I have had the sony 6300 then traded up for a 6500. Landscape and macro are really the only two subjects I focus on. Know with a trip planned for Scotland and the Isle of Skye I have uped it again to a A7Rii. The III was more $$ so I went with the ii. They say the battery is better put I have like 5 batteries that I had for my 6500. Plan on carrying two lenses. My 16mm sigma and my 24/70 zeiss.
Did I make a right choice on the camera??. I do not shoot videos.
I’ve never used the 6300 or 6500. However I have used the A7rII, and I currently own the a7rIII. The battery life is much better on the 3 vs 2, but with multiple batteries you’re going to be fine. The viewfinder is better in the 3, but it’s not worlds apart. Autofocus Is also improved, but for landscape I doubt you’re likely to notice. Macro is often shot in manual focus which is fine on both cameras. That’s the good news… the 24-70/4 on the other hand is a bit of a mixed bag. On the plus side the lens is light and stopped down to f8 the sharpness is mostly good… with weaker corners at the wide and long ends. Stopping down to f11 evens things up but drops the overall quality a little. This is probably a bit different with copy variation, but there’s fairly good consensus that this lens isn’t the best landscape lens for corner to corner sharpness on R series sensors. My dad owns a copy of the 24-70/4.
What is a good alternative lens will depend on budget (weight and $). Some possible ideas:
FE 28-60 - only 1 stop slower on the long end and far more even in output. Not as inexpensive as the FE 28-70. (I haven’t directly shot these lenses - I’m basing this on reviewers)
FE 28-70 - dismissed by many now that the 28-60 is here, this lens stopped down is much better than people give it credit for. Sweet spot is f5.6 - f8. (I own this lens and use it when I don’t want the extra bulk and weight of the 24-105)
FE 24-105 - really stellar travel lens, but bigger and heavier than some might want coming from APSC. It’s also not at all cheap. (I own this lens)
Sigma 28-70/2.8 & Tamron 28-75 G1/G2 - these are all excellent options, The Tamron offers much better magnification at the short end for pseudo macro shots with close subject placement. The G2 has improved several areas. (I haven’t directly shot these lenses - I’m basing this on reviewers).
Tamron 28-200/2.8-5.6 - surprisingly great travel lens with good landscape capability. Only above f4 from past 70mm - this lens is far more even and offers great flexibility at a rational price with reasonable size and weight. (I haven’t directly shot these lenses - I’m basing this on reviewers - if I didn’t own the 24-105 I would likely own this lens).
FE 28/2 - another maligned lens that is better than people give it credit for - at least if you stop down. F5.6-8 is the sweet spot. This is a light and small lens and certainly out performs the 24-70/4 at 28mm but isn’t nearly as flexible. However wide open this lens has very poor edge/corner performance. (I own this lens, and the two converter lenses for it).
Ultimately if the budget won’t budge and the gear you have is set in stone, so be it. You will get good images of you post attention and stop down to the sweet spot. Your copy may outperform reviewed copies and my dads copy. I suggest looking at the play memories apps the A7rII can use some may be very useful for landscape shots. The a7rIII and newer models can’t leverage those which is an advantage to the body you’re taking.
My advice if the budget allows is to think about swapping the 24-70 out if you try it and feel the edge sharpness isn’t sufficient. Honestly a lot depends on how the images will be used. For most purposes I’d be happy with the performance of the 24-70/4. Only for larger printed images and pixel peeping does the edge/corner performance become noticeable. Any artistic images made with the lens will still be lovely - warts and all.
).