A7, A7ii or A6300?

[duncanfoxphoto]

To preface, I already own an a7, a7ii, and a7rii. I did own a pair of a6000s in the past, but I sold them when I "upgraded" to full frame, and I do regret it a little bit but what's done is done. I have been using the a7ii as my main camera professionally and it's a stellar performer, with the a7 as a backup for when (inevitably) the a7ii has a hiccup, or when I need two separate lens combinations to use in an alternating fashion with no time in between to switch. Most of my favorite e-mount lens collection consists of primes (35 f/2.8, 55, 90 macro, 70-200 f/4), and I also sold all of my crop frame lenses and bought an a7rii.

 

The a7rii is everything I'd ever need in a full-frame camera and more, so I was considering complementing it with the a6300 to get a little bit more versatility rather than having a backup camera I wouldn't ever drag out except in case of an emergency. It's also possible that given that situation that having an a7 and selling the a7ii would be better as a standby backup and I could reinvest the difference in price into other things, though not having that stabilized sensor would make the 35 and 55 lenses I have a little less usable (non-stabilized lenses). I wouldn't consider an a7sii simply because of the megapixel count being too low to serve as a main camera, thus it would be unfavorable to serve as a backup, and it's also a pricier option.

 

Given all that, would it be worth it to sell the a7 and a7ii and get an a6300 as a compliment, or would one of those two serve better as a backup camera? Thoughts?

[Golem]

You present a puzzle that's full of subjective and

somewhat personal considerations. So, I'll simply

follow suit, FWIW :-) 

  

I think I'm as happy as you are with the basic a7-II

and I'd even like to get another one.

  

I find the benefits of the a7R-II impressive but not

an extra $1500 worth of impressive.  

  

I'm reeeally fond of my APSC cameras. Objectively

a second a7-II should readily replace them. But the

subjective is no joke. I just really like these compact

little photo powerhouses .... enuf to just keep them. 

[i have too many of them, but I wouldn't want to do

more than cull the herd .... not going down to zero.] 

   

Well that was all touchy feely. Maybe even useful,

to help you get in touch with your "Inner Sony" !

[Zé De Boni]

The a7rii is everything I'd ever need in a full-frame camera and more...

 

My choice would be a second A7RII. Working professionally, it is not a good idea to have a second or backup camera which downgrades your IQ when it is needed.

If you work with two different bodies, one performing better than the other, you will always complain when you find that the lens you need is mounted on the lower resolution camera. If you alternate the shooting with the two different cameras (with different lenses) you will get uneven result so that color, noise and resolution will jump up and down as you select pics from both. Your workflow will also be less fluid when processing the raw images, each of the cameras requiring its own settings of noise reduction, sharpening, white balance and so on (that may apply even for cameras with same MP count but with different sensors). Surely, this is so much important when you shoot hundreds of images and have limited time to process them. 

Even if the second body would be just a backup, in the event that your main camera fails, needs repairs, get dust in the midst if an assignment, overheats or whatever, the substitute must perform up to the same standards that you proposed your service. No justification, no apology no complain!

 

Now, the A6300 is very tempting, true. Maybe as a walk around camera for personal use. You may use any of the full frame lenses and add an APSC wide-angle or wide-angle zoom. For this purpose the choice is even more subjective, but I like the PZ 18-105 mm f/4 on my A6000, everyday in my bag (or in my hands), when not in duty.

[Mr_A7s]

Unless you need to shoot higher frame rate, otherwise stay with ff. I would sell a7 and a7ii to get another a7r ii for shooting with 2 bodies.

 

Put more money into higher quality  lenses like batis and gm lenses. 

[duncanfoxphoto]

I'd love to both get another a7rii and dump more money into the new GM lenses, but as it is, I just don't have the funds for it. I'm a little overextended as it is with my current set of gear, and I'm downsizing at least one camera and a few lenses. I'm also going to dump my la-ea3, la-ea4 and the a-mount lenses I bought along with them; I was looking for alternatives to the 24-70 GM and none of the lenses I've tested even come close.

 

I have the 35 and 55 zeiss lenses currently, and they're wonderful. The other two I listed are Sony G lenses, both of which max out the sharpness I could get on the 24 mpix sensor with AA filter of the a7 and a7ii (same sensor), and even with the higher count on the a7rii, I don't think a miniscule increase in sharpness or lens speed would justify spending 1k+, with the possible exception of the 85gm since it's quite a significant amount faster than the 90 f/2.8, but that's for another day.

 

The truth of the matter is I can only afford to keep these four lenses, the a7rii, and one other camera. I could make due with having an a7 as a backup camera, but it would stay in the bag until something bad happened; probably the same with the a7ii. The reason why I was considering an a6300 is that the silent shutter is INCREDIBLY useful in an intimate setting, even if there are quite a few limitations to it. Also, I was always happy with my a6000s and I had quite a bit of seller's remorse when I "upgraded"; many of my favorite pictures were taken with them.

 

This following picture was taken with an a6000 and Sony 50mm f/1.8 APS-C lens.

 

 

And this next one with the a7ii and 90mm f/2.8 macro.

 

[Golem]

........................................  

........................................  

 

................... I don't think a miniscule increase in sharpness or lens

speed would justify spending 1k+, with the possible exception of the

85gm since it's quite a significant amount faster than the 90 f/2.8,

but that's for another day.

 

.........................  The reason why I was considering an a6300 is that

the silent shutter is INCREDIBLY useful in an intimate setting, even

if there are quite a few limitations to it. ...........................

I would not call the difference between f/2.8 and f/1.8

"significant". YMMV, but think it over twice ?

 

Moving on ....

 

ZD Boni has spelled out some gospel truths, which I had to

live by and live with when I was full time making a living that

way. Hadda have two [or more] of almost everything, even

including minor devices like adapters, connectors, etc.

 

Even if those needs differ from yours, as they differ from

my semi-retirement needs, ZDB's principles form a solid

point-of-departure. IOW, start with what he says, and then

adjust things according to the difference between your own

circumstance and his.

 

=======================================================

 

The biggest difference I can read out of your own remarks

is the silent shutter, which IIRC is available ONLY on the

a7R-II and a6300. If you REALLY NEED a silent shutter,

then get one. There is no substitute. You won't be able to

afford an exactly matching pair of camera bodies, but I get

the impression that your use pattern doesn't demand that.

 

I don't see anything else, in what you've shared thus far,

that is a "Go/No-go" concern ... just that silent shutter.

 

Hope this helps clarify something :-)

[Golem]

I didn't want to lengthen the post above, but do
note the heavy emphasis on "REALLY NEED"
concerning that silent shutter. There is simply
no substitute* for that feature. A "no substitute"
item severely limits your options, so make sure
you REALLY NEED it, as opposed to you think
it's the greatest thing since microwave popcorn
and want in on the deal.

* No substitute within the Sony E-mount system.  

[Zé De Boni]

No question! If you're mourning for the little jewels you've discarded, then the best thing is to get at least one A6300. I bet you will have even more pleasure with it than with the past ones (although I have not tried the 6300, still using 2 6000, which I will keep no matter what I buy in the future).

As for the result, that depends on the way that one works, which is strictly personal, like Golem said. Some people is at home with heavier and more complicated equipment, some blame on the small size of APSC mirrorless cameras and even on the A7 series ("big hands, tiny buttons, small grip..."). Others can't deal or don't use all the features of bulkier or more complicated sets, or simply prefer a simple objective design.

Your remorse for the A6000s and your consideration for the A6300, despite having 3 higher rating cameras, bring to light a new discussion.

Sony could have made their full frame mirrorless line with the same design of their APSC series, which is much more reasonable to handle and work. I guess that they decided for the fake retro look to gain attention from the DSLR users. Best known for their amateur market share, the company opted for a traditional design that could suggest professional capabilities. And they succeded: many of the guys who moved from Canon and Nikon to the A7series wouldn't consider to replace a point-and-shoot-like camera for their pro-looking gear.

Now Hasselblad have done it. The new X1D has the simplest form that one could imagine, yet keeping the brand's design DNA. But Hasselblad has a name. They can do it in any shape and photographers will take it as high end stuff (unless the Sony clones!). Those who dare to pay 3 times more for just 250 more pixels (3%) in the long dimension, lower highest ISO, half max FPS, smaller lens line, poor video capabilities, will enjoy the pleasure and practical properties of a true mirrorless camera design (besides the central shutter, which is quite amazing).

​Back to your case, I see many advantages of the A7RII over the A6300. You have much more control of the final image, mostly if you have high quality lenses and lighting (more crop options, more flexible ISO choice, better in-post exposure correction...). And, based on the examples that you are showing, you can benefit of shallower depth of field in full frame with the same f-stop, which is one of the main reasons for many to opt for this format.

Therefore, for your pleasure, choose the A6300. If you mind about your professional control and result, get a second A7RII body.

I hope you can do both.

Best wishes!

[Golem]

Less DOF ? Based on the posted pix ?

 

I don't think he can spare any more. He could

possibly need MORE DoF, at least in the 2nd

shot cuz there's TWO rings in that box. Short

of a tilt-shift system, which sorta kinda allows

both more AND less DoF simulataneously, the

solution, since these are not real world scenes

but are studio tabletop creations, is to alter the

way things get set up, and use sufficient DoF

with the lenses on hand. He can increase the

distance to the background. That way he can

allow adequate DoF for multiple small subjects

in the shot.

[duncanfoxphoto]

Just a little tidbit; the 85mm GM is an f/1.4 lens, which makes it two stops brighter than the 90mm f/2.8, or four times the amount of light (assuming no loss in t-stop value). That's not insignificant in the slightest, especially concerning autofocus in lower light situations. I still haven't decided what I'm going to do, though. I'm leaning towards the a6300.

[Zé De Boni]

If you own the 90mm G Macro and the 70-200mm f/4 G I don't think you should spend more on the same range. The 85mm GM will not add that much as, for instance, a 25, 21, 16 or a 16-35. The last one should gain your consideration if you stick to the A6300. While the 85mm GM may be an optical gem, its performance is much similar as the 90 Macro f-stop by f-stop, as you can see in Imaging Resource tests:

 

​http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/fe-90mm-f2.8-macro-g-oss-sel90m28g/review/

 

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/fe-85mm-f1.4-gm-sel85f14gm/review/

 

You will pay a lot just to get the 2 extra f-stops (which I would hardly use). Closest focus is 0.80m. At 1:8 magnification this lens is not the best choice for the examples that you posted. And don't ever think about extension tubes for this new generation of internal focus lenses unless you want to explore the distortions and aberrations! So, KEEP THE 90 MACRO!

And yes, there is the advertised bokeh, but how many times did you complain about it with your present lenses. It may be critical when you have strong out of focus lights or highlights, but you are the judge to rule if this is soooo important in your images.

The fact is that you have great lenses from 35 to 200mm. Are you satisfied with this range or do you feel the need to expand it? Wouldn't it be wiser to concentrate your efforts on lenses that expand your limitations, on new body(ies) with the same IQ as your main camera and other accessories, as tripod, filters, lighting, cables, external monitor, remote commander... My wish-lists are always full of gadgets.