shakeelcre

Thank you Repleo and I try to get good Prime lenses 35mm 1.4 or 1.8, 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 and a 100mm
As I mentioned earlier I like to use all the techniques and tricks instead of just zooming in and out and shooting on Auto, That's not going to get me anywhere in photography.
For me It's a challenge to prove that a good hands on and by using proper technique and good prime lens one photographer can produce the images much better than a FF camera.
In my profession, daily I have to capture 100's of the images of human anatomy in a very high quality manner so a Radiologist can see high resolution images and read the xray, if quality is compromised or sub standard he may miss the diagnoses. By applying the ideas and techniques of Radiography I am sure I will be able to produce FF quality images.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

It's good that you have chosen to purchase high quality lenses, regardless of the manufacturer. While I appreciate your in-depth knowledge of Radiology, your skill set will not negate the advantages of FF (you can't negate physics with knowledge), and while primes are incrementally sharper than modern zooms, what will actually help you compensate for the poorer high ISO/low light performance of a crop body is the typically larger maximum aperture of primes, which translates to the ability to shoot at lower ISOs, reducing noise, but that assumes that you can live with the smaller DOF that wide aperture implies. Neither your skill nor the quality of your lens can negate the resolution advantage of the A7R2 (as a previous post referencing DXOmark tests notes), but less cropping may help.

gitithadani

I have the a7r and a6500 - both sensor sizes have their advantages. I am amazed at the quality of a6500. I bought it for the video but found that even for stills it takes great images. I have a lot of manual primes - mainly some excellent vintage glass and they perform really well on both sony sensors. I also got the sony 18-105 and its an excellent lens. The stabilization means one can go down at very low shutter speeds. I tend to use the FF for wider ranges and the crop for longer. The advantage of the crop sensor is lighter and smaller native lenses.

shakeelcre

You have a very legit and strong point, for my needs and my current setup I may not suffer from low light situation Luckily my house is very well lighted since it was a model home so builder had installed commercial grade lights almost in every room except bathroom :)
Also lot of windows and ample sunlight during the day. Most of my pictures will be either inside the house or in back yard and once a while wedding etc I am sure picture quality will not be compromised. Again may be not as sharp and as crispy when comparing to FF but may be close enough. It may feel good to spend $3500 for the whole mini studio and getting great quality images compare to spending $6 to 7000 on a FF body and lenses. Also investing $$$ on a good Post Processing software quality can be enhanced magically :). What you think

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

You are asking good questions. Why not ask or PM Cholly, he's our resident self appointed Sony expert.

gitithadani

To be honest the a6500 has more pixel density so am not sure how much more sharpness the FF will give. Its more that FF gives a wider angle. When I first got the a7r the crop sensor that I was using was the canon eos-m (18mp) and the difference was very perceptible. Later however when I started using the nx 500 with a BSI sensor(28mp) and without aa filter I could hardly see the difference - it was more about the lens and sensor combination. 135mm2.5 becoming 200 on the crop sensor and hence producing a beautiful bokeh at that focal range - and much lighter. I too had to make the same decision whether to update to the a7r2 or get the a6500 for the ibis and video. Personally I'm very happy with the a6500 as they have upgraded the sensor's light gathering capacity and a smaller sensor is easier to stabilize. Touch focus is also a feature that I use extensively both for manual and native lenses. The 2 native lenses that I have are 18-105/f4 and 50/1.8 and they work better than the canon lenses. (I used canon earlier). The reason being that sony has calibrated these lenses to work with the design of the camera as hybrid - both still and video. For me the extra stabilization is very useful and the direct manual focus is far superior to the canon lenses that I worked with. For FF the native lenses are much heavier and far more expensive and really in my opinion not worth what you pay for if one is prepared to work manually - whereas the native crop sensor lenses are affordable and give a good optical quality along with the electronic features. I picked up both lenses in almost new condition for 500$

Ob1 Loc: Utah

I have both cameras and have shot with both Sony and Canon lens. You will need the adapter to shoot with Canon and they work well but you don't get all of the functionality of the camera lens combination. I don't believe your premise is correct that Sony lens are lacking. The test I have done and images I have taken are very good and the extra features make them exceptional. The 6500 with the new 70-200 2.8 is an in beatable combination and then add the 24-70 2.8 to it and you are set. I use the Canon 100-400 ll for wildlife. The 18-105 is a fantastic video lens. Good luck.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I think it's surprising how low indoor light levels are even in what appear to be well lighted rooms. A couple of cases in point. My son recently got married and had the reception in a very well lighted major reception hall, and the lights were on full brightness (no flash allowed). Both the professional photographer (who was shooting a pair of Nikon D750s) and I (shooting a Canon 5D3) were shooting at ISOs ranging from 6400-10,000. I was typically at 1/160-1/200 with an 85mm F1.8 prime at anywhere from wide open to f3.5. I had a 24-105 f4L zoom with me (which would have been preferable) but changed to the F1.8 prime because the f4 would have required an ISO of 12,800 or higher. The noise was not objectionable, but I think it would have been with a crop. A week later, I attended a party/picking session with some professional musicians at a house with normal indoor lighting - again a flash would not have been appropriate. And again, I left my better quality Ls in the bag and shot with my 85 F1.8 which again required an ISO from 6400 - 10,000. I could give more examples, but for me at any rate, this is pretty typical of what I see indoors at night, even with good ambient light. If you can't use a flash, need a reasonable shutter speed (for children or moving adults) and a depth of field more than 6-12", then fast glass and a body that has decently low noise at ISOs at or above 6400 are required; and when you need that to get the shot, the weight and expense of FF suddenly isn't as important as the difference between excellent and mediocre results. Just my opinion, and your shooting conditions may be different...

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

The Sony A7r3 is on the horizon. I don't know what extras it will have. I've read articles that the Sony A6500 is excellent for video. The Panasonic GH4 and GH5 are considered excellent for video as well. Mirrorless cameras have now risen to the occasion.

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

I'm somewhat odd man out here. I have not seen any need for the 35mm equivalent sensor for my photography. I shoot all the things in your four categories, plus a little sports, a grandchild and the moon. I process everything and then send it out for printing at 16x24, 20x30 or occasionally just 11x14; Even more rarely 30x40 with the help of ON1's Perfect Resize. The aps-c sensor does a fine job. I could crop a little more in the computer if I used the larger sensor, but usually I do quite well getting things right before pushing the button. I shoot an a6300 or a backup body, a6000. The a6500 does have a few advances, but not enough for me to go there. (I probably will buy the next version because it will do everything and bring me coffee in bed besides.) The only thing missing, for me, is a dual sdcard slot so I could have a backup card. Otherwise, Sony has done a great job. (As has Fuji) I've now had two shows of my work. So, while I'm not a pro, I am a reasonably decent photographer.

shakeelcre

Thank you Gitithidani, I appreciate you feedback, your are very right about the native lenses. Honestly bigger is not always better in my opinion its just waste of money. After a certain limit our eyes can't see the difference in high quality attributes even if Eyes may differentiate brain would not perceive. I will keep in my mind your feedback about buying native lenses. I believe with the right light, right lens and right technique a good photographer can produce a high quality picture with any Body either FF, Med Format or APS-C.

Cos1

The Sony A6500 takes great pictures. I have one with an 18-135 lense and I love it.

cymmgarcia Loc: Planet Earth

Time to resurrect this very old and wise thread.
I too am at a crossroads regarding cameras.
Having recently acquired the RX10M4 with it's Amazing Zoom has motivated me to sell all my long zoom lenses.
I've decided to acquire only one Sony ILC Body for only Prime Lens use.

So here's the question...

A6500 with Zeiss 24f18 or A7rii with Zeiss 35f28.

BTW .. I also have the Sony 10-18mm f4 which I here can do double duty on the A7rii

So I would appreciate your insight on this decision

repleo Loc: Boston

It sounds like you have already decided that the RX10 will be your main camera so the second one will be for special occasions or for lightness. If for ‘special’ occasions I would go with the A7rii. For lightness the A6500. I love my A6000 and 24f18 but it doesn’t really compare with my A7rii (now A7riii). Having the 10-18 would clinch it for the A7rii since you have the option to shoot in crop mode with more than enough pixels.

cymmgarcia Loc: Planet Earth

Hi Repleo,

That is correct that the the RX10M4 will be my main everyday, birding and travel camera.

I used to own the original a7s and loved that combo with the 10-18mm,
especially that I could use it in Full Frame 12mm for super-wide pics, but it lacked in megapixel;
therefore, I've always contemplated the A7rii for that lens.

Now your combo is special too as that Zeiss 24 on the the a6000 also gives great near-macro performance
in a very small and light!

One thing I will say is that I also like my Sony Playmemories Apps and have zero plans to move to any new Sony camera as they have eliminate that functionality.

I did make an Apps Exception by picking the RX10M4 over the RX10M3 because of the vastly improved auto focus performance.