a6500 vs a7 II

>>3061635
A7ii, unless you're doing sport or wildlife, crop cameras at this price range make no sense.

Sell those 2 lenses, they're junk.

Buy 2nd hand but get it insured.

Ideally for cosplay you want fast lenses, you're gonna be in ugly environments in low light.

>>3061635
want to shoot 4k video?
a6500.

want full frame?
a7ii.

with full frame you can adapt old vintage lens straight away. with apsc you can get a zhongyi lens turbo 2. which is $150.

the 16-50 is junk. sell it.
you're not using the 55-210, sell it.

also consider fuji xt20 if you don't need a6500 fast af.

>>3061673
the 55-210 is quite good and sharp. it's just slow at the long end.

>>3061635
You want to shoot portraits, you need a normal/short tele wide aperture lens. Think about picking up something like 50 1.4 or 85 1.8, both of those lenses shoudldo great. Go for the full frame.

>>3061678
sony 55-210 is garbage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itKU5fSv3FY

>>3061698
i think he got a "bad" copy. the lens variation on sony is big and they just pass it off in qc because cucksumers won't notice.
there are examples where the lens is sharp. still dark though.

>>3061673
>>3061678
>>3061698

Thanks for the suggestions!

Yeah I've got access to an a6000 from time to time and those are the two kit lenses that it came with. Not my camera so I can't go and sell them. I've been able to take some pretty great photos with them over the years, but I have been pretty disappointed in the quality when pixel-peeping.

>>3061721

Pretty sure the a6000 I have is one of the "bad" ones, since I can never get the fucker to have really sharp focus, even under tightly controlled lighting and shooting conditions. It's part of the reason why I'm looking to buy a new camera.

Any suggestions on what retailers to look at? I'm a pleb and basically just turn to Amazon.

>>3061635
>I had been waiting to see if Sony would announce an a7 III
I sort of understand what you mean with this.
The A7ii sensor is showing its age compared to competition. The thing is, their new 24MP sensor is pretty fucking incredible compared to the A7ii sensor. The new Electronic Shutter is good enough to replace mechanical shutter, and thanks to that people are now claiming the A9 is capable of 4000-6000 shots per battery charge.
That aspect alone makes the A7ii sound like a turn-off to me now.

But I sort of have a suspicion Sony will release the Mark 3 eventually, maybe even this year.

An alternative route would be to keep sporting your A6000, and buy lenses instead, those lenses will be ready to be used if you eventually upgrade to A7iii.
A6000 with the 85mm GM will make for a pretty strong portrait lens if the room is big enough for that. It would work as a 128mm equivalent lens on your camera.
There is also the Batis 85 which is a pretty strong lens as well.

>>3061872
>But I sort of have a suspicion Sony will release the Mark 3 eventually, maybe even this year.
The a9 just caused a massive wave of hype that will also affect the ceaper EF cameras.. Expect an a7 III announcement in the autumn once all the geardads have been out buying a7/a7r II's for their summer vacations etc.

Or they could announce it in a month to cash in on the hype right away

>>3061678
>16-50 is junk

Im going to disagree with you on that one. I thought the same thing, look at the same charts and all that. I had been using a canon 24-70 L ii thinking it was better, and to be honest, the kit lens perform's better on a crop sensor than the $2000 canon lens does, and it's stabilized. It's really a good lens, minus the fact that it's impossible to pull focus because it's electronic

>>3061635
Id say at least wait tilL the end of the NAB show this weekend. Rumor is that they have one more product to reveal, might be an a7, or an rx100

File: kL8od2r.jpg (2MB, 3192x5010px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3192x5010px

>>3062045
Yeah I won't have the funds available until the middle of next month. I just need to make a purchase before the end of May, if I grab a new camera at all. Hopefully we'll see a Mark 3, but I have my doubts that it will be within my price range. I'm expecting it to come in at about $2500 just for the body, just above the A7rII/A7sII.

>>3062042
I've gotten a lot out that 16-50. Nearly all of my photos up until recently have been on it. Pic related. Also here's a few more, practically all shot with available light and not all under the best of conditions:

http://imgur.com/a/NHd1n

>>3061872

I could keep using the a6000, but at this point myself and the owner are both convinced that there's something wrong with the body itself. Even at locked settings and shooting at the native ISO under studio lighting conditions images come out noisy, as if I was shooting at 1600 ISO or higher. At one con I was able to use a friend's beat up A7 for a few hours, and all the shots off of that were noticeably better.

I know the a6000 is one of this board's favorites, and I do love the camera. I've just outgrown it and feel it's about time to move on to something better.

I'll be honest though, I wish the geotagging feature of the a6500 was made available as a software update to the rest of Sony's cameras since it's just a phone sync feature. That's something I'd love to have for organizational purposes.

>>3062324
>yeh the 16-50 is great

>posts an image so soft it looks out of focus

>>3062328
>Didn't actually claim that it was great

>Did state that all the example photos were shot under not so great conditions with a buggy camera body with a not so great lens

I've gotten decent photos out of it, some of them are nice, most of them are not. Attached pic isn't the best example, and that was intentional. (shot on a rainy day without much thought put into it).

I'll take criticism, but for all your eye for detail there you sure don't take context into consideration.

It was out of focus, btw. So you're dead on there champ.

>>3062329
Your body is fine.

Why are you endlessly defending shit lenses? You do know that not even the very best lenses outresolve a modern sensor?

I looked through your imgur link, soft, soft, soft.

I'll repeeat just so you don't get disappointed later, your body is not giving you soft results, the lens is.

File: 1490680743064.jpg (199KB, 620x968px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 620x968px

>>3061635
Hey OP,

There is one of three things happening to you.

> 1) You are incompetent.

Unlikely (even the worst photographer will still hit something nice every now and then), but still possible.

You could have a setting wrong somewhere, a photo shooting mode or a lightroom setting (I had mine set to zoom to 300% and not 100% on click, made everything look like shit), but I assume you have gone through everything one by one to make sure this is not the case.

> 2) Your body is fucked.

Unlikely, the a6000 is a pretty solid body. I guess you could have gotten a fucked one buying refurb, and it is weird for the issue to be "It makes photos blurry" and have it actually be the body, but I guess it is possible.

> 3) Your lens is shit.

The 16-50 is shit at everything other than being acceptable image quality while being extremely compact. It is decently sharp in the middle, but the corners suck. The aperture also sucks so it doesn't work all that great in limited lighting situations. It gets a lot of shit for being used by many when it released on camera bodies without lens profiles for it. It is SO FUCKING BAD without a profile, but acceptable with. The easiest way to test this is to use a known good lens. You can adapt pretty much any lens for $20, so this should be easy to check.
As for which body to get? I'd say the a7ii, a good ~50mm prime (Zeiss 55mm comes to mind) and you will be able to take some pretty nice shots, especially in low light. Though it may be a good idea to wait a week or two, a7iii is supposed to be right around the corner.

Get the a6500 if you need every edge you can get when it comes to autofocus, but honestly the a7ii is more than good enough for most situations. Plus there is a lot of great FF e-mount lenses out now.

>>3062450
70-200 4 G
70-200 2.8 GM

>>3062453
mc-11 and canon mount 70-200 2.8/4 if these are a bit too pricey

>>3062339
Likely a combination of all three, but I'd lean towards the last two.

The photos I posted here >>3062324
nearly all of them I've had to apply some noise reduction to in Lightroom. The most I zoom in these days is 1:1, but even there noise is pretty apparent. I'd assume noise is likely an issue with the sensor, and the softness from the lens.

>>3062450
minolta md 70-210mm f4.

What do you guys think of an a7II with adapted Minolta lenses?

>>3062919
Fantastic.

>>3062635

Noise pops up pretty fast.

I wont even use my brand new full frame camera over ISO 800.

Take into the fact the aperture settings suck on that lens, the environment is poorly lit, and the camera by default pumps up ISO to keep shutter speeds high, and you are gonna have a fuckton of noise.

what camera do you have now?

>>3062648
MD? You mean Minolta A right?

>>3061635
holy shit I just checked the pricing

These cameras have the exact price.

Get the fullframe A7II