Sony Cameras.

I was wondering which camera would be a better choice Sony AR7 II or Sony A7 III. Right now the price difference is $ 200 CAN.
I would use one of them with Canon 500 f 4.0 L IS Mark II and Canon 100-400 f 4.5-5.6 L IS Mark II lenses for bird photography.
Thanks,
Karl.

I assume you mean the a7R II vs the a7 III.

It depends on what you are going to shoot with it.  If still photos, landscapes, etc then the choice is easy, it's the a7R II.. For moving things like birds, as you've outlined, then the a7 III will be better as it has a much better AF system for moving subjects.  The a9 would be even better.  However, neither will work well for birds with your Canon lenses regardless of adapter.  The Canon lenses simply are not built for the type of AF required to do action photography with on sensor AF.  They are designed for an off-sensor PDAF system and as such have a different type of motor than what works best with on-sensor PDAF.  It would work reasonably well for a still perched bird but you won't get the accuracy of the Canon predictive AF which accounts for small movements with these lenses on those bodies.  And that's with the very best adapters, the Sigma MC-11 and the Metabones V.  Overall I do not recommend bird photography with adapted lenses.  Landscape photography, product photography, portraiture, even street photography is no problem but action won't leave you satisfied.  Better to wait until there are native Sony FE lenses.  There is a Sony 100-400 GM which works just fine for birds and is a step up from the Canon optically with the a7R III, a7 III and a9 (I still wouldn't use an a7 II of any type for birds).  There's also a 400/2.8 on the way and there already is a 1.4x which would make it a 560 f/4 but that's still months away.

Thank, E.J.
Excellent explanation that you don't really get from the Internet.
I was about to sell my 1DM4 and 7DM2 but might just hang on to them or the money received for..

Another option is wait for that new Nikon 500 f5.6. It would be a great combo with a D500.

I have pondered the same question. Grey market A7rII's now down to 1600€. I would love the extra detail over the 5Dmk4 for landscapes and even be able to shoot 4K video without the darn crop! So for me the a7rII would be first choice (even with the weaker battery and no joystick). As a walk around with the new Samyang 24mm FE lens looks handy too. But I am under no illusions about adapted tele's and wildlife, they are just not up to driving the lenses.

I have seen some really excellent images taken with an A7RII and A7RIII with a Canon EF400 f2.8 but they were of perching birds in Costa Rica for example. For anything that’s moving forget it. I’ve used the Sony 100-400GM on an A7RII and it is very frustrating. I use it now on an A7RIII and it’s not bad. It’s AF is not as good however as a Nikon D850 with either a 300PF + 1.4 TC or a Sigma 150-600 Sport. I use them both; I don’t care what anybody says, it’s not as good.

Thanks Mike, and Neil.
I'm still wondering if the Sony a7 III would work with Nikon 200-500 or Sigma 150-600 lens(s)
My only interest when it comes to Sony a7 III is BIF.
Thanks.

If your interest is only BIF, then you will not be very happy using any of the Sony cameras with adapted lenses. The Sony A9 + Sony 100-400GM, though, is a killer combination.

My 2 cents. I have moved since 6 months from Nikon to Sony . I use Sony A9 and A7R3 with Sony 100-400 with and without 1.4 converter and the Sigma 150-600 with the MC11. i have just returned from a week trip to Valencia and have used both lenses. The A9 with 100-400 (with or without 1.4 converter) is superb and i took great flight shots of Swifts with this combination. The Sigma 150-600 with MC11 does work but do not expect a stellar AF performance. I have tested this throughout and found out that in AFC, between minimum focus distance and approx 10 meters from approx 500mm upwards, the lens will NOT AF. It becomes totally erratic and unreliable! It will work in AFS and AFC works up to just under 500 mm. I met up with a photographer who had a Canon 1DX V2 with Canon V2 300F2.8 and we swapped lenses. A total disappointment. The Sigma actually worked better then the Canon. On a different note: in Sweden, where i was 2 months ago, we tried the Canon 500MM V2 on the A9 with a running dog. Performance was poor and again the Sigma performed better! Using lenses with adapters will never work as well as original lenses. The Sony achilles heel is the lack of fast long glass. If i were you i would hold off till Sony and 3 party lens manufacturers like Sigma come up with long lenses in E mount.
Rene de Heer

Karl Egressy wrote:Thanks Mike, and Neil.
I'm still wondering if the Sony a7 III would work with Nikon 200-500 or Sigma 150-600 lens(s)
My only interest when it comes to Sony a7 III is BIF.
Thanks.

There is currently no adapter that will RELIABLY focus a Nikon lens and most definitely not on anything that isn't stationary.

For BIF, dslr is still the one which gives you reliable results again and again, shot after shot. That's the only advantage that dslr has over mirrorless right now.

DChan wrote:For BIF, dslr is still the one which gives you reliable results again and again, shot after shot. That's the only advantage that dslr has over mirrorless right now.

I think that is too general of a statement.  As long as you don't need anything over 400mm, there is no problem at all for BIF with an a9 and the Sony 100-400, if anything, the number of in focus shots might be higher due to the way the AF system can be set-up and since the camera can be set up to not have any viewfinder blackout.  Even the a7R III with the 100-400 is in the league of all but the top end DSLRs for this type of photography.

E.J. Peiker wrote:

DChan wrote:For BIF, dslr is still the one which gives you reliable results again and again, shot after shot. That's the only advantage that dslr has over mirrorless right now.

I think that is too general of a statement.  [snip]

It's a general statement because it's generally is true, meaning there're exceptions but they're not common among all mirrorless, meaning I'm not saying mirrorless cameras cannot do BIF and I know certainly that some can do since I use mirrorless myself (as well as dslr) and had BIF shots with it successfully. I'd say the fact that you had to quote specific models of mirrorless cameras supports my statement Anyhow, for some one new to photography, dslr is still the system that can give her a higher rate of success from the get-go IMO.

From the reviews that I've read the A7III combined with the 100-400GM would be a killer combination. It certainly is going to be a nice light weight to carry around for extended periods.

This thread has been very helpful as I am trying to decide between an A7R II and an A7RIII.....

Rocky Sharwell wrote:This thread has been very helpful as I am trying to decide between an A7R II and an A7RIII.....

The R III is a much more refined camera and capable of many more types of shooting including action that the a7R II is not really capable of.  Make sure you read my a7R III review.  Note that the menu bug I wrote about has been fixed in the latest FW update.

Rocky Sharwell wrote:This thread has been very helpful as I am trying to decide between an A7R II and an A7RIII.....

Having used both, unless the decision is heavily influenced by your budget, I'd get the three. 
The adapted glass is a nightmare IMO for shooting birds. The A9 from talking to others performs much better and might be worth the hassle, but I can say for sure using the A7RII or III will be a frustrating experience in comparison to using a native DSLR for a long lens.
I can say that the A7rIII with the 100-400 and both the 1.4x and 2x gives remarkable IQ. AF is very slow with the 2x due to loss of phase detect AF, but the IQ is still good. The A7III sounds like a great combo for the 100-400 as I believe it will have phase detect with the 2x.
Another option might be to hold off for another couple of months and see if an A6500 upgrade comes through. It might give most of the A9 advantages with a cropped sensor too.

I am not a birder but I have done a fair amount of BIF shots. 

I have used the best DSLR Canon has had in this regard, the 1DX-MkII, along with the 100-400L MkII, a very good combo for this especially handheld given the weight issues with larger lenses. 

For the past 5 yrs or so, I've also been using the Sony system alongside the Canon and about a year ago, gave up on the Canon completely, except the (100-400) lens, until the Sony replacement came along. 
I used the Canon 100-400 without a TC on my Sony A9 with the metabones V adapter and it was very unsatisfactory for fast moving animals including BIF.
However, the A9 with the Sony 100-400 GM, even with the 1.4X TC is a better combination than the Canon 1DX-MkII with the native Canon lens was. Just keeping the focus area to a 'wide' zone is enough against a clear sky to latch on to anything moving  and even with a busy background it is amazing how it picks up the bird in the foreground. 
The A7r3 lags behind for sure, but it is still excellent and I would say only slightly behind the Canon DSLR. The next version would be on par with the current A9 I am sure. 
As EJ said the A7r3 is very versatile and given that it can also shoot at 10fps now means it is easily capable of keeping up with most DSLRs. Very few cameras out there can deliver a 42Mpx image that is so clean, with very impressive AF and a fast 10 fps shooting rate. It is perfect for almost everything except very fast action or difficult BIF shots. 
Pradeep

This is a quick conversion of 3 flying swifts taken with the Sony A9 and Sony 100-400. I love this set up for BIF.

Great comments from everyone. I will chime in here as well. My setup for bird photography has/was the 1DX Mark II with the Canon 600mm with 1.4x TC. For the past 6 months I have been dabbling with Sony bodies using both the Metabones IV and MC-11 adapters.

I bought the A7RIII back in January with the Metabones IV and then eventually MC-11. For whatever reason, both adapters caused occasional lockups with the Canon 600mm f/4 II lens. Also, the Metabones didn't perform as well as the MC-11. I was however able to photograph BIF with the MC-11 and the Canon 600mm combo. (Maybe about 90% of what I would achieve with the 1DXM2.)

I did however return the A7R III because of the occasional lockups.

Then...The A7III was announced and gave that body a try with the MC-11. It works quite well with the Canon 600mm lens in good lighting conditions (with and w/o the Canon 1.4x TC). However, performance is reduced in low-light conditions.

I do however do a combination of both photography and videography and video is not nearly as good... you can forget about autofocus with this combo.

With all of my tests, I find the Canon 600mm II with and without a 1.4x TC and the Sigma MC-11 to be acceptable for photography as long as lighting is good. I've gotten plenty of BIF shots and found the keeper rate wasn't as good as the 1DXM2, but it certainly wasn't that bad either.

I also recently used the Sigma 150-600 (C) with the MC-11 on a boat photographing loons and was also quite acceptable.

(In all cases, I am using Center Focus and not Flexible spot. Center focus is not one focus point but a bracket of center focus points. Flexible spot does not work well at all.)

Bottom line... There are a few shortcomings using this combo, but in most cases I am quite comfortable using the A7III + MC-11 and the Canon 600mm lens. It's definitely a usable combination. I would think the A9 would be as good based on similarities to the autofocus systems on both the A7III and A9 bodies.