This is not a bad idea, as long as you're ok with its range. I'd almost be happy with it...
Except that with small sensors, they usually won't give you RAW and the JPEGS usually have heavy-handed NR, even at low ISOs. And the DR starts to make a big difference by now.
It does, but you can also consider APS-C to be the sweet spot between the extremes. :-D
You are probably right. It does seem that you have to commit to more expensive lenses, in general, if you go FE, though.
This would be my kit lens if I am going with the A7III. It's perfect for travel, family/friend gatherings and walkabouts. Add the Batis 135./2.8 (for headshots and sports) and the top of the line Sony flash and I'll shoot with it for years to come.
If you buy the a6600 + 16-55 +70-350 = $3,800 (which you have done), that seems like a LOT of money for an APS-C camera and two zoom lenses. Then, as you have said, adding the Sigma 16, 30, & 56 f1.4 primes, and you are good to go for another $1,110. That is a grand total of $4,911. To me, that seems like a LOT of money to spend on an APS-C camera and full kit of lenses for the average enthusiast, wouldn't you agree?
I just did, not sure why you ignored them but I'll post them again
Correct, sum's it up, best compact system out there for me, obviously others have different priorities but for me, the above is killer, I might yet add a 24 (35 equivalent), waiting for the Viltrox lenses to see if they offer anything new
Lr,C1 this is just std fodder for them, there is nothing in it, nothing!
Well, in this case, if you needed any of the other focal lengths for a wider or a more zoomed in shot, a lot betterMeanwhile, this is the a7 with a lens that weighs 86 grams, now on sale at B&H for $240.
How much better is the $$$ 16-55 likely to do in the same situation?
To my taste, 24-105s are boring lenses for everyday usage (I was using such from 2012 till 2018). They are good in everything, but excel in nothing. The best application for them is traveling.
After many years of using zoom lenses in normal-to-telephoto range (38-110 equivalent, 24-105, 24-240) for traveling, I finally decided to settle on 2 bodies with 17-28 and 70-180. It gives redundancy and 17-270 mm equivalent of combined range with fast aperture and unmatched by normal zooms quality.
Boring photographers make boring images.
Gearheads.
Is this being used as a pejorative? Sure, there are people who are probably too gear focused. But I'd wager most people would be more apt to go for a bike ride on a nice bike vs a crappy one. Or a drive in a nice car vs a boring commuter. Etc. Passion only goes so far. Having nice things or the exact things you want helps too.
