then let’s go the opposite way and save you some extra money. Focus on the original A7 or the A7R, both of which are absolute bargains on the used market. Like I mentioned previously, the only real thing the A7 II adds is in-body image stabilization (IBIS) for to accommodate this the body had to become beefier and heavier. If you want a lightweight, robust piece of kit you can just pair with some vintage lenses and chuck in a bag, the A7 and A7R are fantastic options.

With regards to the ‘pros use older gear’ argument, I’d rephrase it as: “pros use proven gear”. Those 10 year old 1D X’s were basically the culmination of years, if not decades of slow and steady development. Up until the release of the A7 the only mirrorless cameras Sony made were a couple of entry-level NEX bodies, it really took them until the third generation to really catch up to the likes of Canon and Nikon in professional reliability. I flat-out wouldn’t recommend the A7 II for paid field work, it’s simply not reliable and quick enough in operation and handling with its subpar autofocus performance, single card slot, slow burst rate, disappointing buffer clear rate and mess of a menu (that cannot be customized for quick access).

“Okay, then… who is the A7 II for?”

Conclusion time then, who is the A7 II right for? Honestly, not many people. For those on a strict budget price-to-quality ratio becomes the single most important criteria for your purchase. You don’t have a large budget (for camera gear anyway, don’t let me downplay the value of $1200 especially with so many families in crisis during the past year and a half) so you need to ensure that you allocate your money wisely and find a nice balance between image quality and handling, body and lens. I agree that you shouldn’t pay for features you don’t use but these newer, smaller sensor bodies just feel so much nicer to use in day-to-day operation and this is something you’ll notice every time you’re out shooting (which is hopefully very often).

If you currently already have a kit, say you’re coming from Canon APS-C or Micro Four-Thirds, but you feel like you need to move to full frame for your business then ask yourself if going full frame is a realistic move for you in this moment in time. You might be surprised at how little improvement you’ll notice, if any, when using cheap glass. And that $1200 could be spent on lighting, backdrops, locations, models, fantastic glass for your kit or marketing for your business. These are things which will give you a much more immediate boost to your image quality and client stream. If you don’t already have a kit then take this opportunity to explore the different brands and what they offer at each price point. Don’t be afraid to shop used, cameras are pretty reliable these days. I personally buy almost all my gear used.

At this point the only people I would recommend this camera to are those looking to adapt manual lenses and also need IBIS, but who don’t want to deal with the extra price and bigger file sizes of the A7R II. Or anyone who is already deep into the Sony full frame ecosystem and simply wants a beater with IBIS for hiking or other uncertain terrain where they don’t want to lug around their more expensive and slightly heavier body. I can also see having a secondary E-mount body for video as a use case if IBIS is a priority. Lastly, I’ll recommend to the A7 II to anyone able to find it for a great price used. At $1000 it’s bad value, but if you can buy it off someone for $400-500 then that definitely changes things.

Finally, to those who own the A7 II and who think it’s a great body and don’t quite get why I’m giving it such a bad rep: don’t worry. The A7 II is still a good camera. When paired with good glass it’s capable of some stellar image quality and whether you’re capturing beautiful moments in life with it or you’re using it as your main body for portraits I’m sure it will treat you well. This article isn’t meant to harp on A7 II owners or their purchasing decisions, it’s mainly meant to harp on Sony offering a 7 year old camera at this price which entices people to buy into a system that simply isn’t going to give them even close to the best bang for the buck, and its meant to harp on an industry that sees full frame as the end-all-be-all even if owners don’t have the lenses needed to make the most out of it.