>>4398456>>4398457It's functional but not a very good camera, by anyones standards. Some people here irrationally hate sony because of their success, but even people who like sony see their early mirrorless cameras as junk. Early mirrorless cameras in general are junk. Canon R, R6, junk (err 20 lol). Nikons before the zf, z8, junk. Sony below the a7c, a7iv, a6700, junk. Mirrorless is an expensive proposition if you do not want an unreliable POS camera with shit autofocus, often bad weather sealing, motherboard/button/dial failure etc issues. Some of the smaller mirrorless brands STILL have issues. Fuji can't get autofocus or weather sealing up the standard, panasonic has battery drain, autofocus, and control failure issues, and olympus couldn't get their autofocus up to par before dying.
There are SOME exceptions, like close up photography with cheap lenses that have a lot of focus shift, where the better of the shitty mirrorless ie: nikon z6ii is still preferable because they focus and compose stopped down. But in all other situations, especially fast paced ones, early mirrorless autofocus is self-defeating and will confirm focus on things that are not actually in focus. Only the a7iii and original R/R6 were worth shit there and both had a ton of reliability issues.
if you are really budget oriented you should be getting an older professional DSLR like a d750 or 5diii, a compact kit zoom, and a trio or pair of cheap but good f1.8 primes. The whole setup will probably cost less than a decent mirrorless body alone.
