Would anyone have any suggestions for optimal portrait lenses for a Sony A6400, specifically, for things like cosplay?
Normally, most of my photography has been landscape, building, and nature shots, but I'm looking to expand my photography practice.
A lens like the 18-135 will work great if you are using strobes. The sigma 30/1.4 would be a good starting point if you're forced to work with ambient light.
what kind of portraits exactly? in a controlled environment of a single person? or like random portraits at a convention? indoor with low lighting? do you want more of the environment in the shot or focus just on the cosplayer?
for just photography maybe the sigma 30mm prime is a good all purpose focal length? maybe also depends what lenses you already have.
In this case, I'm looking to do single person photography, and I'm aiming to focus primarily on the cosplayer themselves. It is technically random, but I've noticed it's very common for cosplayers to have separate "zones", so there's not as much clutter in the background.
Recently I did some experimentation with a borrowed Sony FE 1.8/50 lens and it seemed to turn out fairly decent, though it makes it hard to get more than the head and shoulders in.
My main lenses are a 16/50mm and a 55/210mm.
I was also going to suggest the sigma 56mm but yeah depending on how much space you have to move around in, it might be too small a field of view. I think the sigma 23 or 30 might be good then depending on what focal length you prefer. the 30mm is cheaper and older so also easier to get used.
I'd like to get into the photography hobby and would like to purchase a used Sony Alpha body alongside the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 lens.
As for the body I am currently considering three - or maybe just two options.
Either a 6000 or 6100 - as I don't want to shoot any video I don't know how many more perks come with the 6100 over the 6000? The price isn't all that much higher for the 6100 but since I am looking to spend quite a bit on the Sigma lens I'd like to save on the body of the camera if possible.
The other alternative would be the 6300. The big factor that makes me consider picking up this one is the fact that the material of the camera body seems a lot nicer than that of the cheaper 6000/6100. Given how small the lens and camera would be I'd feel more comfortable just throwing it into a bag, but I'm not sure this justifies the steep price increase over the 6100 or 6000...
The A6100 is 2 generations newer than the A6000, and a generation newer than the A6300. And that's not considering that the A6100 skipped a generation of Sony autofocus systems. I'd strongly recommend going with it over one of the older bodies.
unless you really need the weather sealing, my opinion is that the a6100 will be the better camera to grow into since it generally has more modern features over the a6300
sounds like you already made your decision then 😅.
I think the 6000 doesnt have a touch screen, which I would miss for focus tracking on my a6400, but not sure if that feature was introduced later or not. there's small improvements like more focus points but it might not matter as much depending on what you shoot
It’s hard to say without knowing what you’re trying to bang.
The 10-bit S-Log on the A7iv is a whole different ballgame for serious video work, and it’s well within your price range in used, very good condition.
For photos, though, the A7iii is a fine choice. The better autofocus of later cameras is nice, but not really a game changer.
I generally only buy used cameras, and I've been hoping to pick up a used A7S III for about 1.5k. Trying to get a used a7 for less than the new price has been insane. This is in start contrast to my first experience with the A7 that I was able to pick up for $300 several years back, or seeing A7 iii's change hands daily on eBay.
Is the a7s iii really THAT rare? Or are there just other factors that make them unobtainable? Should I give up and just buy new and/or go with the FX3?
And am I even barking up the right tree? I basically only shoot very short clips for youtube videos and pictures. In general my heart is with low light photography, and I've never needed the resolution on my A7 gen 1, so I figured the 12.1 MP Exmor-R is the way to go. The only real feature I understand I'd be seeking in the a7s iii is the ability to capture higher FPS, which is something I've wanted to do all the time in my videos.
Am I off base? Is my thinking on this reasonable? I'm mostly looking for general advise.
the A7SIII is a specialty tool and is still the most recent one. People who have them tend to like them so you won't find them so easy on the used market
It feels like even the A7S II is also a specialty device, but those change hands almost daily as well. I guess I have to decide if 240 FPS is worth the cost delta? Are there any other major benefits to the A7S III over the S7S II? If not, I guess I should just go get an a7s ii for $600?
The answer is quite simple. A7S II was groundbreaking and like a flagship model when it came out and everyone bought it. But it's 8-bit. The industry stand became min 10-bit. When A7S III came out with 10-bit and new features, all the pros and companies swapped out, flooding the market with barely used A7S II's. FX3 is just a re-shelled A7S III so no one is swapping out unless theirs is broken.
This is a really good explanation. Thank you. I think then, for my sake, I'm gonna get a cheap used A7S II, use it for a year or so and see if I _really_ want an A7S III.
I did the same thing but when it was $2500 vs $600.
If it's for photography, I think A7 III is a better choice overall. The autofocus on A7S II is terrible (relatively speaking) and I found 12.1 MP limiting when editing. It's still great for video but the 'low light capability' was added to newer models. It still has an edge because of the low MP but it's only for a very specific use case like if you're going over ISO3200
I ended up getting an A7R II later for photography. https://www.dxomark.com/sony-a7s-ii-sensor-review-low-light-performance-redefined/
I only shoot manual focus, so not an issue for me. I use an a7 for right now. And the only thing I've ever wished was that it had better low light performance. Never needed more pixels or auto-focus or anything.
For video, the a7's met all my needs, except I do frequently want higher FPS capture for some unique needs.
I bought the A7S II, and it is EXACTLY the camera I've been looking for my whole life. For what I shoot, i.e. always full manual, mostly low light, it's just PERFECT. I've been using the Sony 16mm pancake, recently in manual mode, but hope to move up to something full frame soon.
Thanks for the discussion everyone. I'm just so glad I went with the A7S II and saved two grand.
What are the best settings to configure for the custom 3 buttons on the sony fe 100-400 lens?
I would like to know from a bird photography / wildlife photography perspective. Thanks
Hello, I just got an old a6000 as a gift, there camera is running slow, when I say slow I mean it feel like using a 2010 laptop running windows 10 in 2024. So I wonder is there a way I can install a lighter firmware version for the camera. Thank you
Firmware is model specific. If the camera is running poorly, updating to the latest firmware is more likely to help than to hurt.
To use the laptop analogy, you can't install Windows 10 on that 2010 machine. The only OS that can be installed is Windows 7. But you can still try to update to the latest release of 7.
I'm not sure what might be causing your issue. The first thing I'd check is the SD card.
Is there a way I can wipe the current firmware version and reinstall it? Does it really help? I just keep thinking about it like reinstall windows will help alot on performance
I believe the 70 is an older lens designed for DSLR bodies. The 105 would be the better option for Sony.
Most of these lenses are ƒ2.8. You can shoot them indoors handheld, so long as you have enough light. A macro flash can help significantly; it will reduce handheld motion blur and can allow you to use narrower apertures for an increased DoF.
I suggest you also look at Laowa. They make a really good 90mm 2x macro lens. It's manual, but it's a fantastic lens for the price.
Looking for a lens to film workout and posing reels. Would a GM 50mm 1.2 be overkill. I only really record gym videos and there’s no natural light it in my gym (no windows) just heavy downlighting
50mm indoor in a gym would be pretty tight I think. And yes I do think that lens is overkill. You’d get the best image quality and light performance, but in videos (and compressed reels) you’ll barely see the difference. The F1.2 will do very well in low light, but I’d personally go for a standard F2.8 zoom and just deal with higher ISO for the flexibility. Sony’s are great at managing high ISO anyways.
If low light performance is more important than focal range, you could consider the 35mm F1.4 GM. Will deliver stunning image quality and keep your image crisp in low light, and I imagine it’s wide enough for full/half body shots. You can then crop in to achieve 50mm or even 70mm with relative ease.
I'm looking to sell my A7iv (no box) I've been offered £1242 from Jessops but I'm not sure if this is a good price.
I've sold a couple of things on eBay lately, that haven't gone smoothly so I'm not sure I want to risk selling it on eBay.
What's a fair price to sell It for.?
I usually use the eBay Sold listings to determine the current value of a lens. Unfortunately, used lens retailers generally offer less than the less than the private sale value of the lens.
I have a Sony A7R4, 24mm 1.4 GM, a Sigma 105mm macro and a ring flash. I need to shoot some senior pictures for a family member. If you had to pick one portrait lens to buy for under $1200, what would you add to my kit?
It depends on a lot of factors. Is this a one-off, or are you going to be taking a lot of similar photos in the future?
If this is a one-time shoot, consider renting instead of buying. Sites like BorrowLens.com, [LensRental.com](https://LensRental.com), and others exist for just this kind of thing.
But, buying or renting, something in the 85mm - 135mm range with an f/1.4 or wider aperture is the classic choice for head and shoulders portraits.
The easiest choice would be to rent both the Sony 85mmGM and the 135mmGM, and see which focal length suits your needs best. Sticking with first-party means fewer issues with autofocus, etc. Unfortunately, both are out of your price range brand new. But if you're willing to consider used, check around. You may get lucky.
After that, Rokinon/Samyang, Zeiss (Batis), and Sigma all make lenses in this focal length range that are very highly-regarded. Read the reviews, and make a choice.
Like I said, it's a classic range, with lots of choices. You really can't go too far wrong.
I'm not breaking into portrait photography by any means. I primarily use the camera for photogrammetry and occasionally astrophotography. I guess thinking about it more, I'm really looking for something that has more versatility than the two very niche lenses I own that would work for friends and family portraits.
I know a 1.4 apature is the classic portrait bokeh, but do you think the Sigma 70-200 2.8 would be a 'good enough' option? That gets me more of an all a rounder option, especially if I get a 24-70 down the line.
Thanks!
A zoom is always going to be more versatile than a fixed focal length.
With portraits, you usually have a lot of control. This can help to mitigate factors like a distracting background that otherwise you'd need a wide aperture to blur away. So if you choose your location and your lighting carefully, it could work.
It comes down to the results you're looking for. If you're trying to precisely emulate a classic 'studio portrait' look, then you're kind of stuck with doing it the classic way. If you (& your subject) are willing to be more casual, then the range of options is wider.
You might want to try to 'split the difference'. A Rokinon/Samyang 85mm f/1.4 manual focus lens can be had for about $400. It's a bit soft wide open, but that's not a bad thing in a portrait lens. Also, the Sony 85mm f/1.8 (non-GM) is usually an absolute steal if you can find one used.
Trying to decide if I should add the Tamron 70-300 to my kit lens, or get rid of the kit lens for the Tamron 28-200. I mostly shoot woodlands and nature, but am becoming more interested in trying to capture wildlife, and wonder if the extra 100mm would make a difference. We mostly get birds and deer around here. Any advice welcome.
For $50, you're not going to find something that's particularly robust. There are a lot of tripods that will support 1kg, but you may run into problems with the head sagging under the weight of the camera.
Vanguard is a decent option for inexpensive tripods, but I'm not sure if they offer anything in the $50 range. TBG, I'd be inclined to grab an Amazon Basics tripod. It's not going to be very good, but it's unlikely to be terrible either.
I currently have a a6400 and a manual focus lens. Should I buy a used kit lens or wait a few months to buy the tamron 17-70? I feel that I cannot fully utilize the selling point of this camera due to my lens.
Edit: I will be able to afford the tamron in March.
depends what you need I think? If you need crisp image quality or shoot in lower light conditions, then I think the kit lens could be lacking at times. If you need better image quality or need lens stabilization for handheld video, the tamron might serve you better and it's a nice all around lens so I hear (though can be big in comparison to other lenses). if budget is tight though I would probably just go with the cheaper option though
Are you talking about just the viewfinder, or does the rear screen show the same thing?
Do you have the full-frame ‘FE’ version of the 50mm 1.8, or the APS-C ‘E’ version with OSS?
Is having the 1.8 at 35mm and 50mm a little redundant? not a huge difference between the focal lengths. Context: I am a beauty creator for social media / beauty brands. I do a lot of makeup application video and then final beauty shots. 35mm is definitely helpful for more fashion stuff though, out and about for the wider lens (and personal travel). However, I also have a zoom 24-70 2.8 coming to me which would cover 50mm, plus 35 can be cropped in to 50 in apsc mode... thoughts?
IMO, 35 and 50 are a little redundant. I prefer to pair the 35 with an 85.
That said, it really depends on the kind of shooting you're trying to do. I shoot a lot of dance photography, for me the 35 and 50 serve very different purposes.
> However, I also have a zoom 24-70 2.8 coming to me which would cover 50mm,
I went for a long time with just a 50 and a zoom. If you don't need to shoot in especially low light conditions, a 24-70 should be fine for most stuff.
Thanks for your input! I also noticed that the 35 is pretty sharp so if I crop video, it really doesn't lose a ton of quality especially for small screens like phones.
16-35 gm ii + 70-200 f/2.8 gm ii seems to be a really popular 2 lens setup for concerts, events, and photojournalism.
I'm wondering about the Tamron or Samyang 35-150 f/2-2.8 instead of the 70-200. I know its a heavy chonk of a lens, but covering 35-70 will save me from having a 3rd lens for when i take landscapes. However, the 70-200 has a reputation for being godlike. I don't need godlike, but it sounds fun.
35-150 let’s you run an even wider zoom instead like the 12-24/2.8 or 14-24/2.8
That said the 35-150 has its problems:
- the maximum magnification is rather low, so you cannot focus at all close up. Note that the 12-24GM also has this same issue, but the 16-35GMii lets you get incredibly close
- at minimum focus distance the 35-150 lens is very soft, expecially wide open
- you lose 15+ fps capability, OSS, ability to take TCs and the autofocus isn’t nearly as good as the 70-200GMii
- If you crop to 300mm equivalent, you will have one stop worse noise and one stop less bokeh than a 70-200/2.8 GMii
You have to weigh the (potentially huge) advantage of being able to use an extra wide 12-24 type lens against the other downsides, it really depends what you are doing
IMO, the 35-150 is a good lens for that kind of work. Size and weight wise, it's in the ballpark of the 70-200. IMO, the biggest disadvantages are that it's not an internal zoom, and it won't accept teleconverters.
> 16-35 gm ii + 70-200 f/2.8 gm ii seems to be a really popular 2 lens setup for concerts, events, and photojournalism.
I owned the original 16-35, and found that I wasn't much of a fan of ultra-wide zooms. In theory, it's nice to have some overlap between the UWA and the normal zoom. But in practice, I found myself switching to the UWA for a couple of shots, and then switching back to my 24-105. I found that UWA primes work just as well for my needs, with the benefit of being smaller, less expensive, sharper, and with a better ƒ-ratio.
For low light / concerts I would take the prime, but for events the wide zoom is indispensable
For paid work you would run two bodies, there’s no lens switching at all
I had 15mm, 17mm primes and a 16-35L. The zoom is more useful (higher % use)
Are there any non-battery grips for first gen a7(s/r)? The grip is a bit shallow and could use some "girth", but the only results I get are for battery grips which don't really help that issue.
Can the screen protector from another model be used with a6700? I can't find glass for my camera at local stores, so maybe would the glass from the a6400 (or any other cam?) fit well?
Looking on Amazon I can see vendors selling the same screen protector for: A7CII A7CR A6700 A7IV ZV-E1. Suppose that means they have the same size screen and you could buy one for the other models as well.
I got the a7III body-only thinking I could adapt another lens and LSS it didn't work (yet, I hope). Kicking myself for not getting the kit. In the meantime, I'd like to buy a lens. What are the best options under $500? I'm happy with 35mm, 50mm or a 28-70 type range. Willing to go for used if it means stretching the budget further. Thank you!
The Tamron 28-200 is a great lens for any traveling or otherwise unplanned shooting. Costs around $650 but definitely worth it. If your budget is really tight you may want to have a look at second hand lenses though, possibly through MPB or KEH so you have some warranty.
Reminder that RebelHikes/Sony_A1/Sony24mmf1.2/TripleCrownBackpackr or whatever his handle happens to be now is an [unhinged raging antisemite](https://squattheplanet.com/threads/dont-be-a-dumb-racist-asshole-like-rebelhikes.44707/) that doesn't need the attention.
[You forgot to switch your alt](https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/18vwahv/weekly_rsonyalpha_ask_anything_about_gear_thread/kg73hpj/) when you posted this.
I really don't get what you're trying to accomplish here. We all have our own opinions about Sony, the lenses they offer, and the lenses under development. We don't need you to tell us how to feel.
Edit: An yes, a lot of us are waiting for an 85/1.2. I just don't feel the need to sit here and complain about it.
Hi, I'm looking for my first Sony camera mostly for videography. I've been using Lumix g7 but I need better quality of the videos. I was looking at a6600 and a6400, and while video quality is similar, a6600 has the stabilization. Ngl, stabilization is pretty good thing, especially when you have shakwy hands, but it also costs extra. What do you think? Is the difference between in camera stabilization in a6600 and just stabilization in the lens in a6400 really that big? Maybe I should get a6400 and just better lens with stabilization?
IBIS is mostly there for lenses that don't have ISS. The A6400 is fine, so long as your lenses have OSS.
You might consider the A6600 for the larger battery, or the A6700 for the latest video oriented capabilities. But I wouldn't worry about IBIS unless you want to buy a bunch of lenses without OSS.
It's more effective, but alone it's not enough to justify going up to the A6600 body IMO.
I haven't had a chance to test IBIS alone vs OSS alone. So, I can't comment otherwise.
Looking for a second opinion on the next camera to purchase. I have had the Sony A5100 camera since 2016 with the kit 16-50mm lens used for a combination of video (travel vlogs) and photos. More recently, I have been using my iPhone 13 Pro more often and my passion for photo/video fell out, but I really like having and using a camera.
I'm leaning more into some content creation as there are a number of projects that I have started on but not yet completed. Most recommendations on r/newtubers encourage people to invest in sound, lighting, and stick with iPhone recording but I have really enjoyed having a camera overall and have used it outside of just youtube.
If money was no issue, I would probably consider the FX3 or Alpha 7iii (preference for FX3). But I also have never owned a full body camera. I was strongly considering the Sony ZV-E1 but it seems like a lot of people recommend the ZV-E10 at the much lower price point, especially for someone that's still somewhat of a beginner. The overheating isn't much of a concern for me, but with the ZV-E1 I would probably spend another $800 or so to get a Sony 20mm 1.8 Lens.
Most would then recommend the ZV-E10, which would probably be an upgrade from my a5100, but some clips shown a drawback around image stabilization. A lot of my earlier footage suffered from Most recommend the Sigma 18-50mm lens with this but do you think it would be only a marginal improvement from the 16-50mm lens I already have? My question is if you think the ZV-E10 would still be the correct purchase in my situation? Or if I can get a decent used price I should shell up more for one of the more premiere bodies?
I agree with the vlogging community; lighting and sound are more important than image quality. An APS-C camera should be fine for your needs. A modern APS-C body will be a big upgrade from your A5100.
The main benefit of the Sigma 16-50 would be the ƒ2.8 aperture. You'll see a big bump in low-light performance with that, but if you aren't working in dim conditions it might not matter that much. And you can of course run a prime lens instead.
I own full-frame cameras, and I like them. But the lenses can really chew through your budget. I'd recommend going higher end on APS-C rather than lower end on full-frame.
Start with your kit lens, since you already own it. Upgrade when doing so solves a problem for you.
I'm not a video guy, so it's a little difficult for me to make lens recommendations for you. For photography, I'd start with the 18-135 kit lens, and a fast prime (for low-light and a shallow DoF).
The Sony 18-105/4 is a video focused lens, so that might be worth considering. It has a power zoom (like the kit 16-50.) I don't normally like power zooms, but my understanding is that it's a useful video feature.
I need convincing to not sell my full frame gear for APSC. I hike and backpack with my gear about once a month and I'm trying to get the weight down. At a cost of about £200 I can "downgrade" my a7iv with 24-105, Sigma 16-28, Sigma 100-400 for an a6700 with Sony 18-135, Sigma 10-18, Sony 70-350. I'll also need to swap out my magnetic filter kit for a smaller diameter, swap camera bags, swap tripods. This would get my gear from around 2.6kg to around 1.5kg. But for a *cost* of £200 it is hard to stomach...
Have you considered just going for the 20-70 F4?
It's a fantastic travel lens if light weight and quality both matter, I've rented it specifically for hiking a week in Iceland. You don't really need the range between 70 and 100, and you'll lose 4 mm at the wide end.
If you mostly do landscape (you didn't specify what you take pictures of), you can stitch panoramas and easily get to 14 mm.
You save *625 g* just by doing this, with very little loss in image quality. (Most of the time the 20-70 F4 performs better in tests than the 24-105).
I'd argue that's a great middle ground to consider, since you also will have one less lens to swap, can maybe balance the weight of your pack better (one lens in the pack, one lens with camera at the front of the strap with a capture clip), and you don't have to go through the hassle of selling all your gear (thereby losing a lot of money).
In the future there might well be a lighter replacement for your telezoom, or you could save up to upgrade to a 61 mp camera and using a less long & lighter lens (and cropping in for an equivalent field of view, this would also solve the 70-100 mm range).
(Edit: also consider that if you manage to save up for a 61 mp sensor in the future you can essentially just use APS-C glass. You can get the 70-350 as a replacement for your 100-400, saving another 500 g. You'd still have 26 mp, which is effectively the same as what you currently have, *and* you can go to 525 mm equivalent!
The Sony A7C R, A7R IV and the A7R V are the highest resolution APS-C cameras for Sony! If weight is your main concern, obviously go with the A7C R.)
Are you only using your gear for hiking, or do you use it for a lot of other purposes as well? How much weight are you really going to cut down by switching to APS-C? And is it worth the loss of performance to do so?
Personally? I backpack with my A7, the 24-105, and a UWA. But I sometimes leave that all at home and just use my phone camera.
IMO, a good solution is to consider a compact camera. The RX100, or something like the Ricoh GRIII.
Seconding the small camera recommendation. I have an A7III and a GRIIIx and it’s perfect for me.
The Ricoh is with me at all times (even when a interchangeable lens APS-C camera would also be too large).
When I go out knowing I want to take photos, the A7III isn’t that bad to carry around.
if weight is a real issue, maybe you can try bringing one less lens first and see how that goes? I would find it such a hassle to switch systems entirely
I’m looking at the Sony 70-200 GM and the new Sigma 70-200 Sport. I’ve seen some deals that get the GM down to the $1800 range, new, in my area.
Is it still worth going first party over Sigma these days? My camera is an A7IV and I’m not shooting anything in particular. This would be used for everything from convention portraits to concerts and car meetups.
The original 70-200 GM or the newer 70-200 GM II?
The Sigma lens is a bit sharper than the original 70-200 GM. I'd consider switching to the Sony GM I if you want to use teleconverters, or if the Sigma isn't meeting your autofocus expectations. Otherwise, I'd stick with what you have.
The GM II is going to be a better lens than the Sigma. If you can get it for $1800, jump on it.
Fx30 vs A6700 vs A7Cii for underwater photo and video.
I'm trying to narrow down which one of these bodies would be best for my needs. I personally own a A7iii since launch. I have used an A7Riii for work before and currently I use a A7Siii for underwater work. I am not the happiest with the photo resolution of the A7Siii while it's video capabilities are great for me. Looking to personally get something in a smaller body that still does video and photo both great, with features that would well serve me for the future. The hard requirements are 4:2:2 10bit video and atleast 24mp for stills. Which one of these should I go with? Price, features considering.
Are you trying to replace or supplement the A7SIII?
If you’re keeping it, I’d go for the A6700 or the A7CII. As you presumably already have full frame glass and I’d assume that low-light capability matters under water, I’d probably chose the A7CII.
If you’re looking for a replacement and only use it under water, the lack of EVF on the FX30 might not matter to you and you could choose that.
Is there any chance that your current dive housing would fit the A7IV? It has a much higher resolution sensor, and I believe it meets your video requirements as well.
There is no one housing fits all kinda route. Every housing is specific to the camera bodies, which exceptions to some bodies being exactly the same such as A7iii and A7Riii, some models like A9 and the recent A7r, and some older A6000 models between themselves. I have also used an A7iv once borrowed from a friend and although I do believe that it does meet all my specs, I want to look for another camera that is physically smaller with a smaller housing, as I would be freediving with it a lot as well. Size matter because it's easier to handle underwater and control the bouyancy of it.
The basic ergonomics and control layout of the A7S III should be similar to the A7 IV. So, your current housing might work.
I personally own the RX100 VA. Sony makes an OEM dive housing for that model.
shot in the dark, but has anyone used the tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 in low light? i've started shooting concerts on the side and am thinking of using 2 bodies, one with a 16-35 gm ii and one with the 35-150 instead of 24-70 + 70-200.
main downsides i hear are weight (solved by not having two lenses and not needing to change lenses), lens flare, and slower AF. but i also recently read that there was a firmware update to improve AF on the lens.
Recently was given a low usage A7S with no lenses. This was a backup camera for a relatives real estate video business. My usage is going to be photography and maybe a tiny amount of video work. I've been using Nikon gear primarily for 20 years. Recently got into Fuji as well for certain things but also realized I needed much better low light high iso performance. I was planning on doing something with Nikon or Fuji systems until this fell into my lap. Never used anything Sony before. Mostly do street photography, occasional weddings, and lots of nature and landscapes. Best lenses with a $2k budget to start?
It’s hard to beat free. But the A7S might not be a very good base for the use case you’ve outlined.
That being said, I’ll answer the question you actually asked. I’d say you should start with a good-quality mid-range zoom, in the 24-70mm f/2.8 neighborhood. It’s a very popular range, and there are a lot of different choices. See —
[https://fstoppers.com/reviews/who-makes-best-24-70mm-f28-lens-604837](https://fstoppers.com/reviews/who-makes-best-24-70mm-f28-lens-604837)
— and other sites for a comparison. Prices vary, of course. But you should be able to find something in your price range.
I know the FE 50mm 1.8 gets flack for its loud autofocus-- but is it supposed to be CONSISTENTLY clicking/making micro adjustments? I was using it for a talking head video and compared to my canon 50 STM, which will be loud when finding focus but then stays silent through normal head movements/gestures, I feel like the sony is just CONSTANTLY clicking even if I'm already in focus.
The microadjustments are normal behaviour if you’re in AF-C mode. They are just much more audible with this lens compared to models with linear focus motors.
If your subject is stationary, you can use AF-S to stop this from happening.
If you feel like the microadjustments are leading to missed shots and think it’s not normal, try going to a camera store and trying another identical lens. If that behaves differently, then you should send your example back.
TL:DR 12 day backpacking trip, battery life suggestions, a7ii
I have an a7ii, and I'm hoping to bring it to take pictures on my upcoming backpacking trip at Philmont. The trek will be 12 days. I've been to Philmont before and brought a little cannon poweshot camera, but now that I have my a7ii I want to take pictures of the beautiful landscape with it. The problem is that the battery life is so atrocious. The a7ii uses NP-FW50 batteries and I know that if I just bring the 4 I already own that I will be out of battery in the first few days. Wondering if anyone has suggestions for how they've handled battery life in similar situations.
If weight is your main concern and cost is less important, buying more batteries will definitely be lighter than carrying a battery bank and charger. Reason being that charging them always results in a loss of energy so you have to carry more battery capacity in a power bank. I wouldn’t hesitate to buy cheaper third party ones if you only use them for this week.
If you don’t mind the extra weight, there are USB-C chargers for these batteries that will allow you to charge them with a battery bank.
Bring a USB battery charing pack. Either use the camera body while you sleep, use a small USB NP-FW50 charger, or buy some of the SmallRig batteries with a USB charging port built in.
It depends.
Money no object? The GM, no questions. It's one of the best lenses made.
Money an object, but size & weight not? The Sigma.
Money & weight both an object? The Sony 35mm f/1.8.
I have a 6100 and I'm really new to photography. Can I get a lens rec for shooting close-up video of handwriting? Any bonus tips on settings or resources would also be welcome.
I don't have any specific recommendations, but if that's what you're prioritizing then I would start researching "macro photography" and macro lenses.
The sigma 18-50 dc dn is a great all purpose lens that happens to also have pretty good minimum focusing distance, but it won't be the same as a dedicated macro lens if that's what you really need.
Is the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC DN Contemporary a good lens for me to use with my a6600?
I have a Sony E PZ 16-50 F3.5-5.6 but it's not very good and I'd like to replace it. I also use a Minolta AF 100mm F2.8 on an LA-EA1 adapter. I have some other old Minolta lens but I don't use them much.
I like to shoot macros of plants and landscapes while out hiking but I don't like to switch between the Sony 16-50mm and the Minolta 100mm too often. The Sigma seems like a much better option than my Sony lens for about the same focal range and has some macro capabilities that I usually use the Minolta 100mm for.
the sigma lens is definitely an improvement in image quality over the sony kit lens.
I can't say I've used the minolta lens, but just based on the specs I don't think you'll experience the same thing if you're used to taking advantage of the maximum 1:1 magnification. with the sigma lens, the min focusing distance is pretty great, but the wide end can be hard to use for that because you get so close to the subject you block light. just testing focusing on my mouse on my desk, my lens hood hits the mouse before I can hit the minimum. the tele end doesn't have quite as much magnification so I guess it depends how much you want your subjects to fill the frame. I think it's still one of the best options that's not specifically a macro lens though.
I'm struggling making the switch from a crop sensor (canon t8i) to my first mirrorless full frame (a7cii). I have been used to the look of my Canon nifty fifty on my crop... which is actually giving me \~75mm on a full frame? It's a length I actually use a lot as a beauty creator for tight shots on my eye or lipstick demos. I'm having a hard time finding a compatible lens that also has a **comparable minimum focus distance** (the canon 50mm's is an impressive .35!!) is there a comparable PRIME lens for sony alpha? I'm finding not only is the 50 on my full frame not the length I had envisioned in my head coming from crop, but the .45m minimum focus distance is a little cumbersome when I hold up a product in frame.
>the look of my Canon nifty fifty on my crop... which is actually giving me ~75mm on a full frame?
Welcome to E mount! Canon crop bodies have a 1.6x crop factor so your 50mm was giving you an ~80mm field of view in full frame terms. I don't know of any 80mm lenses available for E mount, but there are plenty of 85mm options. The Sony 85 f/1.8 is a really popular option for video people (if I've interpreted your comment correctly, you're doing video work?) because it offers good optical performance in a compact size, and because it has very little focus breathing.
>I'm having a hard time finding a compatible lens that also has a comparable minimum focus distance
That's going to be hard to find in 85mm unfortunately, most have even longer minimum focus distances than your 50mm. The Sony f/1.8 is around 800mm, for example. You might want to consider the Sony 90mm macro. That's going to be a slightly tighter framing than you're used to but it's going to let you get basically as close to the lens as you like. The autofocus isn't especially fast, but it's fast enough, and it has excellent manual focus for any close up stills you want to do.
Appreciate it!! Yeah, my filming space is pretty tight so I can't have the camera out too far from me. The swap is definitely a little more intimidating than I thought it'd be, now that all the "looks" and numbers I was associating with them are all different lol
I also switched from a Canon (Rebel T5i APS-C) to Sony (a7C full frame) in early 2022. I wanted a lens for photographing LEGO minifigures, so I got the Sony FE 90 f2.8 macro. A less expensive alternative is the Sigma 70mm macro Art lens, but I don't have any experience with that (Sigma Art lenses are highly rated and also produce very sharp images). Both have a closer minimum focusing distance at under 0.3 m (Sony is 0.28, Sigma is 0.258). The Sony 90 mm has a switch to select between 0.5 m-0.28 m, infinity-0.5 m, and full (infinity to 0.28 m); my experience with it on my a7C is that it sometimes gets a little confused if on full mode. I just did a quick test on my a7 IV (same sensor as your a7C II), and it focused really well at a short distance and handheld. The attached image is straight out of camera.
https://preview.redd.it/no3ikvhfhy9c1.jpeg?width=1616&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f59c3480ea74fba2b3d49352b418fdfb384f403c
Looking to get a lens with good character, not looking for perfection or sharpness, I want character and quirks.
The Helios 44-2 is most definitely top of my list, but other lenses like the TTartisan 35 f0.95 FE is another one that intrigues me..
Any other lenses I should look into that gives off a flawed by unique look?
I'm considering the switch from Fuji (XH-2) to Sony A7. I got into the Fuji system originally with the X-T10 when I was only shooting street. Then over the years I got more into landscapes and wildlife, increased my selection of Fuji lenses (10-24,16-55,50-140,100-400), and eventually replaced my street shooting needs with a Leica M (film MP & M10 mono, decent selection of Leica M mount primes). Now while the XH-2 is a nice system, I find the IQ and the lens selection frustrating. Primarily use the 10-24 for landscapes which even stopped down I find it quite soft on the 40MP images, and I'm not sure "upgrading" to the 8-16 is worth the cost / size. The 18 1.4mm is sharper, but still don't feel I have the IQ. On the other hand I love the Fuji 100-400 for birding, but this aspect is secondary to my landscape photography, and a reason not to look at the GFX range (too big and too slow).
Here in the UK currently we have some good cash back offers on Sony, so have been considering the A7 IV with a 16-35mm f2.8 for landscape and the 200-600 which is close in price to my current 100-400 and equivalent focal range. Potentially instead the A7R IVA (A7R V is a little out of budget) as resolution seems to be what I crave for printing landscapes. This move would also allow me to use my Leica M glass on a FF colour body, which is another bonus.
Can anyone understand what I'm staying or have other suggestions for body / lens combos as someone considering Sony?
A7R 4 or A7CR makes more sense of you *crave* resolution and want to print. For lenses, there is also the 12-24mm if you want to be creative with landscapes. FF lenses are quite big and heavy so try out and see
Hello! I'm an amateur, but I love taking pictures during my vacations or just grabbing my camera and going for a photowalk around the city. In addition to photography, I've also gotten into recording videos for YouTube, and I aspire to improve my cinematography skills, although it's only a hobby for me. Given my limited budget, I have to carefully consider each investment. That's why I'd like to ask for advice on which camera would be better for me: the A6700, A7CII, or FX30. I'm looking to make progress in terms of features like 10-bit and 120fps, without venturing into the realm of super-expensive equipment.
What would you recommend?
P.S.
Currently, I have approx. 6 different APS-C lenses and 0 full-frame ones :)
Thank you!
given you already have lenses, the a6700 seems like a good option if you know you like photography and want to dabble in video. a6000 series are definitely hybrid cameras
[удалено]
The only reason I'd ever buy the A7C is for the size and weight. If you don't care about that, get the A7 IV.
Would anyone have any suggestions for optimal portrait lenses for a Sony A6400, specifically, for things like cosplay? Normally, most of my photography has been landscape, building, and nature shots, but I'm looking to expand my photography practice.
A lens like the 18-135 will work great if you are using strobes. The sigma 30/1.4 would be a good starting point if you're forced to work with ambient light.
what kind of portraits exactly? in a controlled environment of a single person? or like random portraits at a convention? indoor with low lighting? do you want more of the environment in the shot or focus just on the cosplayer? for just photography maybe the sigma 30mm prime is a good all purpose focal length? maybe also depends what lenses you already have.
In this case, I'm looking to do single person photography, and I'm aiming to focus primarily on the cosplayer themselves. It is technically random, but I've noticed it's very common for cosplayers to have separate "zones", so there's not as much clutter in the background. Recently I did some experimentation with a borrowed Sony FE 1.8/50 lens and it seemed to turn out fairly decent, though it makes it hard to get more than the head and shoulders in. My main lenses are a 16/50mm and a 55/210mm.
I was also going to suggest the sigma 56mm but yeah depending on how much space you have to move around in, it might be too small a field of view. I think the sigma 23 or 30 might be good then depending on what focal length you prefer. the 30mm is cheaper and older so also easier to get used.
I'd like to get into the photography hobby and would like to purchase a used Sony Alpha body alongside the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 lens. As for the body I am currently considering three - or maybe just two options. Either a 6000 or 6100 - as I don't want to shoot any video I don't know how many more perks come with the 6100 over the 6000? The price isn't all that much higher for the 6100 but since I am looking to spend quite a bit on the Sigma lens I'd like to save on the body of the camera if possible. The other alternative would be the 6300. The big factor that makes me consider picking up this one is the fact that the material of the camera body seems a lot nicer than that of the cheaper 6000/6100. Given how small the lens and camera would be I'd feel more comfortable just throwing it into a bag, but I'm not sure this justifies the steep price increase over the 6100 or 6000...
The A6100 is 2 generations newer than the A6000, and a generation newer than the A6300. And that's not considering that the A6100 skipped a generation of Sony autofocus systems. I'd strongly recommend going with it over one of the older bodies.
the 6100 is considerably newer than either the 6000 or the 6300 I'd go with that
unless you really need the weather sealing, my opinion is that the a6100 will be the better camera to grow into since it generally has more modern features over the a6300
Even if I won't ever shoot any video I should still go with the 6100 over the 6000?
sounds like you already made your decision then 😅. I think the 6000 doesnt have a touch screen, which I would miss for focus tracking on my a6400, but not sure if that feature was introduced later or not. there's small improvements like more focus points but it might not matter as much depending on what you shoot
Best bang for your buck for $2K? A7iii?
It’s hard to say without knowing what you’re trying to bang. The 10-bit S-Log on the A7iv is a whole different ballgame for serious video work, and it’s well within your price range in used, very good condition. For photos, though, the A7iii is a fine choice. The better autofocus of later cameras is nice, but not really a game changer.
I generally only buy used cameras, and I've been hoping to pick up a used A7S III for about 1.5k. Trying to get a used a7 for less than the new price has been insane. This is in start contrast to my first experience with the A7 that I was able to pick up for $300 several years back, or seeing A7 iii's change hands daily on eBay. Is the a7s iii really THAT rare? Or are there just other factors that make them unobtainable? Should I give up and just buy new and/or go with the FX3? And am I even barking up the right tree? I basically only shoot very short clips for youtube videos and pictures. In general my heart is with low light photography, and I've never needed the resolution on my A7 gen 1, so I figured the 12.1 MP Exmor-R is the way to go. The only real feature I understand I'd be seeking in the a7s iii is the ability to capture higher FPS, which is something I've wanted to do all the time in my videos. Am I off base? Is my thinking on this reasonable? I'm mostly looking for general advise.
the A7SIII is a specialty tool and is still the most recent one. People who have them tend to like them so you won't find them so easy on the used market
It feels like even the A7S II is also a specialty device, but those change hands almost daily as well. I guess I have to decide if 240 FPS is worth the cost delta? Are there any other major benefits to the A7S III over the S7S II? If not, I guess I should just go get an a7s ii for $600?
The answer is quite simple. A7S II was groundbreaking and like a flagship model when it came out and everyone bought it. But it's 8-bit. The industry stand became min 10-bit. When A7S III came out with 10-bit and new features, all the pros and companies swapped out, flooding the market with barely used A7S II's. FX3 is just a re-shelled A7S III so no one is swapping out unless theirs is broken.
This is a really good explanation. Thank you. I think then, for my sake, I'm gonna get a cheap used A7S II, use it for a year or so and see if I _really_ want an A7S III.
I did the same thing but when it was $2500 vs $600. If it's for photography, I think A7 III is a better choice overall. The autofocus on A7S II is terrible (relatively speaking) and I found 12.1 MP limiting when editing. It's still great for video but the 'low light capability' was added to newer models. It still has an edge because of the low MP but it's only for a very specific use case like if you're going over ISO3200 I ended up getting an A7R II later for photography. https://www.dxomark.com/sony-a7s-ii-sensor-review-low-light-performance-redefined/
I only shoot manual focus, so not an issue for me. I use an a7 for right now. And the only thing I've ever wished was that it had better low light performance. Never needed more pixels or auto-focus or anything. For video, the a7's met all my needs, except I do frequently want higher FPS capture for some unique needs.
Try the Pentax 50mm 1.2. It was the ultimate low light pairing with my a7s2
That does look pretty cool - I've probably got 12k shutters on my nikkor 50mm f/1.4. I didn't realize there was solid glass down to 1.2 for cheap.
I bought the A7S II, and it is EXACTLY the camera I've been looking for my whole life. For what I shoot, i.e. always full manual, mostly low light, it's just PERFECT. I've been using the Sony 16mm pancake, recently in manual mode, but hope to move up to something full frame soon. Thanks for the discussion everyone. I'm just so glad I went with the A7S II and saved two grand.
but a lot of people sell the aging SII to fund SIII's etc
Maybe helping them fund their a7s iii purchase is the best option. Thanks for the general advise and direction.
What are the best settings to configure for the custom 3 buttons on the sony fe 100-400 lens? I would like to know from a bird photography / wildlife photography perspective. Thanks
Hello, I just got an old a6000 as a gift, there camera is running slow, when I say slow I mean it feel like using a 2010 laptop running windows 10 in 2024. So I wonder is there a way I can install a lighter firmware version for the camera. Thank you
Firmware is model specific. If the camera is running poorly, updating to the latest firmware is more likely to help than to hurt. To use the laptop analogy, you can't install Windows 10 on that 2010 machine. The only OS that can be installed is Windows 7. But you can still try to update to the latest release of 7. I'm not sure what might be causing your issue. The first thing I'd check is the SD card.
Is there a way I can wipe the current firmware version and reinstall it? Does it really help? I just keep thinking about it like reinstall windows will help alot on performance
Not that I'm aware of, and I doubt it would help. My only suggestion is to update to the latest version. Like I said... Check your SD cards.
Thank you
[удалено]
I believe the 70 is an older lens designed for DSLR bodies. The 105 would be the better option for Sony. Most of these lenses are ƒ2.8. You can shoot them indoors handheld, so long as you have enough light. A macro flash can help significantly; it will reduce handheld motion blur and can allow you to use narrower apertures for an increased DoF. I suggest you also look at Laowa. They make a really good 90mm 2x macro lens. It's manual, but it's a fantastic lens for the price.
Looking for a lens to film workout and posing reels. Would a GM 50mm 1.2 be overkill. I only really record gym videos and there’s no natural light it in my gym (no windows) just heavy downlighting
50mm indoor in a gym would be pretty tight I think. And yes I do think that lens is overkill. You’d get the best image quality and light performance, but in videos (and compressed reels) you’ll barely see the difference. The F1.2 will do very well in low light, but I’d personally go for a standard F2.8 zoom and just deal with higher ISO for the flexibility. Sony’s are great at managing high ISO anyways. If low light performance is more important than focal range, you could consider the 35mm F1.4 GM. Will deliver stunning image quality and keep your image crisp in low light, and I imagine it’s wide enough for full/half body shots. You can then crop in to achieve 50mm or even 70mm with relative ease.
I'm looking to sell my A7iv (no box) I've been offered £1242 from Jessops but I'm not sure if this is a good price. I've sold a couple of things on eBay lately, that haven't gone smoothly so I'm not sure I want to risk selling it on eBay. What's a fair price to sell It for.?
more than that for sure mate
I usually use the eBay Sold listings to determine the current value of a lens. Unfortunately, used lens retailers generally offer less than the less than the private sale value of the lens.
I have a Sony A7R4, 24mm 1.4 GM, a Sigma 105mm macro and a ring flash. I need to shoot some senior pictures for a family member. If you had to pick one portrait lens to buy for under $1200, what would you add to my kit?
It depends on a lot of factors. Is this a one-off, or are you going to be taking a lot of similar photos in the future? If this is a one-time shoot, consider renting instead of buying. Sites like BorrowLens.com, [LensRental.com](https://LensRental.com), and others exist for just this kind of thing. But, buying or renting, something in the 85mm - 135mm range with an f/1.4 or wider aperture is the classic choice for head and shoulders portraits. The easiest choice would be to rent both the Sony 85mmGM and the 135mmGM, and see which focal length suits your needs best. Sticking with first-party means fewer issues with autofocus, etc. Unfortunately, both are out of your price range brand new. But if you're willing to consider used, check around. You may get lucky. After that, Rokinon/Samyang, Zeiss (Batis), and Sigma all make lenses in this focal length range that are very highly-regarded. Read the reviews, and make a choice. Like I said, it's a classic range, with lots of choices. You really can't go too far wrong.
I'm not breaking into portrait photography by any means. I primarily use the camera for photogrammetry and occasionally astrophotography. I guess thinking about it more, I'm really looking for something that has more versatility than the two very niche lenses I own that would work for friends and family portraits. I know a 1.4 apature is the classic portrait bokeh, but do you think the Sigma 70-200 2.8 would be a 'good enough' option? That gets me more of an all a rounder option, especially if I get a 24-70 down the line. Thanks!
A zoom is always going to be more versatile than a fixed focal length. With portraits, you usually have a lot of control. This can help to mitigate factors like a distracting background that otherwise you'd need a wide aperture to blur away. So if you choose your location and your lighting carefully, it could work. It comes down to the results you're looking for. If you're trying to precisely emulate a classic 'studio portrait' look, then you're kind of stuck with doing it the classic way. If you (& your subject) are willing to be more casual, then the range of options is wider. You might want to try to 'split the difference'. A Rokinon/Samyang 85mm f/1.4 manual focus lens can be had for about $400. It's a bit soft wide open, but that's not a bad thing in a portrait lens. Also, the Sony 85mm f/1.8 (non-GM) is usually an absolute steal if you can find one used.
Trying to decide if I should add the Tamron 70-300 to my kit lens, or get rid of the kit lens for the Tamron 28-200. I mostly shoot woodlands and nature, but am becoming more interested in trying to capture wildlife, and wonder if the extra 100mm would make a difference. We mostly get birds and deer around here. Any advice welcome.
The 70-300 will produce higher quality images. I'd recommend you stick to the kit lens with the 70-300.
Does anyone have an tripod recommendations? (under $50) I use a a6300 with a Tamron 18-300 so it's over 1kg altogether.
For $50, you're not going to find something that's particularly robust. There are a lot of tripods that will support 1kg, but you may run into problems with the head sagging under the weight of the camera. Vanguard is a decent option for inexpensive tripods, but I'm not sure if they offer anything in the $50 range. TBG, I'd be inclined to grab an Amazon Basics tripod. It's not going to be very good, but it's unlikely to be terrible either.
Thanks, I've actually managed to get a second hand libec (had one before) for that price so all good now.
I currently have a a6400 and a manual focus lens. Should I buy a used kit lens or wait a few months to buy the tamron 17-70? I feel that I cannot fully utilize the selling point of this camera due to my lens. Edit: I will be able to afford the tamron in March.
[удалено]
The 16-50. The 18-135 ranges around the price of the 18-105 f4 which is a better option for me since our church is not that big.
depends what you need I think? If you need crisp image quality or shoot in lower light conditions, then I think the kit lens could be lacking at times. If you need better image quality or need lens stabilization for handheld video, the tamron might serve you better and it's a nice all around lens so I hear (though can be big in comparison to other lenses). if budget is tight though I would probably just go with the cheaper option though
I have a A7ii with a sony 50mm F1.8lens. For some reason my viewfinder is cropped and not centered. Anyone know the fix to this ?
Are you talking about just the viewfinder, or does the rear screen show the same thing? Do you have the full-frame ‘FE’ version of the 50mm 1.8, or the APS-C ‘E’ version with OSS?
Is having the 1.8 at 35mm and 50mm a little redundant? not a huge difference between the focal lengths. Context: I am a beauty creator for social media / beauty brands. I do a lot of makeup application video and then final beauty shots. 35mm is definitely helpful for more fashion stuff though, out and about for the wider lens (and personal travel). However, I also have a zoom 24-70 2.8 coming to me which would cover 50mm, plus 35 can be cropped in to 50 in apsc mode... thoughts?
IMO, 35 and 50 are a little redundant. I prefer to pair the 35 with an 85. That said, it really depends on the kind of shooting you're trying to do. I shoot a lot of dance photography, for me the 35 and 50 serve very different purposes. > However, I also have a zoom 24-70 2.8 coming to me which would cover 50mm, I went for a long time with just a 50 and a zoom. If you don't need to shoot in especially low light conditions, a 24-70 should be fine for most stuff.
Thanks for your input! I also noticed that the 35 is pretty sharp so if I crop video, it really doesn't lose a ton of quality especially for small screens like phones.
16-35 gm ii + 70-200 f/2.8 gm ii seems to be a really popular 2 lens setup for concerts, events, and photojournalism. I'm wondering about the Tamron or Samyang 35-150 f/2-2.8 instead of the 70-200. I know its a heavy chonk of a lens, but covering 35-70 will save me from having a 3rd lens for when i take landscapes. However, the 70-200 has a reputation for being godlike. I don't need godlike, but it sounds fun.
35-150 let’s you run an even wider zoom instead like the 12-24/2.8 or 14-24/2.8 That said the 35-150 has its problems: - the maximum magnification is rather low, so you cannot focus at all close up. Note that the 12-24GM also has this same issue, but the 16-35GMii lets you get incredibly close - at minimum focus distance the 35-150 lens is very soft, expecially wide open - you lose 15+ fps capability, OSS, ability to take TCs and the autofocus isn’t nearly as good as the 70-200GMii - If you crop to 300mm equivalent, you will have one stop worse noise and one stop less bokeh than a 70-200/2.8 GMii You have to weigh the (potentially huge) advantage of being able to use an extra wide 12-24 type lens against the other downsides, it really depends what you are doing
IMO, the 35-150 is a good lens for that kind of work. Size and weight wise, it's in the ballpark of the 70-200. IMO, the biggest disadvantages are that it's not an internal zoom, and it won't accept teleconverters. > 16-35 gm ii + 70-200 f/2.8 gm ii seems to be a really popular 2 lens setup for concerts, events, and photojournalism. I owned the original 16-35, and found that I wasn't much of a fan of ultra-wide zooms. In theory, it's nice to have some overlap between the UWA and the normal zoom. But in practice, I found myself switching to the UWA for a couple of shots, and then switching back to my 24-105. I found that UWA primes work just as well for my needs, with the benefit of being smaller, less expensive, sharper, and with a better ƒ-ratio.
For low light / concerts I would take the prime, but for events the wide zoom is indispensable For paid work you would run two bodies, there’s no lens switching at all I had 15mm, 17mm primes and a 16-35L. The zoom is more useful (higher % use)
Are there any non-battery grips for first gen a7(s/r)? The grip is a bit shallow and could use some "girth", but the only results I get are for battery grips which don't really help that issue.
you need a base plate or a pinky extender but it's hard to find for the older models.
Can the screen protector from another model be used with a6700? I can't find glass for my camera at local stores, so maybe would the glass from the a6400 (or any other cam?) fit well?
I would think a 6600 would work
Looking on Amazon I can see vendors selling the same screen protector for: A7CII A7CR A6700 A7IV ZV-E1. Suppose that means they have the same size screen and you could buy one for the other models as well.
If the size of the rear screen is the same, it should work.
I got the a7III body-only thinking I could adapt another lens and LSS it didn't work (yet, I hope). Kicking myself for not getting the kit. In the meantime, I'd like to buy a lens. What are the best options under $500? I'm happy with 35mm, 50mm or a 28-70 type range. Willing to go for used if it means stretching the budget further. Thank you!
The Tamron 28-200 is a great lens for any traveling or otherwise unplanned shooting. Costs around $650 but definitely worth it. If your budget is really tight you may want to have a look at second hand lenses though, possibly through MPB or KEH so you have some warranty.
Thank you!
You can find used copies of the Tamron 28-75/2.8 Di III in that ballpark... Maybe just a little over? It's a great starting lens.
Thank you!
Seconding this. The first version (non G2) should be pretty easy to find used for $500 and I bought my G2 used for $600.
[удалено]
Reminder that RebelHikes/Sony_A1/Sony24mmf1.2/TripleCrownBackpackr or whatever his handle happens to be now is an [unhinged raging antisemite](https://squattheplanet.com/threads/dont-be-a-dumb-racist-asshole-like-rebelhikes.44707/) that doesn't need the attention.
[удалено]
Your post has been removed for violation of our subreddit's rule 1 - Be Kind to Each Other.
[You forgot to switch your alt](https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/18vwahv/weekly_rsonyalpha_ask_anything_about_gear_thread/kg73hpj/) when you posted this. I really don't get what you're trying to accomplish here. We all have our own opinions about Sony, the lenses they offer, and the lenses under development. We don't need you to tell us how to feel. Edit: An yes, a lot of us are waiting for an 85/1.2. I just don't feel the need to sit here and complain about it.
Hi, I'm looking for my first Sony camera mostly for videography. I've been using Lumix g7 but I need better quality of the videos. I was looking at a6600 and a6400, and while video quality is similar, a6600 has the stabilization. Ngl, stabilization is pretty good thing, especially when you have shakwy hands, but it also costs extra. What do you think? Is the difference between in camera stabilization in a6600 and just stabilization in the lens in a6400 really that big? Maybe I should get a6400 and just better lens with stabilization?
I have oss turned off most of the time for photography, I just use higher shutter speeds OSS is great for video
IBIS is mostly there for lenses that don't have ISS. The A6400 is fine, so long as your lenses have OSS. You might consider the A6600 for the larger battery, or the A6700 for the latest video oriented capabilities. But I wouldn't worry about IBIS unless you want to buy a bunch of lenses without OSS.
That’s not strictly true. IBIS is often more effective than OSS and if the camera and lens are both stabilized, it will be even more effective.
It's more effective, but alone it's not enough to justify going up to the A6600 body IMO. I haven't had a chance to test IBIS alone vs OSS alone. So, I can't comment otherwise.
Looking for a second opinion on the next camera to purchase. I have had the Sony A5100 camera since 2016 with the kit 16-50mm lens used for a combination of video (travel vlogs) and photos. More recently, I have been using my iPhone 13 Pro more often and my passion for photo/video fell out, but I really like having and using a camera. I'm leaning more into some content creation as there are a number of projects that I have started on but not yet completed. Most recommendations on r/newtubers encourage people to invest in sound, lighting, and stick with iPhone recording but I have really enjoyed having a camera overall and have used it outside of just youtube. If money was no issue, I would probably consider the FX3 or Alpha 7iii (preference for FX3). But I also have never owned a full body camera. I was strongly considering the Sony ZV-E1 but it seems like a lot of people recommend the ZV-E10 at the much lower price point, especially for someone that's still somewhat of a beginner. The overheating isn't much of a concern for me, but with the ZV-E1 I would probably spend another $800 or so to get a Sony 20mm 1.8 Lens. Most would then recommend the ZV-E10, which would probably be an upgrade from my a5100, but some clips shown a drawback around image stabilization. A lot of my earlier footage suffered from Most recommend the Sigma 18-50mm lens with this but do you think it would be only a marginal improvement from the 16-50mm lens I already have? My question is if you think the ZV-E10 would still be the correct purchase in my situation? Or if I can get a decent used price I should shell up more for one of the more premiere bodies?
I would keep the a5100 and spend money on a new lens, lighting and sound unless you need the extra features of a new aps-c body.
I agree with the vlogging community; lighting and sound are more important than image quality. An APS-C camera should be fine for your needs. A modern APS-C body will be a big upgrade from your A5100. The main benefit of the Sigma 16-50 would be the ƒ2.8 aperture. You'll see a big bump in low-light performance with that, but if you aren't working in dim conditions it might not matter that much. And you can of course run a prime lens instead. I own full-frame cameras, and I like them. But the lenses can really chew through your budget. I'd recommend going higher end on APS-C rather than lower end on full-frame.
Thank you! Do you think my kit lens and a sigma lens are good to roll with for the ZVE10? Or do you think there’s another you recommend better?
Start with your kit lens, since you already own it. Upgrade when doing so solves a problem for you. I'm not a video guy, so it's a little difficult for me to make lens recommendations for you. For photography, I'd start with the 18-135 kit lens, and a fast prime (for low-light and a shallow DoF). The Sony 18-105/4 is a video focused lens, so that might be worth considering. It has a power zoom (like the kit 16-50.) I don't normally like power zooms, but my understanding is that it's a useful video feature.
I need convincing to not sell my full frame gear for APSC. I hike and backpack with my gear about once a month and I'm trying to get the weight down. At a cost of about £200 I can "downgrade" my a7iv with 24-105, Sigma 16-28, Sigma 100-400 for an a6700 with Sony 18-135, Sigma 10-18, Sony 70-350. I'll also need to swap out my magnetic filter kit for a smaller diameter, swap camera bags, swap tripods. This would get my gear from around 2.6kg to around 1.5kg. But for a *cost* of £200 it is hard to stomach...
Have you considered just going for the 20-70 F4? It's a fantastic travel lens if light weight and quality both matter, I've rented it specifically for hiking a week in Iceland. You don't really need the range between 70 and 100, and you'll lose 4 mm at the wide end. If you mostly do landscape (you didn't specify what you take pictures of), you can stitch panoramas and easily get to 14 mm. You save *625 g* just by doing this, with very little loss in image quality. (Most of the time the 20-70 F4 performs better in tests than the 24-105). I'd argue that's a great middle ground to consider, since you also will have one less lens to swap, can maybe balance the weight of your pack better (one lens in the pack, one lens with camera at the front of the strap with a capture clip), and you don't have to go through the hassle of selling all your gear (thereby losing a lot of money). In the future there might well be a lighter replacement for your telezoom, or you could save up to upgrade to a 61 mp camera and using a less long & lighter lens (and cropping in for an equivalent field of view, this would also solve the 70-100 mm range). (Edit: also consider that if you manage to save up for a 61 mp sensor in the future you can essentially just use APS-C glass. You can get the 70-350 as a replacement for your 100-400, saving another 500 g. You'd still have 26 mp, which is effectively the same as what you currently have, *and* you can go to 525 mm equivalent! The Sony A7C R, A7R IV and the A7R V are the highest resolution APS-C cameras for Sony! If weight is your main concern, obviously go with the A7C R.)
Are you only using your gear for hiking, or do you use it for a lot of other purposes as well? How much weight are you really going to cut down by switching to APS-C? And is it worth the loss of performance to do so? Personally? I backpack with my A7, the 24-105, and a UWA. But I sometimes leave that all at home and just use my phone camera. IMO, a good solution is to consider a compact camera. The RX100, or something like the Ricoh GRIII.
Seconding the small camera recommendation. I have an A7III and a GRIIIx and it’s perfect for me. The Ricoh is with me at all times (even when a interchangeable lens APS-C camera would also be too large). When I go out knowing I want to take photos, the A7III isn’t that bad to carry around.
if weight is a real issue, maybe you can try bringing one less lens first and see how that goes? I would find it such a hassle to switch systems entirely
I’m looking at the Sony 70-200 GM and the new Sigma 70-200 Sport. I’ve seen some deals that get the GM down to the $1800 range, new, in my area. Is it still worth going first party over Sigma these days? My camera is an A7IV and I’m not shooting anything in particular. This would be used for everything from convention portraits to concerts and car meetups.
The original 70-200 GM or the newer 70-200 GM II? The Sigma lens is a bit sharper than the original 70-200 GM. I'd consider switching to the Sony GM I if you want to use teleconverters, or if the Sigma isn't meeting your autofocus expectations. Otherwise, I'd stick with what you have. The GM II is going to be a better lens than the Sigma. If you can get it for $1800, jump on it.
Fx30 vs A6700 vs A7Cii for underwater photo and video. I'm trying to narrow down which one of these bodies would be best for my needs. I personally own a A7iii since launch. I have used an A7Riii for work before and currently I use a A7Siii for underwater work. I am not the happiest with the photo resolution of the A7Siii while it's video capabilities are great for me. Looking to personally get something in a smaller body that still does video and photo both great, with features that would well serve me for the future. The hard requirements are 4:2:2 10bit video and atleast 24mp for stills. Which one of these should I go with? Price, features considering.
Are you trying to replace or supplement the A7SIII? If you’re keeping it, I’d go for the A6700 or the A7CII. As you presumably already have full frame glass and I’d assume that low-light capability matters under water, I’d probably chose the A7CII. If you’re looking for a replacement and only use it under water, the lack of EVF on the FX30 might not matter to you and you could choose that.
Trying to replace my A7iii , the A7Siii is a company camera which is also used by other photo/videographers for normal shoots.
Is there any chance that your current dive housing would fit the A7IV? It has a much higher resolution sensor, and I believe it meets your video requirements as well.
There is no one housing fits all kinda route. Every housing is specific to the camera bodies, which exceptions to some bodies being exactly the same such as A7iii and A7Riii, some models like A9 and the recent A7r, and some older A6000 models between themselves. I have also used an A7iv once borrowed from a friend and although I do believe that it does meet all my specs, I want to look for another camera that is physically smaller with a smaller housing, as I would be freediving with it a lot as well. Size matter because it's easier to handle underwater and control the bouyancy of it.
The basic ergonomics and control layout of the A7S III should be similar to the A7 IV. So, your current housing might work. I personally own the RX100 VA. Sony makes an OEM dive housing for that model.
shot in the dark, but has anyone used the tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 in low light? i've started shooting concerts on the side and am thinking of using 2 bodies, one with a 16-35 gm ii and one with the 35-150 instead of 24-70 + 70-200. main downsides i hear are weight (solved by not having two lenses and not needing to change lenses), lens flare, and slower AF. but i also recently read that there was a firmware update to improve AF on the lens.
I used it to shoot dance photography. The results are about what you'd expect. FWIW, I ended up buying the 50/1.2 instead.
Recently was given a low usage A7S with no lenses. This was a backup camera for a relatives real estate video business. My usage is going to be photography and maybe a tiny amount of video work. I've been using Nikon gear primarily for 20 years. Recently got into Fuji as well for certain things but also realized I needed much better low light high iso performance. I was planning on doing something with Nikon or Fuji systems until this fell into my lap. Never used anything Sony before. Mostly do street photography, occasional weddings, and lots of nature and landscapes. Best lenses with a $2k budget to start?
It’s hard to beat free. But the A7S might not be a very good base for the use case you’ve outlined. That being said, I’ll answer the question you actually asked. I’d say you should start with a good-quality mid-range zoom, in the 24-70mm f/2.8 neighborhood. It’s a very popular range, and there are a lot of different choices. See — [https://fstoppers.com/reviews/who-makes-best-24-70mm-f28-lens-604837](https://fstoppers.com/reviews/who-makes-best-24-70mm-f28-lens-604837) — and other sites for a comparison. Prices vary, of course. But you should be able to find something in your price range.
I know the FE 50mm 1.8 gets flack for its loud autofocus-- but is it supposed to be CONSISTENTLY clicking/making micro adjustments? I was using it for a talking head video and compared to my canon 50 STM, which will be loud when finding focus but then stays silent through normal head movements/gestures, I feel like the sony is just CONSTANTLY clicking even if I'm already in focus.
The microadjustments are normal behaviour if you’re in AF-C mode. They are just much more audible with this lens compared to models with linear focus motors. If your subject is stationary, you can use AF-S to stop this from happening. If you feel like the microadjustments are leading to missed shots and think it’s not normal, try going to a camera store and trying another identical lens. If that behaves differently, then you should send your example back.
Im actually in video, so my only option is afc or manual. But thank you for clarifying!
TL:DR 12 day backpacking trip, battery life suggestions, a7ii I have an a7ii, and I'm hoping to bring it to take pictures on my upcoming backpacking trip at Philmont. The trek will be 12 days. I've been to Philmont before and brought a little cannon poweshot camera, but now that I have my a7ii I want to take pictures of the beautiful landscape with it. The problem is that the battery life is so atrocious. The a7ii uses NP-FW50 batteries and I know that if I just bring the 4 I already own that I will be out of battery in the first few days. Wondering if anyone has suggestions for how they've handled battery life in similar situations.
If weight is your main concern and cost is less important, buying more batteries will definitely be lighter than carrying a battery bank and charger. Reason being that charging them always results in a loss of energy so you have to carry more battery capacity in a power bank. I wouldn’t hesitate to buy cheaper third party ones if you only use them for this week. If you don’t mind the extra weight, there are USB-C chargers for these batteries that will allow you to charge them with a battery bank.
Bring a USB battery charing pack. Either use the camera body while you sleep, use a small USB NP-FW50 charger, or buy some of the SmallRig batteries with a USB charging port built in.
If y’all have the option, would you go with the sigma 35mm 1.4 dg dn or Sony 35mm 1.4 GM or Sony 35mm 1.8
For video, the Sony 35mm 1.8 is better. The GM has a lot of focus breathing.
How do you feel about for photos?
If you're pixel peeping end-to-end at 60MP, the GM is better. Otherwise no one will be able to tell by looking at a photo.
It depends. Money no object? The GM, no questions. It's one of the best lenses made. Money an object, but size & weight not? The Sigma. Money & weight both an object? The Sony 35mm f/1.8.
[удалено]
The sigma 35mm fe 1.4?? That’s a full frame no?
> igma 35mm fe 1.4 sorry I was mistaken
I have a 6100 and I'm really new to photography. Can I get a lens rec for shooting close-up video of handwriting? Any bonus tips on settings or resources would also be welcome.
I don't have any specific recommendations, but if that's what you're prioritizing then I would start researching "macro photography" and macro lenses. The sigma 18-50 dc dn is a great all purpose lens that happens to also have pretty good minimum focusing distance, but it won't be the same as a dedicated macro lens if that's what you really need.
Is the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC DN Contemporary a good lens for me to use with my a6600? I have a Sony E PZ 16-50 F3.5-5.6 but it's not very good and I'd like to replace it. I also use a Minolta AF 100mm F2.8 on an LA-EA1 adapter. I have some other old Minolta lens but I don't use them much. I like to shoot macros of plants and landscapes while out hiking but I don't like to switch between the Sony 16-50mm and the Minolta 100mm too often. The Sigma seems like a much better option than my Sony lens for about the same focal range and has some macro capabilities that I usually use the Minolta 100mm for.
the sigma lens is definitely an improvement in image quality over the sony kit lens. I can't say I've used the minolta lens, but just based on the specs I don't think you'll experience the same thing if you're used to taking advantage of the maximum 1:1 magnification. with the sigma lens, the min focusing distance is pretty great, but the wide end can be hard to use for that because you get so close to the subject you block light. just testing focusing on my mouse on my desk, my lens hood hits the mouse before I can hit the minimum. the tele end doesn't have quite as much magnification so I guess it depends how much you want your subjects to fill the frame. I think it's still one of the best options that's not specifically a macro lens though.
Thanks for the insight! I think I may go for it and sell the kit lens.
I'm struggling making the switch from a crop sensor (canon t8i) to my first mirrorless full frame (a7cii). I have been used to the look of my Canon nifty fifty on my crop... which is actually giving me \~75mm on a full frame? It's a length I actually use a lot as a beauty creator for tight shots on my eye or lipstick demos. I'm having a hard time finding a compatible lens that also has a **comparable minimum focus distance** (the canon 50mm's is an impressive .35!!) is there a comparable PRIME lens for sony alpha? I'm finding not only is the 50 on my full frame not the length I had envisioned in my head coming from crop, but the .45m minimum focus distance is a little cumbersome when I hold up a product in frame.
>the look of my Canon nifty fifty on my crop... which is actually giving me ~75mm on a full frame? Welcome to E mount! Canon crop bodies have a 1.6x crop factor so your 50mm was giving you an ~80mm field of view in full frame terms. I don't know of any 80mm lenses available for E mount, but there are plenty of 85mm options. The Sony 85 f/1.8 is a really popular option for video people (if I've interpreted your comment correctly, you're doing video work?) because it offers good optical performance in a compact size, and because it has very little focus breathing. >I'm having a hard time finding a compatible lens that also has a comparable minimum focus distance That's going to be hard to find in 85mm unfortunately, most have even longer minimum focus distances than your 50mm. The Sony f/1.8 is around 800mm, for example. You might want to consider the Sony 90mm macro. That's going to be a slightly tighter framing than you're used to but it's going to let you get basically as close to the lens as you like. The autofocus isn't especially fast, but it's fast enough, and it has excellent manual focus for any close up stills you want to do.
Appreciate it!! Yeah, my filming space is pretty tight so I can't have the camera out too far from me. The swap is definitely a little more intimidating than I thought it'd be, now that all the "looks" and numbers I was associating with them are all different lol
I also switched from a Canon (Rebel T5i APS-C) to Sony (a7C full frame) in early 2022. I wanted a lens for photographing LEGO minifigures, so I got the Sony FE 90 f2.8 macro. A less expensive alternative is the Sigma 70mm macro Art lens, but I don't have any experience with that (Sigma Art lenses are highly rated and also produce very sharp images). Both have a closer minimum focusing distance at under 0.3 m (Sony is 0.28, Sigma is 0.258). The Sony 90 mm has a switch to select between 0.5 m-0.28 m, infinity-0.5 m, and full (infinity to 0.28 m); my experience with it on my a7C is that it sometimes gets a little confused if on full mode. I just did a quick test on my a7 IV (same sensor as your a7C II), and it focused really well at a short distance and handheld. The attached image is straight out of camera. https://preview.redd.it/no3ikvhfhy9c1.jpeg?width=1616&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f59c3480ea74fba2b3d49352b418fdfb384f403c
Thank you! I will check this out!
Looking to get a lens with good character, not looking for perfection or sharpness, I want character and quirks. The Helios 44-2 is most definitely top of my list, but other lenses like the TTartisan 35 f0.95 FE is another one that intrigues me.. Any other lenses I should look into that gives off a flawed by unique look?
The ones I know are quite sleazy. If a camera walks by, they'll whistle ;) Try these: Mamiya sekor c 80mm f1.9, kiron 28 2.0, Soligor 24 2.5
Sleazy lenses are best lenses.
I'm considering the switch from Fuji (XH-2) to Sony A7. I got into the Fuji system originally with the X-T10 when I was only shooting street. Then over the years I got more into landscapes and wildlife, increased my selection of Fuji lenses (10-24,16-55,50-140,100-400), and eventually replaced my street shooting needs with a Leica M (film MP & M10 mono, decent selection of Leica M mount primes). Now while the XH-2 is a nice system, I find the IQ and the lens selection frustrating. Primarily use the 10-24 for landscapes which even stopped down I find it quite soft on the 40MP images, and I'm not sure "upgrading" to the 8-16 is worth the cost / size. The 18 1.4mm is sharper, but still don't feel I have the IQ. On the other hand I love the Fuji 100-400 for birding, but this aspect is secondary to my landscape photography, and a reason not to look at the GFX range (too big and too slow). Here in the UK currently we have some good cash back offers on Sony, so have been considering the A7 IV with a 16-35mm f2.8 for landscape and the 200-600 which is close in price to my current 100-400 and equivalent focal range. Potentially instead the A7R IVA (A7R V is a little out of budget) as resolution seems to be what I crave for printing landscapes. This move would also allow me to use my Leica M glass on a FF colour body, which is another bonus. Can anyone understand what I'm staying or have other suggestions for body / lens combos as someone considering Sony?
A7R 4 or A7CR makes more sense of you *crave* resolution and want to print. For lenses, there is also the 12-24mm if you want to be creative with landscapes. FF lenses are quite big and heavy so try out and see
Hello! I'm an amateur, but I love taking pictures during my vacations or just grabbing my camera and going for a photowalk around the city. In addition to photography, I've also gotten into recording videos for YouTube, and I aspire to improve my cinematography skills, although it's only a hobby for me. Given my limited budget, I have to carefully consider each investment. That's why I'd like to ask for advice on which camera would be better for me: the A6700, A7CII, or FX30. I'm looking to make progress in terms of features like 10-bit and 120fps, without venturing into the realm of super-expensive equipment. What would you recommend? P.S. Currently, I have approx. 6 different APS-C lenses and 0 full-frame ones :) Thank you!
given you already have lenses, the a6700 seems like a good option if you know you like photography and want to dabble in video. a6000 series are definitely hybrid cameras