>>4428500i had that camera
build quality was terrible, every single button felt like chinesium
i also fell victim to sd card weather seal flaking
battery life was terrible, might as well buy nikon or canon
skin tones were horrid
it heated up noticeably in the middle of winter
ibis was overrated (more like 3-4 stops than 7) and no better than the 5 stop ibis on a nikon body. the active stabilization in video wasn't even good.
every single photo needed 3-4 extra editing steps to fix some weird hues
there's extreme copy variation with some of the lenses would be the best otherwise (24 f2.8, 40 f2.5, 55 f1.8, 85 f1.8)
and the only pancake lens on e mount doesnt even work with it (shading at 1/3000-4000)
i also had an a7rIII and the original a7c for a while, same shit. i wanted to like sony because they fit in my glovebox and backpack better but they're junk. now i'm using a d750 until nikon mirrorless fills out a little better (z5ii looks cash, not enough well built small primes yet, metal and glass 40 f2 pls). if you're stuck with it, zeiss tamron and sigma lenses improve the colors a little, but you should ditch it if you're unhappy and get a z5ii/r6ii or something. if someone gave me a free sony tomorrow, and said i couldn't sell it for a canon or a nikon, i would sell it and buy a fujifilm.
>>4428525>tech company apologist nophotoyes no one can ever dislike a $1700 camera they must work harder to overcome its flaws while thanking sony for the camera every time they pick it up
dear god you are the most pathetic poster here, tech company apologist nophoto. you dont even own a camera.
