'Upgrade' to full frame? And which camera?

[SFTPhotography]

TBH I doubt your 2012 Macbook will find the 50MB files from an A7III easy to handle, let alone the 100MB files from an A7IIIr if you work un-compressed. My 2009 Macbook couldn't handle 24MB files from my Nikon D610 very well.

The A7IIIr has a better EVF, better rear screen and allows more cropping IF the lens is up to it thus giving a bit more reach.

For most of us the A7III is the sweet spot for all-round shooting, though there are times when I'd like an R for landscape work.

The OP can always invest in a better computer later down the line.

In a digital photography workflow your camera and lens is only one part of the jigsaw. Your computer, your screen screen, screen calibration, editing room (I edit always in the dark) all form a part of the puzzle. Ideally specs wise I'd want the latest i9 or Xeons, probably 128gb minimum of RAM, several TB of storage (doesn't have to be onboard though) and windows/mac - not arsed as would run C1 pro. SSD would be essential for the boot drive but not for files. I have a back up strategy with offsite storage (god bless other family members) to store my back ups.

I'd love to upgrade to medium format digital - but the cost vs my circumstances just isn't there and I'd want to spend a big bundle to get the hardware to manage it all

 

[SFTPhotography]

why not look into iCloud? All my photos are stored in that, I’m on the 2tb plan. Then you won’t have to through the picture just yet!

Yearly subscription costs vs the cost of the hardware. iCloud, Google Drive and One drive on a 1tb plus plan cost more after 2 years than owning an external SSD.

Simply store the external SSD away from your home and voila - you have back up.

Even with fibre it's painfully slow to upload and download from the cloud - USB 3 transfer speeds are a lot higher.

 

[stickytape]

How do you organise them with iCloud in terms of your workflow? For importing, editing and exporting photos do you just store all of your photos in an iCloud Drive folder in the first place and also use that as the main ‘export’ area from Lightroom for example? As opposed to importing them all into the ‘Photos’ app I mean?

so I always have the “master” files straight from the camera imported straight into photos. Then, for those that I edit in photoshop, export to photoshop and save as psd back in photos (keeping the original raw file too),

 

[HoppyUK]

My first full frame camera was a Nikon D3 - I wouldn't go back to a smaller sensor now.

That was a while ago then, like a dozen years, when APS-C cameras like the Nikon D70 and Canon 20D were around 6-8mp. Both cameras and lenses have improved a lot since then. That's my point about the law of diminishing returns and all formats have improved to the point where image quality from APS-C and M4/3 is not just adequate today, but bluddy good! Throw in the cost and weight savings and you have to ask some serious questions about your honest wants vs real needs when the only person who can see the difference with full-frame is you on the PC at 100%.

None of which is likely to persuade me to change back to a cropper

 

[snerkler]

That was a while ago then, like a dozen years, when APS-C cameras like the Nikon D70 and Canon 20D were around 6-8mp. Both cameras and lenses have improved a lot since then. That's my point about the law of diminishing returns and all formats have improved to the point where image quality is not just adequate today, but bluddy good! Throw in the cost and weight savings and you have to ask some serious questions about your honest wants vs real needs when the only person who can see the difference with full-frame is you on the PC at 100%.

None of which is likely to persuade me to change back to a cropper

Tbh IQ in terms of sharpness is more than good enough from m4/3 upwards, even viewed large. For me the only reason to choose one format over the other is rendering (subject isolation, pop etc) and low light noise handling, the first of which is subjective. Even noise can be seen more by some than others.

 

[AZ6]

I've decided I really do need a new Mac. This 2006 Mac Pro (the original MP!) is really getting a bit long in the tooth now. It has ample processing power (4x 3GHz), ample RAM (32GB), ample storage (500GB boot drive with all apps, 2x4TB HDDs in RAID 0), but pitiful graphics by today's standard; 512Mb, only supports up to 2560x1600px resolution and can barely handle full 1080p video. And the OS is so ancient; OS-X 10.7.5!!! And can't be upgraded any longer. So it's 'obsolete'. At the moment, I'm using a cheap Windows Tab-Top™ thing to convert the NEF files from my Nikon Z6, to .dng files, cos the Mac can't do them (can't upgrade LR). And there's no way I could do anything with 4k video, even if I wanted to. It's really not ideal. So; the plan is to get a new Mac, probably an iMac 27" (why people mess around with laptops when they don't need to, is beyond me). And then hopefully use the MacPro as a 'server; stuff it full of HDDs, have various OS' on there inc a Windows drive, and VM things from the new Mac. Forget Cloud; I'm not paying for storage, plus as mentioned; it can be stupidly slow.

Only problem is; do I wait for a bit, see if a new iMac comes out in June-Julyish, as they normally seem to, or get one now, as any update may well be postponed indefinitely?

 

[snerkler]

I've decided I really do need a new Mac. This 2006 Mac Pro (the original MP!) is really getting a bit long in the tooth now. It has ample processing power (4x 3GHz), ample RAM (32GB), ample storage (500GB boot drive with all apps, 2x4TB HDDs in RAID 0), but pitiful graphics by today's standard; 512Mb, only supports up to 2560x1600px resolution and can barely handle full 1080p video. And the OS is so ancient; OS-X 10.7.5!!! And can't be upgraded any longer. So it's 'obsolete'. At the moment, I'm using a cheap Windows Tab-Top™ thing to convert the NEF files from my Nikon Z6, to .dng files, cos the Mac can't do them (can't upgrade LR). And there's no way I could do anything with 4k video, even if I wanted to. It's really not ideal. So; the plan is to get a new Mac, probably an iMac 27" (why people mess around with laptops when they don't need to, is beyond me). And then hopefully use the MacPro as a 'server; stuff it full of HDDs, have various OS' on there inc a Windows drive, and VM things from the new Mac. Forget Cloud; I'm not paying for storage, plus as mentioned; it can be stupidly slow.

Only problem is; do I wait for a bit, see if a new iMac comes out in June-Julyish, as they normally seem to, or get one now, as any update may well be postponed indefinitely?

TBH there’s always new tech around the corner, and what you buy will be obsolete in weeks. Unless something is definitely on the very near horizon I just get things when I need them and don’t worry what may or may not be available in a few months time.

As for the laptops comment my MBP got far more use than my 5k 27” iMac and in the end I ended up selling the iMac. I keep meaning to sync my iPad to my MBP when using LR to use it as a more precise brush tool but I keep forgetting to look into it

 

[woof woof]

That was a while ago then, like a dozen years, when APS-C cameras like the Nikon D70 and Canon 20D were around 6-8mp. Both cameras and lenses have improved a lot since then. That's my point about the law of diminishing returns and all formats have improved to the point where image quality from APS-C and M4/3 is not just adequate today, but bluddy good! Throw in the cost and weight savings and you have to ask some serious questions about your honest wants vs real needs when the only person who can see the difference with full-frame is you on the PC at 100%.

None of which is likely to persuade me to change back to a cropper

I'm a bit of a fan of MFT and have had the kit since the early days (I started with a GF1) but the DR can be limiting and that's when taking the picture and when looking at a whole picture not just when pixel peeping at 100% on screen. Maybe it's not an issue for many people and maybe it's because I'm up north where the sun can be low in the sky and I'm often in places with both shade and harsh light within the scene I want a picture of but the relative lack of DR with MFT is often obvious to me when comparing my GX80 and GX9 to my quite old and not state of the art by todays standards Sony A7. On other days and with other scenes maybe not so much so or maybe not even at all.

This lack of DR is the biggest issue for me, DoF and sharpness are next to non issues the vast majority of times.

Of course the Canon 20D was awful by todays standards if you exposed for the highlights and tried to boost the shadows and my current MFT cameras are IMO better than the 5D I had and the 5DII someone in my world has.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Hmmm, interesting. In what way did it struggle, I honestly don’t recall mine being bad? The area I find LR struggles is if you scroll through each image in quick succession you get the spinning beach ball, but that still happens even though I’ve got 2.9ghz i7 quad core, 16GB ram, SSD and 4gb GOU these days.

Editing was a painfully slow process: move a slider a little & wait for the image to change. Trying to use a brush required a lot of patience & care, moving the cursor, then waiting to see where the mask was applied, move a little more & wait again. Doing spot removal was similar, except the cursor wouldn't move for a couple of seconds to remove the next spot, and when it did move it would be in little jerks, freezing between. There would be a lot of spinning beachball too. It IS possible to edit A7III images (post .dng conversion) even now, but the process is unbearably slow.

 

[snerkler]

Editing was a painfully slow process: move a slider a little & wait for the image to change. Trying to use a brush required a lot of patience & care, moving the cursor, then waiting to see where the mask was applied, move a little more & wait again. Doing spot removal was similar, except the cursor wouldn't move for a couple of seconds to remove the next spot, and when it did move it would be in little jerks, freezing between. There would be a lot of spinning beachball too. It IS possible to edit A7III images (post .dng conversion) even now, but the process is unbearably slow.

Wow, that’d done my head in

 

[ancient_mariner]

Wow, that’d done my head in

It wasn't great.

I still take that laptop travelling because it owes me little, but I don't do much processing while away either.

 

[AZ6]

TBH there’s always new tech around the corner, and what you buy will be obsolete in weeks.

I know, but Apple tend not to update things quite as often as some other brands. The current iMac is getting on for over a year old now. So, there could be new stuff in the offing. Although the current top iMac model (with upgrade to the i9 processor) is more than enough, quite frankly. I'd quite like to buy something as 'new' as possible, that way things tend not to become obsolete so quick. Expecting another 14 years out of a new machine is perhaps unrealistic, but I'd like at least 6-8 years or so, given I'd be spending around £3000. CV has meant any announcements aren't likely for some time yet mind. I can wait; the current machine will continue to chug along doing it's thing. Works perfectly with my D600 at least.

As for the laptops comment my MBP got far more use than my 5k 27” iMac and in the end I ended up selling the iMac

Sounds like your iMac was overkill then. But I don't like small screens, and a decent 5k monitor isn't cheap anyway, so an iMac is a far better package for me. I don't need portability; I have an iPad which serves any travelling type needs. Laptops are far less powerful than desktops; why compromise on the most important aspect of a computer? I also do PS and Illustrator stuff, so a nice, high quality screen would be a real bonus. Plus I may well have opportunities to do some video stuff; again, the iMac is a better choice. Laptops are perfect for 90% of most people though. A friend has just bought a new MacBook Air; so tiny!

 

[snerkler]

I know, but Apple tend not to update things quite as often as some other brands. The current iMac is getting on for over a year old now. So, there could be new stuff in the offing. Although the current top iMac model (with upgrade to the i9 processor) is more than enough, quite frankly. I'd quite like to buy something as 'new' as possible, that way things tend not to become obsolete so quick. Expecting another 14 years out of a new machine is perhaps unrealistic, but I'd like at least 6-8 years or so, given I'd be spending around £3000. CV has meant any announcements aren't likely for some time yet mind. I can wait; the current machine will continue to chug along doing it's thing. Works perfectly with my D600 at least.

I've not seen any rumours about a new iMac tbh, but who knows But yes, I expect a minimum 5 years, probably longer. With windows laptops I was replacing them every two years, and before the windows fanboys jump on my back I bought good ones, and followed all the advice available to 'prolong' the life. I've even got one windows laptop that all it's ever done is view x-rays, so no chance of malware, no dodgy software installed etc etc and that's now slowed to a pace I find unbearable and it needs replacing again, after less that two years. I really wish hospitals would make their CD ROMs Mac compatible

Sounds like your iMac was overkill then. But I don't like small screens, and a decent 5k monitor isn't cheap anyway, so an iMac is a far better package for me. I don't need portability; I have an iPad which serves any travelling type needs. Laptops are far less powerful than desktops; why compromise on the most important aspect of a computer? I also do PS and Illustrator stuff, so a nice, high quality screen would be a real bonus. Plus I may well have opportunities to do some video stuff; again, the iMac is a better choice. Laptops are perfect for 90% of most people though. A friend has just bought a new MacBook Air; so tiny!

My Mac wasn't overkill as such, and I really liked it. However, the lack or portability was a real issue for me and why I use the MBP far more.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I've not seen any rumours about a new iMac tbh, but who knows But yes, I expect a minimum 5 years, probably longer. With windows laptops I was replacing them every two years, and before the windows fanboys jump on my back I bought good ones, and followed all the advice available to 'prolong' the life. I've even got one windows laptop that all it's ever done is view x-rays, so no chance of malware, no dodgy software installed etc etc and that's now slowed to a pace I find unbearable and it needs replacing again, after less that two years. I really wish hospitals would make their CD ROMs Mac compatible

My Mac wasn't overkill as such, and I really liked it. However, the lack or portability was a real issue for me and why I use the MBP far more.

Until relatively recently, computers running both OSX and windows benefitted for reinstallation around every 18 months/2 years (related my my experience of the Macbook above, a decline in performance would be very noticeable when editing images, and a fresh installation of OSX really helped). That seemed to change with Mountain Lion and Windows 10, after which time systems seemed more stable and did not show an obvious drop in performance even after a couple of years.

The main issues never seemed to be installation & removal of software (who really does that very often?) but instead repeated updates causing issues. My evidence is purely anecdotal - I've no metrics - but kit I've used that was kept off the internet and without updates continued to function effectively the same, year after year. Kit that was online & frequently updated just crufted up and got slower & slower. A good friend and I bought computers at the same time: he a Dell XPS, me the Macbook. He's not at all techie, and took it round the world for years using it as is, while I did multiple reinstalls (eventual SSD) in the Mac. Eventually he wanted to re-use his XPS for a different purpose, and I wiped/reinstalled, at which point it became like a new machine again.


It's hard to image an iMac could ever be overkill - they're only laptop hardware stuck in the back of an expensive disposable screen - but if portability is what you need then then it's better to have a proper laptop & use an external monitor at home: you'll lose no performance.

 

[snerkler]

Until relatively recently, computers running both OSX and windows benefitted for reinstallation around every 18 months/2 years (related my my experience of the Macbook above, a decline in performance would be very noticeable when editing images, and a fresh installation of OSX really helped). That seemed to change with Mountain Lion and Windows 10, after which time systems seemed more stable and did not show an obvious drop in performance even after a couple of years.

The main issues never seemed to be installation & removal of software (who really does that very often?) but instead repeated updates causing issues. My evidence is purely anecdotal - I've no metrics - but kit I've used that was kept off the internet and without updates continued to function effectively the same, year after year. Kit that was online & frequently updated just crufted up and got slower & slower. A good friend and I bought computers at the same time: he a Dell XPS, me the Macbook. He's not at all techie, and took it round the world for years using it as is, while I did multiple reinstalls (eventual SSD) in the Mac. Eventually he wanted to re-use his XPS for a different purpose, and I wiped/reinstalled, at which point it became like a new machine again.


It's hard to image an iMac could ever be overkill - they're only laptop hardware stuck in the back of an expensive disposable screen - but if portability is what you need then then it's better to have a proper laptop & use an external monitor at home: you'll lose no performance.

I’m sure we‘ve all had different experiences and can only comment on our own

TBH my computers get hammered, heavy processing, far too long online, commuting in the panniers of motorbikes etc etc. I was told over and over that windows don’t slow any more than macs, which may be true on the whole but my experience is vastly different. I know people that are very tech savvy and I did everything they said, as well as on tech forums to keep my windows running A1 but it never worked. Ok that’s not 100% true, a fresh install did put it back to almost like new but only for a few weeks when it slowed to a crawl.

I don’t believe I’m a windows basher though, I loved Windows 7 and the millions of users out there must show that it’s a great system.

The only issue I’ve had with my MBP was a dead SSD, but that was third party anyway. I don’t do fresh installs on my Mac, too much hassle

 

[ancient_mariner]

I’m sure we‘ve all had different experiences and can only comment on our own

Yup.

 

[AZ6]

It's hard to image an iMac could ever be overkill - they're only laptop hardware stuck in the back of an expensive disposable screen - but if portability is what you need then then it's better to have a proper laptop & use an external monitor at home: you'll lose no performance.

Lol! One look at the specs on Apple's website shows this to be utter rubbish. The ToTR MacBook Pro is still some way off the ToTR iMac (2.4GHz 8 core i9 vs 3.6GHz 8 core i9; plus the iMac has a much larger and better screen (naturally) and more powerful graphics; always a compromise getting something smaller and portable). As for the screen being 'disposable'; I don't even know what this means. I think people get a bit hung up on the all in one form factor, but in 20 years of owning Macs, including the original type CRT and newer flatscreen iMacs), I have only ever seen one iMac with a screen issue (it was overall very yellow, weird). Bottom line is, the whole package works so well, nothing compares. But if I bought a MacBook, I'd also have to buy a decent 5k screen and K+M. So another what, £1000 on top? So we're talking well over £4000 now. More portable, for sure, but I don't need that. I appreciate many people prefer that option.

Actually; a MacBook Air is probably overkill for my needs really (and I suspect, most people's). I was hoping there'd be a souped up Mac Mini; performance of the ToTR iMac but just without the screen. But no. But this is the thing; on a thread about upgrading a camera, consideration of what computer you'll use is also important. I do think a MBA or MM would be fine for 90% of needs mind. As I've discovered, trying to use an older machine with the latest tech, doesn't work so well. But this all adds to the cost.

 

[Will James]

So I've done more researchfollowing the great advice you have all given so far, it really is helpful so thanks again! I like to be thorough but I think I now just need to make a decision

Feel free to comment or challenge the following but here is where I am with it all at the moment:

System & format: haven't heavily invested in Canon glass, would like to give FF a go as I would prefer image quality improvements vs. keeping the current 'reach' from my crop. Even if I went for a Canon RP, R5 (once out) or a 5D/6Dii, I'd need to get new lenses for FF so in my view there is no clear advantage of me staying with Canon.

Camera: The A7iii seems the best all-rounder, however, to stay near the £2k budget I think it will be difficult. I've come to realise that for the budget I'd like to get a camera, standard zoom, prime and a decent tripod. as for a telephoto I can always use my 70-300 on my 500D if needed until I can get one for the Sony but I'd like to get one as soon as possible. The flash can wait.

So I'm thinking that a used A7ii could be the most appropriate option and maybe in a few years upgrade to the A7iii or later model - at this point of time I'm not sure the extra £££ vs. an A7ii will bring me equivalent extra use/value - the jump from my 500D to A7ii will be HUGE in any case. The lack of battery life vs. the A7iii can be countered with carrying spare batteries and I won't make use of the better video of the A7iii as I'm only planning to take stills.

A7Rii is also an option (I could stretch to a used one) but given my lack of experience I'm not sure what extra it would give me (at this point in time) apart from the extra resolution, and as said above my laptop will struggle with the files.

So for £2k it would be: A7ii (used), Tamron 28-75 2.8 (new) or 24-105 (used), Sony 50 1.8mm (new) and tripod. I will miss not having a telephoto for a while.

Any reason why I should fork out the extra £££ for the A7Rii or A7iii at this point in time?

 

[snerkler]

So I've done more researchfollowing the great advice you have all given so far, it really is helpful so thanks again! I like to be thorough but I think I now just need to make a decision

Feel free to comment or challenge the following but here is where I am with it all at the moment:

System & format: haven't heavily invested in Canon glass, would like to give FF a go as I would prefer image quality improvements vs. keeping the current 'reach' from my crop. Even if I went for a Canon RP, R5 (once out) or a 5D/6Dii, I'd need to get new lenses for FF so in my view there is no clear advantage of me staying with Canon.

Camera: The A7iii seems the best all-rounder, however, to stay near the £2k budget I think it will be difficult. I've come to realise that for the budget I'd like to get a camera, standard zoom, prime and a decent tripod. as for a telephoto I can always use my 70-300 on my 500D if needed until I can get one for the Sony but I'd like to get one as soon as possible. The flash can wait.

So I'm thinking that a used A7ii could be the most appropriate option and maybe in a few years upgrade to the A7iii or later model - at this point of time I'm not sure the extra £££ vs. an A7ii will bring me equivalent extra use/value - the jump from my 500D to A7ii will be HUGE in any case. The lack of battery life vs. the A7iii can be countered with carrying spare batteries and I won't make use of the better video of the A7iii as I'm only planning to take stills.

A7Rii is also an option (I could stretch to a used one) but given my lack of experience I'm not sure what extra it would give me (at this point in time) apart from the extra resolution, and as said above my laptop will struggle with the files.

So for £2k it would be: A7ii (used), Tamron 28-75 2.8 (new) or 24-105 (used), Sony 50 1.8mm (new) and tripod. I will miss not having a telephoto for a while.

Any reason why I should fork out the extra £££ for the A7Rii or A7iii at this point in time?

I can’t remember all your requirements tbh but the A7III is quite a step up from the A7II in terms of performance, and has better ergonomics.

Looking at grey prices (which are after close to used UK prices) you can get the A7III with 28-70mm for £1429, Samyang 45mm f1.8 for £269 and that’d leave you £300 for a tripod.

Alternatively you could get the A7 iii for £1299, Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 £549 and used Sony 50mm f1.8 for £140 but nothing really left for a tripod. The Zeiss 24-70mm f4 is around £40 cheaper than the Tamron, and mint used ones can be found for about £420 which would leave money for a tripod.

 

[nandbytes]

A7ii is worst Sony body upgrade ever IMO. It's basically an A7 with IBIS. You might as well buy the original A7 instead.

The A7RII is vastly better in terms of IQ, AF, EVF. It's well worth the extra while A7ii is not worth the extra over the original A7 which you can get for like £350 on a good day.

If possible stretch for an used A7III IMO. It's ergonomics and battery is vastly improved. It's definitely worth that little extra over A7RII.
If it were up to me under £2K I'd go with used A7III+24-105.

 

[snerkler]

If possible stretch for an used A7III IMO. It's ergonomics and battery is vastly improved. It's definitely worth that little extra over A7RII.
If it were up to me under £2K I'd go with used A7III+24-105.

But that leaves no money for a prime or tripod

 

[nandbytes]

But that leaves no money for a prime or tripod

He'll be better off getting a better prime when he has a bit more money than the FE50/1.8 any way. No big loss.

He can find a decent tripod like redsnapper for not a lot of money. I'd sell mine lol
He seems to be the kinda guy that'll keep things for a long time so he is better off with better a lens and camera even if he has less of them.

On a limited budget (which a lot of us are) I'd buy fewer better things than many less good things. but that's just me.

 

[snerkler]

He'll be better off getting a better prime when he has a bit more money than the FE50/1.8 any way. No big loss.

He can find a decent tripod like redsnapper for not a lot of money. I'd sell mine lol
He seems to be the kinda guy that'll keep things for a long time so he is better off with better a lens and camera even if he has less of them.

On a limited budget (which a lot of us are) I'd buy fewer better things than many less good things. but that's just me.

I agree with your last comment but the 28-75mm f2.8 is a great lens, and despite the negativity I’ve been very happy with my 24-70mm f4, but then I ‘only’ paid £420 for it.

 

[nandbytes]

I agree with your last comment but the 28-75mm f2.8 is a great lens, and despite the negativity I’ve been very happy with my 24-70mm f4, but then I ‘only’ paid £420 for it.

yes 28-75 is a very good lens. I switched to 24-105mm for the extra reach at both ends.

 

[Will James]

Thanks both.

Perhaps going for the kit lens to start with would be a good starting point, then I can move to either the 28-75 or 24-105 depending on my needs after I get used to FF.

If I buy grey, I understand I wouldn't get warranty is that correct? Are there any risks of buying grey?

 

[nandbytes]

Are there any risks of buying grey?

Apart from breaking the law not much else really

you do get warranty with the seller. some grey sellers are better than others at after sales support.

 

[snerkler]

yes 28-75 is a very good lens. I switched to 24-105mm for the extra reach at both ends.

I prefer 24mm at the wide end for sure I effectively get 24-105mm with the A7RIV

Thanks both.

Perhaps going for the kit lens to start with would be a good starting point, then I can move to either the 28-75 or 24-105 depending on my needs after I get used to FF.

If I buy grey, I understand I wouldn't get warranty is that correct? Are there any risks of buying grey?

Buying grey is like buying something on holiday and then not declaring it at customs when you come home. Some companies make it appear that they pay the correct duty but I doubt it as they wouldn't be so cheap otherwise. Some say they have UK depots. You have to decide whether you are happy to buy knowing this, some are some aren't. Hopefully this thread won't derail into another one of 'those' threads

As far as the items themselves they are exactly the same, and come of the same line as any other equipment. Many offer good warranties, some up to 3 years which is far better than you get with UK stock. Panama are known for their excellent customer service and warranty. I've only heard of one bad experience from e-infinity, all the rest have been very happy. The only downside with e-infinity is that turnaround time to fix equipment is longer as I believe the items are sent back overseas after you've sent them to the UK depot, I'm happy to be corrected on this. HDEW are also very reputable and are very good with their warranty claims.

 

[nandbytes]

I prefer 24mm at the wide end for sure I effectively get 24-105mm with the A7RIV

By that logic you get a 24-160mm with a 24-105mm on A7RIV

 

[snerkler]

By that logic you get a 24-160mm with a 24-105mm on A7RIV

105's where it's at

 

[nandbytes]

105's where it's at

I have considered going with sigma 24-70/2.8 a few times.

 

[snerkler]

I have considered going with sigma 24-70/2.8 a few times.

Starting to get heavy though, double the weight of the 24-70mm f4, and 200g more than the 24-105mm I think I'd rather sacrifice the f2.8 for the reach.

 

[nandbytes]

Starting to get heavy though, double the weight of the 24-70mm f4, and 200g more than the 24-105mm I think I'd rather sacrifice the f2.8 for the reach.

It's slightly heavier but the size is same.

 

[snerkler]

It's slightly heavier but the size is same.

One of my primary concerns these days is weight

 

[ancient_mariner]

Interesting to see the thread reawaken.

I'd agree with Nand that the A7III is a better bet than the II - it's a sweet spot right now between the older cameras and the R models, with decent battery life and a bunch of other improvements.

Lenses are tricky. The 24-75 is good value, but some copies were quite poor (someone here was kind enough to share some raw files with me - that kind of quality that would be ok on a £100 kit lens) but some seem much much better.

I own the 24-105 - it's good, but not astonishing, a bit better than the Nikon 28-105. Had the 50 f1.8 which was optically nice but AF very poor.

I'd probably look for a used A7III and kit zoom, then see what you needed next.

 

[snerkler]

Interesting to see the thread reawaken.

I'd agree with Nand that the A7III is a better bet than the II - it's a sweet spot right now between the older cameras and the R models, with decent battery life and a bunch of other improvements.

Lenses are tricky. The 24-75 is good value, but some copies were quite poor (someone here was kind enough to share some raw files with me - that kind of quality that would be ok on a £100 kit lens) but some seem much much better.

I own the 24-105 - it's good, but not astonishing, a bit better than the Nikon 28-105. Had the 50 f1.8 which was optically nice but AF very poor.

I'd probably look for a used A7III and kit zoom, then see what you needed next.

Which lens is the 24-75mm?

 

[nandbytes]

Which lens is the 24-75mm?

you just need too merge sigma/sony with tamron

 

[AZ6]

Camera: The A7iii seems the best all-rounder, however, to stay near the £2k budget I think it will be difficult. I've come to realise that for the budget I'd like to get a camera, standard zoom, prime and a decent tripod. as for a telephoto I can always use my 70-300 on my 500D if needed until I can get one for the Sony but I'd like to get one as soon as possible. The flash can wait.

Even as a Nikonite, my head still says the Sony is the better option right now, if starting from 'scratch' as it were. And I agree with others that going for the A7iii is probably the better move, as really you want something as current as possible, to enjoy the tech benefits. I started off with a Nikon D200, to 'dip my toes' in the digital water. That wasn't a 'mistake' as such, but I soon found it to be somewhat lacking, so quickly replaced it with a D600. If you get the A7ii, I reckon you'll always be thinking 'why didn't I buy the A7iii??'.

As for lenses; one of my all time faves has been my 24-120mm f4 on the Nikon. Such a great range, without compromising too much on image quality, as I've seen with a lot of 24-200 type zooms. It's such a versatile lens. The 24-105 is only a bit shorter, makes no practical difference really. I think it would be a better first lens than a 24-70. But then; I love my little 24-70mm f4 on the Z6. Because it's such a fantastic lens. Definitely offers image quality over range. I haven't found it limiting in any way, so far.

Stuff like tripods; look in classified on here, or Ebay/s/h etc. Plenty of decent old kit around, for bargain prices.

 

[twist]

So I've done more researchfollowing the great advice you have all given so far, it really is helpful so thanks again! I like to be thorough but I think I now just need to make a decision

Feel free to comment or challenge the following but here is where I am with it all at the moment:

System & format: haven't heavily invested in Canon glass, would like to give FF a go as I would prefer image quality improvements vs. keeping the current 'reach' from my crop. Even if I went for a Canon RP, R5 (once out) or a 5D/6Dii, I'd need to get new lenses for FF so in my view there is no clear advantage of me staying with Canon.

The main benefit of Canon is the adapted lenses route and overall cost, RF lens options are still lacking and very expensive (except for the tiny 35mm 1.8 RF). EF lenses can be had for a bargain and there are loads of options because the mount has been around so long. Id recommend both systems for various reasons, cant really go very wrong either way, Nikon is also a good option.

RP plus adapter - £860
50mm 1.8 STM - £90
85mm 1.8 EF - £230
--------------------------
£1180

vs

A7iii - £1300
50mm 1.8 - £160
85mm - £420
--------------------------
£1880

 

[nandbytes]

Except RP sucks in comparison to A7III on many levels and the lenses you mentioned are a bit old and aren't optically as good as the Sony ones.

 

[twist]

Except RP sucks in comparison to A7III on many levels and the lenses you mentioned are a bit old and aren't optically as good as the Sony ones.

Not really, its much nicer to hold, better screen, better colour, better touch screen, better adapted. Where it struggles is FPS and base DR on the Sony is better and the eye AF is good but not as good as the Sony. Pros and cons.

The STM is probably as good as the Sony option at half the price. The 85 isnt as good.

The point is, there are options at various price points, I would never buy an A7ii over an RP because the RP is much better at the same/very similar pricepoint. The OP should decide a budget and buy at that pricepoint.