Sony full frame advice

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
Cato1040 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,844
Re: Sony full frame advice

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Cato1040 wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Cato1040 wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Cato1040 wrote:

Are you willing to buy used? If so, I would think you could get an A7III with the kit lens at that price.

The kit zoom is awful, to be replaced as soon as possible. Honestly, it's a waste of a good camera. If you're happy with its level of performance, you might as well go Micro Four Thirds, because you'll get only 16-20MP of resolution from it anywhere away from the center, even when mounted on a 42MP body. I know, because I have extensive MFT and a7III/a7RIII kits, and I did the comparison on a group portrait of 80 people, stopped down with flash.

I wouldn't say it's an awful lens. I've heard many say it's above average for a kit lens.

Don't believe it. The falloff in sharpness even at the APS frame is obvious, and it's much less consistent edge-to-edge than any Panasonic zoom I've owned over the past 7 years.

It's not just about believing others, I've used it (though not extensively). I've also used other kit lenses (from Sony, Nikon, and Canon). I've seen fantastic picture captured by the Sony FE kit lens that surprised me when I saw which lens they used. You won't be able to convince me that it's aweful.

I don't need to.

You don't need to but I said that because that's what you seemed to be trying to do when you said "Don't believe it" though.

My first-hand experience with it convinced me immediately. I post this as a warning for others. Make of it what you will. The simple fact is that on a 42MP body it resolves no more than a good zoom on a 20MP MFT body.

I know DXOmark should always be taken with a grain of salt, but they scored the kit lens on the A7RII at 25MP, which is higher than any 20MP camera can resolve.

The Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 and Pansonic 12-35mm f/2.8 scored 12MP on the OM-D E-M1 II whereas the Sony 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 scored 25MP on the A7RII and 8MP on the A6000 (which would really crop in on the lens). This score is more 'objective' and doesn't seem to make the kit lens look that bad to me. To be fair, I don't have any personal experience with those high-end M43 zoom lenses so this is not from personal experience and this is also not to negate your experience with the lenses.

The Sony kit lens also has a 4.4 star rating on Sony, a 4 star rating on B&H, a 4 star rating on Amazon, and a 4.8 star rating on Best Buy, so I think most people don't think it's awful.

That's not "subjective" except in a Descartian sense (i.e. because all of our knowledge comes through our senses, the only thing we can be absolutely certain of is our own existence).

You're introducing something else into the conversation now. Saying it's awful is different than how much something resolves. The first is subjective, then second is objective. Many people practically don't need more than 8MP anyway. So what's awful to you may not be awful to others. Again, you won't be able to convince me (and seemingly most people that reviewed the lens) that the kit lens is awful (unless you're referring to a particularly bad copy or a broken one).

Whether it's a waste of a good camera is subjective but I could understand why you might say so.

And it can be a way to enter the Sony Full Frame system. An M43 camera with the pro f/2.8 zoom lenses could be comparable or better but then you're in that system and have, in a way, hit the ceiling, whereas with this A7 kit, at this budget, you're kind of at the floor with room to grow in the system.

OTOH, if you're just going to sell the a7II because of its slow AF and noise in low light, and the kit zoom because it can't resolve 20MP, you'd be no worse off with MFT or APS. You could sell any of these later when you're ready to buy a modern, quality Sony 35mm-format kit.

I didn't recommend getting the A7II with the kit lens.

Ah, I misunderstood.

I recommended the A7III with the kit lens or a cheaper body

Used a7RII would be my choice if not for fast action.

If the image quality or price is the priority, then generally yes. For most other considerations, I'd recommend the A7III. It depends on the OP's priority. I purposely chose the A7III over the A7RIII because I'd rather not deal with the large file sizes and found the A7III's image quality more than good enough, though I did occasionally appreciate the resolution (my A7 history is A7, A7RII, A7RIII, A7III).

with the Tamron 28-75mm so the OP could possibly be selling the body

I may end up keeping my a7RII even though I "replaced" it with another a7RIII alongside my first a7RIII and a7III just so I can have a body that stays on a tripod for UWA venue shots during my event jobs. For still subjects, it's still a fantastic camera.

I even found the A7RII's AF good for most things. I used it for a paid event shoot (indoor at night (though with flash)) and had no issues with the AF. It's a great body. The III bodies do have much better AF but the A7RII is no slouch and was a huge upgrade over the A7II. Even if starting from scratch, taking the whole system into account, I'd choose the A7RII over any other non-Sony mirrorless camera out there.

or (probably not and) the lens in the next few years, but likely not both. If they wanted to upgrade to Sony from M43, they may need to sell both.

If you want a better lens, I think you could also get an A7RII with the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 in your budget.

Yes, this represents good value and superb IQ.

If you need to buy used, I'd prioritize the lens. The Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 is fantastic. You can buy the cheapest body you can (A7 or A7II) then upgrade to the A7III when its price drops (which it probably will once the A7IV is released) or when you can afford it.

Not a bad strategy, but low-light performance (AF & noise) of the a7/a7II is pretty weak.


You keep using that word...

Because it is subjective. If I keep using it, it's because someone is stating their opinions as facts.

Yes, "awful" is subjective". The actual resolution of the lens as I reported it is not.

Agreed. Though acceptable resolution can also be subjective/different per photographer. It can depend on usage (astrophotographers might shoot wide open whereas daytime landscape shooters may shoot at smaller apertures which help with sharpness). It can also depend on medium (Instagram vs 20x30 prints).

Another starter strategy is to get an a7III or a7RII and just one or two cheap primes - maybe a Nifty Fifty and/or Samyang's 18/2.8 or 35/1.4.

As long as the OP doesn't prefer a zoom.

Um, yeah. Thanks for clearing that up.

 Cato1040's gear list:Cato1040's gear list
Olympus Stylus Tough TG-850 iHS Fujifilm X100T Panasonic LX10 Sony a6000 Sony a7 III +18 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow