Body upgrade or lens upgrade?

[Myles92]

Hi all,

I currently use the trusty a7iii with my 24mm GM, 85mm GM and 200-600G

I mostly photograph wildlife and birds in flight but do a lot of portraiture also.

With the a7iii lacking bird eye af I do feel as though a newer body would yield more successful keeper shots.

However, the a7iii with the 85 GM is great or portraits.

I have started to develop a strong interest for sports photography, mostly football in the UK, motocross, dirt biking etc and do find at times I would like more frames.

My question is do i sell my 85GM in replacement for the 70-200 f2.8 ii, OR sell my a7iii and save longer for A1 or a9iii depending on release specs.

Thanks

Myles 

[FunWithCameras]

The 70-200mm f/2.8 GM II is a superb lens. I am thoroughly enjoying using it for wildlife photography. You can use it in place of the 85 GM for portraiture, although it's longer and heavier. I would expect the 70-200 GM II to last you many years.

The A1 or A9 III would be a major step up in capability, but you'd be trying to shoot sports with a 24GM and a 200-600G - that would be challenging.

My first inclination would be to get the 70-200, which you could use immediately, and start saving for a new body some time in the future - at least you could get some sports photographs using the A7 III and the 70-200 (and the 200-600 for big events).

[Phormula]

If well cared, the 70-200 is an investment that will last for a long time.

If you plan to shoot sport, it is a must have lens.

I would get this lens and start saving for a body upgrade in the future.

[thebeardedgroundsman]

Hi Myles, 

if you sell your A7iii you won't have a camera until you buy a new body.

Have you looked at the A7iv? it has bird eye recognition and Ai body recognition which the A1 and A9 don't have.

Also, for the sake of one stop, the new 70-200mm f4 G looks really good and will save you £800 which might save you having to trade in one of your other great lenses.

[FunWithCameras]

6 hours ago, thebeardedgroundsman said:

Hi Myles, 

if you sell your A7iii you won't have a camera until you buy a new body.

Have you looked at the A7iv? it has bird eye recognition and Ai body recognition which the A1 and A9 don't have.

Also, for the sake of one stop, the new 70-200mm f4 G looks really good and will save you £800 which might save you having to trade in one of your other great lenses.

Er, no, the A7IV does not have the AI subject recognition - the first camera with that was the A7RV, followed by the A6700, A7CII, and A7CR. The A7CII is a lot like the A7IV in a smaller body, but with the latest AF.

The 70-200mm f/4 G II is a fine lens, and a quarter kilo lighter than the GM II, too. If you can afford the extra stop, it’s a good choice.

[Myles92]

Thank you all for the replies, definitely some food for thought.

I have considered the a7iv as it does have bird eye AF but I was unsure if an upgrade was justified for that alone? The a7iv fps still isn't great. 

I have also considered the a7rv, but again was unsure if it would suffice, I love the ability to crop which I often do, but those file sizes are big and I believe the higher MP isn't so great in low light.

Lastly I did consider the f4 version, and I agree it would probably allow me to keep the 85, but I'm pretty sold on the 2.8 with it being an internal zoom and I'm a sucker for bokkeh. I would also forever question myself if I should have just gone for the 2.8

As some of you have said, perhaps it is best to add the lens to my arsenal and wait for new body, maybe, just maybe there will be a high frame body with bird eye af in the future? I can hope atleast can't I? 

 

[Phormula]

Given your interest in wildlife, the 2.8 makes a difference over the 4 version, because it will allow you to better isolate your subject from the background and gain an extra stop. Optical stabilisation is not that much useful when your subject is a moving one, you need a fast lens to keep the shutter speed as high as possible. 

Furthermore, the times you won't need 2.8, you will gain image quality stepping down to 4 or 5.6.

[Pieter]

15 hours ago, Myles92 said:

I believe the higher MP isn't so great in low light.

This really is not an argument against the A7Rv. Yes the smaller pixels are a bit noisier, but there's also a lot more of them. Due to the random nature of noise, it cancels out when combining several pixels. Downsamping a 61MP image from the A7Rv to 33MP like in the A7iv will give pretty much identical noise performance. What's more, when viewed at the same size, the brain of the beholder does the downsampling. At the same size, a picture from the A7Rv will therefore look equally noisy as one from the A7iv, but a bit more detailed.

So no, for all practical purposes, a higher MP camera does not have worse low-light performance than one with a lower MP count.

[Myles92]

On 10/3/2023 at 9:21 AM, Pieter said:

This really is not an argument against the A7Rv. Yes the smaller pixels are a bit noisier, but there's also a lot more of them. Due to the random nature of noise, it cancels out when combining several pixels. Downsamping a 61MP image from the A7Rv to 33MP like in the A7iv will give pretty much identical noise performance. What's more, when viewed at the same size, the brain of the beholder does the downsampling. At the same size, a picture from the A7Rv will therefore look equally noisy as one from the A7iv, but a bit more detailed.

So no, for all practical purposes, a higher MP camera does not have worse low-light performance than one with a lower MP count.

Fair points there Pieter, Can the a7rv be downsampled in camera or does it have to be done in post? 

If it can be done in camera that would be pretty handy and would give the ability for smaller file sizes with the option of shooting full res if required.

[Pieter]

2 hours ago, Myles92 said:

Can the a7rv be downsampled in camera or does it have to be done in post?

The A7Rv can downsample in-camera. It has a setting for 26MP RAW files and one for 15MP RAW files.

[Phormula]

Although it is possible to shoot with a lower resolution, my experience talking with professionals it is that, it is not a good idea unless you plan to further downsample the images at the editing stage or you plan to use the images as they are. Storage space (memory cards and hard disks) are getting increasingly cheaper. 

What I have seen observing professionals at work is that they shoot with a higher resolution that they need, leaving themselves room for cropping, then they process the image and leave downsampling as the last operation before saving the final file. This offers more information to apply filters, corrections and effects on. For this reason I have always used the highest resolution that my cameras allowed me, saving the original unmodified files. Then I digitally process the ones I need.

Of course, this is my cup of tea, yours might be different.

[decock918]

My first inclination would be to get the 70-200, which you could use immediately, and start saving for a new body some time in the future - at least you could get some sports photographs using the A7 III and the 70-200 (and the 200-600 for big events).

 

[decock918]

What's more, when viewed at the same size, the brain of the beholder does the downsampling. At the same size, a picture from the A7Rv will therefore look equally noisy as one from the A7iv, but a bit more detailed.

 

pikashow download