Reading mode: Light Dark

A6600 w/16-55 2.8 or A7 III w/24-70 f/4

Go to last post
Alex Ethridge said:
José B said:
They look outstanding choices to me. I think an F/4 standard zoom lens on a full frame camera has the right balance of light gathering and manageable weight for travel and everyday use.

In my case however, I find that 70mm on a full frame is not long enough for a standard zoom lens. If I were to spend close to US $ 2900 my choice would have been either a Canon EOS R and the RF 24-105/4 for US $ 2699 or even the RP at US $ 1900 with the same RF kit. Granted this is such an easy call for me given I have a good selection of EF lenses.

Good luck in whatever decision you make.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your comment.

My reason for going with one of these two cameras is for their real-time tracking, especially eye tracking. I think it will increase my keeper rate. I've watch a lot of reviews of Sony's tracking against other mirrorless brands and Sony wins consistently without any room for doubt.

However, if I were vested in lenses as you, it would be a harder choice.

Again, thanks.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if you've seen the EOS R eye-AF performance after the firmware update

https://petapixel.com/2019/09/26/canon-releases-major-autofocus-firmware-for-canon-eos-r-and-rp/

IMHO Canon has 'caught up' with Sony in terms of eye-AF technology. However, the main advantages of the A7III over the R are dual card slots, IBIS, high speed bursts in AFS-C and dynamic range of the sensor. These are huge advantages if someone is to start with a full frame system from scratch. Again for me I favor the R considering I have more EF lenses than FE ones.
 
Alex Ethridge said:
I've sent off a bunch of m43 equipment to KEH and unless I've made some kind of wild errors, it will fund, or significantly fund my transition to Sony. (I'm keeping my GH5 and some lenses for backup.)

I'm in a quandary vacillating between the A6600 w/16-55 2.8 and the A7 III w/24-70 f/4. If I go with the A7 III which is about $$600 more than the A6600, I don't feel I can justify (to myself) the additional expense of the Sony FE 24-70mm 2.8.

So here's my question. How do you think the A7 III w/24-70 f/4 and the A6600 w/16-55mm 2.8 balance noise-wise when the A7 III can't get f/2.8 and I have to bump the ISO up another stop?

I hope that makes sense.

The Tamron 28-75mm is not something I can consider as I need the full width of 24mm (EFL). Also, I have looked at some videos directly comparing the Sigma offering to Sony's in that same zoom range and the Sigma is slower at focusing and doesn't do as good a job at real-time tracking.
Click to expand...
Looking at crop factor a given A6600 ISO would be "as bad" with noise as a 2.25 higher A7III ISO. So ISO 800 on the A6600 will look like ~ISO 1800 on the larger sensor.

I would go to a camera store and handle both bodies, trying to do common operations on each body. Handling is 80% of camera satisfaction, and the A7III boasts more control points and a joystick. But you may prefer a rangefinder style.

I personally don't like the A6600/16-55mm f2.8 combo, as it's a FF-priced setup with $400 camera controls, old sensor, UHS-I, single card slot, etc. Unless you really want the latest AF modes, it's a questionable proposition. You can always get the 24-70 F4 now and trade it up to something else if it doesn't meet your needs like the 24-105mm. But if you get the A6600 and 16-55mm, there's no upgrade path.
 
Last edited:
bloodlmt said:
a6600 with real-time tracking combined with the 16-55 2.8 is probably faster than a7iii (no realtime tracking) and 24-70 f4 (old lens with ok optics, not great, old focus motors).
Click to expand...
As far as I see in the Manual, the only AF feature of A6600, which is missing in A7III (with latest FW) is Touch Tracking. Other focus modes are all present and work well.

The "Real-time tracking" looks more like a marketing gimmick, technically there's no such thing in Manual.
 
paul wassermann said:
I own both Sony 24-70 2.8 and 24-105 f4. For my shooting I now find that I use the 24-105 more than the 24-70. In my case it comes down to:
Click to expand...
It depends on personal preferences and shooting style. I'd been using 24-70/2.8 and then 24-105/4 lenses since ca.2008, and since 2012 - of full frame camera. Neither one was used on daily basis - I always preferred fast prime lenses, while those normal zooms were occupying my closet for 340 days in year.

In 2018 I've got A7III and 24-240, but ultimately sold the latter one due to the same reasons: slow, heavy, big, loses to primes in quality and rendering.
 
voronspb said:
bloodlmt said:
a6600 with real-time tracking combined with the 16-55 2.8 is probably faster than a7iii (no realtime tracking) and 24-70 f4 (old lens with ok optics, not great, old focus motors).
Click to expand...
As far as I see in the Manual, the only AF feature of A6600, which is missing in A7III (with latest FW) is Touch Tracking. Other focus modes are all present and work well.

The "Real-time tracking" looks more like a marketing gimmick, technically there's no such thing in Manual.
Click to expand...
Real-time tracking is absolutely a thing, and you'd have to be living under a rock to miss it.

https://youtu.be/MamvBBsBbck?t=530

I have both an A6500 equivalent (RX100VI) and A6400 and the difference is impressive.
 
BrentSchumer said:
Real-time tracking is absolutely a thing, and you'd have to be living under a rock to miss it.
I have both an A6500 equivalent (RX100VI) and A6400 and the difference is impressive.
Click to expand...
A6300/6500 are old cameras with dated AF.

In A7III there's all-time-on EyeAF, there's instant override for the focus settings, there's Tracking under the focus zone selection (in the far bottom). I don't see much difference in A6600 interface. In A6300/6500 only the latter one is present.
 
voronspb said:
BrentSchumer said:
Real-time tracking is absolutely a thing, and you'd have to be living under a rock to miss it.
I have both an A6500 equivalent (RX100VI) and A6400 and the difference is impressive.
Click to expand...
A6300/6500 are old cameras with dated AF.

In A7III there's all-time-on EyeAF, there's instant override for the focus settings, there's Tracking under the focus zone selection (in the far bottom). I don't see much difference in A6600 interface. In A6300/6500 only the latter one is present.
Click to expand...
Did you watch the video? Here's one that breaks down the differences between the cameras on AF:

The new tracking mode REPLACES the old menu item with much improved functionality. It's like you're saying "Oh yeah the A6000 and A7III have eye AF so it's the same feature."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TG1
SpacemanUA said:
bloodlmt said:
a6600 with real-time tracking combined with the 16-55 2.8 is probably faster than a7iii (no realtime tracking) and 24-70 f4 (old lens with ok optics, not great, old focus motors).

a7iii with sigma 24-70mm 2.8 will be cheaper a lot since the sigma is priced at dirt cheap price $1100. But the size will be massive and weight a ton.
Click to expand...
Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Lens:
  • Dimensions (ø x L) 3.45 x 5.35" / 87.6 x 136 mm
  • Weight 1.95 lb / 886 g
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Art:
  • Dimensions (ø x L) 3.46 x 4.84" / 87.8 x 122.9 mm
  • Weight 1.84 lb / 835 g
It's smaller and lighter than GM.

And haven't a7 III got AF update with some of new firmwares?
Click to expand...
Yes, but 16-55 is probably one of the fastest lenses available today, for eye af, instant, incl video. The 16-55 is probably in another league to the 24-70/105 f4 and Sigma is a modified DSLR lens, probably buggy.

a6600/16-55 nothing like it on any platform currently 😊
 
Alex Ethridge said:
voronspb said:
Forget about 24-70/4 - get 28-75/2.8 instead. I don't see many advantages of A6600/16-55 combo over A7III + Tamron at same price. A bit smaller, a bit wider, a bit sharper, but twice as much noise, worse DR, much worse controls, worse video, much worse lens choice.
Click to expand...
Thanks but I think you missed the part in my initial post that says:

"The Tamron 28-75mm is not something I can consider as I need the full width of 24mm (EFL)."

Starting today, I am researching the 24-105mm f/4 for its longer zoom and better IQ.
Click to expand...
Alex, I’m sure this is/will be a great combination but it is heavy. Depends on what you need, I’d rather a 18-135 than the 24-105, sounds odd but it’s because I measured the 18 against Fuji and found it closer to 17, so for me it feels like 25/26 but it’s 200 on the long end. Ok, it’s not f4 constantly but I’d take it over the 24-105 any day, light sharp and compact too. It really depends on what and who you are talking images of. e mount is so much more flexible and compact than FF, take the 10-18 f4, again right in the sweet spot of landscape photography, not quite 14 but 15 is super wide. The Samyang 12 and Sigma 16!1.4 for astro and low light and then there’s the 56(85) Sigma 1.4 for portraits/short tele low light. For tele no platform has a 70-350 at 600g.

Sony e has some serious quality lens options now, if one extra dial floats your boat, go that way but it’s not a path I’d follow, good luck 👍
 
Advent1sam said:
Yes, but 16-55 is probably one of the fastest lenses available today, for eye af, instant, incl video. The 16-55 is probably in another league to the 24-70/105 f4
Click to expand...
You're really enthusiastic about your gear, don't you? :D

Considering a7 III + Sigma 24-70/2.8 setup costs the same as a6600 + Sony 16-55/2.8 it's hard to imagine who's gonna buy the latter.
Advent1sam said:
Sigma is a modified DSLR lens, probably buggy.
Click to expand...
We're talking about new Sigma DN Art lens which is designed for mirrorless cameras. And yes, nice joke about "being buggy"
Advent1sam said:
a6600/16-55 nothing like it on any platform currently 😊
Click to expand...
a6600 is a huge disappointment cause it doesn't have any IQ/VQ upgrade over a6400. New battery is not convincing at all to upgrade from a6400/a6500. Hell, even Canon managed to improve their M6 II compared to M6. With such price tag a6600 won't sell well. And when it dropped to today's a6500 level, others will have 1 or 2 new generations of their cameras with even better features.

As for 16-55 - it's only problem is it's price. After new Sigma's 24-70 release there's just nothing to talk about. Drop it to $900 at then maybe it will be an option.
 
Last edited:
BrentSchumer said:
The new tracking mode REPLACES the old menu item with much improved functionality. It's like you're saying "Oh yeah the A6000 and A7III have eye AF so it's the same feature."
Click to expand...
Thank you! Now I see.
 
Advent1sam said:
Alex, I’m sure this is/will be a great combination but it is heavy. Depends on what you need, I’d rather a 18-135 than the 24-105
Click to expand...
According to my personal face-to-face test , the 18-135 is about on par with 24-240, obviously not the 24-105. Though 18-135 is still a great lens for its price (bundled with camera) and weight/dimensions.
 
SpacemanUA said:
SpacemanUA said:
a6600/16-55 nothing like it on any platform currently 😊
Click to expand...
a6600 is a huge disappointment cause it doesn't have any IQ/VQ upgrade over a6400. New battery is not convincing at all to upgrade from a6400/a6500. Hell, even Canon managed to improve their M6 II compared to M6. With such price tag a6600 won't sell well. And when it dropped to today's a6500 level, others will have 1 or 2 new generations of their cameras with even better features.

As for 16-55 - it's only problem is it's price. After new Sigma's 24-70 release there's just nothing to talk about. Drop it to $900 at then maybe it will be an option.
Click to expand...
You're making me agree with SpacemanUA. You monster!

No but seriously, the A6600 doesn't have a lot of reason to exist. Either cut the price down and offer the current model as an A6400 IBIS/battery upgrade or go head-to-head with the XT-3 and add a new sensor, card slot, UHS-II interface, joystick, and dial. Right now we've got the cut down body at the flagship price. I'm guessing that Sony doesn't want the A6X00s to get these features to differentiate the A7III, but it's annoying.

Also, a stabilized 16-55mm f2.8 would be a nice improvement.
 
bloodlmt said:
Alex Ethridge said:
I've sent off a bunch of m43 equipment to KEH and unless I've made some kind of wild errors, it will fund, or significantly fund my transition to Sony. (I'm keeping my GH5 and some lenses for backup.)

I'm in a quandary vacillating between the A6600 w/16-55 2.8 and the A7 III w/24-70 f/4. If I go with the A7 III which is about $$600 more than the A6600, I don't feel I can justify (to myself) the additional expense of the Sony FE 24-70mm 2.8.

So here's my question. How do you think the A7 III w/24-70 f/4 and the A6600 w/16-55mm 2.8 balance noise-wise when the A7 III can't get f/2.8 and I have to bump the ISO up another stop?

I hope that makes sense.

The Tamron 28-75mm is not something I can consider as I need the full width of 24mm (EFL). Also, I have looked at some videos directly comparing the Sigma offering to Sony's in that same zoom range and the Sigma is slower at focusing and doesn't do as good a job at real-time tracking.
Click to expand...
a6600 with real-time tracking combined with the 16-55 2.8 is probably faster than a7iii (no realtime tracking)
Click to expand...
I think the latest firmware gives the A7 III real-time eye tracking.
bloodlmt said:
and 24-70 f4 (old lens with ok optics, not great, old focus motors).

a7iii with sigma 24-70mm 2.8 will be cheaper a lot since the sigma is priced at dirt cheap price $1100. But the size will be massive and weight a ton.
Click to expand...
I saw a video with two cameras mounted on a rigid frame, one with the Sony 24-70 2.8 and another with the Sigma. The Sigma was easily the slowest to track and focus, so much so that much of it wasn't what I would call real time.
 
SpacemanUA said:
bloodlmt said:
a6600 with real-time tracking combined with the 16-55 2.8 is probably faster than a7iii (no realtime tracking) and 24-70 f4 (old lens with ok optics, not great, old focus motors).

a7iii with sigma 24-70mm 2.8 will be cheaper a lot since the sigma is priced at dirt cheap price $1100. But the size will be massive and weight a ton.
Click to expand...
Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Lens:
  • Dimensions (ø x L) 3.45 x 5.35" / 87.6 x 136 mm
  • Weight 1.95 lb / 886 g
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Art:
  • Dimensions (ø x L) 3.46 x 4.84" / 87.8 x 122.9 mm
  • Weight 1.84 lb / 835 g
It's smaller and lighter than GM.

And haven't a7 III got AF update with some of new firmwares?
Click to expand...
Yes on the firmware.
 
paul wassermann said:
voronspb said:
Alex Ethridge said:
Thanks but I think you missed the part in my initial post that says:

"The Tamron 28-75mm is not something I can consider as I need the full width of 24mm (EFL)."

Starting today, I am researching the 24-105mm f/4 for its longer zoom and better IQ.
Click to expand...
Sorry, my mistake. In that case the new Sigma 24-70/2.8 may suit your needs. You'll need waiting a bit for reliable reviews though, not just random Youtube guys. It'll be cheaper than 24-105, and more suitable for shooting in low light. To my taste, F4 is too slow on FF, and that's the same that you'll be getting at F2.8 with cropped sensor.

I find the A6xxx series desperately lacking the third dial and AF joystick - to degree, when it really limits the usability.
Click to expand...
I own both Sony 24-70 2.8 and 24-105 f4. For my shooting I now find that I use the 24-105 more than the 24-70. In my case it comes down to:

1. Need light?

or

2. Need reach?

For me, the 24-105 is slightly more versatile.
Click to expand...
I think I too would find the reach more useful.
 
Last edited:
José B said:
Alex Ethridge said:
José B said:
They look outstanding choices to me. I think an F/4 standard zoom lens on a full frame camera has the right balance of light gathering and manageable weight for travel and everyday use.

In my case however, I find that 70mm on a full frame is not long enough for a standard zoom lens. If I were to spend close to US $ 2900 my choice would have been either a Canon EOS R and the RF 24-105/4 for US $ 2699 or even the RP at US $ 1900 with the same RF kit. Granted this is such an easy call for me given I have a good selection of EF lenses.

Good luck in whatever decision you make.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your comment.

My reason for going with one of these two cameras is for their real-time tracking, especially eye tracking. I think it will increase my keeper rate. I've watch a lot of reviews of Sony's tracking against other mirrorless brands and Sony wins consistently without any room for doubt.

However, if I were vested in lenses as you, it would be a harder choice.

Again, thanks.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if you've seen the EOS R eye-AF performance after the firmware update

https://petapixel.com/2019/09/26/canon-releases-major-autofocus-firmware-for-canon-eos-r-and-rp/

IMHO Canon has 'caught up' with Sony in terms of eye-AF technology. However, the main advantages of the A7III over the R are dual card slots, IBIS, high speed bursts in AFS-C and dynamic range of the sensor. These are huge advantages if someone is to start with a full frame system from scratch. Again for me I favor the R considering I have more EF lenses than FE ones.
Click to expand...
I've seen it in parallel with the Sony and although close, the Sony was a little better.
 
BrentSchumer said:
Alex Ethridge said:
I've sent off a bunch of m43 equipment to KEH and unless I've made some kind of wild errors, it will fund, or significantly fund my transition to Sony. (I'm keeping my GH5 and some lenses for backup.)

I'm in a quandary vacillating between the A6600 w/16-55 2.8 and the A7 III w/24-70 f/4. If I go with the A7 III which is about $$600 more than the A6600, I don't feel I can justify (to myself) the additional expense of the Sony FE 24-70mm 2.8.

So here's my question. How do you think the A7 III w/24-70 f/4 and the A6600 w/16-55mm 2.8 balance noise-wise when the A7 III can't get f/2.8 and I have to bump the ISO up another stop?

I hope that makes sense.

The Tamron 28-75mm is not something I can consider as I need the full width of 24mm (EFL). Also, I have looked at some videos directly comparing the Sigma offering to Sony's in that same zoom range and the Sigma is slower at focusing and doesn't do as good a job at real-time tracking.
Click to expand...
Looking at crop factor a given A6600 ISO would be "as bad" with noise as a 2.25 higher A7III ISO. So ISO 800 on the A6600 will look like ~ISO 1800 on the larger sensor.

I would go to a camera store and handle both bodies,
Click to expand...
Nearest camera store 150 miles. Last one here closed a couple of years ago.
BrentSchumer said:
trying to do common operations on each body. Handling is 80% of camera satisfaction, and the A7III boasts more control points and a joystick. But you may prefer a rangefinder style.

I personally don't like the A6600/16-55mm f2.8 combo, as it's a FF-priced setup with $400 camera controls, old sensor, UHS-I, single card slot, etc. Unless you really want the latest AF modes, it's a questionable proposition. You can always get the 24-70 F4 now and trade it up to something else if it doesn't meet your needs like the 24-105mm. But if you get the A6600 and 16-55mm, there's no upgrade path.
Click to expand...
 
voronspb said:
bloodlmt said:
a6600 with real-time tracking combined with the 16-55 2.8 is probably faster than a7iii (no realtime tracking) and 24-70 f4 (old lens with ok optics, not great, old focus motors).
Click to expand...
As far as I see in the Manual, the only AF feature of A6600, which is missing in A7III (with latest FW) is Touch Tracking. Other focus modes are all present and work well.

The "Real-time tracking" looks more like a marketing gimmick, technically there's no such thing in Manual.
Click to expand...
It's in several YouTube video reviews.
 
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