Buy A7ii deal or an APS-C?

DeathArrow said:

pollup said:

raminm said:

mferencz said:

You misunderstood or didn't read my post. I said the AF is good enough for basic needs. Period.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/95630920@N02/

Click to expand...

Some good photos in your Flickr profile. A7 ii may be good enough but I think for moving subjects such as kids or animals, A6400 is a better buy than A7 ii. The user will be much more successful in capturing moments leading to much more interesting photos. It also potentially has better video output than A7 ii (4k, picture profiles, etc.).

Click to expand...

I second this. The OP is shooting kids and family events, those scenarios are challenging and in fact, most cameras are inadequate. My worry is that he would get a FF camera that is able to produce better images than the a6400, but in practice he would miss so many shots that he will have to increase the DOF (therefore getting uglier shots) or ask people to stand still (boring photos) or even worse, stop shooting at all. The a9 and a6400 (and to some degree the a7iii) are currently the only cameras able to track moving subjects and still keep focus on the eye if visible, otherwise the face... Out of those, he can only afford the a6400 it seems, hence my suggestion. If he had more money, I would recommend the a7iii and I'm sure everyone here would agree and stop arguing, lol.

Click to expand...

Well, if he needs top AF and IQ and he doesn't afford A7III + fast lenses, maybe he should look at DSLRs?

Small, good, cheap, you can pick just 2 of 3 I am afraid.

Click to expand...

DSLRs that can offer top AF aren't very cheap either unless you're OK with live view only.

sportyaccordy said:

Yea I did not get the sense of urgency about smaller size being a priority

For me the real advantage to MILCs isn't really size; it's the live view + flip out screen

If the OP can live with only shooting from the VF and isn't looking to shoot the thinnest DoF possible (to not have to deal with parallax issues) a DSLR is a really good choice.

Click to expand...

Or OP can look at Canon DSLRs equipped with DPAF and stick with live view. Then it's essentially a mirrorless camera with great autofocus. DPAF is better then the viewfinder in most Canon DSLR's that have it.

liopleurodon said:

pollup said:

raminm said:

mferencz said:

You misunderstood or didn't read my post. I said the AF is good enough for basic needs. Period.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/95630920@N02/

Click to expand...

Some good photos in your Flickr profile. A7 ii may be good enough but I think for moving subjects such as kids or animals, A6400 is a better buy than A7 ii. The user will be much more successful in capturing moments leading to much more interesting photos. It also potentially has better video output than A7 ii (4k, picture profiles, etc.).

Click to expand...

I second this. The OP is shooting kids and family events, those scenarios are challenging and in fact, most cameras are inadequate. My worry is that he would get a FF camera that is able to produce better images than the a6400, but in practice he would miss so many shots that he will have to increase the DOF (therefore getting uglier shots) or ask people to stand still (boring photos) or even worse, stop shooting at all. The a9 and a6400 (and to some degree the a7iii) are currently the only cameras able to track moving subjects and still keep focus on the eye if visible, otherwise the face... Out of those, he can only afford the a6400 it seems, hence my suggestion. If he had more money, I would recommend the a7iii and I'm sure everyone here would agree and stop arguing, lol.

Click to expand...

You don't need EyeAF to have a sharp subject, particularly not with the DOF of crop sensor cameras Hell even with my FF I usually stop down for more DOF unless ISO is getting out of hand. I'm not a fan of razor thin DOF; I want to see her eyes in sharp focus, but also her hair, ears, etc. Canon's DPAF is perfectly capable of keeping up with kids and tracking them. Any camera that can blanket the sensor with phase detection points and move the lens quickly should be able to keep up. I've had success tracking my kids with an a6500, M50, a7 III, D500, and 80D in live view. I had issues with a G16, SL1, T6s, 6D, 80D viewfinder, AX100 (photo mode) and FZ1000.

Click to expand...

I am sorry but you are wrong. Eye AF is super useful particularly with small kids unless you want to default to asking them to pose for the camera most of the time which ruins their natural expressions and movements. Thanks to the modern technology, photographers have a higher chance of capturing the moments as it is as opposed to having your subject pose for the camera and remain steady. Why settled for the less when there is an option of the better. Even the depth of field of the APSC can be narrow enough making it necessary to focus on the eye or otherwise, it may not be perfectly in focus.

The question is not whether it is possible to take sharp pictures or not without eye AF. Of course, I know it is possible. The question is whether eye AF helps and the answer is it greatly helps to take more and more sharp pictures instead of less.

liopleurodon said:

DeathArrow said:

pollup said:

raminm said:

mferencz said:

You misunderstood or didn't read my post. I said the AF is good enough for basic needs. Period.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/95630920@N02/

Click to expand...

Some good photos in your Flickr profile. A7 ii may be good enough but I think for moving subjects such as kids or animals, A6400 is a better buy than A7 ii. The user will be much more successful in capturing moments leading to much more interesting photos. It also potentially has better video output than A7 ii (4k, picture profiles, etc.).

Click to expand...

I second this. The OP is shooting kids and family events, those scenarios are challenging and in fact, most cameras are inadequate. My worry is that he would get a FF camera that is able to produce better images than the a6400, but in practice he would miss so many shots that he will have to increase the DOF (therefore getting uglier shots) or ask people to stand still (boring photos) or even worse, stop shooting at all. The a9 and a6400 (and to some degree the a7iii) are currently the only cameras able to track moving subjects and still keep focus on the eye if visible, otherwise the face... Out of those, he can only afford the a6400 it seems, hence my suggestion. If he had more money, I would recommend the a7iii and I'm sure everyone here would agree and stop arguing, lol.

Click to expand...

Well, if he needs top AF and IQ and he doesn't afford A7III + fast lenses, maybe he should look at DSLRs?

Small, good, cheap, you can pick just 2 of 3 I am afraid.

Click to expand...

DSLRs that can offer top AF aren't very cheap either unless you're OK with live view only.

Click to expand...

Just check D750. It has AF from D4S, even a bit improved.

liopleurodon said:

sportyaccordy said:

Yea I did not get the sense of urgency about smaller size being a priority

For me the real advantage to MILCs isn't really size; it's the live view + flip out screen

If the OP can live with only shooting from the VF and isn't looking to shoot the thinnest DoF possible (to not have to deal with parallax issues) a DSLR is a really good choice.

Click to expand...

Or OP can look at Canon DSLRs equipped with DPAF and stick with live view. Then it's essentially a mirrorless camera with great autofocus. DPAF is better then the viewfinder in most Canon DSLR's that have it.

Click to expand...

DPAF is not better than regular DSLR autofocus for stills. I have a 5D4 and live view autofocus is very slow. It works well for video though

raminm said:

liopleurodon said:

pollup said:

raminm said:

mferencz said:

You misunderstood or didn't read my post. I said the AF is good enough for basic needs. Period.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/95630920@N02/

Click to expand...

Some good photos in your Flickr profile. A7 ii may be good enough but I think for moving subjects such as kids or animals, A6400 is a better buy than A7 ii. The user will be much more successful in capturing moments leading to much more interesting photos. It also potentially has better video output than A7 ii (4k, picture profiles, etc.).

Click to expand...

I second this. The OP is shooting kids and family events, those scenarios are challenging and in fact, most cameras are inadequate. My worry is that he would get a FF camera that is able to produce better images than the a6400, but in practice he would miss so many shots that he will have to increase the DOF (therefore getting uglier shots) or ask people to stand still (boring photos) or even worse, stop shooting at all. The a9 and a6400 (and to some degree the a7iii) are currently the only cameras able to track moving subjects and still keep focus on the eye if visible, otherwise the face... Out of those, he can only afford the a6400 it seems, hence my suggestion. If he had more money, I would recommend the a7iii and I'm sure everyone here would agree and stop arguing, lol.

Click to expand...

You don't need EyeAF to have a sharp subject, particularly not with the DOF of crop sensor cameras Hell even with my FF I usually stop down for more DOF unless ISO is getting out of hand. I'm not a fan of razor thin DOF; I want to see her eyes in sharp focus, but also her hair, ears, etc. Canon's DPAF is perfectly capable of keeping up with kids and tracking them. Any camera that can blanket the sensor with phase detection points and move the lens quickly should be able to keep up. I've had success tracking my kids with an a6500, M50, a7 III, D500, and 80D in live view. I had issues with a G16, SL1, T6s, 6D, 80D viewfinder, AX100 (photo mode) and FZ1000.

Click to expand...

I am sorry but you are wrong. Eye AF is super useful particularly with small kids unless you want to default to asking them to pose for the camera most of the time which ruins their natural expressions and movements.

Click to expand...

From useful to necessary it's a big leap. Are you saying that you can shoot a running kid with the likes of 1DXII, 5D or even 4DS?

I could and may end up going with a DSLR, but one of the reasons I’m looking at mirrorless cameras is for the smaller, lighter camera bodies, even though some lenses will negate the weight and size savings. I also like electronic viewfinders, so I’ll be weighing the pros and cons of each of my choices.

Thank you all for your help and lively discussion.

pollup said:

sportyaccordy said:

pollup said:

Slow AF is a BIG problem when shooting kids, he's going to miss a lot of shots, trust me it's better to have the shots in focus on the kids, even in APS-C then out of focus with a full frame, and with a sharp background!

Click to expand...

I don't disagree.

Click to expand...

That's the crux of the matter. He's mostly shooting under 7 yo kids, which is no easy task, and certainly not something that inexpensive DSLR can achieve, which is why I recommended him the camera with the second best AF available, the a6400.

pollup said:

pollup said:

He might just love the APS-C and keep using it for a very long time, at least until he finds a FF with the same AF abilities as the a6400, which so far only the a9 can beat.

Click to expand...

I think the obsession with "upgrading" is counterproductive. He should establish a budget and figure out what system works for it and his needs. It may not even be Sony E. Dollars go very far in the DSLR world, and frankly the weight/size differences are not that massive, especially when you factor ergonomics in. Outside of IBIS, which admittedly can be huge depending on what one shoots, and live view performance, which again can be a game changer/deal breaker (def is for me), I don't see a huge advantage in getting an A7II over something like a D750 or 6D2, especially when you factor lenses in.

Click to expand...

That's the thing, he doesn't need to upgrade, but if one day he wants, he can, it's just a bonus. I think the a6400 will satisfy all his needs for a very long time. I don't recommend the a7ii nor those DSLR, because of the kids issue, that I mentioned above and that was mentioned in the OP's first sentence.

Click to expand...

I have two young kids and I've shot thousands of images of them over the past few years. Started with an A6000 and moved to an A6300. The A6000 nailed most shots of them but the A6300's eye AF in continuous AF mode was an absolute game-changer. And the A6400 is by all accounts even better in AF tracking, so I'd happily get an for family photography. I've happily used the Sony 35mm 1.8, but found the Sigma 30mm 1.4 to work very well and produce sharper, somewhat more pleasing images than the Sony 35mm. The relatively inexpensive 50mm 1.8 (E, not FE) is great for portraits and kids playing and the Sony FE 85mm 1.8 takes those shots to another level. For smaller spaces, I've really enjoyed the Sony/Zeiss 24mm 1.8 as well.

I also contemplated a Sony A7ii but I can tell you that without continuous eye AF, you're going to have more "almost sharp" shots than you would with the A6300 (or even better, A6400), where you'll be very pleased by nailing AF nearly every time.

I also take pics of our kids' friends and have done some local family photo shoots with the A6000 and A6300 - AF was on point and the photos turned out wonderfully. You get somewhat better high ISO with A7ii but the tradeoff in losing continuous eye-AF is not worth it, in my view.

Emberly said:

I could and may end up going with a DSLR, but one of the reasons I’m looking at mirrorless cameras is for the smaller, lighter camera bodies, even though some lenses will negate the weight and size savings. I also like electronic viewfinders, so I’ll be weighing the pros and cons of each of my choices.

Thank you all for your help and lively discussion.

Click to expand...

Whatever you choose, you have to do a compromise.

Light, cheap and quality. You can only pick two from the three.

Light and cheap: A7 and A7II.

Light and quality : A7III, A7RIII

Cheap and quality: D610, D750

To be real - you don't NEED a FF camera. But when you want to start more 'serious' a FF camera is more fun. And at some point you want to go that route anyway, so it's cheaper in the long run to start early.

Get a used A7ii and buy an A7iii in 2 years when prices going down. If you like a wide view test the 28mm, for kids and people I recommend the 85/1.8 and as first lens probably the 50/1.8.

You can also have a look into vintage, manual lenses - I started with a 35/2.8 and 50/1.8 Minolta.

If you do more family stuff a zoom would be nice to 'get the shot', but the pics on the wall come from my primes.

IamJF said:

To be real - you don't NEED a FF camera. But when you want to start more 'serious' a FF camera is more fun. And at some point you want to go that route anyway, so it's cheaper in the long run to start early.

Get a used A7ii and buy an A7iii in 2 years when prices going down. If you like a wide view test the 28mm, for kids and people I recommend the 85/1.8 and as first lens probably the 50/1.8.

You can also have a look into vintage, manual lenses - I started with a 35/2.8 and 50/1.8 Minolta.

If you do more family stuff a zoom would be nice to 'get the shot', but the pics on the wall come from my primes.

Click to expand...

All the IQ in the world means nothing if you can't acquire focus, and the gen II bodies will struggle with mobile erratic children. I had my A7II before my daughter was born and used it primarily for travel- worked great to that end. I have an A7RII and it struggles to keep up. I've actually started practicing manual focus again just to get more control.

But that's not a logical solution for most people. And honestly, the IQ jump from the A6xxx bodies to the A7II is marginal. Certainly not worth the significant tradeoff in autofocus performance. I'd argue AF is a part of image quality too.

That's true - but not even remotely touching my point.

If you are tight on a budget and want to build a system - build the system you are likely to use in 10 years and not something smaller, ditch everything in 3 years and start again.

If you are into video I would say buy an A6400 and FF lenses. For photography- A7ii from a good deal is fine.

IamJF said:

That's true - but not even remotely touching my point.

If you are tight on a budget and want to build a system - build the system you are likely to use in 10 years and not something smaller, ditch everything in 3 years and start again.

If you are into video I would say buy an A6400 and FF lenses. For photography- A7ii from a good deal is fine.

Click to expand...

It is addressing your point. The notion that moving up to FF is an inevitability just isn't true. And even if it was, the A7II isn't a good starting point. Out of the gate he'd be taking a huge step back in autofocus from DSLRs (for kids), and would probably have to change bodies soon anyway.

As I said before buying FF glass for APS-C bodies "for future upgrades" makes no sense; you will need to change lenses to maintain the same FOV... so moving up to FF would basically be starting over one way or another

There are really 3 paths that make sense IMO....

• If he can live with shooting through the VF only, grab a FF DSLR... D610 is dirt cheap as are the lenses and the IQ and AF are better.
• Grab an A6xxx and the Sigma 1.4 APS-C primes.... IQ will be as good as the A7II for less money and weight with much much better autofocus.
• Save up and get a Mk3 body and FF glass

If he were getting a camera for slow moving subjects then yea the A7II would be great. But for kids, forget about it. It sucks

DeathArrow said:

Emberly said:

I could and may end up going with a DSLR, but one of the reasons I’m looking at mirrorless cameras is for the smaller, lighter camera bodies, even though some lenses will negate the weight and size savings. I also like electronic viewfinders, so I’ll be weighing the pros and cons of each of my choices.

Thank you all for your help and lively discussion.

Click to expand...

Whatever you choose, you have to do a compromise.

Light, cheap and quality. You can only pick two from the three.

Light and cheap: A7 and A7II.

Light and quality : A7III, A7RIII

Cheap and quality: D610, D750

Click to expand...

Image quality or build quality? I have not experienced any technical issues in entire A7-series/A9 and Sony lenses I have owned in last several years but several issues with Canon DSLRs and lenses in 10 years. Initial D600 has oil leaking issue that fixed by D610, heard D750 has shutter issue but likely minor.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

Emberly said:

bob13bob said:

mferencz said:

The A7ii is more than good enough for capturing kids. Is it as fast as the iii or the APSC cameras mentioned. No, but we are really talking overkill to be fair. Now I come from M43 where AF isn't particularly good, but I am more than happy with the A7II for family, kids, landscape and general use. Make the decision on how they feel in your hand, how you like FF vs cropped sensor etc. Image wise all of these cameras will meet your expectations.

Click to expand...

totally disagree.

for moving kids, AF performance trumps FF vs apsc big time. Does anyone know how well adapted canon FF works on the a6400? at the very least OP can get sony 50 1.8a for portraits and samyang 24 2.8 FE mount. those lens will carry over in eventual upgrade to FF in another 5 years; they will be cheap and amazing.

Click to expand...

How do you like your samyang lens?

Several people have mentioned buying aspc so that I have something now, and building myself up to FF later. It does sound like the sensible solution.

Click to expand...

the sony 50 1.8 on a73 works great in af. i shot some very challenging conditions with it.

the samyang 35mm 2.8 is good. some of us including me think it's better than the sony since it's edge sharper at wide aperture.

can't comment on the samyang 24, i only recommended since the OP gonna be shooting at apsc 1.5x crop.

Almazar80 said:

I like my A7II. I shoot a lot of macros though, so I use my A6500 with the 90mm FE lens. That being said, I like the DOF control that full frame brings (in conjunction with wide aperture lenses).

Here's the thing though. Don't underestimate the utility of a camera like the RX10IV. It's a heck of a camera.

Click to expand...

I bought the RX10III for just this reason. The 24 - 600 lens alone probably worth $2000. An incredible bargain. (I admit I got a huge price discount for a return.) It's a bit heavy, but if you think of carrying one zoom lens you are into similar territory, and for a 600 it's pretty light.

I'm trying the E-lens A7II out right now. I do have an A converter because I have a lot of great Minolta lenses. I just checked autofocus out with the converter and the fastest so far is a huge 100-400 Promaster Spectrum 7 which zipped right into focus on the flowers on a tree, whereas the Minolta 70-210 refused to focus. The zoom helped no doubt, but this just shows how many variables exist.

The E-mount may be a killer, but the converter works well if you can find one. I was astounded at how much they want now for the 6400. On the other hand, I am completely sold on Sony which bought Konica-Minolta.

Not sure if the 42 Meg full-frame is worth the hassle, but I do know that my older Sonys are very good even at low pixels. Still looking at the Yamaha 645, since I have the lenses which are outstanding.

Since I cannot afford any of these cameras anymore, probably going to return the A7II. I would appreciate any other details, especially about the focus and what the APS-C Super is all about.

I just used A7ii for kids yesterday during an Easter Egg hunt. It worked fine. For the most part kid photos don't need the precision in which you seem to think is necessary and even if on occasion it does, it worked pretty good. The best? probably not, but good enough if I use the camera and like it.

I even used my A7s for that purpose some years - but I also like to manual focus

A7iii still feels like cheating