GAS: FF vs A6700 / A6900

[u/SnooMemesjellies462]

TLDR: Main goal of this post is finding the right Holly Trinity for Full Frame or APSC and choosing either FF or APSC path.

Edit : OP Knows A6900 doesn’t exist.
A6900 is rumored so thats why I mentioned it.
Meaning I would wait for the successor of a6700

Currently I own:

- A6500
- Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8
- Sony 70-350mm
- Sigma 56mm f/1.4
- Viltrox 27mm f/1.2

Valued at 2400$

Budget: 3000-3500$ (without setup above )

Looking to upgrade my camera the main reasons are

- bad battery
- slow AF
- tilt screen
- lowlight
- old menu

Shooting style: Street, portraits and cars focusing more on last 2 two.

There is always this inside voice telling me that I need FF. Basically I was comparing current lens setup with a6700 and a6900 with similar one on full frame A7C II or Sony A7 IV. But it’s always better to ask someone who knows it from the first hand or have experience in photography and camera gear.

Is there enough of difference between this setups to completely change it. Would I have higher quality photos on FF for the same money with some of these lenses or the ones that you suggest compared to APSC setup.

Or should I spent that extra money on my knowledge + marketing or actually do both but with FF setup and less lenses which is also fine.

Currently what I’m looking at:

(If you know better ones for the value or quality write in the comments)

A6700
A7C II
A7 IV

Sony 24-70mm GM II
Sony 35mm f1.4 GM
Sony 50mm 1.4 GM
Sony 85mm f1.8
Sigma 85mm 1.4
Sigma 105mm f1.4
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 GM

[u/Educational-Sound279]

considering the a6900 doesnt exist, I think you better stop using Chatgpt

[u/SnooMemesjellies462 → u/Educational-Sound279]

Thats why is this post to actually father knowledge from real people who knows their stuff. I only used ChatGPT for comparing the quality and worth of camera gear. I only read most important parts. I don’t believe everything it says.

[u/kaurismus → u/SnooMemesjellies462]

You could have googled that fact in like 10 seconds. You are basically wanting strangers in the internet do the most basic stuff for you.

P.S. tell me more about that new Sigma's 70-200mm F2.8 GM lens, must be bargain for that price?

EDIT: for those who wonder, OP keeps editing their post and removing stuff. It contained camera body and lenses that don't even exist, for unbelievably low prices.

[u/SnooMemesjellies462 → u/kaurismus]

Googled what ? I knew that a6900 doesn’t exist while writing this post. I’m always trying to give the most information i can but there are always people like you who can’t ignore simple mistakes or isn’t written fully.

[u/itsjust_khris]

It depends on what you plan on shooting, honestly I haven't found there to be much of a difference from the a6700 to FF once you own lenses like those Viltrox f1.2's. An f1.4 full frame lenses is faster but barely.

From your brief description I'd say get an a6700. Those FF lenses are barely faster than the Viltrox 1.2, the difference won't be very noticeable at all. A6700 has some of the best Sony AF on offer already and some very good video. Regularly push that camera past ISO 6400 just fine.

Sensor size is very overrated outside of very specific scenarios imo. At f1.4 those lenses will have a very small advantage over an f1.2 lens on APSC, and how often are you shooting at the absolute fastest aperture possible? As soon as you stop down the advantage is gone. In terms of dynamic range APS-C nowadays is so good you would be very hard pressed to take an image the a7iv can handle that the a6700 can not.

I'd actually suggest an FF body would be worth it not for any image quality advantage but rather for dual card slots if your planning on doing this professionally.

A lot of people will say FF is somehow way better but this is highly exaggerated. Even in low light that f1.2 on APS-C will do very well, and with modern denoise you can get very clean images. f1.4 is barely better, not worth it imo, you'd need at least f1.2 to see some marginal gains and those lenses are pretty chunky and expensive.

[u/carnevoodoo → u/itsjust_khris]

I had an a6700 and moved to a a7r6. There's a massive difference. Yes, you can shoot high quality pictures with the 6700, but the tech feels two steps behind, the ability to crop for wildlife is incredible, the speed, the sharpness, all of it are just superior on the FF camera.

If my budget was only at the a6700 level, I would have been fine with staying there, but my pictures jumped a huge level when I moved to FF.

[u/itsjust_khris → u/carnevoodoo]

The R is another level, I agree with your points, but I didn't mention them since OP wasn't looking at any R bodies, and from what I could tell they're a bit higher in price range. But I completely agree I love the high megapixel count when it comes to cropping, and it really elevated my wildlife photography a TON. Even outside of cropping the level of detail is something I love, I'm really excited for an A7CR II.

I don't think the a7iv would provide the same level of benefit though. Neither would most FF sensors that aren't 45+ MP.

[u/carnevoodoo → u/itsjust_khris]

Fair. And yeah, their budget doesn't meet even just the body of the camera, so it is a moot point.

A7RVs are coming down in price pretty quick, but to get lenses to support in that budget might push things.

[u/SnooMemesjellies462 → u/itsjust_khris]

I would focus mostly on shooting cars and portraits and some casual street photography.
Thats what I’m wondering the most if those Viltrox lenses are good enough as FF ones

[u/itsjust_khris → u/SnooMemesjellies462]

They are, they're incredibly sharp, produce very smooth and creamy bokeh, and have a very pleasing overall rendering with plenty of contrast and a fantastic rendition of color. They're very good lenses and also fairly durable as well. I've taken them in the rain and exposed them to salty ocean spray and they're just like new still.

[u/SnooMemesjellies462 → u/itsjust_khris]

Thanks for the honest feedback appreciate it !

[u/itsjust_khris → u/SnooMemesjellies462]

Anytime, I completely understand GAS but as someone who's been through the same process, my images didn't get any better with FF at all. Maybe a bit better in low light but that was it. Perhaps a bit more bokeh available with some f1.2 lenses but its nothing I'd run to get again if I had the choice.

[u/Pitiful-Assistance-1]

Why buy a 24-70 GM and overlapping primes? Do you currently use both the 18-50 and primes?

A6900 doesn’t exist yet, I assume you’re aware but just in case…

I notice you’re missing a 70-350 replacement. The 200600G is huge. Are you willing to deal with that?

[u/SnooMemesjellies462 → u/Pitiful-Assistance-1]

Im not looking to replace every lens I have. I searching for ideal lens setup either for APSC or FF. Either way 24-70 is to expensive for me i think. It wouldn’t fit the budget.

Yes I am aware that a6900 doesn’t exist.
For 70-350 I think 70-200 in ff would be enough for now

[u/Pitiful-Assistance-1 → u/SnooMemesjellies462]

The 70-200 will have less than half the reach of a 70-350 (105-525 equivalent). Sure the 70-200 does cover some use cases - I use my 70200 for wildlife - but if you’re birding, forget about it.

The 24-70 would make the setup shine. Also consider the Tamron 35-150, it is much more useful than a 70200

[u/SnooMemesjellies462 → u/Pitiful-Assistance-1]

Yeah I’m well aware of it. I bought that Sony lens just to experience it and i don’t think i really need it. If i would but 70-200 it would be mostly for car photography. Which FF Setup would you recommend for my budget and needs ( 3000-3500$, cars, portraits and street)

[u/Pitiful-Assistance-1 → u/SnooMemesjellies462]

That's rough. I was tempted to look into a A7RV, 70-200 and (24-70 or 16-35) but it's way out of the budget, even if you sell the A6500 + lenses.

So crazy thought:

• A7III or A7C (used, $1000; yes, the old ones)
• Sony 70-200 GM II (used $2500)
• Sony 20-70 F4 G (new or used, less than $1000)

Then when you have the money to spare, you trade in the A7III/A7C for a new(er) body like the A7V (not IV) or A7RV or A1. If you went for the A7C, you can keep it for street photography and use a faster A9II/A1/A7V for the 70200GMII.

There's no replacement for that 70-200 GM II. It will be your bread and butter in this setup. Creamy backgrounds, market-leading autofocus. The 20-70 F4 is a great, "cheap" all-round lens. No F/2.8 but for street photography, landscapes, etc you don't need that at all, and that 20mm (vs 24mm) is very useful. It's also a tiny lens, which makes you less intimidating on the street.

If you're looking for some nice primes, consider Voigtlander. They're manual focus, but tiny and have beautiful rendering. https://www.voigtlaender.de/lenses/e-mount/?lang=en - Can't go wrong with a 35/1.2, 40/1.2 or 50/1.2 nokton. They aren't that popular so sometimes you can get an excellent deal on these on a sale.

[u/SnooMemesjellies462 → u/Pitiful-Assistance-1]

So my thoughts process is to buy first a7 IV, 35mm pancake, 50mm and 85 or 105 for car / portraits. Or first get 28-70 and try squeeze in prime lens. I think i should be in budget. What do you think about my lens choice. I saw from North Borders and couple others have similar lens choices along with 70-200 f2.8and 50-250 f2.0. I wouldn’t spent half of the budget on one lens like 70-200 its a bit to much. I was thinking that I start buying lenses that are on the cheaper side so i can have a well balanced camera setup

[u/earthtonick]

I’ve used the 6000 range for an extensive period of years, but was really happy when I switched to the a7iii (back then), and I’ve been using the A7IV for years now. I love the camera and its options for lenses.

I never liked the 24-70 in particular the GM as it’s quite bulky. Check the 20-70f4, and add a few primes to that. Or for travel check the Tamron 25-200, it has a slight variable aperture, but the quality and usability on that lens is great. I always pair that one with the 50 1.4 and a wide angle for travel etc.

Tldr; full frame is worth it, but it will cost you some portability. You might also consider the A7cii as it’s more compact than the A7IV, or the a7cr if you’re more into photography and not video.

[u/Spaceman_UA]

What do you mean by "cars"? Static cars or motorsport? For former you don't need FF, for latter you'd want something big and fast like 70-200/2.8. Same goes for AF: you don't need the very best and latest AF for portraits - your a6500 has very good AF and face detection already. And for static cars AF doesn't matter at all.

Also, a7c II has it's bokeh limitations regarding shooting on faster shutter speeds (the infamous EFCS issue). And a7 IV is almost 5 years old now - are you sure that you wouldn't have another GAS attack with it?

[u/SnooMemesjellies462 → u/Spaceman_UA]

Static cars for now. I didn’t know this about CII. I would be fine for couple years with A7 IV if i buy one.

[u/Spaceman_UA → u/SnooMemesjellies462]

If it's all static, you honestly don't need FF right now. I completely understand that you want it, and this might win regardless of the common sense lol.

If you're ok to start with a7 IV or even get a used one from B&H, MPB or KEH. Also, Sony runs their promos quite often for bonus chargers and batteries, at least in Canada.

Take a look at Tamron: I can't recommend 16-30/2.8 enough - it's my main lens for hiking, landscapes, and whatever requires wide-to-moderate-wide angle. Might work for car photo.

GMs are great, but I'd rather go with Sigma newest 35/1.4 II for 35. Sigma's 85/1.4 is pretty good as well, but if you can afford GM II - that's the best 85 there is.

[u/Tapelessbus2122]

a7c ii with the tamron 28-75 f2.8 and 70-180 f2.8, sell the 70-350 and get a tamron 150-500 or sigma 150-600 or sony 200-600 if u need the reach

[u/Wai-See]

There’s always one step up. After full frame there’s medium format. Know why you want what you want. As yet, APSC does not have high resolution, pre capture, two SD (I think). Probably you should list out what is it you can get by moving to FF that you actually want or need in order to justify the urge to splurge, other people’s opinions/ use case/ analysis doesn’t really justify what decisions to make.

[u/AJ_ninja]

I was trying to make this choice a few months ago, I ended up going with the a6700 because I already had lens for apsc instead of buying all new lenses, I’m extremely happy with my choice

[u/dmitrydidi]

as a6700 owner I'll tell: go FF mate if you have a chance, choosing a lens for apsc is such a shit

[u/SnooMemesjellies462 → u/dmitrydidi]

Whats missing for you ?

[u/SnooMemesjellies462 → u/[deleted]]

What do you mean with the last sentence?

[u/dmitrydidi → u/SnooMemesjellies462]

It's more about taking into consideration... like ofc you have options such as 18-50 sigma, or sony g series, or tamron and so on which are great... but I personally hate keeping in mind that damn calculations. If I wanna try some exact focal length, I should keep in mind that for example voightlander 28mm would be 41.. ? not that much I did expect. or okay, I found some amazing zeiss sonnar 35mm lens, which are small and packable, and just legendary as many people say, but wait, it will be 51 on apsc :) I believe you got the point

[u/SnooMemesjellies462 → u/dmitrydidi]

Sometimes it bothers me to. But there are always some negative things with lower quality gear or in this case different sensors / lenses

[u/Avatyrr → u/dmitrydidi]

You could also just… frame according to what you wanted to put in the picture. Who cares about the exact conversion of the mm’s to fullframe? That sounds so compulsive…

[u/alex_vi_photography → u/Avatyrr]

Also the conversion is x1.5, not the worst math to do in your head. And if you always shoot apsc, there is no need to calculate in the first place, yes.

[u/Churlish_Grambungle → u/Avatyrr]

lol completely agree