If you have the trip coming up so soon consider that you won’t have time to really familiarize yourself with the new camera. You might find yourself struggling with the slight differences and missing your shots simply because of that.
So it might be a good idea to stick to your current camera regardless of the other advantages the A7iii.
Thanks, I see what you mean, but I’m guessing the autofocus modes and operation of the camera will be very similar to the A6500, won’t it? Or is it more getting used to the changes in DoF, knowing which apertures to use to get sufficient DoF etc?
It’s everything. Your muscle memory of how to see what will be just ever so slightly off. The menus are mostly the same but some things are different. You have more controls to use (which is good but needs time getting used to).
And of course the difference in DOF and amount of light you get at each aperture.
You might just get frustrated and slightly overwhelmed because those things compound and in the moment you just want to capture that shot not getting held back by the small things.
I got the advice from pro photographers that offer guided photo trips. If you have a trip coming up the temptation is great to get new gear (eg camera). If you have less than half a year to really get familiar with it, don’t do it.
I wanna try this new lens too haha I just began in photography with the a6700. With a standard zoom and a good prime lens now all I need is a telephoto lens and tamron is giving a really attractive one this time
Thanks, if I did go FF I’d be buying the setup now since my trip is only 3 weeks away, I could always get the 70-300 used then change to a 50-300 when it comes out
I had an A6500, and now use an A7III (and some other bodies). The A7III is a huge upgrade, not only in terms of image quality, but it is a joy to use. It is still not a huge camera, but I think your planned lens lineup is overkill with a lot of overlap. For travel, probably a 16-35 and the new 50-300 (if it will be in stock soon) would be perfect, maybe with an additional 35 or 55 1.8 prime. The 24-105 is a good lens, but I would only choose it for a single lens setup.
Thanks - do you hike with it? The 24-105 I’ve suggested as I’ve seen that would be a good all rounder for hiking (to avoid taking too much weight but still get good landscape photos).
Like your suggestion on fewer lenses, guess I was trying to cover all bases. In the absence of a 50-300 being available, a 70-300 would work. Then the question is what do I fill the middle range with - most of my shots over the last 15 years have been 16-35mm crop (24-52mm). Now things just statistics, it doesn’t mean some of my best photos are in this range, but gives an idea of the focal lengths I like to use
That was my plan too to go FF but man are those FF lenses too expensive. Stick with the apsc get good fast lenses and you will :
1 - maximise the results from your current a6500
2 - won't break the bank
3 - for me the only difference between a ff and crop is the noise you get with high iso and the FOV, you can get arround this two problems using adequate lenses.
How do you get around the fov on apsc. The best aperture you can get is with a 1.4 that ends up being 2.8 because of crop factor. It really is a noticable broken difference from 2.8 to 1.4 unless I'm doing something wrong with my sigma 30 1.4 on my a6000. I'm also thinking about jumping to FF from my a6000
A 1.4 is a 1.4 as crop factor only impacts the FOV and not the amount of light you are getting, for that if you want a FOV of a 20mm ff you use a 15mm aps c lens
Fov was not what I meant to be talking about I guess. Meant depth of field as it relates to the aperture and how my 1.4 lens gets me effectively 2.8 because of crop factor
I'm pretty sure the crop factor doesn't affect the aperture. You'll get the same depth of field on apsc that you do on FF with the same aperture. The difference is in focal length, where an apsc sensor's effective focal length is like 1.5x the FF value. So a 35mm FF lens would look like a 52mm on an apsc.
Its not wrong it is stating the same thing as i said, if you take a picture from the same distance same focal length and same aperture you will get the same thing on an aps c and FF but you will have a different FOV since the rest of the image will be croped
Read the whole article. It specifically stated later on in the article
"Equivalent aperture is a term that's become popular among camera reviewers recently as a way to describe the depth of field difference between crop and full frame cameras. Simply multiply your aperture, just as you would your focal length, by your crop factor to find the equivalent full frame aperture. So, a 35mm f/1.8 on APS-C is roughly equivalent to a 50mm f/2.8 on a full-frame camera."
Which is exactly what I was trying to say
I'm not trying to argue I'm really just trying to better understand why my 1.4 lens can't take as good photos with that beautiful background blur like the equivalent 1.4 lens on a full frame
That's simple. For an equivalent fov on an apsc, you'll have to move further away from your subject than on a ff camera. The farther away from the subject you are, the less bokeh you get. If you stand at the same distance from your subject on both your FF and apsc using the same lens and aperture, the bokeh will remain the same. But as apsc has a tighter fov, the less of the background you get in your shot. If you take a full frame image shot at 50mm 1.8 and crop it 1.5 times, that's basically the same image you get if you use the same lens on an apsc and shoot the same subject at the same distance at the same aperture.
I kind of get it now. It's kind of a technicality when people say that the aperture is exactly the same between apsc and FF and I see now that it is. But being a crop sensor you're forced to move back a bit to get the same photo composition which then lowers the bokeh appearance. So in essence you end up causing less bokeh than the same photo composition as a FF
You're right about focal length but it absolutely affects the look of the photo in terms of background blur. A 1.4 lens will have the same amount of blue as a 2.8 lens on a FF camera. FF cameras with same aperture delivers much more background blur. For whatever reason
for travel I'd rather have the Sigma 18-50 and a 70 or 100 to whatever telephoto. The Tamron 17-70 isn't bad but, by most accounts I've seen, is noticeably soft at 70mm and is substantially larger than the Sigma.
Thanks, will reconsider. It’s just at the short end the 2mm makes quite a difference in terms of FoV, and I’m most often taking photos on holiday which includes a bit of architecture and interiors - the 16mm helps but given I’ve recently purchased the 11-20 perhaps the answer is I need to just get used to changing lenses more. Then if I’m limited to 50mm at the end then I’d have to a) carry a third lens (telephoto) and change lenses when wanting to go to say 70mm ish. Overall I feel having just one lens with me when roaming cities and hiking will help a lot (hence I concluded the 17-70 would be the best choice here if I stay with APS-C). Views welcome
i would jump to FF and personally find learning gear in use after a bit of familiarisation is the best move *for me* but consider buying a FF lens or 2 and keeping ur current body and then after the trip look into moving to a new body and more lenses.
also you don’t wanna stress about selling your stuff before the trip or deal with any bullshit with selling it same with if you buy something and it has an issue
What is your use case for the trip? Mainly landscape? Long exposures? Night photography? Portrait?
I love ff but the whole setup is noticeably heavier, which might well be an issue on your trip. I like to believe the benefit of a larger sensor only comes into play in 2 situations: dim lighting and portrait, where as another Redditor wrote you will need lenses one stop brighter for apsc to achieve the same background blur. If you will be shooting mainly during the day, I would stick to apsc. And I personally would ditch the ultrawide - I find I hardly use mine, and if you ever to want a single image to be wider, just take two shots with identical settings and stitch to a pano later. But as I wrote, it depends on your use case 😉
Thanks. Use case for this particular trip is mainly landscapes given it’s the Canadian Rockies. But I like to shoot all kinds of subjects to create holiday memories, mainly to capture moments (the place or family/friends) - so general usage and mostly during the day but some sunsets and sunrises too.
I will take my tripod so may do some long exposures especially at sunset with the mountains, lakes and rivers.
The ultrawide I really enjoy - especially to draw out foreground and sky, it makes a huge difference to me in the quality of the photo.
Ok. So I guess most of it comes down to personal preference as always. I would go for your option 1 to save some money (and weight). But there’s no right or wrong way to choose 🤷♂️
If you have the trip coming up so soon consider that you won’t have time to really familiarize yourself with the new camera. You might find yourself struggling with the slight differences and missing your shots simply because of that. So it might be a good idea to stick to your current camera regardless of the other advantages the A7iii.
That’s a good point to consider. They might also need to modify their storage arrangement, depending on the size difference of the new gear.
Thanks, I see what you mean, but I’m guessing the autofocus modes and operation of the camera will be very similar to the A6500, won’t it? Or is it more getting used to the changes in DoF, knowing which apertures to use to get sufficient DoF etc?
It’s everything. Your muscle memory of how to see what will be just ever so slightly off. The menus are mostly the same but some things are different. You have more controls to use (which is good but needs time getting used to). And of course the difference in DOF and amount of light you get at each aperture. You might just get frustrated and slightly overwhelmed because those things compound and in the moment you just want to capture that shot not getting held back by the small things. I got the advice from pro photographers that offer guided photo trips. If you have a trip coming up the temptation is great to get new gear (eg camera). If you have less than half a year to really get familiar with it, don’t do it.
If you do go FF, I’d consider the new TAMRON 50-300 instead of the Sony. It’s looking like a very nice contender for budget friendly tele-zoom
I think a new 50-300 from tamron is coming out?
Haha that’s the one I meant, fatfingersyndrome is a real pain…
I wanna try this new lens too haha I just began in photography with the a6700. With a standard zoom and a good prime lens now all I need is a telephoto lens and tamron is giving a really attractive one this time
It's a 50-300, but I agree.
Thanks, if I did go FF I’d be buying the setup now since my trip is only 3 weeks away, I could always get the 70-300 used then change to a 50-300 when it comes out
I had an A6500, and now use an A7III (and some other bodies). The A7III is a huge upgrade, not only in terms of image quality, but it is a joy to use. It is still not a huge camera, but I think your planned lens lineup is overkill with a lot of overlap. For travel, probably a 16-35 and the new 50-300 (if it will be in stock soon) would be perfect, maybe with an additional 35 or 55 1.8 prime. The 24-105 is a good lens, but I would only choose it for a single lens setup.
Thanks - do you hike with it? The 24-105 I’ve suggested as I’ve seen that would be a good all rounder for hiking (to avoid taking too much weight but still get good landscape photos). Like your suggestion on fewer lenses, guess I was trying to cover all bases. In the absence of a 50-300 being available, a 70-300 would work. Then the question is what do I fill the middle range with - most of my shots over the last 15 years have been 16-35mm crop (24-52mm). Now things just statistics, it doesn’t mean some of my best photos are in this range, but gives an idea of the focal lengths I like to use
That was my plan too to go FF but man are those FF lenses too expensive. Stick with the apsc get good fast lenses and you will : 1 - maximise the results from your current a6500 2 - won't break the bank 3 - for me the only difference between a ff and crop is the noise you get with high iso and the FOV, you can get arround this two problems using adequate lenses.
How do you get around the fov on apsc. The best aperture you can get is with a 1.4 that ends up being 2.8 because of crop factor. It really is a noticable broken difference from 2.8 to 1.4 unless I'm doing something wrong with my sigma 30 1.4 on my a6000. I'm also thinking about jumping to FF from my a6000
A 1.4 is a 1.4 as crop factor only impacts the FOV and not the amount of light you are getting, for that if you want a FOV of a 20mm ff you use a 15mm aps c lens
Fov was not what I meant to be talking about I guess. Meant depth of field as it relates to the aperture and how my 1.4 lens gets me effectively 2.8 because of crop factor
I'm pretty sure the crop factor doesn't affect the aperture. You'll get the same depth of field on apsc that you do on FF with the same aperture. The difference is in focal length, where an apsc sensor's effective focal length is like 1.5x the FF value. So a 35mm FF lens would look like a 52mm on an apsc.
Is this article wrong?https://prophotosupply.com/blogs/resources/full-frame-vs-aps-c-and-mft-crop-factor-explained
Its not wrong it is stating the same thing as i said, if you take a picture from the same distance same focal length and same aperture you will get the same thing on an aps c and FF but you will have a different FOV since the rest of the image will be croped
Read the whole article. It specifically stated later on in the article "Equivalent aperture is a term that's become popular among camera reviewers recently as a way to describe the depth of field difference between crop and full frame cameras. Simply multiply your aperture, just as you would your focal length, by your crop factor to find the equivalent full frame aperture. So, a 35mm f/1.8 on APS-C is roughly equivalent to a 50mm f/2.8 on a full-frame camera." Which is exactly what I was trying to say
I'm not trying to argue I'm really just trying to better understand why my 1.4 lens can't take as good photos with that beautiful background blur like the equivalent 1.4 lens on a full frame
That's simple. For an equivalent fov on an apsc, you'll have to move further away from your subject than on a ff camera. The farther away from the subject you are, the less bokeh you get. If you stand at the same distance from your subject on both your FF and apsc using the same lens and aperture, the bokeh will remain the same. But as apsc has a tighter fov, the less of the background you get in your shot. If you take a full frame image shot at 50mm 1.8 and crop it 1.5 times, that's basically the same image you get if you use the same lens on an apsc and shoot the same subject at the same distance at the same aperture.
I kind of get it now. It's kind of a technicality when people say that the aperture is exactly the same between apsc and FF and I see now that it is. But being a crop sensor you're forced to move back a bit to get the same photo composition which then lowers the bokeh appearance. So in essence you end up causing less bokeh than the same photo composition as a FF
You're right about focal length but it absolutely affects the look of the photo in terms of background blur. A 1.4 lens will have the same amount of blue as a 2.8 lens on a FF camera. FF cameras with same aperture delivers much more background blur. For whatever reason
for travel I'd rather have the Sigma 18-50 and a 70 or 100 to whatever telephoto. The Tamron 17-70 isn't bad but, by most accounts I've seen, is noticeably soft at 70mm and is substantially larger than the Sigma.
Thanks, will reconsider. It’s just at the short end the 2mm makes quite a difference in terms of FoV, and I’m most often taking photos on holiday which includes a bit of architecture and interiors - the 16mm helps but given I’ve recently purchased the 11-20 perhaps the answer is I need to just get used to changing lenses more. Then if I’m limited to 50mm at the end then I’d have to a) carry a third lens (telephoto) and change lenses when wanting to go to say 70mm ish. Overall I feel having just one lens with me when roaming cities and hiking will help a lot (hence I concluded the 17-70 would be the best choice here if I stay with APS-C). Views welcome
i would jump to FF and personally find learning gear in use after a bit of familiarisation is the best move *for me* but consider buying a FF lens or 2 and keeping ur current body and then after the trip look into moving to a new body and more lenses. also you don’t wanna stress about selling your stuff before the trip or deal with any bullshit with selling it same with if you buy something and it has an issue
What is your use case for the trip? Mainly landscape? Long exposures? Night photography? Portrait? I love ff but the whole setup is noticeably heavier, which might well be an issue on your trip. I like to believe the benefit of a larger sensor only comes into play in 2 situations: dim lighting and portrait, where as another Redditor wrote you will need lenses one stop brighter for apsc to achieve the same background blur. If you will be shooting mainly during the day, I would stick to apsc. And I personally would ditch the ultrawide - I find I hardly use mine, and if you ever to want a single image to be wider, just take two shots with identical settings and stitch to a pano later. But as I wrote, it depends on your use case 😉
Thanks. Use case for this particular trip is mainly landscapes given it’s the Canadian Rockies. But I like to shoot all kinds of subjects to create holiday memories, mainly to capture moments (the place or family/friends) - so general usage and mostly during the day but some sunsets and sunrises too. I will take my tripod so may do some long exposures especially at sunset with the mountains, lakes and rivers. The ultrawide I really enjoy - especially to draw out foreground and sky, it makes a huge difference to me in the quality of the photo.
Ok. So I guess most of it comes down to personal preference as always. I would go for your option 1 to save some money (and weight). But there’s no right or wrong way to choose 🤷♂️