Struggling to decide on upgrades

[bs.shoots]

For context: I am still a student, doing part time work. I HAVE the money to upgrade my gear, but my parents don't want me to "waste" too much money. As this is just my hobby and I'm not a professional wildlife photographer.

I have been using an a7II since 2018, and upgraded from kit lens to SEL24240 (FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 OSS) in 2019 December. With it's incredible 10x zoom capabilities, I pretty much did not need to carry around with me any extra lenses when travelling as I had both wide angle & close-ups covered. I started taking more and more insane close-ups and realised I really love macro & super detailed close-up shots of animals & plants. Here comes the issue. While it's "GOOD ENOUGH", I'm starting to see the a7II age compared to its newer counterparts. This leads into the new lens I want to get.

I'm tempted to get the new SEL70200G2 (FE 70-200mm F4 Macro G OSS Ⅱ) with x2 teleconverter as it essentially reaches 400mm with (1:1 MACRO!! On a zoom lens! That's crazy!). This is literally the dream for me, having a zoom this strong with macro capabilities while not having too big of a form factor. I just need to get a compact wide angle prime lens and I'm settled for travels. I can even just sell the SEL24240.

LINKING BACK TO THE ISSUE: The a7ii has only a 24MP sensor. (I can't even record 4K videos) I'm afraid that the 2x teleconverter will harm the outcome of the picture as the sensor is not that good. I can't reliably crop my pictures in lightroom, so it speaks volume. It might even affect the already slow auto focus.

Now the big question is: Should I upgrade my body? We are already at a7rV and I'm still using an a7II. It does feel like I'm living in the past. The 60MP sensor, touchscreen, bluetooth (for gimbal), fast auto focus and better viewfinder are all LEAPS in terms of improvement when you put the comparisons side by side. The issue here is the huge price tag.

Should I go for a7rIV? Or perhaps maybe even a7IV (Which should be "Good enough" as well)? Should I sell my a7II to fund a new body? Is it even worth selling it at this point? Will anyone buy it? Should I just give up my dream lens and upgrade the body first? Or should I just get the lens and use it on my a7II? Should I just close my eyes and pretend this lens does not exist? I really cannot decide what to do... Please help me weigh the pros and cons, I'm really in a dilemma 😭.

I did more research and it seems the a7IV has better quality? Over the R series, even though the R series has higher MP.

[Pieter]

1 hour ago, bs.shoots said:

The a7ii has only a 24MP sensor. (I can't even record 4K videos) I'm afraid that the 2x teleconverter will harm the outcome of the picture as the sensor is not that good.

Quite the contrary: teleconverters perform better on low MP sensors. It magnifies optical flaws in the lens so the more MP you have, the more visible these flaws become. Especially the 2× teleconverter is hammering the image quality on a high MP sensor such as in the A7Rv.

1 hour ago, bs.shoots said:

Now the big question is: Should I upgrade my body? We are already at a7rV and I'm still using an a7II. It does feel like I'm living in the past.

You should only upgrade your body if you feel like it's considerably holding you back. For macro photography, I think the A7ii is totally fine: you have lots of control over framing your subject, so no need to crop. Autofocus is also quite irrelevant as macro is usually done with manual focus anyway. For all practical purposes, 24MP is more than enough. Unless you plan to print really large and stand at 0.5m distance.

1 hour ago, bs.shoots said:

The 60MP sensor, touchscreen, bluetooth (for gimbal), fast auto focus and better viewfinder are all LEAPS in terms of improvement when you put the comparisons side by side. The issue here is the huge price tag.

Don't look at what newer cameras offer, look at what's holding you back (if anything). Upgrading is only for quality of life if nothing is holding you back: it won't improve your photography.

2 hours ago, bs.shoots said:

Should I go for a7rIV? Or perhaps maybe even a7IV

If you really want to upgrade: For your use case, I'd rather get the A7iv. It has better autofocus and what do you need 60MP for really? Your 24-240 lens certainly won't look well on such a demanding sensor.

2 hours ago, bs.shoots said:

I did more research and it seems the a7IV has better quality? Over the R series, even though the R series has higher MP.

How do you define quality?

[bs.shoots]

Thanks for the insights!

1 hour ago, Pieter said:

Quite the contrary: teleconverters perform better on low MP sensors. It magnifies optical flaws in the lens so the more MP you have, the more visible these flaws become. Especially the 2× teleconverter is hammering the image quality on a high MP sensor such as in the A7Rv.

That's very interesting! I've been watching quite a few videos of the TC and did not quite grasp the concept. I just thought it was that it would magnify any camera shake.

1 hour ago, Pieter said:

You should only upgrade your body if you feel like it's considerably holding you back. For macro photography, I think the A7ii is totally fine: you have lots of control over framing your subject, so no need to crop. Autofocus is also quite irrelevant as macro is usually done with manual focus anyway. For all practical purposes, 24MP is more than enough. Unless you plan to print really large and stand at 0.5m distance.

Don't look at what newer cameras offer, look at what's holding you back (if anything). Upgrading is only for quality of life if nothing is holding you back: it won't improve your photography.

That's true, but I'm also using it as an "anything" camera, while travelling taking landscape and animals. But I get what you mean. If I had not seen how much cameras have evolved I would not have thought about upgrading in the first place.

1 hour ago, Pieter said:

If you really want to upgrade: For your use case, I'd rather get the A7iv. It has better autofocus and what do you need 60MP for really? Your 24-240 lens certainly won't look well on such a demanding sensor.

Haha yes I was just comparing it to my phone, with a 108MP camera but very shitty lens. The resolution is so high but the picture still comes out bad.

1 hour ago, Pieter said:

How do you define quality?

I was looking at videos comparing pictures from the a7rV and a7IV, they place the pictures side by side and show the amount of details captured. (Animal feathers, furs, etc.)

 

So in conclusion of this: I don't NEED to upgrade. However if I do want to, I should look at the a7IV.

What about the new lens? SEL70200G2 (FE 70-200mm F4 Macro G OSS Ⅱ). Do you have any insights about it? I've seen people with multiple lens in their arsenal but I've never bought myself more than one. The 24-240mm already gives me both wide angle and zoom, so it covers quite a bit. I don't get the reason of having more than one lens when one basically solves a lot of things. The only thing this lens holds me back in is macro.

[Pieter]

3 hours ago, bs.shoots said:

I'm also using it as an "anything" camera, while travelling taking landscape and animals. But I get what you mean. If I had not seen how much cameras have evolved I would not have thought about upgrading in the first place.

My point exactly: if your current camera is not holding you back, there's no need to upgrade. It's just fun to try new tech stuff, but don't expect your photos to improve significantly.

3 hours ago, bs.shoots said:

Haha yes I was just comparing it to my phone, with a 108MP camera but very shitty lens. The resolution is so high but the picture still comes out bad.

The phone camera MP race is the worst marketing crap ever. You end up with exceptionally large files while you don't gain any benefit. Anything over 12MP on a phone is just stupid: 12MP is enough even for great 4k film (check the A7Siii).

3 hours ago, bs.shoots said:

I was looking at videos comparing pictures from the a7rV and a7IV, they place the pictures side by side and show the amount of details captured. (Animal feathers, furs, etc.)

There's a difference between pixel quality and picture quality. Pixel quality is only relevant if you pixel peep at >100%. Because pixels of the A7Rv are much smaller than those of the A7iv, they tend to be a bit more noisy and slightly less sharp. The detail captured on the A7Rv however is much higher than on the A7iv: if you downsample those 61MP from an A7Rv image to 36MP (equal to A7iv), you'll find that the downsampled A7Rv image is slightly sharper than the one from the A7iv. So pixel quality on the A7iv is higher than on the A7Rv, but picture quality is higher on the A7Rv (not dissimilar to your smartphone: it has abysmal pixel quality but picture quality might still be ok compared to other phones).

3 hours ago, bs.shoots said:

What about the new lens? SEL70200G2 (FE 70-200mm F4 Macro G OSS Ⅱ). Do you have any insights about it?

I don't have one but it does indeed look like a very fun and versatile lens.

3 hours ago, bs.shoots said:

I don't get the reason of having more than one lens when one basically solves a lot of things. 

Mostly: possibilities for creative expression and preference for quality over versatility. Ultrazoom lenses like your 24-240 lens tend to be compromised in terms of image quality (less sharpness and more optical abberations), and they tend to have very small apertures. Prime lenses offer vastly better image quality and come with much larger apertures, allowing for lower ISO, faster shutter speeds and more control over depth of field (subject separation from background).

Edited October 10, 2023 by Pieter

[XKAES]

Listen to Pieter's sound advise.  If the camera won't do what you want -- I find that unlikely -- then upgrade the camera.

If you want wider or longer lenses, you can get either (or both) without spending a ton of $$$$.  Just figure out what focal lengths you want FIRST.  ZOOMs -- especially with wide ranges -- are nice, but heavy and expensive, and not always the way to go.  Primes and older lenses are remarkably good and inexpensive.

Edited October 10, 2023 by XKAES

[bs.shoots]

1 hour ago, XKAES said:

Listen to Pieter's sound advise. 

Definitely 😄 I have repurposed my budget to spending a little on a good sling and polarizing filter and saving the rest. Thanks!

[FunWithCameras]

16 hours ago, bs.shoots said:

Thanks for the insights!

That's very interesting! I've been watching quite a few videos of the TC and did not quite grasp the concept. I just thought it was that it would magnify any camera shake.

It will, but the amount you can shake before it is visible depends on the density of the sensor - higher megapixel sensors have higher density so any shake will be more visible. Your current camera will show less.

16 hours ago, bs.shoots said:

That's true, but I'm also using it as an "anything" camera, while travelling taking landscape and animals. But I get what you mean. If I had not seen how much cameras have evolved I would not have thought about upgrading in the first place.

Haha yes I was just comparing it to my phone, with a 108MP camera but very shitty lens. The resolution is so high but the picture still comes out bad.

I was looking at videos comparing pictures from the a7rV and a7IV, they place the pictures side by side and show the amount of details captured. (Animal feathers, furs, etc.)

But they are capturing that detail with a high quality lens. If you upgraded to a 60Mp sensor you’d also need a high resolution lens to get that detail. 

16 hours ago, bs.shoots said:

 

So in conclusion of this: I don't NEED to upgrade. However if I do want to, I should look at the a7IV.

What about the new lens? SEL70200G2 (FE 70-200mm F4 Macro G OSS Ⅱ). Do you have any insights about it? I've seen people with multiple lens in their arsenal but I've never bought myself more than one. The 24-240mm already gives me both wide angle and zoom, so it covers quite a bit. I don't get the reason of having more than one lens when one basically solves a lot of things. The only thing this lens holds me back in is macro.

if you want to explore macro, why not get an inexpensive macro lens? You can get one for a lot less than the 70-200 G II. Yes, you will be joining the “owns more than one lens” crowd, but you will know why - you have one lens for macro, and one for everything else.

You can get a lens which does a lot of things to an OK standard, but is not super-good at any one thing. Or you can get a lens which is really brilliant at one thing, but does not do much else. Or you can get a lens which does fewer things, but is better at those than the do-it-all lens.

For example, the 200-600mm G lens can cover focal lengths 200 to 600mm, and it’s good at that, but it’s f/6.3 at 600mm. The 600mm GM can only do 600mm, but it is fantastic at that, and is f/4 at that distance. Many of us have the 200-600mm lens, because it’s what we can afford, and it’s as good as we can afford 🙂  The people who can afford more may choose the 600 GM because it is better (even though it costs more than 6 times the price!).,

The most expensive lenses tend to be fairly specialised, because it’s simply not practical to make a lens which can do lots of things to a very high standard. The most expensive lenses offer a single focal length. Go down a step or two, and the zoom lenses have a restricted range, typically up to about 3x (like 24-70, 70-200, 200-600), because the wider the range, the harder it is to design the lens to the expected quality. Go down further, and you find wider zoom ranges. 

[Phormula]

I agree with the sound advice that others have provided.

In the end, there are two reasons to perform upgrades:

• A technical need, i.e. the new piece of equipment fills a void, e.g. a macro lens to take closeup pictures, a long telephoto for wildlife...
• The subtle pleasure of owning the newest piece of equipment. This can be a quick bank account emptying exercise.

As far as the pixel count is considered, you have to ask yourself how much resolution do you actually need. I shoot with a 6300 (24 MP) and then downsize to 20 MP in post processing. I have seen that this is the best compromise between file size and image detail and quality for my needs and the slight downsizing leaves me some freedom in correcting, e.g. a not so straight horizon or cropping a little, without quality issues. Besides, a higher megapixel camera requires top quality lenses to exploit the resolution gain.

Lenses are another story. My experience here is the same of others, each lens has a precise point in the triangle versatility, quality and price. Some prime lenses offer high quality at a reasonable price, but being one focal length they are not versatile, while long range zooms do a little bit of everything, but with compromises in quality. It is up to you to decide which level of compromise best suits your needs. I learnt this lesson the hard way back in the 90s when I broke the bank and bought a 300 mm /f 2.8 lens. Maximum quality, everybody was crazy describing it on magazines and early internet. I couldn't agree more, but I ended selling it fro a fraction of what I paid because it was too heavy and too limiting, it ended spending much of the time in the closet because my 75-300 /f 4-5.6 was lighter and smaller and much better for backpacking, while providing enough quality for my shots.

[mrandom]

7 hours ago, FunWithCameras said:

if you want to explore macro, why not get an inexpensive macro lens? You can get one for a lot less than the 70-200 G II.

Agreed.

Also, going with a dedicated macro prime lens might complement your zoom lens better. E.g. it could give you larger aperture values, meaning that you could use your macro lens to shoot non-macro photos, just with larger aperture values (so: in lower light or with shallower depth of field).

Sigma 70mm F2.8 DG Macro is a relatively cheap prime lens that has been well reviewed, praised for its image quality and macro capabilities. Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG DN Macro offers even better image quality and Sony FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G OSS will have better ergonomics, both cost more.

[XKAES]

Another two cents about macro.  As Pieter has pointed out, macro work is not really helped with AF.  None of my macro lenses have AF at all, and I don't find it useful.  Minolta made lots of macro lens with AF -- and before that, without AF (but most with the same optical design).  These macro lenses can be bought for very little money.

[Phormula]

Starting from a "do a little of everything" lens and adding primes opens up a realm of opportunities.

The macro lens has been already suggested. Another option for macro is to buy a close up filter, i.e. an additional lens that screws as a filter and reduces the minimum focusing distance of the lens. It is a cheap and dirty solution that comes with a trade off in quality, but works well for me because my wife uses it for pictures of her flowers, so sharpness in the corners is not an issue.

Other options for a prime lens are a really wide angle, in the 15-20 mm range. More compact than a wide angle zoom, it allows you to take dramatic landscape pictures and pictures in limited spaces, such as the inside of buildings. In my Nikon days I used to carry a 20 mm, very compact and useful. 

Another option is a fast prime in the "normal" range (35-50 mm). Very compact, it can be your only lens when you want to travel really really light and its fastness comes at handy in taking pictures in low light without having to ramp up the ISO too much. This is an option I am considering for my 6300. It is true that stabilisation helps, but it works only for steady subjects. If your subject moves, then you need a decent shutter speed to avoid blurring. I love street photography at night , so I am considering a 35 mm APS-C equivalent fast prime for my 6300.

[XKAES]

9 hours ago, Phormula said:

Another option for macro is to buy a close up filter, i.e. an additional lens that screws as a filter and reduces the minimum focusing distance of the lens. It is a cheap and dirty solution that comes with a trade off in quality, but works well for me because my wife uses it for pictures of her flowers, so sharpness in the corners is not an issue.
 

Close-up lenses (they screw in like filters, but they are optically lenses) are great for close-up work but they are not designed for real macro work -- 1X or greater.  Much depends on what lens(es) you have and how close you want to get.  The quality of the result (fuzzy edges) improves dramatically as you stop-down -- which you usually want to do with close-up work anyway.  Most close-up lenses are single-element optics, often uncoated, but results will improve if you use better quality, multi-element, close-up lenses.  These cost more, of course, but often not by much.  Here is a comprehensive list of the NON-single element close-up lenses that have been made.  It also shows examples of the difference this can make:

http://fuzzcraft.com/achromats.html

Edited October 12, 2023 by XKAES

[Rob Ainscough]

I have the Sony FE 24-100 F2.8 GMII lens and the Sony FE 70-200 F2.8 GM OSS II lens paired with Sony A7RV and here are some benefits:

• Autofocus - retained even with motion and you'll not see any "searching" for focus at all, even less so in 
• Linear Manual Focus - for consistency when switched focal points
• Focus Breathing
• Depth of Field transition 

There are few other points like image stabilization difference between the Sony GMs and non-Sony.  For me, it's the AF that defines the cost difference.  There have been many instances where something catches my attention and I need to quickly grab the camera and take shots ... I don't have time to think about best camera settings, only enough time to take the shot (usually in continuous).  

I think the objective with Sony both in camera's and their lenses is they want to let you focus on content and less on controls with enough artistic breath to allow for creativity. 

I do want to get one more Sony lens, and that's the 50mm FE 1.2F GM ... but rumor has it Sony will have a FE 1.2F GM II next year.  Some of the GM versions are starting to see discounted prices which is another clue that GM II version will be coming soon ... so I'm holding out.

As far as phones and their claims to 108 MP or Apple's claim of 48 MP ... they're not, they're native 12 MP.  Nothing wrong with 12 MP, but what 61 MP provides is crop.  I have a Sony RX10 III also, fixed lens 24-600mm ... taking the same picture with A7RV at 200mm (61MP) and the Sony RX10 III at 600mm (20MP) ... then crop the A7RV to same size as RX10 III and the A7RV looks much better as one would expect from $6700 vs. $1500.  I got some great results out of my RX10 III and still use it.

I have strayed in cross brands over the years/decades with my cameras, but in all cases the non-native lenses need a tad more fussing with to get the best shot.  The native lenses seem to just work with less effort.

So, long winded summary and entirely opinion ... if you have time to set the shot up, non-GM is great.  If you don't have time then this is where GM lenses shine.  I standard setting setup I have for "no time" shots with these lenses (always place the camera in this mode prior to power off):

• Mechanical shutter
• Continuous AF
• Subject recognition target (Animal/Bird)
• Focus Area Tracking Wide (for motion) or Tracking Spot (still then motion)
• APS-C 35mm shooting (yes crop mode 28 MP) - 690+ focus points cover entire cropped area for focus eval
• Tracking Sensitivity 4
• Lens Steady shot mode 3

On a side note, rather than drop $12000 on a Sony FE 400mm f2.8 GM OSS Len (or the 600mm), I'm testing out 2x converter on my 70-200mm first ... I'm not sure 400mm is enough and no idea how the 2X will mess stuff up, but $500 vs. $12000 needs some investigation

Cheers, Rob.

[FunWithCameras]

6 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

I have the Sony FE 24-100 F2.8 GMII lens and the Sony FE 70-200 F2.8 GM OSS II lens paired with Sony A7RV and here are some benefits:

• Autofocus - retained even with motion and you'll not see any "searching" for focus at all, even less so in 
• Linear Manual Focus - for consistency when switched focal points
• Focus Breathing
• Depth of Field transition 

There are few other points like image stabilization difference between the Sony GMs and non-Sony.  For me, it's the AF that defines the cost difference.  There have been many instances where something catches my attention and I need to quickly grab the camera and take shots ... I don't have time to think about best camera settings, only enough time to take the shot (usually in continuous).  

I think the objective with Sony both in camera's and their lenses is they want to let you focus on content and less on controls with enough artistic breath to allow for creativity. 

I do want to get one more Sony lens, and that's the 50mm FE 1.2F GM ... but rumor has it Sony will have a FE 1.2F GM II next year.  Some of the GM versions are starting to see discounted prices which is another clue that GM II version will be coming soon ... so I'm holding out.

As far as phones and their claims to 108 MP or Apple's claim of 48 MP ... they're not, they're native 12 MP.  Nothing wrong with 12 MP, but what 61 MP provides is crop.  I have a Sony RX10 III also, fixed lens 24-600mm ... taking the same picture with A7RV at 200mm (61MP) and the Sony RX10 III at 600mm (20MP) ... then crop the A7RV to same size as RX10 III and the A7RV looks much better as one would expect from $6700 vs. $1500.  I got some great results out of my RX10 III and still use it.

I have strayed in cross brands over the years/decades with my cameras, but in all cases the non-native lenses need a tad more fussing with to get the best shot.  The native lenses seem to just work with less effort.

So, long winded summary and entirely opinion ... if you have time to set the shot up, non-GM is great.  If you don't have time then this is where GM lenses shine.  I standard setting setup I have for "no time" shots with these lenses (always place the camera in this mode prior to power off):

• Mechanical shutter
• Continuous AF
• Subject recognition target (Animal/Bird)
• Focus Area Tracking Wide (for motion) or Tracking Spot (still then motion)
• APS-C 35mm shooting (yes crop mode 28 MP) - 690+ focus points cover entire cropped area for focus eval
• Tracking Sensitivity 4
• Lens Steady shot mode 3

On a side note, rather than drop $12000 on a Sony FE 400mm f2.8 GM OSS Len (or the 600mm), I'm testing out 2x converter on my 70-200mm first ... I'm not sure 400mm is enough and no idea how the 2X will mess stuff up, but $500 vs. $12000 needs some investigation

Cheers, Rob.

 

Took me a moment or two, but I'm pretty sure you meant the 24-70mm GM II - unless Sony has gone and announced a new lens (would a 24-100 GM be a replacement for the 24-105 G?)

---

The 50mm f/1.2 GM is a superb lens. I use it quite a bit. However, I very much doubt that Sony has any intention of releasing a mark II version of that lens any time soon - it was only announced in March 2021, and there is nothing wrong with it - it has the new design (two focus groups, four motors) making it fast and accurate. The only mark II lenses so far have been replacements for much older lenses which didn't match up to GM standards - the two 70-200mm lenses and the 24-70.

It would be fair to expect replacement of the 85mm GM - it's not quite up to scratch, and it came out in 2016, so it's 5 years older than the 50mm f/1.2 GM. I think you should take advantage of any discount on the 50mm f/1.2 GM, rather than interpreting the discount as a sign that a replacement is coming. The discount may simply be Sony's desire to encourage people to buy the lens, nothing more. If the lens is a bit more than you can afford, you might consider the 50mm f/1.4 GM - reviews report that it's a good lens, too, and lighter than the f/1.2.

---

As for using a 2x TC on your 70-200mm f/2.8 GM II - I do that. It reduces your maximum aperture to f/5.6, so it's not exactly a replacement for the 400mm f/2.8 (but it's substantially lighter and less bulky that the 400 GM).  It has an inevitable effect on image quality, too, but the biggest impact is on its behaviour as the amount of light decreases. In really bright light (blazing Australian sun in a cloudless sky) the 70-200 + 2x is very good indeed. As the amount of light drops, the performance falls off faster with the teleconverter than it does without the teleconverter. Same effect with the 200-600, but exacerbated because the maximum aperture at 600mm + 2x is f/13.

[Rob Ainscough]

Oops sorry yes, 24-70mm ... no idea why I typed 100, never had any 100 lens.

As for 50mm GM II, you're probably right, my source was a fellow I met at Cine Gear Expo in LA back in June, claimed to be Sony rep.

I don't have high expectations for the 2X, more of an experiment.  I don't really have a need for anything above 600.  

I have thought about renting a cine grade camera in the $300,000 range just to see what I'm missing.

Cheers, Rob