Well Thanks for sharing your experience. If you had thrown away after single use, I must save my $$ and learn from you.

Dear Experts,
All of us have some kind of expertise in something that's why I writing Experts.
I am thinking to buy Neewer 35mm f/1.7 Manual Focus Prime Fixed Lens for SONY E-Mount ($80.00) for my Sony A6500 APS-C

This lens is dirt cheap compare to Zeiss and Sony Lens. I know "" you get what you pay for"" still I like to know if anyone here using or has used this lens and if they can suggest to buy this lens. I assume this lens may be better than Kit lens. Please share your experience, thoughts and professional advice with me. Good thing about A6500 it has IBIS (inbuilt image stabilization).

Sony A6500 crops sensor or A7R ii FF/crop as well. You are not going to be disappointed at all. Also you can use your Canon lenses on Sony with metabone adopter. Who knows Nikon may be out of business or Sony may end up partnering or buying Nikon camera division. Not to mention Sony A6500 and A7r ii are mirror less and very handy and easy compare to Nikon bulky body and heavy lenses.

Nikon continues to hold strong in the DSLR camera market with 39.1% market share (compared to Canon's 54.7% share). Nikon has benefited greatly by using well-regarded Sony sensors in its cameras.
Sony sensor technology is so great that company like Nikon who capture 39.1% of the DSLR market depends upon Sony sensors. I am not sure if Nikon heading towards bankruptcy but looking at the current decline in sales and loss of profits every year and limiting budget for R & D let's see how long they may sustain. I suggested Sony because if Nikon is depending on Sony sensor technology then why not just buy the Sony.
Nikon benefits from Sony's R&D by implementing their sensors in Nikon cameras. However, Nikon has done very little in terms of inventing new features on the cameras themselves. They have been slow to implement connectivity features as well as making any effort to reduce the size and weight of their gear. Sony is dumping billions of dollars into research and development of image sensors, which seems to be paying dividends. That also translates into camera sales, because they often prevent other companies from using their imaging sensors until Sony has used the sensor for 6 months in their own cameras. Your choice of camera is obviously a personal decision. But I hope that this background information can help you to make a more informed decision with your dollars.

Sony's Carl Zeiss lens image quality and sharpness I don't have to say much, I don't think so and may be others too if Nikon got the better glass compare to Sony Zeiss, of course price wise Nikon is better.

Nikon continues to hold strong in the DSLR camera market with 39.1% market share (compared to Canon's 54.7% share). Nikon has benefited greatly by using well-regarded Sony sensors in its cameras.
Sony sensor technology is so great that company like Nikon who capture 39.1% of the DSLR market depends upon Sony sensors. I am not sure if Nikon heading towards bankruptcy but looking at the current decline in sales and loss of profits every year and limiting budget for R & D let's see how long they may sustain. I suggested Sony because if Nikon is depending on Sony sensor technology then why not just buy the Sony.
Nikon benefits from Sony's R&D by implementing their sensors in Nikon cameras. However, Nikon has done very little in terms of inventing new features on the cameras themselves. They have been slow to implement connectivity features as well as making any effort to reduce the size and weight of their gear. Sony is dumping billions of dollars into research and development of image sensors, which seems to be paying dividends. That also translates into camera sales, because they often prevent other companies from using their imaging sensors until Sony has used the sensor for 6 months in their own cameras. Your choice of camera is obviously a personal decision. But I hope that this background information can help you to make a more informed decision with your dollars.

Based upon your needs and 3 years commitment please consider Sony A7r ii as well. You are not going to be disappointed at all. Also you can use your Canon lenses on Sony with metabone adopter. Who knows Nikon go out of business soon or in next couple of years but Sony going to stay many many years and Sony may end up partnering or buying Nikon camera division. Not to mention Sony A7r ii is mirror less and very handy and easy compare to Nikon bulky body and heavy lenses.

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.

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

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.

I thank you for everyone who shared their knowledge and wisdom. After pondering and keeping two vital points in consideration 1. My Budget 2. All of recommendations and feed back from group members, I decided to buy Sony A6500 instead of investing money on expensive FF body. The $$$$ I am going to save by buying Sony A6500, I will be investing in good prime Lenses. I am thinking to buy Canon prime lenses over Sony, since we all know that when it comes to lens Sony $$$ hurts and there is little to no difference in lens quality. What's your opinion about using Canon Prime lens over Sony lens. Since Sony A6500 has 5-Axis incamera stabilization so I don't have to worry about IS lens. Please share your thoughts and experience about using Canon or Sigma Lenses on Sony Body.

I thank you Repleo.
I think it will be better for me to invest in good lenses instead of body.
I appreciate your recommendation and I will go for A6500.
I am thinking to buy Canon prime lenses over Sony, since we all know that when it comes to lens Sony $$$ hurts and there is little to no difference in lens quality. What's your opinion about using Canon Prime lens over Sony lens.

Dear Sir,
The best advantage of FF over Crop sensor which so far I have figured out
The advantage goes to only and only to the manufacturer. More $$$$ in their pocket.
I like to post here few award winning pictures been taken by experienced photographer with a card-board pinhole camera. We are so spoiled and brain washed that we forgot it's 100 times much faster to multiply (32343x10) in the head rather using a calculator.
If you are planning to buy a camera and you have money to burn please buy FF it feels good to hold FF in the hands and when a semi professional gonna see a FF in your hand he may be ENVY. For me a camera is just a camera I know people in real life who shoot with a dirt cheap camera better than a FF.

I enjoy reading blogs here and most of the members are very experienced and helping.
By profession I am a Medical Imaging Specialist and perform Xrays, CT scans and MRI, I take 1000s of images everyday and I still learn everyday a new thing. Due to nature of my job I start liking Photography and with a $100 Canon point and shoot camera I really take nice pictures due to my professional background and knowledge.
I like Canon and Nikon equally because I believe a camera is just a camera doesn't matter what brand, Its the eye behind the lens which makes all the difference.

It did't took me long time to figure out that Sony Mirror-less camera has the best of the best technology.

I need advice from professionals who are using both or either of the above mentioned Sony cameras ""that why I spend $4000 for Full Frame Sony Alpha a7R II Mirror-less with 24-70 mm f/4 Lens Kit, while I may get the pretty much same results by buying $1648 Crop Sensor Sony Alpha a6500 with 16-50mm and 55-210mm Lenses Kit"" ?

Following are the reasons for buying Sony mirror-less
1) Taking a lot of indoor and outdoor pictures and videos of 7 month child
2) Frequent Pictures of Flowers, Trees and backyard Birds
3) Occasionally Family and Friends wedding and other ceremonies pictures
4) Rarely Lakes, Landscape and Travel Photography
I am not interested in Sports, Buildings, Stars and low light or night time photography.

Here most of the members are professional/experienced and your expert advice going to save me at-least $2300.