EOS R6 Mark III RF24-105mm F4-7.1 IS STM Lens Kit

You can get a refurb Z8 for new A7V money if you hunt the sales. Z6iii is much cheaper and still extremely good, if you don't need the pixels, the Z6iii is simply a better choice than the A7iv (in fact I'd argue the Z5ii is generally a better choice than the A7iv, having owned both) Despite the use

I have the em1ii with the 12-40f2.8 and the 40-150f2.8. I enjoy the system overall but recently decided to run a dual setup with canon r6iii paired with the 24-105 and 100-500. Honestly, I’m actually enjoying the canon a lot more. It isn’t as heavy as I’d feared and the IQ is incredible. I originall

Could've gotten a Canon R6iii with an insane lens but nope you got a slow and clunky 100mp camera with a no continuous af

You have pretty great camera for docs really, and w24-70 is great too The main problem with canon is that it’s expensive not underperforming. Now if you wanted 2 more R6ii or r6iii and 3x24-70… it gets pricy. R5m1 is overheating but the rest is rather fine. I doubt 70-200 will be that useful but wit

Lol it's not you the A7IV and now A7V is much more detailed that the FX3 and that is definitely a reason to go with the A7V. I think the A7V is the better buy than the FX3 if you don't do/rely on the following: - Raw video of higher bitrate all-i codecs (A7V can still record ProRes to an external re

Both are great cameras. For sports, you'd have to consider if 40 FPS is more important than 14-bit + blackout free shooting. It also seems that the buffer on the R6iii is better. In a comment of his YouTube video, Gordon Laing replied saying that the delay on the R6iii's EVF is not significant in or

Both systems are great. I prefer Canon for sports, but that's because there was a time when I would never buy anything above the mid-range bodies and I liked the Canon mid-range bodies better. Had I gone for an a9, I may well have stuck with Sony for sports. I've never liked the a7 bodies for sports