Is it worth an upgrade? Sony 6300 to a7r2

[thekillergazebo]

So I have been thinking of getting an a7r or a7r2 as an upgrade from my a6300 and a6000. I am not sure if it's worth the upgrade since I do have a good selection of apsc lenses. My thinking for the upgrade is to have larger cleaner files to work with and getting less noise plus being able to maybe settle and only carry one lens around. My current setup is the following,

a6300

a6000

18-105

10-18

55-210

50mm 1.8

2x 16-50

 

i really only use the 10-18 and 18-105 and since both are f4 I bring a 50mm 1.8 to get lower light shots and for the ocasinal headshot.

 

with the upgrade I am thinking the most locgial is either the 24-70 f4 or f2.8 version which would allow me to not pick up a prime lens. 

[xQubeZx]

The 10-18 is said to work decently at most parts of the zoom range even on the FF bodies. So that one you could keep. 

 

How much do you need AF? The A7r (mark i) is really slow. I have tried it as I thought about buying one of those used. I like the feel of it but the AF is pretty slow so keep that in mind. 

 

Really what you will loose in the switch is mostly AF performance and frames per second and probably money as the full frame glass is expensive. 

 

The A7rii is said to be amazing and the a7r is also well regarded, however only in tasks that don't need quick AF. 

 

Have to say though I'm a bit jealous that you are able to afford an upgrade like that. I'm like the a6300 is a the top of my budget, a used one. Same goes with a A7 mark i and a 24-70 lens. 

[cc143]

At this point, I'd wait a couple of months, the a7iii is due and will probably drive the a7rii's price down quite a bit. 

 

Are you looking for photo or video performance? 

[thekillergazebo]

1 hour ago, cc143 said:

At this point, I'd wait a couple of months, the a7iii is due and will probably drive the a7rii's price down quite a bit. 

 

Are you looking for photo or video performance? 

It's just for photos. Yeah that's true and I hear it's got a really good AF system.

 

2 hours ago, xQubeZx said:

The 10-18 is said to work decently at most parts of the zoom range even on the FF bodies. So that one you could keep. 

 

How much do you need AF? The A7r (mark i) is really slow. I have tried it as I thought about buying one of those used. I like the feel of it but the AF is pretty slow so keep that in mind. 

 

Really what you will loose in the switch is mostly AF performance and frames per second and probably money as the full frame glass is expensive. 

 

The A7rii is said to be amazing and the a7r is also well regarded, however only in tasks that don't need quick AF. 

 

Have to say though I'm a bit jealous that you are able to afford an upgrade like that. I'm like the a6300 is a the top of my budget, a used one. Same goes with a A7 mark i and a 24-70 lens. 

I never knew the a7r didn't have that great of AF. I really love the AF of the a6300 and not sure I would want to step down to something less then what this can do.

 

yeah I'm very lucky I'm able to drop that kinda cash, but I don't spend money on anything so I figure it's a hobby I enjoy and gets me out of the house.

[xQubeZx]

33 minutes ago, thekillergazebo said:

It's just for photos. Yeah that's true and I hear it's got a really good AF system.

 

I never knew the a7r didn't have that great of AF. I really love the AF of the a6300 and not sure I would want to step down to something less then what this can do.

 

yeah I'm very lucky I'm able to drop that kinda cash, but I don't spend money on anything so I figure it's a hobby I enjoy and gets me out of the house.

I can see that argument to spend money. 

 

But yes the original A7r only has contrast detection AF. Which will be slower. Really the A6xxx line is the fast one. High fps counts and good AF speed, coverage and tracking. However the A7r ii is said to be very good but I can't say if it is at the same level as the A6300 as I have not used the A7r ii. My guess is that they are pretty equal if you look at the specs. (Except for the fps) 

 

And for lenses, the 55 1.8 is said to be amazing. You know, if you need a prime so. 

[thekillergazebo]

26 minutes ago, xQubeZx said:

I can see that argument to spend money. 

 

But yes the original A7r only has contrast detection AF. Which will be slower. Really the A6xxx line is the fast one. High fps counts and good AF speed, coverage and tracking. However the A7r ii is said to be very good but I can't say if it is at the same level as the A6300 as I have not used the A7r ii. My guess is that they are pretty equal if you look at the specs. (Except for the fps) 

 

And for lenses, the 55 1.8 is said to be amazing. You know, if you need a prime so. 

Yeah I think seeing what the a7iii has might be worth the wait. But it sucks how the apsc line of lenses arnt faster for their zoom lenses and they arnt weather sealed.

[xQubeZx]

6 hours ago, thekillergazebo said:

Yeah I think seeing what the a7iii has might be worth the wait. But it sucks how the apsc line of lenses arnt faster for their zoom lenses and they arnt weather sealed.

Yep. I'm so badly wanting a 2.8 zoom for apsc. I pay whatever they wanrt, just give me a 2.8 zoom.

 

The APSC line really need some new lenses. Some more affordable wide angle, a macro, and a 2.8 zoom. Some fast primes too like some 1.4 or so that doesn't cost 1500US. 

[cc143]

7 hours ago, xQubeZx said:

I can see that argument to spend money. 

 

But yes the original A7r only has contrast detection AF. Which will be slower. Really the A6xxx line is the fast one. High fps counts and good AF speed, coverage and tracking. However the A7r ii is said to be very good but I can't say if it is at the same level as the A6300 as I have not used the A7r ii. My guess is that they are pretty equal if you look at the specs. (Except for the fps) 

 

And for lenses, the 55 1.8 is said to be amazing. You know, if you need a prime so. 

The a7rii is on par if not better than the a6000, I tried it briefly, a friend got it recently. Now the a6000 isn't amazing (There are better AF systems, but its quite good for the price). 

7 hours ago, thekillergazebo said:

Yeah I think seeing what the a7iii has might be worth the wait. But it sucks how the apsc line of lenses arnt faster for their zoom lenses and they arnt weather sealed.

Well, adding a touchscreen and a proper battery, things they already did in the a9, will vastly improve the a7 line. Even if they left the rest of the camera the same...

16 minutes ago, xQubeZx said:

Yep. I'm so badly wanting a 2.8 zoom for apsc. I pay whatever they wanrt, just give me a 2.8 zoom.

 

The APSC line really need some new lenses. Some more affordable wide angle, a macro, and a 2.8 zoom. Some fast primes too like some 1.4 or so that doesn't cost 1500US. 

The thing with fast lenses is they are bulky and heavy, that kind of makes buying a crop csc moot... I mean seriously, why not get a smaller DSLR? The xx0d and d5x00 lines are very capable these days and not that heavy. 

 

Also, they did come out with the 16-35mm 2.8 just now, which a) means they didn't really have a good enough system in the first place and b) that could be a great standard lens for crop. 

[thekillergazebo]

3 hours ago, xQubeZx said:

Yep. I'm so badly wanting a 2.8 zoom for apsc. I pay whatever they wanrt, just give me a 2.8 zoom.

 

The APSC line really need some new lenses. Some more affordable wide angle, a macro, and a 2.8 zoom. Some fast primes too like some 1.4 or so that doesn't cost 1500US. 

I agree. The FE 50 2.8 macro o hear is great on the apsc line of cameras and isn't to expensive. 

 

2 hours ago, cc143 said:

The a7rii is on par if not better than the a6000, I tried it briefly, a friend got it recently. Now the a6000 isn't amazing (There are better AF systems, but its quite good for the price). 

Well, adding a touchscreen and a proper battery, things they already did in the a9, will vastly improve the a7 line. Even if they left the rest of the camera the same...

The thing with fast lenses is they are bulky and heavy, that kind of makes buying a crop csc moot... I mean seriously, why not get a smaller DSLR? The xx0d and d5x00 lines are very capable these days and not that heavy. 

 

Also, they did come out with the 16-35mm 2.8 just now, which a) means they didn't really have a good enough system in the first place and b) that could be a great standard lens for crop. 

I guess it's worth to wait and see what comes out. If they copy a lot from the a9 it should be a great performer and the extra battery life would be a nice welcome addiction. 

 

I think at some point they will expand their apsc line of lenses but probably not any time soon jntill they beef up the full frame line more. And that's not a bad idea to go for the 16-35 lens.

[xQubeZx]

11 hours ago, cc143 said:

The a7rii is on par if not better than the a6000, I tried it briefly, a friend got it recently. Now the a6000 isn't amazing (There are better AF systems, but its quite good for the price). 

Well, adding a touchscreen and a proper battery, things they already did in the a9, will vastly improve the a7 line. Even if they left the rest of the camera the same...

The thing with fast lenses is they are bulky and heavy, that kind of makes buying a crop csc moot... I mean seriously, why not get a smaller DSLR? The xx0d and d5x00 lines are very capable these days and not that heavy. 

 

Also, they did come out with the 16-35mm 2.8 just now, which a) means they didn't really have a good enough system in the first place and b) that could be a great standard lens for crop. 

Only thing is that a apsc 2.8 zooms will be smaller than a ff zoom. However size is not the main reason for me at least to go mirrorless. Its some other benefits too. 

[cc143]

Just now, xQubeZx said:

Only thing is that a apsc 2.8 zooms will be smaller than a ff zoom. However size is not the main reason for me at least to go mirrorless. Its some other benefits too. 

The reasons an APS-C 17-50 is smaller than say an equivalent 24-70 are not that much due to the image quality they provide, although an APS-C standard 2.8 is mostly not as sharp as a FF 24-70mm. FF glass in that range tends to be better sealed and built. Also, physically, a 16-50mm can be smaller than a 24-70 (sometimes, depending on the lens).

 

A great example is the 16-55mm f/2.8 from fuji. That thing is almost as thick as a Canon 24-70mm and weighs significantly more than what a csc lens should. It does give excellent quality, but you do sacrifice a lot of the size advantage. Obviously its not as huge as a FF 24-70, but not by much...

 

Mirrorless has its advantages sure, but firms like sony are trying to reach as wide a target market as they can. They can indeed make their a9 and a7 be about something other than purely size, but their APS-C lineup is also, if not mostly supposed to cover people who do care about size and they do have to take that into consideration. After all, producing a 16-50 2.8 only to sell a couple of thousand units isn't that worth it. If you don't care about the size, you could probably be covered by something like the 16-35, many people use those on APS-C Canons, in fact, my 17-40 was pretty perfect with my 50d. 

[xQubeZx]

3 hours ago, cc143 said:

The reasons an APS-C 17-50 is smaller than say an equivalent 24-70 are not that much due to the image quality they provide, although an APS-C standard 2.8 is mostly not as sharp as a FF 24-70mm. FF glass in that range tends to be better sealed and built. Also, physically, a 16-50mm can be smaller than a 24-70 (sometimes, depending on the lens).

 

A great example is the 16-55mm f/2.8 from fuji. That thing is almost as thick as a Canon 24-70mm and weighs significantly more than what a csc lens should. It does give excellent quality, but you do sacrifice a lot of the size advantage. Obviously its not as huge as a FF 24-70, but not by much...

 

Mirrorless has its advantages sure, but firms like sony are trying to reach as wide a target market as they can. They can indeed make their a9 and a7 be about something other than purely size, but their APS-C lineup is also, if not mostly supposed to cover people who do care about size and they do have to take that into consideration. After all, producing a 16-50 2.8 only to sell a couple of thousand units isn't that worth it. If you don't care about the size, you could probably be covered by something like the 16-35, many people use those on APS-C Canons, in fact, my 17-40 was pretty perfect with my 50d. 

Yea, really the 16-35 is probably the best option. Only downside is that it is a little short but mainly its waay more expensive than say a Canon 16-50 (ish) 2.8 however I might just one day save up to buy it just to get the 2.8 zoom. Also hoping for Sigma to release their ART line to Sony E mount. 

[AkiraDaarkst]

On 6/25/2017 at 8:02 PM, thekillergazebo said:

with the upgrade I am thinking the most locgial is either the 24-70 f4 or f2.8 version which would allow me to not pick up a prime lens.

So are you planning to sell all your gear and invest in just a Sony A7 camera + a 24-70 lens?  I'd hate to see good gear end up just sitting on the shelf, and amateurs developing GAS.

 

Also, if you have to choose between the 24-70 f/4 and f/2.8, get the 2.8.  It's worth it.

[thekillergazebo]

10 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

So are you planning to sell all your gear and invest in just a Sony A7 camera + a 24-70 lens?  I'd hate to see good gear end up just sitting on the shelf, and amateurs developing GAS.

 

Also, if you have to choose between the 24-70 f/4 and f/2.8, get the 2.8.  It's worth it.

lol yeah I would sell it all for those two items. But the gear I have now I do use it all. I am just thinking it would be nice to consolidate down to one lens to make traveling lighter. Also looking into what focal lengths I shoot its realll 10mm and 18-70. So keeping the 10-18 and just upgrading to a 24-70 2.8 would mean I could have a smaller kit

[AkiraDaarkst]

3 hours ago, thekillergazebo said:

So keeping the 10-18

That's not a full frame lens.

[thekillergazebo]

30 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

That's not a full frame lens.

I know but from what I've been reading it works on full frame without issue and doesn't force it to crop mode. 

[AkiraDaarkst]

13 minutes ago, thekillergazebo said:

I know but from what I've been reading it works on full frame without issue and doesn't force it to crop mode. 

OK but I'm certain you'll get vignetting at one end of the zoom, if not through out the entire range.  On Nikon FX, I can also mount a DX lens and choose in the menu whether the camera should automatically go to crop mode or stay in full frame mode.  On the full frame mode I will get vignetting.

[thekillergazebo]

19 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

OK but I'm certain you'll get vignetting at one end of the zoom, if not through out the entire range.  On Nikon FX, I can also mount a DX lens and choose in the menu whether the camera should automatically go to crop mode or stay in full frame mode.  On the full frame mode I will get vignetting.

From what I hear you only get vignetting at 10mm. From 11-18 there isn't any issues. 

[cc143]

4 hours ago, thekillergazebo said:

From what I hear you only get vignetting at 10mm. From 11-18 there isn't any issues. 

I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit on that one, I doubt there will be no vignetting wider than 16mm...maybe not the obvious "this is a crop lens you on a FF body vignetting", but it will exhibit significant vignetting still...

[xQubeZx]

2 hours ago, cc143 said:

I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit on that one, I doubt there will be no vignetting wider than 16mm...maybe not the obvious "this is a crop lens you on a FF body vignetting", but it will exhibit significant vignetting still...

I've also read that it works pretty good. But I do also think you will get more than normal vignetting. However that is easily corrected in Lightroom

[AkiraDaarkst]

8 hours ago, thekillergazebo said:

From what I hear you only get vignetting at 10mm. From 11-18 there isn't any issues. 

We're not talking about vignetting due to adding a thick filter in front of the lens or the lens hood is too long.  Those kinds of vignetting are more like shadows being cast around the edges of the frame.  Mounting a cropped sensor lens on a FF body, the vignetting will be due to the small image circle of the lens that isn't large enough to cover the entire sensor.

3 hours ago, cc143 said:

I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit on that one, I doubt there will be no vignetting wider than 16mm...maybe not the obvious "this is a crop lens you on a FF body vignetting", but it will exhibit significant vignetting still...

 

1 hour ago, xQubeZx said:

I've also read that it works pretty good. But I do also think you will get more than normal vignetting. However that is easily corrected in Lightroom

 

[cc143]

2 hours ago, xQubeZx said:

I've also read that it works pretty good. But I do also think you will get more than normal vignetting. However that is easily corrected in Lightroom

Well yes it is, but LR is going to effectively crop out the black areas, resulting in the FOV of a smaller sensor anyway, it might be that you end up with a 1.4 vs. a 1.5 crop factor, but the result is still the same. 

 

Bottom line is, sure, it can be a temporary solution, I mean even if you use it in crop mode its still wider than your standard zoom, quite a lot so, but you should be looking to upgrade to a proper FF ultrawide once you get the chance. If not, stick with APS-C, after all, provided you can get the right glass, APS-C is pretty good nowdays, and often has several advantages over FF. In fact, for many uses, I think an APS-C camera would do just as well, at a significantly lower price than FF. 

[xQubeZx]

12 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

We're not talking about vignetting due to adding a thick filter in front of the lens or the lens hood is too long.  Those kinds of vignetting are more like shadows being cast around the edges of the frame.  Mounting a cropped sensor lens on a FF body, the vignetting will be due to the small image circle of the lens that isn't large enough to cover the entire sensor.

 

 

We know this, but the lens actually covers the sensor area of just that special lens so it is large like a FF lens.