I've been doing research into this as I have a project coming up that is all portrait type stills and I normally only do video work so this is a bit new to me. I wanted to stick to Sony gear as I have existing accessories which can be shared with the A7, A7r and A7s. Most all articles seem to push towards using a Sony A7r for portrait work. However I never need large printouts as for my needs all pictures would be viewed on computer screens only, and it seems like the A7s should better auto focus in low light situations which I would definitely be in on occasion and I'd be in auto focus about 80% of the time. So I'm curious has anyone here either purposely picked an A7s over an A7r for such work, or has someone used an A7s and if so are you happy with it for this type of work. It's confusing when doing research because there seem to be conflicting opinions with many instantly disregarding the A7s because of it's "too low" megapixel count.
anyone using a Sony A7s purely for portrait stills photography?
- Thread starter joker454
- Start date
benjaminreece
Active member
I'm not experienced in the A7R but I would say if you are set on Sony A7 series as a still camera, and your final output is the computer screen, I've read alot of reviewers saying that the A7S is more pleasing/medium format "look" + the megapixel count shouldn't matter to you unless you find yourself cropping portraits often.
However, as Macgregor and a few others pointed out in regards to low ISO noise, the A7S may not be everything everyone is hyping it up to be. Or at least the kinks/weaknesses/strengths are still being discovered. As opposed to the A7R, which is believed to have that nice D800 sensor.
However, as Macgregor and a few others pointed out in regards to low ISO noise, the A7S may not be everything everyone is hyping it up to be. Or at least the kinks/weaknesses/strengths are still being discovered. As opposed to the A7R, which is believed to have that nice D800 sensor.
dustylense
Veteran
I have both the A7s and A7r. The A7r destroys the A7s in every aspect of stills photography. It's crisper and has vast dynamic range in RAW.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
What dusty said.
If you don't care about video, the only advantage of the a7s over the a7r is that, with bigger photosites and microlenses, you get less vignetting. That, and about a stop better low light performance (maybe even less).
But yes, given your specific needs, if the extra resolution and DR is not important to you, then they would be pretty similar (with the a7s maybe having slightly better AF performance, but the a7 should beath them both in this respect I think).
If you don't care about video, the only advantage of the a7s over the a7r is that, with bigger photosites and microlenses, you get less vignetting. That, and about a stop better low light performance (maybe even less).
But yes, given your specific needs, if the extra resolution and DR is not important to you, then they would be pretty similar (with the a7s maybe having slightly better AF performance, but the a7 should beath them both in this respect I think).
benjaminreece
Active member
I have both and I would not say that the A7r "destroys" the A7s in every aspect. Especially if your needs or only as you described. With the A7s you have more headroom in difficult light, you can release the shutter with 1/125 where the A7r needs 1/30 with similar noise. Since I have the A7s I take the low light pictures only with that camera. However, in standard light conditions the A7r is unbeatable.
Benn
Oh, I forgot: The shutter sound of the A7r is terrible... you are because of his loudness always in the middle of the action! The A7s is absolutly noiseless as no camera I know before (even not the Leica)
Benn
Oh, I forgot: The shutter sound of the A7r is terrible... you are because of his loudness always in the middle of the action! The A7s is absolutly noiseless as no camera I know before (even not the Leica)
Last edited:
dustylense
Veteran
The shutter sound is not of detriment to me because the sound of the strobes covers that up. By the term "destroys" I'm talking about image. I don't buy or use cameras based on it's sounds. Wanna hear a really ugly sounding camera? Try shooting a Pentax 67.
If even for use on the web, if you went A7s over the 7r, you will eventually be wishing you had more resolution. Why? Especially in portrait work there is the "need" sometimes to crop images for re-framing. Secondly, if the image does in fact end up being used for print work, the ad agency might just call back and ask the the high resolution image. I know, because it already happened to me. I pulled out the 7s to do some shots on an assignment where the 5dmk3 was the main camera. The ad agency asked for the high res files on every A7s shot I handed in. It was at that moment the A7s became a video camera only or a personal stills camera to me.
In stills, you might think the image is just destined for the web. By why shoot yourself in the foot if the image is to be considered for other use?
Thanks a bunch guys. Yeah you can see how tough it is, dustylense prefers the a7r, in that article link Steve Huff prefers the a7s, others are in the middle, such a tough call. Benn brings up a good point though about shutter speed, I would use it mostly handheld and I don't have the most stable hands around so 1/125 would likely be the slowest shutter speed I would use and probably even faster than that just to make sure I don't get blurry shots since I'm new to pure photography shoots. Shutter noise doesn't bother me since it will only be used in a professional environment mostly indoors. Being able to crop images easier with the a7r and still maintain detail could be useful though. I guess I'm most worried about having too many shots that are out of focus or blurry hence why I was leaning more to the a7s seeing that it would be more immune to that as it would let me work in available light with a fast shutter speed and could still auto focus quick and accurately with little noise. It may be that for a photo noob like me the a7s would be better to start with since it has more training wheels, then I could transition to the a7r once I get more experienced and know more about my limits and my location and lighting situations.
They may have just done that because they thought they were not full res as compared to the 5d shots (they thought all were 5d shots) not because they actually NEEDED a higher resolution file.
I'm actually quite surprised by how nice 12mp is. I have a 2.5k screen and I can still zoom enough to see the imperfections of the lenses. I'm not sure I'll need more that often as I don't usually do huge telephoto shots anyway. And for those the nex7 with 24mp 1.5x crop is pretty ok.
dustylense
Veteran
Keep in mind that ad agencies crop your images to fit the ads. The magazine which they intended to run the ad (without informing me) is a 11x17in publication. They were trying to crop isolate some of the images. Which is why when doing large profile ads stills guys go 50+MP's.
I'm with Mac on this one. Go the A7 if it's the stills world between the 3 cameras. If you're looking to be hybrid with stills and video using the A7s, you will get bit eventually with the 12Mp file size. Or at the very least you might not be able to sell the image for print ads because of it's size.
zwarte_kat
Active member
I have the A7s and already did several shoots with it. I just ask what the output is, and if they say large print, I use a different camera or don't take the shoot.
If they come back later for higher res files, I just say: "You didn't pay for that".
But you can easily crop and still get a magazine resolution.
If they have to crop that much there went something wrong with the instructions before the shoot.
I agree that the A7 is good enough BTW, and has better AF and sync speed.
If they come back later for higher res files, I just say: "You didn't pay for that".
But you can easily crop and still get a magazine resolution.
If they have to crop that much there went something wrong with the instructions before the shoot.
I agree that the A7 is good enough BTW, and has better AF and sync speed.
photochris
Well-known member
The A7s is a great stills camera, but if you need resolution or crop ability you will be a little limited. Used A7 bodies are now selling for less than $1100 - or you can get 24mp with class leading AF on the A6000, and it has better video than the A7/r. I sold the A7 after getting the A6000, its much more responsive - faster startup, faster wakeup and faster/more accurate AF.
dustylense
Veteran
Or don't take the shoot? LOL, really? You can easily crop and still print to a 11x17in publication? The native size for magazine print from the A7s is 9.5x14. Again, this publication is 11x17. Sure, you can crop an A7s and print at home on your inkjet. You CANNOT easily crop a 12mp image for publication print. Trust me, my shots have graced the cover of the Robb Report at least 20 times and Architectural Digest just as many.
Here are two of the shots they had issue with:
the 5d shot: I've had ZERO issues from any client ever trying to magazine print any image I've delivered using the 5dMK2 or Mk3.
and here is the A7s shot in where I set up the camera INSIDE the 5d shot because I saw I could get a second shot while adjusting a light. The sky was fading so I quickly grabbed the A7s and worked two shots at the same time on this scene and I wanted to see how the A7s would handle and knowing that the a7s would handle the fading sky. The ad agency working on the editorial wanted to crop this image vertically for a full page (11x17 publication). Now I'm shooting for the builder. The builder didn't mention an editorial in this particular publication for this particular shoot or else I would have shot with vertical orientation in mind. I shoot about $150,000 worth of work for this builder per year. And they are just one of my many clients. I've been doing this for 25 years.
This is the crop they tried to extract from the above image for an 11x17 full bleed page. Now keep in mind this shot was taken as an after thought. I saw it and set it up as it was happening. Had I pulled out the A7r or one of my backup 5d's they could have natively cropped and used this image. I didn't however and because of the issue with the 12mp A7s not being flexible for unexpected publication print, the A7s is NO longer used as a stills camera outside of personal work.
So after a phone call I got the agency to instead of trying to force that vertical crop to do a double page full bleed layout of this image for the publication with this image.
Or don't take the shoot? If somebody calls me up and describes a particular assignment and I told them, "Well, I only have the 12mp Sony A7s and I don't think this camera will cover what you are looking for, therefore I have to pass up on this shoot", I don't think I would be in business for very long.
Last edited:
dustylense
Veteran
I also find 12MP limiting. It's also a totally unnecessary constraint in good light, if you only use it for stills. Indeed the A7 with EEFC is pretty quiet already. I kind of like the EEFC sound actually. Hard to go wrong with it at $1100 or under used.
I sold my A7R and bought an A7 for $999 exactly (and bought and sold and rebought an S). But looking back at my photos from the summer, I miss the R. The only thing that bothers me is the shutter flap. But for street work it keeps you honest. The silent shutter on the S is often very useful, but feels sneaky and also like you're not really doing photography.
Ideally one would have an R for day and an S for night and video. I've seen used R's go for $1450. Wait a couple more weeks for the next round of Sony announcements and you'll get it for even less.
I sold my A7R and bought an A7 for $999 exactly (and bought and sold and rebought an S). But looking back at my photos from the summer, I miss the R. The only thing that bothers me is the shutter flap. But for street work it keeps you honest. The silent shutter on the S is often very useful, but feels sneaky and also like you're not really doing photography.
Ideally one would have an R for day and an S for night and video. I've seen used R's go for $1450. Wait a couple more weeks for the next round of Sony announcements and you'll get it for even less.
dustylense
Veteran
In stills the A7s is not much better than the A7r or A7 in low ilght. Less than a stop. But the A7 and the A7r have nearly a full stop better DR than the A7s.
You know I actually ended up doing just that. I couldn't decide so I figured a regular A7 maybe was a good cheap way to just get started. I found a brand new A7 with the 28-70 kit lens, all still in unopened box for $1500 shipped and no taxes. At that price it was cheap enough for me to experiment with that and see how it goes. If it turns out I have issues with it in my lighting situations or if I'm finding I don't need that much megapixel count then I can try an A7s in the future. Or if I really like the A7 but I'm finding I wish it had more detail for my needs then I can sell it for an A7r. Either way I'll soon have a tool to work with and get a better feel of what works best for me. Thanks for all the feedback guys!
for me subjectively A7S raw files are acceptable up to 25600, a7r only 6400, and the a7s silent/EEFC shutter helps with longer handheld exposures. i can handhold an 80mm lens for maybe 1/15s on the s, and definitely not on the r. so for lowlight candid handheld work, the a7s has an advantage of 2+ stops.
for other situations the a7r is better.
for other situations the a7r is better.