Talk me out of spending 3k on a Sony A7CR.
I am mainly looking for something small and easy to hold but with good low light performance to upgrade from my phone camera (iphone 15pro)

I mainly take photos of landscapes, especially mountains and rivers and I want something to capture the colors of the changing seasons without getting washed out in bright sunlight like the phone camera does, nor poor low light performance in cloudy weather and/or near dawn.

I don't especially take a lot of close-up animal photography or urban stuff, but I do sometimes capture historic architecture. But really my biggest thing is clean shots of rivers from above. I like the idea of something small and easy to hold, but with a big sensor for low light. I do take videos (of waterfalls) but not super often and don't need to take long videos. I would like to maximize my megapixel for dollar ratio.

https://www.tomsguide.com/cameras-photography/sony-a7cr-review

This review says its a good camera - but there's only one SD slot (would I need two anyways? I haven't used SD cards in a long time so I don't know how many high-res photos would fit on one), he suggests this camera is for poseurs and the regular slightly bulkier A7R is fine, but I am often standing in precarious, rocky, slippery environments and I don't want something huge to lug around.

I am open to other cameras, but it seemed like most of the other options had smaller sensors, lower megapixels, or both.

Cheap plastic film cameras from late 90's and early 2000's.

Is this lens really that good for an all in one package?

I currently only own a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 G2

Thinking of selling that and getting the 35-150.

The 28mm isn't wide anyway and I can buy a cheapo 24mm/20mm prime. Has anyone else used this lens for sports?

Did you regret it?

This thing is still viable for professional work and the value is ridiculous.

To think that people will actually choose a crop sensor over it is mindblowing.

Do most photographers fuck their talent?

Let me guess... you require more?

>Nikon D750, D810, and D850 all have almost the exact same image quality as modern mirrorless with less convenience - the only significant difference is slightly worse shadow recovery after ISO 400
>Photographer convenience+build quality has not meaningfully improved past the sony a7c, a7riv, and a7iv, lumix s5ii, Nikon ZF, and Canon R5 and R6II. The A7CII sucks batteries dry for a negligible AF improvement, Z6III and Z8 are half-APSC, R5II is essentially APS-C, A9III has micro four thirds DR for a negligible decrease in e-shutter distortion that never mattered to anyone because mech shutters were always fast enough
>Serious, cinematic video is a solved problem - hollywood still using shit as ancient as the arriflex, stunning award winning films have been shot on the fucking lumix GH2, hugely profitable blockbusters are being shot on a relatively cheap sony FX3 that isn't much better than literally any fucking camera and was only "needed" because heavy handed special effects play better with higher quality video than the audience will ever be able to perceive
>Lense manufacturing so good ttartisan samyang can outdo every classic lens ever made for <$300

>a FULL CENTURY of photography and cinema before that was mostly done on 35mm film that only resolved 12mp on shaky imprecise SLRs and dogshit optics, and the only reason to upgrade from that was more flexibility with changing lighting
Why the fuck are people still buying cameras?

Well, last year my body camera just died, and since then i have just tree af-p Nikon Lens sitting in the bag.
I have a budget of 1000€. Its not much i know. But it would be worth changing to another brand? What are your recommendations?

My last camera was a Nikon d3500

I just wanted to fuck up the composition and melt eyes as much as i can