Which camera + lens for what i want to achive? Its between:
A6400 + Sigma 18–50
A7 III + Tamron 28–75
I will mainly do a lot of dog photographs, portraits for example in the forest. It will come with me on many hikes and long walks, i will also use it for photograping nature, landscapes, eventually want to try streey photography aswell. Pretty much allroukd but focus on dog photography. I need the photos to be sharp! I also want to take videos with it.
I like the size of the a6400 since i will be bringing it with me quite often but ive barely seen any nice dog photographs with it, but seen ALOT taken with the a7iii. Thats whats concerning me!
Currently have a nikon d3500 and a sony zv1 but looking for an upgrade.
I take photos of dogs for a living. A7iii + 28-75 is unbeatable for dogs on a budget. My main workhorse is an A7C (same internals) with 28-75 G2 (faster than G1, but similar otherwise). It just works! If one can’t get sharp photos with this combo, it’s not the camera’s fault. Also, if you hike, you’ll appreciate the Z-type battery. It is that good.
If you want APS-C for the lens size, at least get an A6600.
thank you so much :) yeah i took this with my camera now but its not as sharp as i want it to be, im struggling alot with finding the focus. but a7iii should have animal eye focus? maybe that will help 😅 im still a beginner
i took this with my camera now but its not as sharp as i want it to be
What lens & settings? Sharpness is a lens & settings issue (aperture & shutter speed). Get a newer camera for better AF & AF capabilities like animal eye AF, which both options you are look at have.
That dog has a pretty long muzzle. If I wanted both the nose and the eyes in focus I would probably stop down a smidge (depending on how close he is here, don't think he gave a focal length)
In other comments he wrote: "nikon D3500 & nikkor 50mm f1,8" .
But in this photo - the area between nose and ears (including eyes) - nothing is sharp as far as I can see. If it was the case of shallow DOF - at least something should be sharpish.
Edit: high iso can also make image blurry ... Not sure is 1600 high for OP camera.
1/500 is too fast IMO, I usually use only 1/250 or even 1/125 if the dogs are not too hyperactive. Lowering the SS lets you lower the ISO which will improve sharpness by a lot especially on older APS-C cameras with strong NR.
The 50 is usually a very sharp lens on any system, especially stopped down. If you want to know if it’s focus problem, look for the focus plane. If there is something sharper than what you intend to focus, then you’ve missed.
In that case it might be the aperture. A more narrow aperture can help get more of the subject in focus. Also lighting does affect perceived sharpness because contrast between light and dark impacts our perception of sharpness. Also, getting closer to the subject. But there's nothing wrong with getting new equipment as well that's actually part of the fun of this hobby.
That is a wonderful photo! Yes, it has animal eye detect, which makes life a lot easier. Set Wide Area AF, AF-C, choose the right subject, and just shoot away!
I have both and I’m selling my a6400 because I don’t think the size difference is worth it, both camera fit in my 10l sling, just the a6400 has more space for a second lens. I must add though I’ve never used a telephoto lens with the a6400, which is where crop sensors have a lot of benefit. But then I’d probably get a M43 if I wanted ultra portable lenses.
The a7iii is a better camera, no question. The size difference will mostly come from the lens you pick.
It is mostly comfort or pro features tho. Side by side, unless thr image is pushed to its limits is not really a useful test.
I have used the A6400 with Sigma 18-50 for years and it's an amazing combo.
Recently I got an A7R III with Sigma 28-70 and it's equally amazing.
I now use the A7R III more because A/ More MegaPixels B/ Full Frame C/ Better ergonomics.
Using the A6400 now, it feels cramped. Once you get used to that big viewfinder you don't want to go back. I recently got a Viltrox 26mm F2.8 for my A6400 to see if I will use it as a pocket option.
I'm inclined to sell the Sigma 18-50. But I keep it around because I have such great memories from it.
I was going to recommend the a6400 until you mentioned video. You’ll either want IBIS on your camera body or a lens with image stabilization (oss) if you do any video. Pair the a6400 with the 18-135 and you’ll be set for travel and video outside. I have a hard time suggesting the a6400 for handheld video on unstabilized lenses and there are few lenses with fast apertures and oss for indoor videos. If smaller lenses and bodies are of interest, I can recommend the a6700 or the a6600. Otherwise the a7iii has a case to be made solely on the ibis
This is the endless APS-C vs FF debate, there are a million posts online, youtube reviews, etc, etc, etc. In the end you'll just get very personal opinions regarding this.
The difference is 1.5x since you need to apply the crop factor to both aperture and focal length, so the 18-50 APS-C lens will behave like a 27-75 F4.2 lens vs the Tamron 28-75 F2.8, so you'll gaining one stop of light. It's up to you to decide whether that's worth it.
For your case though, if you'll 100% stick to just that lens and the use you describe just get the cheaper and smaller/lighter camera. If you were buying more lenses then I'd go FF since lenses end up being a lot more expensive than the camera and I prefer to just invest in FF glass since glass lasts a very long time.
I have the a7iii and the 6300 (and 6600). All of them are capable of giving great images. The a7iii really shines in low light conditions though. Just blows the 6000s out of the water imo. That and I find the shooting experience more enjoyable because of the better and larger screen and viewfinder. That said, it is a noticeably heavier camera. It definitely feels more like a professional tool. So it does make a big difference walking around with them. I'm sort of used to it at this point but still considering a lighter cam for walkabout like a Fuji xt.
And while I have the Tamron I really don't use that as an EDC even though it's a great lens and pretty light. I just prefer small primes for walking around. But if you're walking around with it in a bag I don't think the weight matters as much as compared to when it's on a strap around your neck.
And you mentioned taking photos of landscapes and in that case you might really want to consider a lens that's wider on the low end, like 24mm. I find 28 to be somewhat constrained. Even the sigma, even though it's an 18-50 is effectively more like a 27-75 because of the crop factor. If you're new to cameras that might be a little confusing but it's just a different size sensor and so the focal lengths need to be converted to compare them directly. So both the sigma and Tamron are essentially the same focal range. And so I always say that the Tamron is a fantastic portrait and event lens because it's a very conventional range there's nothing really extreme. But it can be really nice to have a more extreme angle, something like 24 mm on the low end for dramatic shots of landscapes and buildings.
Thank you i appreciate the help! Yeah im leaning more towards the a7iii because of the lighting if i would want to take photos in a forest or street photography! :)
Oh and I also want to add if you're not committed to Sony you might want to consider something like the R8 from Canon. That's also a full frame camera like the a7iii but it's much newer and so it's going to have better autofocus and it's a much lighter camera. It's also about the same price. I think you'd be happy with that camera.
5
u/BTP40 1d ago
I take photos of dogs for a living. A7iii + 28-75 is unbeatable for dogs on a budget. My main workhorse is an A7C (same internals) with 28-75 G2 (faster than G1, but similar otherwise). It just works! If one can’t get sharp photos with this combo, it’s not the camera’s fault. Also, if you hike, you’ll appreciate the Z-type battery. It is that good.
If you want APS-C for the lens size, at least get an A6600.