>>3944842>You're comparing a $400 body to $1000You're the one who introduced an older, used model into the comparison.
>Give the full picture anon, the A7II is 2 whole stops better at base iso, I'm not talking about DR, most people don't give a shit about DR. Autists with more forum posts than photos are the only people who get hung up on DR. The A7ii has visibly more noise in high ISO shots than pretty much any other FF camera from the last decade. Not if you push the photo, if you simply take the photo. It's tied with a 5D mark II ffs.
>>quirky sensor issues>is something you're making upSensor flare, lossy RAWs, and star eaters are well known issues in the A7 lineup until the latest iterations.
>>a7iii is more like the R>and in every head to head review, the a7iii still comes out on top[CITATION NEEDED]
In reality there are trade offs either way. But if we're going to talk about the A7iii then there's the budget to talk about the R.
>Not the autofocus ones, The 14mm AF and 85mm AF are available right now on B&H. They are also listed on Rokinon's site.
>And we all know how canon locked out sigma lenses from their eos system when they started to eat into canon sales, WTF are you talking about? You can buy dozens of Sigma EF lenses right now. I can't think of a time when there weren't Sigma EF AF lenses.
>The 50 1.8 is shit, it's got all the same failings of the EF version, It improves upon the EF 50mm in a number of respects and is certainly not "shit" for its price point.
>the 24-105 f4-7.1 is a joke lens. It's a compact, 14oz, low cost consumer zoom that offers decent IQ and trades offsets the narrow aperture with IS. It's well matched to its target audience.
>The 35 1.8 is soft wide open, has far too much CA and is loud af, It offers the same IQ as the Sony 35 f/1.8, focuses down to 1:2, has IS, and is $500 instead of $750.
>And above this we're already into $800+ lens territory.No, it's $499 at B&H right now.
