I’d be very suspicious of that even if you were happy to buy grey. E-infinity is usually one of the cheapest grey importers and they have the A7iii and 28-70mm for £1419, and the 24-70mm is around £300 or so more than the 28-70mm.
I waited to see if the Sony summer cash back offer would return and it has.
I am happy with my A7ii and 24-105mm. Also happy with my 85 f1.8.Hi everyone,
So I'm ALMOST ready to take a decision, thought I'd ask for your views one more time. Then I'm ready to take the plunge, I promise
As per my previous post and having reviewed my budget and personal situation again, I need to get as much as I can for the £2k budget rather than spend further several £ks on lenses in the coming months/few years on top…i.e. for £2k I want body + decent zoom + prime. Tripod I can get outside of the £2k, telephoto in later months/years.
A few of you have recommended stretching to the A7iii, but I can't make it work within my budget overall and what might be coming in the next couple of years. With that in mind, I have to compromise on body or lens I think it's the body that I'm more willing to budge on. I'd rather be able to afford premium lenses like the 24-105 i.e. surely A7ii/A7Rii + 24-105 is a 'better' setup than an A7iii with 28-70?
The Tamron 28-75 looks great but I think I'd prefer extra reach of the 24-105 vs. f2.8 particularly as I won't have a telephoto lens. I've been looking at photos online taken with the 24-105 and they look stunning.
I feel an A7ii/A7Rii will still be a huge ‘upgrade’ for me - will give me so much extra versatility, image quality, allow me to play in the world of FF and all with very good lenses within my budget. If the finances permit in a few years I could go to the A7iii then.
Interestingly none of you recommended the A6400/6500/6600 as an alternative to FF - is this because most of you would go for the Fuji XT-3 for crop? For the A6xxx range:
Pros:
- Dynamic range - much improved vs. my 500D and Sony still impressive in the crop world. Conclusion - probably meets my needs
- Portability - comparing equivalent kit I would save 0.5-1.0kg - makes no difference to me personally
- Price benefit - crop & mid-range lenses much cheaper. For FF I can't see an alternative (cheaper) telephoto and the 70-300 is £1,100....
- 'Reach' - however, only 10% of my photos have been taken on my 70-300 lens, the rest have been on the 17-50mm range, so I'm not sure this will bother me much at all.
Cons:
- Better low light performance on FF - unsure of whether I will really take advantage of this or not, but like the idea of the capabilities this gives me, such as street photography at nighttime.
- DoF not as sexy as FF
- Ergonomics don't even look good (if that can be said) - much prefer the looks of the size and grip of the A7 series
All comments welcome
Also some replies below...
Ok thanks - why is it worth the extra though? I can't stretch to it but keen to understand why.
Why? I always assumed that you get much more out of a cheaper body and premium/high quality lens than a nicer body and kit lens, so I struggle to see how this can be the case from a principle point of view
The Sony a6xxx cameras are great but if we recommended all the good cameras out there we’d be here all dayHi everyone,
So I'm ALMOST ready to take a decision, thought I'd ask for your views one more time. Then I'm ready to take the plunge, I promise
As per my previous post and having reviewed my budget and personal situation again, I need to get as much as I can for the £2k budget rather than spend further several £ks on lenses in the coming months/few years on top…i.e. for £2k I want body + decent zoom + prime. Tripod I can get outside of the £2k, telephoto in later months/years.
A few of you have recommended stretching to the A7iii, but I can't make it work within my budget overall and what might be coming in the next couple of years. With that in mind, I have to compromise on body or lens I think it's the body that I'm more willing to budge on. I'd rather be able to afford premium lenses like the 24-105 i.e. surely A7ii/A7Rii + 24-105 is a 'better' setup than an A7iii with 28-70?
The Tamron 28-75 looks great but I think I'd prefer extra reach of the 24-105 vs. f2.8 particularly as I won't have a telephoto lens. I've been looking at photos online taken with the 24-105 and they look stunning.
I feel an A7ii/A7Rii will still be a huge ‘upgrade’ for me - will give me so much extra versatility, image quality, allow me to play in the world of FF and all with very good lenses within my budget. If the finances permit in a few years I could go to the A7iii then.
Interestingly none of you recommended the A6400/6500/6600 as an alternative to FF - is this because most of you would go for the Fuji XT-3 for crop? For the A6xxx range:
Pros:
- Dynamic range - much improved vs. my 500D and Sony still impressive in the crop world. Conclusion - probably meets my needs
- Portability - comparing equivalent kit I would save 0.5-1.0kg - makes no difference to me personally
- Price benefit - crop & mid-range lenses much cheaper. For FF I can't see an alternative (cheaper) telephoto and the 70-300 is £1,100....
- 'Reach' - however, only 10% of my photos have been taken on my 70-300 lens, the rest have been on the 17-50mm range, so I'm not sure this will bother me much at all.
Cons:
- Better low light performance on FF - unsure of whether I will really take advantage of this or not, but like the idea of the capabilities this gives me, such as street photography at nighttime.
- DoF not as sexy as FF
- Ergonomics don't even look good (if that can be said) - much prefer the looks of the size and grip of the A7 series
All comments welcome
Also some replies below...
Ok thanks - why is it worth the extra though? I can't stretch to it but keen to understand why.
Why? I always assumed that you get much more out of a cheaper body and premium/high quality lens than a nicer body and kit lens, so I struggle to see how this can be the case from a principle point of view
What you're saying is probably best in the long run, but if you've never used an a7rii or a7iii you won't know what's different in terms of ergonomics etc, but if you've had an A7/A7ii then upgraded to A7iii/riv then you would know how much better it is, if that makes sense.
Definitely makes sense. And this is why it’s so important to get hands on with them before deciding. I was dead set on Sony twice in the past but the ergonomics didn’t suit me.What you're saying is probably best in the long run, but if you've never used an a7rii or a7iii you won't know what's different in terms of ergonomics etc, but if you've had an A7/A7ii then upgraded to A7iii/riv then you would know how much better it is, if that makes sense.
What's the difference with the ergonomics?
The Sony a6xxx cameras are great but if we recommended all the good cameras out there we’d be here all day
In terms of the final image the A7iii won’t be much different (although the colour science is better imo) but in terms of user experience it will be better, snappier menus etc, better AF, better ergonomics. Enjoying using the camera is extremely important imo and is an area that should not be overlooked.
Out of the A7ii and A7Rii it would be the Rii for me all day long.
If it was me I’d be buying a like new used A7iii for around £1470, like new used 24-70mm f4 for around £430 and like new used Sony 50mm f1.8 for around £145, taking you around £45-50 over budget. Don’t underestimate the 28-70mm though, it’s optically very good considering. You could of course go for “excellent” as opposed to “like new” and be within budget.
If you‘re dead set on the 24-105mm then you’re pretty much limited to the A7ii & A7Rii and I’ve already said which I’d get
Sorry I think I missed this. Mainly it’s the grip, they’ve made it larger. The series 4 (and A9-II) are the only Sony mirrorless I can fit my fingers comfortably between the grip and lens.
