which camera to go for

[TMG1961]

Since the second Sony a6400 is also back to the shop for repairs, it got the same problems as the previous one, i am not sure if i still want an Sony a6400. This is the second camera in just 8 months that has to go back for repairs and the first one never came back and was replaced by the one that is now also back for repairs.

Problem is that all my gear, it is not much, 3 lenses and a speedlite is for Sony cameras. I could sell it or trade it in but then i will be loosing a lot of money. So i have been thinking of staying with Sony but go for a full frame camera. The a7iii is still to expensive even as second hand one and also the a7riii is too expensive, even more then the a7iii.

So i am thinking of going either for the a7ii or the a7rii. The a7ii is used around €700-800, but new it is on sale for €849 , both body only. The a7rii is about €1199 second hand and a new one is around €1799.

That is a big difference between both cameras. So is the a7rii so much better for macro that it justifies the €400 extra for second hand and €950 extra for a new one? Or would you not see the difference between them. Does the larger MP make a big difference?

What would you go for and why?

 

[Rune]

For macro I would stay with the aps-c camera. My final choice was between the sony 6600 and the Fujifilm X-T4. I wanted something that was easy to carry. One macro youtuber changed from the sony a7iii to a X-T3 camera since it was easier to carry and use. And if you want to go higher resolution it usually a good thing to have a smaller sensor.
I would rather put the money in lenses and lighting

 

[TMG1961]

For macro I would stay with the aps-c camera. My final choice was between the sony 6600 and the Fujifilm X-T4. I wanted something that was easy to carry. One macro youtuber changed from the sony a7rii to a X-T3 camera since it was easier to carry and use. And if you want to go higher resolution it usually a good thing to have a smaller sensor.
I would rather put the money in lenses and lighting

Thanks for your comment. My first choice when i went to mirrorless was between the a6400 and the a6600. I did go for the a6400 because i got a great deal on a new one. As i said changing camera brand is going to be expensive. It also comes down to is it possible to repair the a6400 i sent in or do they send a new one or give me the choice to get my money back. At the moment i have lost any confidence in the a6400. Will have to wait another 4 weeks at least before i hear something.

 

[Rune]

Thanks for your comment. My first choice when i went to mirrorless was between the a6400 and the a6600. I did go for the a6400 because i got a great deal on a new one. As i said changing camera brand is going to be expensive. It also comes down to is it possible to repair the a6400 i sent in or do they send a new one or give me the choice to get my money back. At the moment i have lost any confidence in the a6400. Will have to wait another 4 weeks at least before i hear something.

I see, and it has to be really frustrating to have a camera you can't trust... Have you got a replacement camera you can use while it'a being looked at?

 

[TMG1961]

I see, and it has to be really frustrating to have a camera you can't trust... Have you got a replacement camera you can use while it being looked at?

I have a Panasonic FZ1000 as second camera. It is capable of producing good photos. This is one is taken with the panasonic fz1000, not real macro but still good.

 

[Rune]

I have a Panasonic FZ1000 as second camera. It is capable of producing good photos. This is one is taken with the panasonic fz1000, not real macro but still good.View attachment 18572

Yes, this was really good!

 

[TMG1961]

I will think about what i will do. Not going to do anything until i know what the verdict on the a6400 is.

 

[kzurro]

I would go for the A7RII.

the A7II only got the in body camera stabilization (IBIS) and some minor improvements, if any, over the original A7.
the A7RII got the IBIS, a new AF system, far better than the one on the original A7R and better than the one on the A7II. I know AF is mostly useless for macro and that you have a manual macro lens, but it's nice to have it for anything non-macro. it was also the first Sony camera with a back illuminated sensor that improves image noise.

anyway, you should check if your computer can manage those 42MP RAW files. you can download some RAW files from here and fiddle with them.

 

[TMG1961]

I would go for the A7RII.

the A7II only got the in body camera stabilization (IBIS) and some minor improvements, if any, over the original A7.
the A7RII got the IBIS, a new AF system, far better than the one on the original A7R and better than the one on the A7II. I now AF is mostly useless for macro and that you have a manual macro lens, but it's nice to have it for anything non-macro. it was also the first Sony camera with a back illuminated sensor that improves image noise.

anyway, you should check if your computer can manage those 42MP RAW files. you can download some RAW files from here and fiddle with them.

Thank you. I haven't thought about the 42mp raw files of the A7Rii and if my 3 year old laptop can handle them. I will have a look at the link and see what the outcome is.

 

[TMG1961]

I did download some raw files, 82MB in size and no problems with importing them into lightroom or editing them. Did not notice any difference in speed then with the a6400 files.