Overall budget is $2000 and I don't have to worry about sales tax when ordering from B&H.
I've thought about the A7RII as well.
Both are great cameras that will serve you well. What do you think you will end up shooting most?
Overall budget is $2000 and I don't have to worry about sales tax when ordering from B&H.
I've thought about the A7RII as well.
Good question, and one I should probably give more thought too. I initially wanted to get out and start taking pics and see what I end up doing most.Both are great cameras that will serve you well. What do you think you will end up shooting most?
Good question, and one I should probably give more thought too. I initially wanted to get out and start taking pics and see what I end up doing most.
Ok so like, I'm just posting these to remind people that the subject doesn't need to be stone stiff for the A7RII to capture them:Makes sense. I was just going to say that the X-T3 will be a better camera for fast action type photography. It's got faster continuous auto-focus with better coverage across the image frame, faster burst rate, and a deeper buffer so you can take more photos at once. The A7R II is definitely going to have better image quality, though, so if you're just doing more general photography with mostly still subjects, then it might be the better route.
X-T3 honestly depends on the glass though, some of their lenses were not built for speedy AF acquisition. The 16-55 is fine, the 90 is mostly fine, the 50-140 is fine, the 23 1.4 is ok, the 56 is okish if it's in the mood to be. They really need to refresh some stuff. With Sony I think most of the stuff you can buy from the is good AF wise to the point where I think the only weak link on that front is the A7RII itself and my biggest complaint with the A7RII is just the lack of a joystick and even that's not keeping me from getting shots. As a newbie the X-T3 helps, as an experienced shooter as long as it's not rocketing around the screen you should be able to get at least 1-2 decent pics of it with the A7RII. Even Birders can use the A7RII so it's not that bad.Oh, for sure. I took tens of thousands of action shots on the A7R II, but I think you'll agree that the X-T3 is a lot more suited to the task of capturing fast action, especially for someone who is not as experienced of a photographer.
I just want something released to tank the A7RIII used prices already. I want it so badly and I'm close to being able to afford one.Sony event in two weeks, huh. Expected to reveal a new mid-entry camera. Wonder if it'll end up being their new APS-C model designed to compete with the XT-3.
I just want something released to tank the A7RIII used prices already. I want it so badly and I'm close to being able to afford one.
Don't remind me. I would like to think anything new released would drop the price a bit because of early adopters.Guess you'll have to wait a full year before the A7RIV hits though.
Don't remind me. I would like to think anything new released would drop the price a bit because of early adopters.
I want an A7RIII and an A9 though unless they really bring some much needed new shit to the plate. I can basically live on an A7RII, but I want the cameras with the AF joysticks. I'm probably getting the A7RIII next month so if the price drops are a year out then fine.
That is a great camera. I personally didn't like the image output on the X-T2 when I first got it till I got one of the primes. The 18-55 is quite fine, but I was coming off of the Nikon D810 and the 2.8 24-70 so the Fuji was coming off lacking, two years later with some good lenses and being used to working on the RAF files I'm very used to the system these days. I'm letting you know this now. Fuji tends to lean on the warm side so adjust your white balance to lean a little on the cooler side.Thanks for the help JadedWriter and Zefah. Decided on the X-T3. Got it with the 18-55mm kit lens from Amazon for $340 a month.
For know I'll just focus on learning the basics and getting out and taking pics. In the future I'll probably get a full frame if I feel the need to.
Great system, as a newb that's a great camera to use. I just met a dude yesterday who stopped me and we had a conversation about the XT-3, and this is the third encounter within a month or so. You tend to get a lot of people asking questions and sharing experiences. If you have any specific questions about settings feel free to ask. The kit lens is great for a beginner as well, though I always say one should learn with primes.Thanks for the help JadedWriter and Zefah. Decided on the X-T3. Got it with the 18-55mm kit lens from Amazon for $340 a month.
For now I'll just focus on learning the basics and getting out and taking pics. In the future I'll probably get a full frame if I feel the need to.
So much this. I know a beginner that started out with a Tamron 18-300 and he can't compose to save his life.Great system, as a newb that's a great camera to use. I just met a dude yesterday who stopped me and we had a conversation about the XT-3, and this is the third encounter within a month or so. You tend to get a lot of people asking questions and sharing experiences. If you have any specific questions about settings feel free to ask. The kit lens is great for a beginner as well, though I always say one should learn with primes.
The GM's are fine looking, the 50 I had was no frills, the Distagon looks good the 85 looks like an 85. I mostly have no real problem with the way most of them look minus certain Zeiss models.
Most of these autofocus lenses look pretty bad, IMO. Sony's seem bigger than usual, too.
It's just very plain, an aperture ring would've been nice. That's a big miss.
The coating is different. I think my 35 Art started showing scratches within the first month or some shit. I think with the GM's you have key them basically, though on my 70-200 there's like a rubbing mark on the front barrel or something.The Sigma Art lenses looks great. But scratches way too easily. Same with some FE lenses like the 55mm and 85mm 1.8.
Glad the GM isn't like that.
Man, I must have completely opposite tastes to you in terms of lens aesthetics. I've always disliked the cluttered look of "old" lenses.
Manual focus lenses are just better brah.With that response, I've now got you pictured as a fixie bike-riding hipster cruising around with a manual focus Leica.
With that response, I've now got you pictured as a fixie bike-riding hipster cruising around with a manual focus Leica.
Why would a hipster be using a Leica? Too mainstream and expensive. Would have an old Zorki or Zenit camera instead.With that response, I've now got you pictured as a fixie bike-riding hipster cruising around with a manual focus Leica.
Why would a hipster be using a Leica? Too mainstream and expensive. Would have an old Zorki or Zenit camera instead.
Small, manual focus lenses with focus distance on them >>>>>>
Based on the video Sigma released for this thing it's pretty much a modular cine camera to be mounted on a tripod. I wouldn't dare even attempt to use this thing for any sort of street or event shooting. Imagine hand holding the Sigma 40 1.4 with this.
Looks so uncomfortable to hold. Very small though
In the video they show a modular grip and hot shoe, but yeah the camera makes no sense and will be never seen on the street.I think there will be a modular grip. But yeah, always trust Sigma to occasionally release a strange camera I will never see in the wild.😆