What would you do?

[xQubeZx]

Hello, as some may know I’m invested in the Sony Alpha system and I’m thinking of getting/saving up for some new gear and would like some other opinions than just my own to maybe make it a bit easier.

 

Right now I’ve got an a6000 and some aps-c lenses, no super expensive ones but they get the job done. I have really enjoyed the a6000 even though I know some people do not. I think it is important to explain a bit of what I shoot and my workflow for people to be able to reccomend things. I do mostly nature and landscape but also quite a bit of adventure ,portraits and action sports (climbing, skiing mostly).  

 

Now, what I’m thinking about is to keep my a6000 and get a FF body to complement it. The reason for a FF is to get better ISO and a shallower dof. But I can’t decide on a body, and I will need a FF lens as I currently only got aps-c ones. 

 

Budget wise I will have around 2000€ and may be able to stretch it a little. Really I have three ideas.

• Used A7ii + Sigma ART 24 f/1.4 or Sigma ART 35 f/1.4 
• Used A7r ii + Sony FE 28 f/2.0
• New A7iii + Sony FE 50 f/1.8 (is tbh a bit outside of my budget but I could maybe wait some more to get it if it sounds like a good idea) 

The new A7iii is very tempting if you look at the spec sheet but you can find used A7ii in so good condition for so cheap that I could afford to get a really nice lens as the Sigma ART. Not that the Sony FE prime lenses are bad. What is tempting with the A7r ii is the high res files and better AF over the A7ii. I’ve seen it used for around 1700€ here in sweden in good condition. 

 

What do you guys think? I will keep the a6000 for the few things I shoot that requires the fast bursts and AF (have never had an issue where it has been to slow tbh)

[Hashiba]

I think your strategy is quite solid, I have a set of Sigma FF High Speed primes, they are really good, rumor says that they share some elements with Sigma ART series, so, as a general rule in the current market I think Sigma is undervalued. During prep we did some tests with a projector and in some cases they seem sharper than Master Primes. Having said so depending on your style you might want to used some filters to ease off the edges specially for beauty work. 

 

In my experience keeping an older camera body around has never been a good investment, I would sell the a6000 and put that money on the A7s ii or iii or save it for more glass

 

Sigma ftw represent w00t w00t!

[xQubeZx]

1 hour ago, Hashiba said:

I think your strategy is quite solid, I have a set of Sigma FF High Speed primes, they are really good, rumor says that they share some elements with Sigma ART series, so, as a general rule in the current market I think Sigma is undervalued. During prep we did some tests with a projector and in some cases they seem sharper than Master Primes. Having said so depending on your style you might want to used some filters to ease off the edges specially for beauty work. 

 

In my experience keeping an older camera body around has never been a good investment, I would sell the a6000 and put that money on the A7s ii or iii or save it for more glass

 

Sigma ftw represent w00t w00t!

I’d buy a polarizer for which ever lens I’d get and probably also a ND-filter. Not that that would make them much softer. I’d be able to fix that in post if I want. However about selling the a6000, its not really worth that much, maybe 300€ which maybe isn’t worth the hassle as I’d be able to use it for timelapses or as backup body. 

 

But you would suggest to go with a Sigma lens and then after that the body I can afford? I could of course also get an original A7r for ~1000€ but I think that maybe has to many trade offs like really slow AF

[cc143]

Well the sigma Art 35mm f/1.4 is probably my favorite lens, in the way it renders colour especially and tbh, the price and handling of the lens in general, focus etc. make it amazing value, I'm sure similar recipe is followed in most of the ART lineup. The only slight issue I have is purple fringing, especially with backlit images, but it is mostly correctible in LR. 

 

As far as the body is concerned, it's no secret I myself am not a fan, but I have tried out the a7ii and a7rii, I have not, for the time being shot with the a7iii, but from what I can see on paper, I believe that is the way to go. Both the a7rii and a7ii have left me wanting, and I believe the a7iii is a step in the right direction. The focusing system, dual card slots, better battery and back lit sensor all make it worth it. 

 

Also, I believe you list high iso performance as a reason for upgrading, and in that case, although the a7rii is great for a 40+mp camera, its still a 40+mp camera. Furthermore, the a7iii is more versatile, it shoots at higher framerates (thankfully with the mechanical shutter too), has a touchscreen etc. And that's just the photoside. The a7ii was pretty far away still, the a7iii is certainly getting ridiculously close imo (and I can seem pretty biased most of the time on this issue). 

 

I remember when my 50d was in its last legs and I went into the shop to look at the a7ii and 6d, and I was considering the a7ii, but didn't get it due to ergnomics and very bad performance with EF glass, in the long run, I'm very thankful I went with the 5d3 instead, and know I'd regret the a7ii 2 weeks in, but I'm sure if I were looking at the a7iii instead, I would probably have bought it. 

 

Also, keep in mind that any lens for APS-c sony that was designed post IBIS will mount and work with very minimal vignetting on the a7, so long as you don't use IBIS. 

 

In other words, I'd personally go with the a7iii. I know and agree with the tendency to go for glass, but in this case, between the a7rii and a7ii, the a7rii is the best option by far, if you factor in the price difference then... there's no point not going with the a7iii in the end. 

[xQubeZx]

10 hours ago, cc143 said:

Well the sigma Art 35mm f/1.4 is probably my favorite lens, in the way it renders colour especially and tbh, the price and handling of the lens in general, focus etc. make it amazing value, I'm sure similar recipe is followed in most of the ART lineup. The only slight issue I have is purple fringing, especially with backlit images, but it is mostly correctible in LR. 

 

As far as the body is concerned, it's no secret I myself am not a fan, but I have tried out the a7ii and a7rii, I have not, for the time being shot with the a7iii, but from what I can see on paper, I believe that is the way to go. Both the a7rii and a7ii have left me wanting, and I believe the a7iii is a step in the right direction. The focusing system, dual card slots, better battery and back lit sensor all make it worth it. 

 

Also, I believe you list high iso performance as a reason for upgrading, and in that case, although the a7rii is great for a 40+mp camera, its still a 40+mp camera. Furthermore, the a7iii is more versatile, it shoots at higher framerates (thankfully with the mechanical shutter too), has a touchscreen etc. And that's just the photoside. The a7ii was pretty far away still, the a7iii is certainly getting ridiculously close imo (and I can seem pretty biased most of the time on this issue). 

 

I remember when my 50d was in its last legs and I went into the shop to look at the a7ii and 6d, and I was considering the a7ii, but didn't get it due to ergnomics and very bad performance with EF glass, in the long run, I'm very thankful I went with the 5d3 instead, and know I'd regret the a7ii 2 weeks in, but I'm sure if I were looking at the a7iii instead, I would probably have bought it. 

 

Also, keep in mind that any lens for APS-c sony that was designed post IBIS will mount and work with very minimal vignetting on the a7, so long as you don't use IBIS. 

 

In other words, I'd personally go with the a7iii. I know and agree with the tendency to go for glass, but in this case, between the a7rii and a7ii, the a7rii is the best option by far, if you factor in the price difference then... there's no point not going with the a7iii in the end. 

I’ve thought quite similar thoughts, but I always come back to this. I’m no pro photographer and the A7ii is most likley good enough for most of what I want to do, where then a nicer lens may be more worth it. However I don’t know if I would regret it. The A7 iii has some amazing specs, but it costs almost 1000€ more than an A7ii here in Sweden. 

 

And what I said about better ISO performance, that is really not super important. Any FF body will be a good enough improvement over my a6000. 

[cc143]

3 hours ago, xQubeZx said:

I’ve thought quite similar thoughts, but I always come back to this. I’m no pro photographer and the A7ii is most likley good enough for most of what I want to do, where then a nicer lens may be more worth it. However I don’t know if I would regret it. The A7 iii has some amazing specs, but it costs almost 1000€ more than an A7ii here in Sweden. 

 

And what I said about better ISO performance, that is really not super important. Any FF body will be a good enough improvement over my a6000. 

As I said, the a7iii looks great on paper, where the a7ii wasn't bad, but wasn't that good either. I think you would appreciate the improvements on the a7iii, even on paper. Its a better combination of your current a6000 and a7ii as well, and has things that you don't need to be a pro to really appreciate, a joystick, the af system from the a9, dual memory card slots (even sd slots will do), the deeper grip and longer battery life. 

 

Im usually of the mindset of skip a generation before upgrading. 2 things, first, for sony that wasnt the case, because they do have pretty significant upgrades between models, especially now, and 2, this might be the first time, when the a7iv comes in 2 years when you may really go its not worth it to upgrade. 

 

Another consideration is this, you said you only have apsc glass foe the time being and no FF, have you thought of the possibility of moving over completely? Obviously you can't go with GM glass, but what about a general purpose f/4? or tamron's new releases for sony? I believe they are releasing some fast zooms, a 28-75 f2.8 or something of the sort. Since you dont do pro shoots, why not sell moat of your apsc stuff and completely switch to FF?

[xQubeZx]

2 hours ago, cc143 said:

As I said, the a7iii looks great on paper, where the a7ii wasn't bad, but wasn't that good either. I think you would appreciate the improvements on the a7iii, even on paper. Its a better combination of your current a6000 and a7ii as well, and has things that you don't need to be a pro to really appreciate, a joystick, the af system from the a9, dual memory card slots (even sd slots will do), the deeper grip and longer battery life. 

 

Im usually of the mindset of skip a generation before upgrading. 2 things, first, for sony that wasnt the case, because they do have pretty significant upgrades between models, especially now, and 2, this might be the first time, when the a7iv comes in 2 years when you may really go its not worth it to upgrade. 

 

Another consideration is this, you said you only have apsc glass foe the time being and no FF, have you thought of the possibility of moving over completely? Obviously you can't go with GM glass, but what about a general purpose f/4? or tamron's new releases for sony? I believe they are releasing some fast zooms, a 28-75 f2.8 or something of the sort. Since you dont do pro shoots, why not sell moat of your apsc stuff and completely switch to FF?

If I do a full switch to FF I’d need the A7iii as the AF is not good enough for some sports stuff I do on the A7ii, or well, I’d preffer not having to work with that AF in some situations. 

 

But I doubt I will get much money from selling my old gear. Its a lot of a6000 and cheaper lenses on the used market right now. I’d probably get max 600€ for my whole kit now. (A6000 + 2 Sigma lenses + the kit zooms (tele and normal))

 

I had totally forgotten that the A7iii had the joystick too which is a nice thing to have. It would have been a lot easier if the A7iii was like 400€ cheaper, now it seems just slightly out of reach as I need a lens and I don’t want the basic FE kit lens. 

[cc143]

28 minutes ago, xQubeZx said:

If I do a full switch to FF I’d need the A7iii as the AF is not good enough for some sports stuff I do on the A7ii, or well, I’d preffer not having to work with that AF in some situations. 

 

But I doubt I will get much money from selling my old gear. Its a lot of a6000 and cheaper lenses on the used market right now. I’d probably get max 600€ for my whole kit now. (A6000 + 2 Sigma lenses + the kit zooms (tele and normal))

 

I had totally forgotten that the A7iii had the joystick too which is a nice thing to have. It would have been a lot easier if the A7iii was like 400€ cheaper, now it seems just slightly out of reach as I need a lens and I don’t want the basic FE kit lens. 

Well as I said, the a7iii is a much better choice, and you should also keep in mind, glass is more expensive on FF anyway, loads more. The kit lens for the sony is sort of crap sure, but, http://www.tamron.eu/magazine/blog/detail/951/ tamron is releasing this in a couple of months, and looking at the lens, its built with Sony in mind, so is their upcoming 70-210mm f/4. 

 

Keep in mind that AF on the a7rii is also pretty similar. I personally believe its worth it, and I would wait until I can afford it or find something used or refurbished (that obviously means waiting a bit longer though). The a7ii just doesn't do it for me, having used it etc. its waaay behind. 

 

EDIT: what you could also do I've just remembered, Some stores, all the majors in the UK do it for instance, will give you a some over the trade in value of your camera if you are going to upgrade to a new upcoming camera, although their prices are usually discounted, you may be able to squeeze a bit more out of it. For instance, at some point the 5d4 had a £250 trade in bonus at jessops if I'm not mistaken. 

[Hashiba]

17 hours ago, xQubeZx said:

I’d buy a polarizer for which ever lens I’d get and probably also a ND-filter. Not that that would make them much softer. I’d be able to fix that in post if I want. However about selling the a6000, its not really worth that much, maybe 300€ which maybe isn’t worth the hassle as I’d be able to use it for timelapses or as backup body. 

 

But you would suggest to go with a Sigma lens and then after that the body I can afford? I could of course also get an original A7r for ~1000€ but I think that maybe has to many trade offs like really slow AF

Hey, sorry, I thought you were going to focus mostly on creating video content, thats why I mentioned the A7s (I actually read "a7s" each time you wrote "A7/A7r"), I would say that 90% of the time when you are doing a commercial/narrative and there is a female model or actress, we tend to add a beauty/softening filter(Hollywood BlackMagic, Promist, White frost, etc), specially when you are using ultra sharp glass such as Zeiss MP's, I was trying to establish a parallax with Sigma. Ofc if you are shooting stills you tend to fix it in post, but for motion that is not very easy.

 

My humble opinion is that Sigma glass is a good investment, and if you enjoy the Sony cameras colorimetry/ecosystem then go for it

[xQubeZx]

3 hours ago, Hashiba said:

Hey, sorry, I thought you were going to focus mostly on creating video content, thats why I mentioned the A7s (I actually read "a7s" each time you wrote "A7/A7r"), I would say that 90% of the time when you are doing a commercial/narrative and there is a female model or actress, we tend to add a beauty/softening filter(Hollywood BlackMagic, Promist, White frost, etc), specially when you are using ultra sharp glass such as Zeiss MP's, I was trying to establish a parallax with Sigma. Ofc if you are shooting stills you tend to fix it in post, but for motion that is not very easy.

 

My humble opinion is that Sigma glass is a good investment, and if you enjoy the Sony cameras colorimetry/ecosystem then go for it

Ah its cool. And I will mostly do stills. Would like to do some video in the future but now I’m almost always doing stills. And almost all Sony’s I’ve mentioned got good enough video features for me. 

 

And yes, the Sigma lenses I own now are amazing optically (not even any expensive ones) so I think those are a good choice considering how many people praise them. Especially the art series. 

[xQubeZx]

4 hours ago, cc143 said:

Well as I said, the a7iii is a much better choice, and you should also keep in mind, glass is more expensive on FF anyway, loads more. The kit lens for the sony is sort of crap sure, but, http://www.tamron.eu/magazine/blog/detail/951/ tamron is releasing this in a couple of months, and looking at the lens, its built with Sony in mind, so is their upcoming 70-210mm f/4. 

 

Keep in mind that AF on the a7rii is also pretty similar. I personally believe its worth it, and I would wait until I can afford it or find something used or refurbished (that obviously means waiting a bit longer though). The a7ii just doesn't do it for me, having used it etc. its waaay behind. 

 

EDIT: what you could also do I've just remembered, Some stores, all the majors in the UK do it for instance, will give you a some over the trade in value of your camera if you are going to upgrade to a new upcoming camera, although their prices are usually discounted, you may be able to squeeze a bit more out of it. For instance, at some point the 5d4 had a £250 trade in bonus at jessops if I'm not mistaken. 

You may be right that its more worth to wait some month more to get the mark iii body. As my a6000 is not dead and still works pretty good for most of what I do. 

 

Any idea on what that tamron lens would cost? Under 1000€? 

[cc143]

51 minutes ago, xQubeZx said:

You may be right that its more worth to wait some month more to get the mark iii body. As my a6000 is not dead and still works pretty good for most of what I do. 

 

Any idea on what that tamron lens would cost? Under 1000€? 

I think it would be at $900, don't know what that would mean over here, though, and that its supposed to be coming later in the year, my guess, about July-September at the latest, since I imagine they will want it to be close to the a7iii shipping date. I wouldn't expect it to be over 1000 Euros though, I mean, it might in Scandinavian countries accounting for taxes and price premiums etc. but you know how it goes I guess. 

 

You'll like their smaller FE glass they have, not sure if they are also releasing the 70-210mm f/4 for Sony, but if they do, that would be an incredible set, especially for adventure and landcape stuff, due to weight. 

[xQubeZx]

10 hours ago, cc143 said:

I think it would be at $900, don't know what that would mean over here, though, and that its supposed to be coming later in the year, my guess, about July-September at the latest, since I imagine they will want it to be close to the a7iii shipping date. I wouldn't expect it to be over 1000 Euros though, I mean, it might in Scandinavian countries accounting for taxes and price premiums etc. but you know how it goes I guess. 

 

You'll like their smaller FE glass they have, not sure if they are also releasing the 70-210mm f/4 for Sony, but if they do, that would be an incredible set, especially for adventure and landcape stuff, due to weight. 

Maybe have to wait to get one though then. But it is nice to know a ”cheaper” 2.8 zoom is coming. And the 70-210 eould be nice too. A light 70-200 is so valuable when you need a lighter setup but still want that focal length.