>>4044726>It has more dynamic range and iso performance, No. The RP beats the A7ii at high ISO. The A7ii does, however, have greater base ISO DR.
>>4044790>A7ii and kit lens is £1100 in the UK, or £1400 with the Zeiss 24-70 instead.Shit AF and worse high ISO than the RP. Not to mention Sony mark II ergonomics and battery life were shit. And didn't they still eat stars and lossy compress RAWs?
>RF mount lenses on the more affordable end are complete garbage and get destroyed by even 3rd party tamron lenses on Sony. >Then on the expensive end they cost more than GM lenses and still perform worse.Both of these statements are bullshit.
>RP not only has a much worse sensor, The RP is nearly 1ev better at high ISO than the A7ii (pic related). The A7ii does have more base ISO DR. Beginner photographers are going to care more about high ISO.
>it doesn't even have ibis, True, but most RF lenses have OIS.
>and the autofocus is kinda shit, even next to an ancient a7ii.Sony AF was absolute shit until the mark III models. It was barely usable with still subjects. The RP's DPAF is far superior to the AF on the A7ii, especially in video mode.
