Reading mode: Light Dark

A7ii or A6500? If full frame worth it?

Go to last post
J

joshclark17

New member
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hey full-frame Sony users. Here's my situation. I'm a long time a6000 user. I love the Sony system. It's changed my view of photography. Right now, Sony is having a trade in deal with their a7 line. Trade in a lens or a body and get a killer trade-in bonus on top of the instant rebate that is going on.

If I trade in a kit lens I no longer use, this puts the a7ii with 28-70 kit lens at the same price point of the a6500.

I currently have a Sigma 30/1.4 and 19/2.4 for my a6000, which I use all the time. I also have the Sony's 50/1.8.

I generally shoot landscapes, but I also like to travel light, and so portability is important to me. Here's some of my work to get an idea https://500px.com/joshclark1.

Also, I'm not a professional, but I would say I'm trying to move out of the "enthusiast" category with this next purchase.

IMO, based on reading specs, the a6500 is a better camera than the A7ii. It has better auto focus, 4k video, a touch screen (with problems, I understand), and a new menu system. But, the a7ii is a full frame.

So, my big question is, how big of a deal is full frame vs. aps-c in this conversation now? 5 years ago, full-frame mattered, but does it anymore? Can I get the same results, or better with the a6500 as I can with the full-frame a7ii?

I know the big arguments for full-frame, but maybe I don't understand them. Lower depth of field, bigger sensor area lets in more light, which increases low-light performance. However, I've seen reports that the a6500 spanks the a7ii in ISO performance.

I guess I'm looking for some advice. I need someone who has used a full-frame to tell me why it's so incredibly important. I'm open to it, I just need it explained.

If I bought the a7ii I'd definitely keep my a6000. If I bought the a6500 I'd probably get rid of the a6000. So, that's a factor too.

Thanks for any help you can throw my way.
 
For the type of photos you take, I'd say no it's not worth going full frame.

If you want to upgrade from your a6000, I'd actually take advantage off the trade in promotion to get the a6300 and the Sony 10-18 f4 lens, and maybe a ticket to somewhere you haven't been yet :)

For a few hundred bucks less, the a6300 will get you the same improvements in AF and dynamic range that the a6500 has, along with 4k (which though you don't use now it might be nice to have), in camera high frame rate mode (slow motion), much sturdier construction, and a significantly better EVF (the 120 hertz refresh rate is a noticeable upgrade from the a6000), and strips away stuff that may not be valuable to a landscape/nature shooter like ibis (assuming you're shooting on tripods), and touch screen.
 
sportyaccordy said:
Truthfully, and I say this as an A7II shooter, the only reason to get an A7II over an A6500 is for lenses. If you like your E mount lenses, the A6500 is either an equal or superior camera by pretty much every measure. I can't think of a reason to switch beyond that.
Click to expand...
You could also say that the only reason to get an A6500 over an A7II is for AF and burst speed. If you don't shoot action or do a lot of bursting the A7II offers better ergonomics, more controls, bigger EVF, shallower DOF, better low light performance and the ability to use FE and 35mm legacy lenses on a FF sensor.
 
I'm thinking of upgrading from an a6k to a a7ii, which is actually on my desk right now and I have about a week to decide whether I will return it.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the SEL2470Z lens.

The A6k is a beast with good light especially when you consider its compact size. And you can get good bokeh with the SEL35F18 and SEL50F18. However, there isn't a fast zoom lens for aps-c.

The biggest reason why I'm thinking of moving to FF is for the SEL2470Z. Since it's a constant F4, it always gives me the option of shooting with a more shallow DoF than I would be able to on aps-c.

Thoughts?
 
I am also planning to upgrade from the A6000 to the A7II. Personally I'm more interested in the FE 55mm and the 90mm macro, but you are right. The constant f/4 zoom on FF is equivalent to the APS-C f/2.8 zoom that everybody wants but will probably never exist.
 
Pixel Pooper said:
I am also planning to upgrade from the A6000 to the A7II. Personally I'm more interested in the FE 55mm and the 90mm macro, but you are right. The constant f/4 zoom on FF is equivalent to the APS-C f/2.8 zoom that everybody wants but will probably never exist.
Click to expand...
i've had both. now have a7rii. i say you should wait for a7iii.

honestly, i'm not that happy with all 3. maybe i am spoiled or maybe i've forgotten the reasons why i moved on from previous cameras.

it's expensive always going after the latest stuff, but in this case, a7iii is really just around the corner. so i would wait and buy it when it comes.

if you have to buy, then buy a6500, so you can sell it later. you won't lose too much since it's still new.
 
joshclark17 said:
Also, I'm not a professional, but I would say I'm trying to move out of the "enthusiast" category with this next purchase.
Click to expand...
What's left between 'enthusiast' and 'professional'?
 
Jay said:
i've had both. now have a7rii. i say you should wait for a7iii.

honestly, i'm not that happy with all 3. maybe i am spoiled or maybe i've forgotten the reasons why i moved on from previous cameras.

it's expensive always going after the latest stuff, but in this case, a7iii is really just around the corner. so i would wait and buy it when it comes.

if you have to buy, then buy a6500, so you can sell it later. you won't lose too much since it's still new.
Click to expand...
I'm in no rush to buy anything. I'm hoping the A7III does come out soon so I can buy the A7II cheaper. I'd rather spend money on better lenses than the latest bodies.
 
osv said:
osv said:
I generally shoot landscapes, but I also like to travel light, and so portability is important to me. Here's some of my work to get an idea https://500px.com/joshclark1.
Click to expand...
the 28-70 would not be a good option for shooting landscapes, so i'd want to avoid wasting trade-in value on it.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't it be a good option?

You can't generalise but the 28-70mm range would generally be suitable for landscape and as landscape is often shot with the lens stopped down a bit the f3.5-5.6 range of the lens may not be an issue.

Or is your issue with the quality of the lens?

Although I haven't used mine much as I'm a prime guy stopped down a bit IMO the 28-70mm is perfectly ok unless you're into excessive pixel peeping and expect world class prime lens performance across the frame.
 
Pixel Pooper said:
sportyaccordy said:
Truthfully, and I say this as an A7II shooter, the only reason to get an A7II over an A6500 is for lenses. If you like your E mount lenses, the A6500 is either an equal or superior camera by pretty much every measure. I can't think of a reason to switch beyond that.
Click to expand...
You could also say that the only reason to get an A6500 over an A7II is for AF and burst speed. If you don't shoot action or do a lot of bursting the A7II offers better ergonomics, more controls, bigger EVF, shallower DOF, better low light performance and the ability to use FE and 35mm legacy lenses on a FF sensor.
Click to expand...
For me all the latter matter more than the former. But I'm finding more and more that the former is important too. I'm watching to see what happens with the A7III and have accepted that my A7II is going to be worth peanuts upon its release.... but in the meantime I'm just going to get an A6000 to back it up.

Ultimately though if you want that full DoF control and more lens choices you just can't beat FF. So if that is a concern/desire that's really the only way to go. It's nice to crank up to F2.8 on the zoom at the long end and get that satisfactory shallow DoF without changing lenses.

--
Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/
 
Last edited:
mirrorless wingman said:
The A6k is a beast with good light especially when you consider its compact size. And you can get good bokeh with the SEL35F18 and SEL50F18. However, there isn't a fast zoom lens for aps-c.
Click to expand...
There is: Sigma 18-60 f1.8 with MC-11 adapter. Fastest zoom for APS-C ever. Also sharpest. And biggest and heaviest :)
 
I was in nearly the same situation one year ago when the a6300 was announced. I was looking for a second camera at the time when I saw a very good deal on a new A7r from UK Digital for about 1300 Euros, the same price as the a6300.

I decided to take the plunge and I have not regretted it one bit although I must say I was pretty shocked at the prices for FF lenses. Let that be a warning!

Now, if you are just a casual photographer who takes snapshots, you might not notice the advantages of FF, but if you are discerning and take it more seriously you will appreciate the improved low-light performance, but for me, most of all, it is the increased dynamic range. Coming from the esoteric high-end audio world, I perceive it as a sense of "calm" that the photos display; transitions are smoother, the color gamut is wider, there is less "noise".

Yes, the lenses are much more expensive, but I'm convinced of their quality.

With the a6000, I most frequently used the 18-105G for travel photography. A very fine all-in-one lens, until you compare it to the even greater range and sharpness of the 24-240. The 16-35 F4 Zeiss is an outstanding landscape lens.

The primes like the 55 1.8, 35 2.8, and 28 F2 are clearly superior to their APS-C equivalents.

I feel confident that the money I have invested in the FF lenses is for the long term.

My next purchase will probably be the A7r ii since I would like the in-body stabilization.

Just my 2 cents. YMMV

Cheers
 
mcslsk said:
It is 18-35, I am afraid.
Click to expand...
And is as heavy as many stabilized 3rd party 24-70 2.8 zooms.

I would much rather have had a 16-55 2-2.8 OS. Probably would be the same size and cost while being much more versatile. Hopefully Sigma hasn't given up on crop DSLRs yet.
 
Pixel Pooper said:
I am also planning to upgrade from the A6000 to the A7II. Personally I'm more interested in the FE 55mm and the 90mm macro, but you are right. The constant f/4 zoom on FF is equivalent to the APS-C f/2.8 zoom that everybody wants but will probably never exist.
Click to expand...
So after a couple days with the A7II and more thinking than shooting... I will stay with the A6K and try to be happy with the gear I have.

The performance/size ratio on the A6K is too amazing for me to part with it. I can live with the cost of the A7ii body but the additional cash for the 2470z and 55z lenses makes me cringe a bit.

When I'm not travelling, I use the SEL35F18 90% of the time and I'm happy with it. The fast zoom would shine while travelling but it's probably not even the majority of my shots.

I'm now thinking of the Sigma 30MM 1.4 so it's a bit wider than the SEL35F18 and has the potentially for greater bokeh.

Good luck to everyone still thinking about full frame!
 
The Sigma 30 1.4 is an awesome lens. I wish I were getting an A6300 rather than an A6000 as that lens + silent shutter = phenomenal candid/night time/event rig
 
joshclark17 said:
Hey full-frame Sony users. Here's my situation. I'm a long time a6000 user. I love the Sony system. It's changed my view of photography. Right now, Sony is having a trade in deal with their a7 line. Trade in a lens or a body and get a killer trade-in bonus on top of the instant rebate that is going on.

If I trade in a kit lens I no longer use, this puts the a7ii with 28-70 kit lens at the same price point of the a6500.

I currently have a Sigma 30/1.4 and 19/2.4 for my a6000, which I use all the time. I also have the Sony's 50/1.8.

I generally shoot landscapes, but I also like to travel light, and so portability is important to me. Here's some of my work to get an idea https://500px.com/joshclark1.

Also, I'm not a professional, but I would say I'm trying to move out of the "enthusiast" category with this next purchase.

IMO, based on reading specs, the a6500 is a better camera than the A7ii. It has better auto focus, 4k video, a touch screen (with problems, I understand), and a new menu system. But, the a7ii is a full frame.

So, my big question is, how big of a deal is full frame vs. aps-c in this conversation now? 5 years ago, full-frame mattered, but does it anymore? Can I get the same results, or better with the a6500 as I can with the full-frame a7ii?

I know the big arguments for full-frame, but maybe I don't understand them. Lower depth of field, bigger sensor area lets in more light, which increases low-light performance. However, I've seen reports that the a6500 spanks the a7ii in ISO performance.

I guess I'm looking for some advice. I need someone who has used a full-frame to tell me why it's so incredibly important. I'm open to it, I just need it explained.

If I bought the a7ii I'd definitely keep my a6000. If I bought the a6500 I'd probably get rid of the a6000. So, that's a factor too.

Thanks for any help you can throw my way.
Click to expand...
I have shot a7RII, a7II, a6300 and a6500 cameras.

My favorite is the a7RII. But it's also quite expensive.

Between the a7II and a6500, I would personally opt for the a6500 due to the continuous eye AF feature. The results you'll get with the a6500 are quite good, and since you already have the 30mm/1.4 lens and other APSC lenses, you won't have to purchase new lenses.

I shoot the a6500 and a6300 at work, and the photos I shoot are for a magazine publication that recently won an award. Obviously it's not just the photos that won the award, but the writing, editing, graphic design, etc. But it's still something I'm proud of right now. :)

Looking at your work, you shoot mostly landscapes? If you don't shoot moving objects, you could go cheap with the a7 original and some manual focus lenses. My personal preference for a6300/6500 over a7 is primarily because of taking portraits of our children with continuous eye AF. If you shoot landscapes, then you would want to shoot base ISO on a tripod, and that point FF might offer some advantages.

--
http://www.roseandcharles.com
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top