Buy or wait?

My old A6000 is getting buggy, and I will need a new camera eventually. I need good low-light resolution, because my most common pictures are indoor sports (ice skating and so on) at ISO 800 to 3200.

I need image stabilization because I am almost always handheld. I need at least one good fast lens to get background separation, and I need that lens to be pretty sharp (or a zoom) because I frequently crop 35mm photos to a field of view of 75mm or even 150mm.

So do I go ahead and buy a new camera now, or replace my lens and wait to see the next generation?

And if I buy a new camera now, do I get the A7riii or the A7iii? Price is a factor, because if I get the A7riii that leaves less money left over for a new lens (but the A7Riii produces images that can stand up to some pretty aggressive cropping).

Or do I look around at MFT cameras? I like their lenses, but the last time I looked at their ISO 1600, even the Sony A6000 was slightly better. (The A7 full frames Were visibly better.)

I am just confused by all this, and need some advice from people who know the trade-offs.

high iso high focus speed, mft is out of the question.

FF: either buy the a73 now over the R because it's about stop better iso performance and focuses better. or wait until sony's next APS-c camera. I would a73 it because a better FF body with budget glass outperforms expensive glass on the smaller formats. You can end up spending less money. Also, FF ml is where the market is moving as prices drop; your glass will age better in FF.

If you really want APSc, i would consider the fuji over the sonys.

Low Budget Dave said:

My old A6000 is getting buggy, and I will need a new camera eventually. I need good low-light resolution, because my most common pictures are indoor sports (ice skating and so on) at ISO 800 to 3200.

I need image stabilization because I am almost always handheld. I need at least one good fast lens to get background separation, and I need that lens to be pretty sharp (or a zoom) because I frequently crop 35mm photos to a field of view of 75mm or even 150mm.

So do I go ahead and buy a new camera now, or replace my lens and wait to see the next generation?

And if I buy a new camera now, do I get the A7riii or the A7iii? Price is a factor, because if I get the A7riii that leaves less money left over for a new lens (but the A7Riii produces images that can stand up to some pretty aggressive cropping).

Or do I look around at MFT cameras? I like their lenses, but the last time I looked at their ISO 1600, even the Sony A6000 was slightly better. (The A7 full frames Were visibly better.)

I am just confused by all this, and need some advice from people who know the trade-offs.

Click to expand...

Do you Crop because you don’t have a lens with the reach? Or is it a choice because you don’t want to carry a longer lens?

If you don’t want to carry a longer telephoto, get the A7RIII for extra resolution.

If you just need a longer lens, buy a 70-200 f4 (or f2.8 depending on budget) and an A7III.

What’s your budget? What lenses do you have now? Are they FF lenses or APSC?

I don't crop much so the MPs on the A7iii are fine for me. Give great results with good glass. If you are mostly landscape then I would probably go the A7Riii for the added MP.

Low Budget Dave said:

My old A6000 is getting buggy, and I will need a new camera eventually. I need good low-light resolution, because my most common pictures are indoor sports (ice skating and so on) at ISO 800 to 3200.

I need image stabilization because I am almost always handheld. I need at least one good fast lens to get background separation, and I need that lens to be pretty sharp (or a zoom) because I frequently crop 35mm photos to a field of view of 75mm or even 150mm.

So do I go ahead and buy a new camera now, or replace my lens and wait to see the next generation?

And if I buy a new camera now, do I get the A7riii or the A7iii? Price is a factor, because if I get the A7riii that leaves less money left over for a new lens (but the A7Riii produces images that can stand up to some pretty aggressive cropping).

Or do I look around at MFT cameras? I like their lenses, but the last time I looked at their ISO 1600, even the Sony A6000 was slightly better. (The A7 full frames Were visibly better.)

I am just confused by all this, and need some advice from people who know the trade-offs.

Click to expand...

what lens are you using with your a6000?

How long would you be willing to wait?

Most likely sooner rather than later the a7000 will be out. As good as the Fuji X-T3 is, the a7000 will probably be as good or better (the X-T3 is using a Sony sensor, after all).

It probably won't be cheap though. On the other hand, depending on what focal length you need, you MIGHT be able to get away with a crop sensor camera and, say, the $600 85mm f/1.8 instead of the a7 III and the $2,600 70-200 f/2.8.

The main difference between the R and non R is megapixels

if you are happy with the A6xxx the A7iii non R version is perfect. Spend the extra $1000 on a great GM Sony lens

You could switch systems and look at the Canon R mirrorless or DSLR from Nikon great camera the D750 with like fast glass

if you like Sony I don’t see a need for the R version of the A7iii for what you do

The move to full frame will make a difference in a good way

if you stay with crop sensor Sony and plan to move to full frame I advise do Not buy or invest in more crop only sensor glass buy full frame FE glass I think they call it

Low Budget Dave said:

And if I buy a new camera now, do I get the A7riii or the A7iii? Price is a factor, because if I get the A7riii that leaves less money left over for a new lens (but the A7Riii produces images that can stand up to some pretty aggressive cropping).

Click to expand...

A7riii !!! This is going to be an eye-popping huge upgrade versus your A6000.

Keep in mind, that you can get A7riii for $2400 through greentoe. Those $400 are well spend and leaves you enough for lens purchases.

Low Budget Dave said:

Or do I look around at MFT cameras? I like their lenses, but the last time I looked at their ISO 1600, even the Sony A6000 was slightly better. (The A7 full frames Were visibly better.)

Click to expand...

Why downgrade to another system, if you could upgrade?

Low Budget Dave said:

My old A6000 is getting buggy, and I will need a new camera eventually. I need good low-light resolution, because my most common pictures are indoor sports (ice skating and so on) at ISO 800 to 3200.

I need image stabilization because I am almost always handheld.

Click to expand...

you generally don't need stabilization for shooting sports, because you'll always be at 1/800th minimum.

although you may want it to stabilize the viewfinder.

Low Budget Dave said:

I need at least one good fast lens to get background separation, and I need that lens to be pretty sharp (or a zoom) because I frequently crop 35mm photos to a field of view of 75mm or even 150mm.

So do I go ahead and buy a new camera now, or replace my lens and wait to see the next generation?

And if I buy a new camera now, do I get the A7riii or the A7iii? Price is a factor, because if I get the A7riii that leaves less money left over for a new lens (but the A7Riii produces images that can stand up to some pretty aggressive cropping).

Click to expand...

a7riii also gives you 10fps with adapted glass, while the a7iii won't do that.

but the a7iii may have a slightly better af system... I can't say how much, because I use an a9, I've never used those other bodies.

Low Budget Dave said:

Or do I look around at MFT cameras? I like their lenses, but the last time I looked at their ISO 1600, even the Sony A6000 was slightly better. (The A7 full frames Were visibly better.)

Click to expand...

mft is not a good choice for shooting sports, especially indoors.

on the other hand, a drastic crop from bigger formats defeats the purpose of using a bigger format; it could end up being not much better than m4/3.

I shoot sports with sony gear, I would not go into this with the idea that cropping should be a goal... it should be avoided as much as possible, but the problem with all formats is finding the right glass.

what you should do here is figure out the ff equivalent framing that you want, then ask for feedback on fast lens options.

for example, i'm not seeing how 75-150mm is going to be viable for ice skating.

Thank you all for the responses. My budget for now is most likely around $3000. Most of the stuff I shoot is volunteer work and family stuff, and anything over $3000 is a lot for a hobby camera.

All my lenses now are APS-C, but I shoot a lot of 1x1, so the 35mm 1.8 and the 18-105 f4 both might still be usable.

When I shoot 3:2, the best lens for what I do might be the Tamron 28-75 2.8. The Sony 24-105 F4 is also a strong lens for the money, depending on how good the pictures look at iso 12800.

As people have pointed out, I can add a lot of quality by using a zoom lens instead of cropping. One of the reasons I crop is that I have the 35mm Lens on my camera, giving me a 50mm field of view. This is fine when I am 5’ away, but sometimes I am 15’ away.

i guess I have ruled out the MFT cameras. Even if they get dramatically better, odds are that Sony full frame will get dramatically better as well. There will always be a difference on quality there, and the difference is worth the effort.

Thanks again.

Low Budget Dave said:

This is fine when I am 5’ away, but sometimes I am 15’ away.

Click to expand...

15 feet away is pretty darn close. Are you sure you got your measurements right???

And I can't imagine being only 5 feet away from an ice skater. Are you out on the ice too when you are photographing them??? How do you get 5 feet away from a skater?

For FF How about a d750? Low light and focus speed for the money. Even 6d or d610.

Apsc fuji's, the faster ones (XT3, XH) are cheaper than FF but not cheap per se. a6300 seems ok if you want continuity

Did you buy ff lens for your a6000? If so a7iii seems to be the choice. The new Z and R are options but rather untested for the mo.

K1 is pretty cheap but idk about the focusing aspect.

Budget option would be another a6000.

GL, it is hard to choose.

Any full frame will have significantly higher resolving power, eg p-mp, than apsc despite the mp claim on the body. eg the sony 50 1.8 on a6000 gets around 13 pmp. we don't have a73 numbers on the FF 50 1.8, r3 has 26 pmp. the a73 should get around 20pmp + judging on the canon ef 50 1.8 difference between different camera bodies (look at 5dsR vs 5dm3p [50mp vs 22 mp bodies]. FF lenses have alot more resolution, even the budget ones. sony 85 1.8 (ebay $500) has 40pmp. the highest apsc lens across dxomark is 16....

FF Ml is the future, look at the below videos.

facts:
Since sony a7 bodies are smaller than mft and apsc bodies of other cameras,

Lenses or significantly sharper in objective data, and often smaller in the mid zoom range of equivalent aperture = equivalent light gathering bodies.

northrup is calling it as well.


A73 is better than a7r3 in a lot of ways. Comparison video

I don’t believe this video is up to date wiht current firmware. If someone has a quality comparison video with new firmware, please share.

AF women walking towards you. Much better than r3, even bit better or equal to d850 (nikons famed 3d AF system)


Adapted canon lens are sharper than sony counterparts (doesn’t have newer sony zooms)


Resolution difference in portraits


Iso and skin tone performance - a73 about stop better


highlight recovery - @+2ev 73 loses imo, too much green compared to others

https://youtu.be/ClBBuOHbuF8?t=772

Shadow recovery - all do well. 73 tied with d850 at 5 stops, r3 4 stops

How about an A7ii with LA-EA4 & Minolta 70-210/4? Will cost you used approximately 700+230+70 EUR (~USD 1150) and you will keep the rest of the money to upgrade to a used A7Riii in a year or so when prices drop + some better glass or an A7iv in a couple years. AF is slow to ok under low light, good with normal light conditions, ISO not bad.

If you are not happy you can resell them for the same money, maybe lose a 100 USD, at least you get to use FF before you splash the money for the A7iii or A7Riii.

I'd go A7III since you need new glass too. FE lenses aren't exactly cheap. IF you need the resolution, and don't mind the quirks the A7RII might work too, depending on what you shoot. Use the savings on the Tamron 28-75 and a fast-ish prime (28 or 85 1.8 are good values, even better when you buy used).



While I loved m4/3, the only standout benefits are cost and size. Low light was like 8 years ago DSLR bad (coming from a GH5 and GX85 pair) so you'd be taking a big step back.

A used A7RII can be had for $1500 or less. Might be a decent compromise if you want the higher megapixels but don't want to spend as much as the A7RIII. Keep your A6000 as a backup body, they use the same batteries.

A 24mp apsc sensor only resolving 13mp compared to FF??? What you FF kool aid drinkers post is hilarious.

here is the a6000 vs the a7iii in two samples. In the color sample, they are virtually identical...the a6000 looks slightly better. On the b&w it is clear that the a6000 resolves the lines in the background...no such resolving power on the a7iii. The point is, in real terms, the rez is identical....not some fabricated 13 vs 24mp figure.

In large print samples I have made, equal rez looks equal between formats. The last shots are crops I made between 12mp apsc vs 12mp FF, enlarged to 20x30" print and shown here. No difference in this crop of a house down my old street. So much for higher rez because a sensor is FF rubbish.

People need to educate themselves in real world work before posting a bunch of opinion fluff

The Davinator said:

A 24mp apsc sensor only resolving 13mp compared to FF??? What you FF kool aid drinkers post is hilarious.

here is the a6000 vs the a7iii in two samples. In the color sample, they are virtually identical...the a6000 looks slightly better. On the b&w it is clear that the a6000 resolves the lines in the background...no such resolving power on the a7iii. The point is, in real terms, the rez is identical....not some fabricated 13 vs 24mp figure.

In large print samples I have made, equal rez looks equal between formats. The last shots are crops I made between 12mp apsc vs 12mp FF, enlarged to 20x30" print and shown here. No difference in this crop of a house down my old street. So much for higher rez because a sensor is FF rubbish.

People need to educate themselves in real world work before posting a bunch of opinion fluff

Click to expand...

you cherry picked data and value your opinions over the mountains of data on this.

look at hte eyebrow, a73 has significantly sharper and and more importantly, has much better contrast using the tool. look at the eyebrow at iso 100.


now let's get more real world conditions at iso 3200. a73 now demolishes the a6000


check p-mp on dxomarks, or any of the other lens reviews sites in sharpness OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS, FF trounces smaller format lens all the time.

If you only look at 20" images here and forever in the future; you won't need the added sharpness. YOu will still get less contrast and much worse low light performance. for the rest of the 95% of the world who will have over 20" displays in their lifetime; extra sharpness pays off. my computer display is 27"; my other display is 55". In the next 15 years (when my present pictures are even more valuable to me), I'll have a 10' 10k display.

Here's some of my totally-not-real-world conditions pictures shot over the last 2 weeks. iso 3200-40,000. Please educate me on the capability of smaller format pictures at those iso ranges.

1) Stay away from MFT for this type of shooting. MFT is behind when it comes to higher ISO shooting like this. MFT has its place and sports at higher iso ain't it.

2) That out of the way, I'd suggest considering:

A) A different lens lineup. If you're cropping all the time, you need to consider your lens or method of shooting and if it can be changed. (where you stand, etc.).

For instance, a cropper with the 85/1.8 might be a good pick - about a 135mm field of view (fitting nicely between the lengths you say you often crop to), fast AF, fast aperture, good subject isolation, and relatively cheap.

In fact, if you're happy with the A6000 or similar cameras, you could get 2x of them, slap a 50mm on one and the 85 on another and call it a day.

Low Budget Dave said:

My old A6000 is getting buggy, and I will need a new camera eventually. I need good low-light resolution, because my most common pictures are indoor sports (ice skating and so on) at ISO 800 to 3200.

I need image stabilization because I am almost always handheld. I need at least one good fast lens to get background separation, and I need that lens to be pretty sharp (or a zoom) because I frequently crop 35mm photos to a field of view of 75mm or even 150mm.

So do I go ahead and buy a new camera now, or replace my lens and wait to see the next generation?

And if I buy a new camera now, do I get the A7riii or the A7iii? Price is a factor, because if I get the A7riii that leaves less money left over for a new lens (but the A7Riii produces images that can stand up to some pretty aggressive cropping).

Or do I look around at MFT cameras? I like their lenses, but the last time I looked at their ISO 1600, even the Sony A6000 was slightly better. (The A7 full frames Were visibly better.)

I am just confused by all this, and need some advice from people who know the trade-offs.

Click to expand...