Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello fellow photographers,

I am a amateur wildlife photographer. I am interested to switch from Canon to Sony.
I am having some problems making the dissicion which camera i should buy. I am going for the Sony 200-600 lens but do not know what camera I should use with it. The a6400 and a6600 have the new autofocus system, but are very small and miss some important features for me. But the Sony A7R IV is to expensive for me. Here is my question: Did the Sony A7 III get the same new autofocus system as the a6xxx and the A7R IV in the most resent firmware update. 

I would be very happy if someone could help me out choosing the correct camera for my needs.

 

Kind Regards,

Tim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tim,

As far as I know the both a quite similar. Both feature eye autofocus for humans and animals, but only the a6600 has eye autofocus in video mode. The a7iii on the other hand has more focus points, covering a little more of the screen.

Main difference to decide on is the crop factor, which has its advantages and disadvantages...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 1 year later...

Hi Tim, 

      Best bet for wildlife photography is the a6400. I shoot mostly Birds.. birds on perch has a very good resolution in a6400  with 200 600mm. Birds in Flight can be use to but quite challenging and must have some skillful technique, but if you made good focus, the resolution is great.. I mostly use the a9 in birds in flight for great percentage of autofocus..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • Hola, parece que estan agotados, saludos Felipe 
    • I'd suggest you start by running a simple test.  Take pictures of a typical scene/subject and each of the JPEG settings your camera offers.  Then compare them in the output that you normally produce.  You may or may not see a difference.  I normally shoot at the highest JPEG level and save that file -- but make a smaller file (lower resolution) for normal/typical use. There's plenty of editing that you can do with JPEGs on your computer -- depending on your software -- and there are features in your camera that can help out, as well.  That depends on your camera.  Put them together, and it might meet your needs.  For example, your camera probably has several bracketing features that will take the same shot with different settings with one press of the button.  Then you can select the best JPEG to work with on your computer.  I frequently use this feature to control contrast.
    • If you set up some basic presets in your processing software and use batch processing, you don't need jpeg at all. I shoot RAW only, use (free) Faststone Image Viewer which will view any type of image file to cull my shots, and batch process in Darktable. I can start with 2000-3000 shots and in a matter of a few hours have them culled, processed, and posted. A handful of shots, say a couple hundred from a photo walk, are done in minutes.  This saves card space, computer space, and upload time.  The results are very good for posting online. When someone wants to buy one or I decide to print it, I can then return to the RAW file and process it individually for optimum results.  I never delete a RAW file. Sometimes I'll return to an old shot I processed several years ago and reprocess it. I have been very surprised how much better they look as my processing skills improved.  
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...