FF ML has become the best format for IQ and value, only behind cell phones.

[bob13bob]

Apsc A6600. $1400 to get ibis and better battery. The sensor is not new, probably very similar to their a6300

FF a7 iii is $1650 new online right now with the same features. The only area where a6600 has it beat, is AF performance. The a73 is 18 months old now.

They are releasing an apsc lens 16-55 2.8 for $1400. FF equivalent 24-82.5 F4.2

The fuji version is $1200

There highly regarded tamron 28-75 2.8 is $880 for sony. It’s much cheaper and a full stop faster.

Also, FF glass tends to be significantly sharper than smaller format glass. In every objective data set I’ve compared, the FF always wins.

If you don’t understand equivalence, read https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

I and others have been prophetizing this for awhile. Sensor prices have come down so much where they are not the significant part of a cameras cost. As sensor size price have been diminished (and will continue to); they don’t matter. 2 things become important.

1. Body features. Af performance, sensor quality eg dynamic range, movie recording.
2. The format who has the greatest number of lens competitors becomes the best format for IQ.

 

[techjedi]

Apsc A6600. $1400 to get ibis and better battery. The sensor is not new, probably very similar to their a6300

FF a7 iii is $1650 new online right now with the same features. The only area where a6600 has it beat, is AF performance. The a73 is 18 months old now.

They are releasing an apsc lens 16-55 2.8 for $1400. FF equivalent 24-82.5 F4.2

The fuji version is $1200

There highly regarded tamron 28-75 2.8 is $880 for sony. It’s much cheaper and a full stop faster.

Also, FF glass tends to be significantly sharper than smaller format glass. In every objective data set I’ve compared, the FF always wins.

If you don’t understand equivalence, read https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

I and others have been prophetizing this for awhile. Sensor prices have come down so much where they are not the significant part of a cameras cost. As sensor size price have been diminished (and will continue to); they don’t matter. 2 things become important.

1. Body features. Af performance, sensor quality eg dynamic range, movie recording.
2. The format who has the greatest number of lens competitors becomes the best format for IQ.

I think people have been wanting expensive pro-quality f2.8 lenses for APS-C because they like the size advantages of APS-C, not because anyone believed that APS-C had a quality advantage or even a quality/value advantage.

 

[JohnNEX]

I think people have been wanting expensive pro-quality f2.8 lenses for APS-C because they like the size advantages of APS-C, not because anyone believed that APS-C had a quality advantage or even a quality/value advantage.

I agree. This is a simple size vs IQ trade-off. APS-C never beats FF on any objective IQ test. I shoot APS-C mostly because its smaller and I like the reach, not because its cheaper.

 

[Entropy512]

Apsc A6600. $1400 to get ibis and better battery. The sensor is not new, probably very similar to their a6300

FF a7 iii is $1650 new online right now with the same features. The only area where a6600 has it beat, is AF performance. The a73 is 18 months old now.

They are releasing an apsc lens 16-55 2.8 for $1400. FF equivalent 24-82.5 F4.2

The fuji version is $1200

There highly regarded tamron 28-75 2.8 is $880 for sony. It’s much cheaper and a full stop faster.

Also, FF glass tends to be significantly sharper than smaller format glass. In every objective data set I’ve compared, the FF always wins.

If you don’t understand equivalence, read https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

I and others have been prophetizing this for awhile. Sensor prices have come down so much where they are not the significant part of a cameras cost. As sensor size price have been diminished (and will continue to); they don’t matter. 2 things become important.

1. Body features. Af performance, sensor quality eg dynamic range, movie recording.
2. The format who has the greatest number of lens competitors becomes the best format for IQ.

I think people have been wanting expensive pro-quality f2.8 lenses for APS-C because they like the size advantages of APS-C, not because anyone believed that APS-C had a quality advantage or even a quality/value advantage.

Except that such lenses fundamentally DON'T have a size advantage.

Sony's 16-55 is lighter than Fuji's, but once you add a fast prime,

A7M3 + 24-105G + FE85/1.8 is lighter and significantly less expensive than

Fuji flagship + 16-55/2.8 + 56/1.2

Sony simply doesn't have an APS-C equivalent here. The Sony 16-55 is lighter than Fuji's, but still loses significant zoom length at the long end compared to the FF solution, and doesn't have a 56/1.2 option (at least not a first-party one).

APS-C is only compact when you mount lenses that would fail to autofocus well if you put their FF equivalents on an FF camera. (Due to FF equivalents being f/8 or slower)

 

[techjedi]

Apsc A6600. $1400 to get ibis and better battery. The sensor is not new, probably very similar to their a6300

FF a7 iii is $1650 new online right now with the same features. The only area where a6600 has it beat, is AF performance. The a73 is 18 months old now.

They are releasing an apsc lens 16-55 2.8 for $1400. FF equivalent 24-82.5 F4.2

The fuji version is $1200

There highly regarded tamron 28-75 2.8 is $880 for sony. It’s much cheaper and a full stop faster.

Also, FF glass tends to be significantly sharper than smaller format glass. In every objective data set I’ve compared, the FF always wins.

If you don’t understand equivalence, read https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

I and others have been prophetizing this for awhile. Sensor prices have come down so much where they are not the significant part of a cameras cost. As sensor size price have been diminished (and will continue to); they don’t matter. 2 things become important.

1. Body features. Af performance, sensor quality eg dynamic range, movie recording.
2. The format who has the greatest number of lens competitors becomes the best format for IQ.

I think people have been wanting expensive pro-quality f2.8 lenses for APS-C because they like the size advantages of APS-C, not because anyone believed that APS-C had a quality advantage or even a quality/value advantage.

Except that such lenses fundamentally DON'T have a size advantage.

Sony's 16-55 is lighter than Fuji's, but once you add a fast prime,

A7M3 + 24-105G + FE85/1.8 is lighter and significantly less expensive than

Fuji flagship + 16-55/2.8 + 56/1.2

Sony simply doesn't have an APS-C equivalent here. The Sony 16-55 is lighter than Fuji's, but still loses significant zoom length at the long end compared to the FF solution, and doesn't have a 56/1.2 option (at least not a first-party one).

APS-C is only compact when you mount lenses that would fail to autofocus well if you put their FF equivalents on an FF camera. (Due to FF equivalents being f/8 or slower)

Okay, but I don't think you can really compare to Fuji lenses because someone would have to start using Fuji bodies. Sony users were begging for these APS-C lenses and Sony has provided them. I think comparing the various details and prices of these new lenses to other platforms isn't really helpful because Sony wasn't trying to appease Fuji to Sony value considerations, they were trying to satisfy their platform users with what they have been asking for.

When you compare this new E 16-55mm G to the FE 24-70 GM, it is significantly smaller and lighter and that's where the size consideration comes in.

--
http://www.instagram.com/foundry412

 

[SeanTXK]

Entropy, I think you’re exactly right.

Despite my gear head tendencies, high-end APS-C has never made a lot of sense to me. Sometimes slightly smaller and sometimes slightly less expensive, I have yet to get past the mediocre value you get from “Flagship” bodies and “fast” APS-C zooms.

Ok, partly this is because my photography skills still suck, but even if I got a LOT better and “needed” high-end gear, I just can’t part with FF level money for APS-C only results.

At least with an A7iii and a 24-105 f/4, I have the possibility of going further into FF f/2.8 zoom glass if I wanted to buy/rent it. The APS-C equivalent for mirrorless just doesn’t exist.

I’m not knocking it for others, nor am I saying it shouldn’t exist, I’m just saying that in my little mind the value of high-end, APS-C bodies/zooms just doesn’t add up.

 

[bob13bob]

you guys really think that people will spend 60 percent more to buy glass thas is a stop slower, enen if its smaller?

if you want small, samyang 35 2.8 on fe

the writing is on the wall, look how much development of glass there has been in the ff world. only fuji is holding on and they dint have 3rd party

 

[machprt821]

Apsc A6600. $1400 to get ibis and better battery. The sensor is not new, probably very similar to their a6300

FF a7 iii is $1650 new online right now with the same features. The only area where a6600 has it beat, is AF performance. The a73 is 18 months old now.

i"m interested at this price, could you provide a link if possible ? Amazon, B&H still show same old price., googled but still didn't locate any deal on the a7iii.

 

[bob13bob]

ebay, condition new. there is sellers with over 400 sales

 

[machprt821]

ebay for a7iii no thanks, it's just unnecessary hassle to ensure it's not grey market and that the item is actuall brand new/ untouched since sony box is not sealed. I buy/sell on ebay with 300 perfect ratings and would not buy brand new thousand dollar camera from there, chance of getting into a troubling deal is not small, better choices would be used ones from fredmiranda and similars but it would diminish the price difference argument with a6600 which I kinda am interested in.

 

[bob13bob]

6ave is the seller on ebay. no warranty is worth 300 when you consider price difference.

also google shopping shows a site right now selling fir that price directly from their website.

 

[machprt821]

i also found 6ave selling it on amazon for that price, there are only 2 reviews and 2 questions/answers, one review says item is not new, there are fingerprints and signs of use, camera not wrapped, cables thrown in, the other review is very short saying recommended. The questions/answers part states that it is in fact international version that has no sony warranty only seller store warranty. I'll pass.