a7 III

Agree with your post and your conclusions, even though a Sony a7iii is older than the R7 (worse AF, slower, no 4k60) but still more expensive. At the end of the day you get similar performance for similar prices; but then you might want to add faster primes, wider angles -> FF; or rather tele, macro

I have a budget of around $600-$700. What about your lens budget? Nature, Architecture, Street, and Portraits. I care more about the final "look" and resolution of the image than I do about video or high-speed sports. Nature is a really broad term that could include many different types of photograp

I assume you read that anywhere but you didn´t test it in your camera. I tested this in my A7III a long time ago (I will comment the AF-S function, because the AF-C one is more complex). I tested Sony/Sigma primes and Sigma/Tamron zooms, and they never focuses with the set aperture. They focuses alw

I was thinking about the a7r ii because, yes, I won't do any video with it and the used market is full of very nice offers (450€ almost brand new a7r ii - 900€ almost brand new a7 III). Also the advanced AF won't help me very much I think. I mean in the future, either a7r ii or a7iii, I will upgrade

Wow thank you for your feedback about the tamron 150-500. I might invest in one further along the way, my boyfriend surfs a lot and he is opening a surf school. I have an old manual Sony 210 mm lens and is alright, but deff not the sharpest or fastest for action sports, nor does it fit my new Sony A

I got a smoking deal on a used EM1X this year with the primary use case being kids soccer. I also purchased the Olympus 40-150 2.8. To get to the point, I was disappointed with the hit rate compared to other cameras I've used (Sony A7 IV, A7 III, A6400), but the image quality of the 40-150 is fantas