I agree with you on this. Nikon are starting to struggle financially and if they want to interest people in their camera systems then they need to do more than just meet the basic level. The kit lens with this should have been blowing the competition away.
Depends what the image quality is like. These are outdoor lenses so a slow aperture isn’t a show stopper. It’s basically £3k on this or £12k on the same focal length prime :police:
The Sony 200-600 gets great reviews with a similar slow aperture.
So I did a test tonight taking my A7 III out on bike a ride and it works. I bought a Peak Design strap which is easy to clip on and off the camera when required. No need to splash out on another camera :)
A few shots, all taken the 55mm F1.8
Unless you need IBIS, record video & need mic and headphone ports then the A6600 isn’t worth it over the A6400. The A6600 has a larger capacity battery but you can just buy a spare one with the £600 you saved :)
I’m currently debating about getting a small APS-C camera to use for family walk about & travel portraits and MTB rides out with my son.
I currently have a Sony A73 & Canon G7X MKII and I’m looking for something that sits in the middle. The Sony is too big to lug around and the Canon doesn’t...
The new RF lenses are typically a lot more expensive the older EF counterparts. They have been improved optically, include a new control ring and are usually lighter than the equivalent EF examples. e.g. the new RF 100-500 is about 400 grams lighter than 100-400.
Back when I was starting out in...