Sony a7rii vs a6600

[Euell]

They're about the same price. Is the a7rii a better buy overall? Photography and some video.

if you are considering the A7Rii in the full frame line, you are likely on a budget, That suggests that you will not be purchasing the best Sony has to offer in full frame lenses. Since the objective of full frame is higher quality, particularly in lower light, the lenses will make a big difference. I own both a full frame Sony (A7Riii) and an APSC Sony (6500). For most shots you get a fine rendition from the Sony APSC cameras. For overall versatility I would definitely recommend the A6600 over the A7Rii, even though you get a bit better exposure latitude and less noise in the shadows with the full frame. If you feel you absolutely must have a full frame Sony R on a budget, you should probably look into purchasing an A7Riii or A7Riv used with a low shutter count.

A7III also combines the A6500's versatility & AF with FF IQ and ergos for not much more than the A7R2

IMO it's a much better buy for someone looking for a general purpose body

If you are on a budget or concerned with the cost of lenses and/or the size of zoom lenses, the 6600 is a better bet. For most shots you won’t be able to tell the difference between a photo raken with an A6600 and an A7iii. If size and expense are not major issues, then I agree 100%.

 

[tqlla]

They're about the same price. Is the a7rii a better buy overall? Photography and some video.

if you are considering the A7Rii in the full frame line, you are likely on a budget, That suggests that you will not be purchasing the best Sony has to offer in full frame lenses. Since the objective of full frame is higher quality, particularly in lower light, the lenses will make a big difference. I own both a full frame Sony (A7Riii) and an APSC Sony (6500). For most shots you get a fine rendition from the Sony APSC cameras. For overall versatility I would definitely recommend the A6600 over the A7Rii, even though you get a bit better exposure latitude and less noise in the shadows with the full frame. If you feel you absolutely must have a full frame Sony R on a budget, you should probably look into purchasing an A7Riii or A7Riv used with a low shutter count.

A7III also combines the A6500's versatility & AF with FF IQ and ergos for not much more than the A7R2

IMO it's a much better buy for someone looking for a general purpose body

If you are on a budget or concerned with the cost of lenses and/or the size of zoom lenses, the 6600 is a better bet. For most shots you won’t be able to tell the difference between a photo raken with an A6600 and an A7iii. If size and expense are not major issues, then I agree 100%.

Are APSC lenses cheaper? If you are looking for fast and wide APSC lenses, the APSC lenses get pricey. IE that 16-55mm F2.8 has a $1400 MSRP. You can get the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 for cheaper, and with 42MP you can crop in for extra range.

Once you equalize them for focal length/aperture, the FF lenses, IMO are a better bargain.

 

[tqlla]

Completely different cameras. I'd say if video is important, definitely a6600. Or if you plan on shooting fast moving subjects, a6600.

If resolution is the end-all goal (say primarily landscape photography), then A7Rii.

I mainly will photograph street, document, travel. Is the a6600 my better option?

Also, the a6600 vs a6400 - does the IBIS make any difference?

Depends on the lenses you want. MOST Sony branded APSC lenses have Optical stabilization, so you may not need the IBIS.

The 16-55mm F2.8 does not have OSS. So if you want that lens or adapted lenses, then you would want IBIS.

 

[JerzyP]

They're about the same price. Is the a7rii a better buy overall? Photography and some video.

if you are considering the A7Rii in the full frame line, you are likely on a budget, That suggests that you will not be purchasing the best Sony has to offer in full frame lenses. Since the objective of full frame is higher quality, particularly in lower light, the lenses will make a big difference. I own both a full frame Sony (A7Riii) and an APSC Sony (6500). For most shots you get a fine rendition from the Sony APSC cameras. For overall versatility I would definitely recommend the A6600 over the A7Rii, even though you get a bit better exposure latitude and less noise in the shadows with the full frame. If you feel you absolutely must have a full frame Sony R on a budget, you should probably look into purchasing an A7Riii or A7Riv used with a low shutter count.

A7III also combines the A6500's versatility & AF with FF IQ and ergos for not much more than the A7R2

IMO it's a much better buy for someone looking for a general purpose body

If you are on a budget or concerned with the cost of lenses and/or the size of zoom lenses, the 6600 is a better bet. For most shots you won’t be able to tell the difference between a photo raken with an A6600 and an A7iii. If size and expense are not major issues, then I agree 100%.

Are APSC lenses cheaper? If you are looking for fast and wide APSC lenses, the APSC lenses get pricey. IE that 16-55mm F2.8 has a $1400 MSRP. You can get the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 for cheaper, and with 42MP you can crop in for extra range.

Once you equalize them for focal length/aperture, the FF lenses, IMO are a better bargain.

I'd really like to get the 20 f1.8 to any camera I get. I realize that good glass is important.

Do you need a quicker camera to shoot street? Is the a7rii too slow?

 

[JerzyP]

Completely different cameras. I'd say if video is important, definitely a6600. Or if you plan on shooting fast moving subjects, a6600.

If resolution is the end-all goal (say primarily landscape photography), then A7Rii.

I mainly will photograph street, document, travel. Is the a6600 my better option?

Also, the a6600 vs a6400 - does the IBIS make any difference?

Depends on the lenses you want. MOST Sony branded APSC lenses have Optical stabilization, so you may not need the IBIS.

The 16-55mm F2.8 does not have OSS. So if you want that lens or adapted lenses, then you would want IBIS.

Which is more important to the stabilization? In the camera OR the lens?

 

[JerzyP]

Completely different cameras. I'd say if video is important, definitely a6600. Or if you plan on shooting fast moving subjects, a6600.

If resolution is the end-all goal (say primarily landscape photography), then A7Rii.

What if both are important? Is the a7riii the better option?

 

[tqlla]

Are APSC lenses cheaper? If you are looking for fast and wide APSC lenses, the APSC lenses get pricey. IE that 16-55mm F2.8 has a $1400 MSRP. You can get the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 for cheaper, and with 42MP you can crop in for extra range.

Once you equalize them for focal length/aperture, the FF lenses, IMO are a better bargain.

I'd really like to get the 20 f1.8 to any camera I get. I realize that good glass is important.

Do you need a quicker camera to shoot street? Is the a7rii too slow?

The 20mm F1.8 is $800 for Full frame. If you want an equivalent APSC lens, you would need a 12mm or 14mm F1.2, which dont exist for Sony APSC. Rokinon makes a 12mm F2 for APSC for $400, but I dont know how good it is.

The A7Rii can feel sluggish when it boots. Also, turn off auto camera review as that slows the camera down too. IMO, the AF is good enough for street photography even at night.

The Ideal camera to get would be the A7iii or A7Riii, if you can stretch the budget.

 

[tqlla]

Completely different cameras. I'd say if video is important, definitely a6600. Or if you plan on shooting fast moving subjects, a6600.

If resolution is the end-all goal (say primarily landscape photography), then A7Rii.

I mainly will photograph street, document, travel. Is the a6600 my better option?

Also, the a6600 vs a6400 - does the IBIS make any difference?

Depends on the lenses you want. MOST Sony branded APSC lenses have Optical stabilization, so you may not need the IBIS.

The 16-55mm F2.8 does not have OSS. So if you want that lens or adapted lenses, then you would want IBIS.

Which is more important to the stabilization? In the camera OR the lens?

Its best to have it in body, so all your lenses will be stabilized.

But most Sony branded APSC lenses have Optical stabilization.

 

[Donald B]

If fast auto focus and real time tracking matters then the a6600 is a good one. Superior in the video area.

If higher resolution is what you need then the A7RII has a lot to offer. But auto focus is on the slow side.

Go for need and not for want.

Agreed - A7Rii is a little slow although once you get used to it in continuous mode it's not too bad, and the tracking modes aren't that bad either albeit it a little crude. A6600 has quite a bit of more modern tech inside, bigger battery, higher frame rate (11 vs 5), bluetooth, better tracking etc. Where the older A7Rii will win out is the sensor - it has a fabulous BSI hires sensor:

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7R-II-versus-Sony-A6600___1035_1347

Also bare in mind the advantages of Sony FF - low-light ISO handling, DoF, bigger frame etc. The ability to crop from a 42mp FF image can't be overstated

This is exactly why I am considering the a7rii. I can pair it with the 20 1.8 and I think that would be a good setup.

you can also use crop mode for a fov of 30mm, and btw for low light video the a7r2 would have the a6600 on toast

Don

 

[Donald B]

They're about the same price. Is the a7rii a better buy overall? Photography and some video.

if you are considering the A7Rii in the full frame line, you are likely on a budget, That suggests that you will not be purchasing the best Sony has to offer in full frame lenses. Since the objective of full frame is higher quality, particularly in lower light, the lenses will make a big difference. I own both a full frame Sony (A7Riii) and an APSC Sony (6500). For most shots you get a fine rendition from the Sony APSC cameras. For overall versatility I would definitely recommend the A6600 over the A7Rii, even though you get a bit better exposure latitude and less noise in the shadows with the full frame. If you feel you absolutely must have a full frame Sony R on a budget, you should probably look into purchasing an A7Riii or A7Riv used with a low shutter count.

A7III also combines the A6500's versatility & AF with FF IQ and ergos for not much more than the A7R2

IMO it's a much better buy for someone looking for a general purpose body

If you are on a budget or concerned with the cost of lenses and/or the size of zoom lenses, the 6600 is a better bet. For most shots you won’t be able to tell the difference between a photo raken with an A6600 and an A7iii. If size and expense are not major issues, then I agree 100%.

Are APSC lenses cheaper? If you are looking for fast and wide APSC lenses, the APSC lenses get pricey. IE that 16-55mm F2.8 has a $1400 MSRP. You can get the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 for cheaper, and with 42MP you can crop in for extra range.

Once you equalize them for focal length/aperture, the FF lenses, IMO are a better bargain.

I'd really like to get the 20 f1.8 to any camera I get. I realize that good glass is important.

Do you need a quicker camera to shoot street? Is the a7rii too slow?

I will clear up how fast the af is on the a7r2. for single shot af its as fast as any to date camera including the a9 series of cameras. for caf and tracking its great for video but a little inconsistent for stills this is where my a6300 wins. for video quality the a6300/600 4 k is great but the a7r2 in low light will have them for breakfast. i shoot both the a6300 and a7r2 and the both have there advantages over each other , its a tough choice but the a7r2 is my main camera.

Don

 

[newdom]

Completely different cameras. I'd say if video is important, definitely a6600. Or if you plan on shooting fast moving subjects, a6600.

If resolution is the end-all goal (say primarily landscape photography), then A7Rii.

I mainly will photograph street, document, travel. Is the a6600 my better option?

Also, the a6600 vs a6400 - does the IBIS make any difference?

Depends on the lenses you want. MOST Sony branded APSC lenses have Optical stabilization, so you may not need the IBIS.

The 16-55mm F2.8 does not have OSS. So if you want that lens or adapted lenses, then you would want IBIS.

Which is more important to the stabilization? In the camera OR the lens?

If you have IBIS and a lens with OSS, they work together to get the best of both worlds - the body takes some axes and the lens takes other axes that are more effective for the lens to stabilise. In theory if you have one or the other, OSS is better as it is better tuned for that specific focal length. IBIS is still very good, depending on the model to varying degrees, and of course opens up a whole world of non-stabilised lenses.

 

[newdom]

They're about the same price. Is the a7rii a better buy overall? Photography and some video.

if you are considering the A7Rii in the full frame line, you are likely on a budget, That suggests that you will not be purchasing the best Sony has to offer in full frame lenses. Since the objective of full frame is higher quality, particularly in lower light, the lenses will make a big difference. I own both a full frame Sony (A7Riii) and an APSC Sony (6500). For most shots you get a fine rendition from the Sony APSC cameras. For overall versatility I would definitely recommend the A6600 over the A7Rii, even though you get a bit better exposure latitude and less noise in the shadows with the full frame. If you feel you absolutely must have a full frame Sony R on a budget, you should probably look into purchasing an A7Riii or A7Riv used with a low shutter count.

There's a big jump in price from the A7Rii to A7Riii and then to A7Riv, even used with low shutter count. The A7Rii has the same sensor as the A7riii, but the A7riii has a new body with upgraded battery, and better AF. The A7Riv is a no brainer, if you can afford then go for it

The OP intended use is street and landscape, they don't necessarily need or benefit hugely from the benefits of the later bodies. If you don't need fast AF, the A7Rii is probably by far the best price/performance value currently. What you save on the body you can get a very nice lens with. If you need fast AF, then it's definitely worth looking at another body.

 

[Mike Fewster]

Completely different cameras. I'd say if video is important, definitely a6600. Or if you plan on shooting fast moving subjects, a6600.

If resolution is the end-all goal (say primarily landscape photography), then A7Rii.

I mainly will photograph street, document, travel. Is the a6600 my better option?

Also, the a6600 vs a6400 - does the IBIS make any difference?

Travel. Where do you go, what do you carry, how much weight do you want to carry? Check all the lenses you might want to take with you and consider size and weight - especially if you are travelling by plane. Does "travel" mean hiking? An A6600 system has quite a size weight advantage. I'd do this calculation first.

Then consider the af/tracking question. I used an A7r2 for travel and the af was fine for street work as long as the subject was street walkabout pace. Anything like sports or wildlife and it is too slow. You will get some shots OK but you will get more keepers with the A6600. If your street photography means people, the A6600 has another plus. Its face/eye detect will give priority to people. The A7r2 will select high contrast edges and this may or may not be the subject you want.

I think IBIS is worth having in both of them. But. I no longer worry too much about iso, especially for streetwork. I'll happily crank up iso to freeze action and if the result has more noise than I want, I use Topaz post process to fix it.

 

[JerzyP]

Completely different cameras. I'd say if video is important, definitely a6600. Or if you plan on shooting fast moving subjects, a6600.

If resolution is the end-all goal (say primarily landscape photography), then A7Rii.

I mainly will photograph street, document, travel. Is the a6600 my better option?

Also, the a6600 vs a6400 - does the IBIS make any difference?

Travel. Where do you go, what do you carry, how much weight do you want to carry? Check all the lenses you might want to take with you and consider size and weight - especially if you are travelling by plane. Does "travel" mean hiking? An A6600 system has quite a size weight advantage. I'd do this calculation first.

Then consider the af/tracking question. I used an A7r2 for travel and the af was fine for street work as long as the subject was street walkabout pace. Anything like sports or wildlife and it is too slow. You will get some shots OK but you will get more keepers with the A6600. If your street photography means people, the A6600 has another plus. Its face/eye detect will give priority to people. The A7r2 will select high contrast edges and this may or may not be the subject you want.

I think IBIS is worth having in both of them. But. I no longer worry too much about iso, especially for streetwork. I'll happily crank up iso to freeze action and if the result has more noise than I want, I use Topaz post process to fix it.

How do you like your a7riii compared to your a7rii.

I am now leaning towards the a7riii with 20 1.8. I would like higher resolution so I think it's worth moving up a bit.

 

[Euell]

They're about the same price. Is the a7rii a better buy overall? Photography and some video.

if you are considering the A7Rii in the full frame line, you are likely on a budget, That suggests that you will not be purchasing the best Sony has to offer in full frame lenses. Since the objective of full frame is higher quality, particularly in lower light, the lenses will make a big difference. I own both a full frame Sony (A7Riii) and an APSC Sony (6500). For most shots you get a fine rendition from the Sony APSC cameras. For overall versatility I would definitely recommend the A6600 over the A7Rii, even though you get a bit better exposure latitude and less noise in the shadows with the full frame. If you feel you absolutely must have a full frame Sony R on a budget, you should probably look into purchasing an A7Riii or A7Riv used with a low shutter count.

There's a big jump in price from the A7Rii to A7Riii and then to A7Riv, even used with low shutter count. The A7Rii has the same sensor as the A7riii, but the A7riii has a new body with upgraded battery, and better AF. The A7Riv is a no brainer, if you can afford then go for it

The OP intended use is street and landscape, they don't necessarily need or benefit hugely from the benefits of the later bodies. If you don't need fast AF, the A7Rii is probably by far the best price/performance value currently. What you save on the body you can get a very nice lens with. If you need fast AF, then it's definitely worth looking at another body.

My thought is the OP would sooner than later want features of bodies later than the A7Rii. He cites the 16-55 as an expensive APSC zoom, which is true, but there are three other normal zooms that are pretty good and can be acquired used for little money.
if budget is not an issue buy both and try and then make a decision and resell the loser. Or, rent both bodies for a trial. A lot of people, somewhat irrationally I think, expect their photography to improve greatly if they go full frame. The OP should test this thesis before he commits. But, he says he must have the 20mm f1.8. Then he must have a full frame body, since the field of view on an APSC camera is 30mm equivalent. Maybe he just wants too much for too little?

 

[JerzyP]

They're about the same price. Is the a7rii a better buy overall? Photography and some video.

if you are considering the A7Rii in the full frame line, you are likely on a budget, That suggests that you will not be purchasing the best Sony has to offer in full frame lenses. Since the objective of full frame is higher quality, particularly in lower light, the lenses will make a big difference. I own both a full frame Sony (A7Riii) and an APSC Sony (6500). For most shots you get a fine rendition from the Sony APSC cameras. For overall versatility I would definitely recommend the A6600 over the A7Rii, even though you get a bit better exposure latitude and less noise in the shadows with the full frame. If you feel you absolutely must have a full frame Sony R on a budget, you should probably look into purchasing an A7Riii or A7Riv used with a low shutter count.

There's a big jump in price from the A7Rii to A7Riii and then to A7Riv, even used with low shutter count. The A7Rii has the same sensor as the A7riii, but the A7riii has a new body with upgraded battery, and better AF. The A7Riv is a no brainer, if you can afford then go for it

The OP intended use is street and landscape, they don't necessarily need or benefit hugely from the benefits of the later bodies. If you don't need fast AF, the A7Rii is probably by far the best price/performance value currently. What you save on the body you can get a very nice lens with. If you need fast AF, then it's definitely worth looking at another body.

My thought is the OP would sooner than later want features of bodies later than the A7Rii. He cites the 16-55 as an expensive APSC zoom, which is true, but there are three other normal zooms that are pretty good and can be acquired used for little money.
if budget is not an issue buy both and try and then make a decision and resell the loser. Or, rent both bodies for a trial. A lot of people, somewhat irrationally I think, expect their photography to improve greatly if they go full frame. The OP should test this thesis before he commits. But, he says he must have the 20mm f1.8. Then he must have a full frame body, since the field of view on an APSC camera is 30mm equivalent. Maybe he just wants too much for too little?

Well, I could still buy the 20 1.8 for an apsc camera. I like the 30mm equivalent. And I feel I would be future proofing myself. I am still very unsure. Go to a camera shop and they obviously try to get you to go full frame.

How do you like your 6500 and a7riii? I have owned the a6500 a while back and I did like that camera.

 

[sportyaccordy]

They're about the same price. Is the a7rii a better buy overall? Photography and some video.

if you are considering the A7Rii in the full frame line, you are likely on a budget, That suggests that you will not be purchasing the best Sony has to offer in full frame lenses. Since the objective of full frame is higher quality, particularly in lower light, the lenses will make a big difference. I own both a full frame Sony (A7Riii) and an APSC Sony (6500). For most shots you get a fine rendition from the Sony APSC cameras. For overall versatility I would definitely recommend the A6600 over the A7Rii, even though you get a bit better exposure latitude and less noise in the shadows with the full frame. If you feel you absolutely must have a full frame Sony R on a budget, you should probably look into purchasing an A7Riii or A7Riv used with a low shutter count.

A7III also combines the A6500's versatility & AF with FF IQ and ergos for not much more than the A7R2

IMO it's a much better buy for someone looking for a general purpose body

If you are on a budget or concerned with the cost of lenses and/or the size of zoom lenses, the 6600 is a better bet. For most shots you won’t be able to tell the difference between a photo raken with an A6600 and an A7iii. If size and expense are not major issues, then I agree 100%.

Are APSC lenses cheaper? If you are looking for fast and wide APSC lenses, the APSC lenses get pricey. IE that 16-55mm F2.8 has a $1400 MSRP. You can get the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 for cheaper, and with 42MP you can crop in for extra range.

Once you equalize them for focal length/aperture, the FF lenses, IMO are a better bargain.

I'd really like to get the 20 f1.8 to any camera I get. I realize that good glass is important.

Do you need a quicker camera to shoot street? Is the a7rii too slow?

A7R2 def has the worst AF of the cameras in the convo

If AF is a priority you should consider the A6600

 

[Mike Fewster]

Completely different cameras. I'd say if video is important, definitely a6600. Or if you plan on shooting fast moving subjects, a6600.

If resolution is the end-all goal (say primarily landscape photography), then A7Rii.

I mainly will photograph street, document, travel. Is the a6600 my better option?

Also, the a6600 vs a6400 - does the IBIS make any difference?

Travel. Where do you go, what do you carry, how much weight do you want to carry? Check all the lenses you might want to take with you and consider size and weight - especially if you are travelling by plane. Does "travel" mean hiking? An A6600 system has quite a size weight advantage. I'd do this calculation first.

Then consider the af/tracking question. I used an A7r2 for travel and the af was fine for street work as long as the subject was street walkabout pace. Anything like sports or wildlife and it is too slow. You will get some shots OK but you will get more keepers with the A6600. If your street photography means people, the A6600 has another plus. Its face/eye detect will give priority to people. The A7r2 will select high contrast edges and this may or may not be the subject you want.

I think IBIS is worth having in both of them. But. I no longer worry too much about iso, especially for streetwork. I'll happily crank up iso to freeze action and if the result has more noise than I want, I use Topaz post process to fix it.

How do you like your a7riii compared to your a7rii.

I am now leaning towards the a7riii with 20 1.8. I would like higher resolution so I think it's worth moving up a bit.

I definitely prefer the A7R3. The faster af alone is worth it for me for street and birds. If the difference in $ isn't an issue, go for the A7r3. The A7R3 battery is better as well. Not just more shots, it seems to charge faster and this is good when travelling. However. Think further on size and weight. I do two types of travel. Firstly in outback Australia where I will be in a 4wd. Here, the A7R3 is fine. The size/weight becomes an issue for plane travel. I want my camera and lenses in the cabin with me and on FF this quickly adds up. It is quite a heavy unit for bushwalking. I'm tempted by the A6600 for overseas travel and bushwalking and streetwork. Eventually I might add it to the A7R3.

The A7R3 is very croppable and this is a plus, but you are already aware of this.

I'd also think about what you do with your photos eventually. If you do big prints, and I mean bigger than 16x20, then the FF is the way to go. If not doing prints of this size, APS-C should be fine.

 

[Mike Fewster]

They're about the same price. Is the a7rii a better buy overall? Photography and some video.

if you are considering the A7Rii in the full frame line, you are likely on a budget, That suggests that you will not be purchasing the best Sony has to offer in full frame lenses. Since the objective of full frame is higher quality, particularly in lower light, the lenses will make a big difference. I own both a full frame Sony (A7Riii) and an APSC Sony (6500). For most shots you get a fine rendition from the Sony APSC cameras. For overall versatility I would definitely recommend the A6600 over the A7Rii, even though you get a bit better exposure latitude and less noise in the shadows with the full frame. If you feel you absolutely must have a full frame Sony R on a budget, you should probably look into purchasing an A7Riii or A7Riv used with a low shutter count.

A7III also combines the A6500's versatility & AF with FF IQ and ergos for not much more than the A7R2

IMO it's a much better buy for someone looking for a general purpose body

If you are on a budget or concerned with the cost of lenses and/or the size of zoom lenses, the 6600 is a better bet. For most shots you won’t be able to tell the difference between a photo raken with an A6600 and an A7iii. If size and expense are not major issues, then I agree 100%.

Are APSC lenses cheaper? If you are looking for fast and wide APSC lenses, the APSC lenses get pricey. IE that 16-55mm F2.8 has a $1400 MSRP. You can get the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 for cheaper, and with 42MP you can crop in for extra range.

Once you equalize them for focal length/aperture, the FF lenses, IMO are a better bargain.

I'd really like to get the 20 f1.8 to any camera I get. I realize that good glass is important.

Do you need a quicker camera to shoot street? Is the a7rii too slow?

I will clear up how fast the af is on the a7r2. for single shot af its as fast as any to date camera including the a9 series of cameras. for caf and tracking its great for video but a little inconsistent for stills this is where my a6300 wins. for video quality the a6300/600 4 k is great but the a7r2 in low light will have them for breakfast. i shoot both the a6300 and a7r2 and the both have there advantages over each other , its a tough choice but the a7r2 is my main camera.

Don

I can't agree with you and I have owned an A7R2 and liked it a lot. He's not looking at an A6300, he's looking at an A6600 which has way faster AF. There is no way that an A7R2 has af in the same league as an A9. Further, the A9 and A6600 will af on a pre selected face or eye whereas the A7R2 will go for a high contrast edge which may or may not be what you want.

I'm not saying the A7R2 can't be used for streetwork, I used it that way and got lots of good shots. I get more with the A7R3 and I know it isn't as good in this regard as the A6600. So if streetwork is a main need, go for the A6600. With the A7R2 I was more inclined to see possibilities and set up for them in advance rather than being able to see and fire.

And for all of them, Topaz is the answer if you want to shoot in very low light.

 

[JerzyP]

Completely different cameras. I'd say if video is important, definitely a6600. Or if you plan on shooting fast moving subjects, a6600.

If resolution is the end-all goal (say primarily landscape photography), then A7Rii.

I mainly will photograph street, document, travel. Is the a6600 my better option?

Also, the a6600 vs a6400 - does the IBIS make any difference?

Travel. Where do you go, what do you carry, how much weight do you want to carry? Check all the lenses you might want to take with you and consider size and weight - especially if you are travelling by plane. Does "travel" mean hiking? An A6600 system has quite a size weight advantage. I'd do this calculation first.

Then consider the af/tracking question. I used an A7r2 for travel and the af was fine for street work as long as the subject was street walkabout pace. Anything like sports or wildlife and it is too slow. You will get some shots OK but you will get more keepers with the A6600. If your street photography means people, the A6600 has another plus. Its face/eye detect will give priority to people. The A7r2 will select high contrast edges and this may or may not be the subject you want.

I think IBIS is worth having in both of them. But. I no longer worry too much about iso, especially for streetwork. I'll happily crank up iso to freeze action and if the result has more noise than I want, I use Topaz post process to fix it.

How do you like your a7riii compared to your a7rii.

I am now leaning towards the a7riii with 20 1.8. I would like higher resolution so I think it's worth moving up a bit.

I definitely prefer the A7R3. The faster af alone is worth it for me for street and birds. If the difference in $ isn't an issue, go for the A7r3. The A7R3 battery is better as well. Not just more shots, it seems to charge faster and this is good when travelling. However. Think further on size and weight. I do two types of travel. Firstly in outback Australia where I will be in a 4wd. Here, the A7R3 is fine. The size/weight becomes an issue for plane travel. I want my camera and lenses in the cabin with me and on FF this quickly adds up. It is quite a heavy unit for bushwalking. I'm tempted by the A6600 for overseas travel and bushwalking and streetwork. Eventually I might add it to the A7R3.

The A7R3 is very croppable and this is a plus, but you are already aware of this.

I'd also think about what you do with your photos eventually. If you do big prints, and I mean bigger than 16x20, then the FF is the way to go. If not doing prints of this size, APS-C should be fine.

What are your thoughts on the a7c (adding this instead of the a6600) to your gear?