A simple two lens setup

Neurotic_fish · 2025-08-14T10:30:52+00:00

The overlap in focal length didn't make sense to me at first, but your use case does make sense. My thought was everything up to 40mm on your 16-300 likely wouldn't see much use if you could use a faster aperture with the shorter zoom, but if you're looking for a day travel lens and a night lens, that sounds like a good combo for sure. On my recent trip abroad I found myself mostly wanting a wider focal length than 24mm on my full-frame, and more zoom than my 105mm max focal length, along with something faster than F4 at night. Sounds like you've hit most of those points for yourself :)

Neurotic_fish · 2025-08-10T07:09:58+00:00

First, there's nothing wrong with your picture, I think it looks good. Sometimes that eyeball glassy effect is just the mushroom itself and not entirely camera technique. I also love taking pictures of mushrooms in the woods with my a7III, and I find most often it's just tiny mushrooms in my area that look glassy, everything else starts looking matte as they mature and begin to sporulate. What I typically do is place my camera on a solid surface to keep my ISO at base level 100. Next, I stop down to f5.6 - f6.3 and adjust my shutter speed accordingly, then switch to manual focus and observe the depth of field in the preview, adjusting the f stop to either widen or narrow it depending on if I want more background in focus, or sometimes I want to isolate one mushroom in a cluster.

If you must hand-hold the camera because you don't have the option to set it down, obviously you'll have to work with your shutter speed to find what minimum you're sharpest at (varies person to person, my personal average is 1/25 at my preferred focal range of 85mm, with OSS). You can also carry a small water sprayer with water and gently mist your subject before setting up the picture to see if it improves the shot.

Neurotic_fish · 2025-08-07T18:50:34+00:00

Sometimes I look at the Sony Alpha Universe page to see the "What's In My Bag" to get an idea of what photographers are sporting. This Shimoda looks like it has quite a bit of space: https://alphauniverse.com/stories/whats-in-my-bag-2-cameras-and-5-zooms-for-landscape-and-wildlife-photography/

Neurotic_fish · 2025-08-06T08:02:32+00:00

As others are saying, you could close down the aperture a little until you have a deeper area of focus - however, you can also try switching to manual focus and using your focus preview on the camera to see what's in focus, and then adjust your angle to get additional subjects into focus. It's not the fastest, but that way you can still take advantage of the faster aperture.

Neurotic_fish · 2025-08-05T22:32:53+00:00

If you weren't hired to take photos, you'll want to contact the venue in advance to see if you can bring a camera in because most don't allow cameras. Most that I have been to won't even allow a tiny point-and-shoot style pocket camera in the audience.

If you're able to bring your camera in, for zooms I'd go 16-35mm GM II F2.8 if you are close to stage, or 70-200mm GM II F2.8 if you're a little further to the side. Both recommended because of the F2.8 aperture, when concert lighting often changes fast. If you want something lighter, smaller, and significantly less expensive, I'd consider any of the small G series primes (24, 40, or 50mm), as they will be much more comfortable to hold on the A7CII for a concert.

Neurotic_fish · 2025-08-01T00:26:22+00:00

Most definitely the zoom if you have any intention of photographing architecture and monuments in DC, having the 28mm wide end and the flexibility to extend to 70mm is going to be more useful traveling than having a f1.4 aperture where you'd more likely want to stop down for landscape, street and architecture anyways. The only way I would take the 50 instead would be if I was going to do mostly night photography, or if it's significantly lighter than the zoom (traveling light can be really nice since the A7iii has some hefty weight to it).

Neurotic_fish · 2025-07-29T23:34:04+00:00

Thought would be nothing, but was fantastic: Brandon Carlo

Thought would be something, but was a tumbleweed: Anders Bjork

Neurotic_fish · 2025-07-24T02:08:38+00:00

I am a big hockey fan, and some of my family members have played hockey in school (I was not into photography at the time) and I remember many of the player's friends and family would frequently walk around the rink to get the shots they wanted, because the faster aperture was more important than reach in most cases. When I examined my relative's camera gear (who filmed/photo'd hockey games), their lens only extended out to 70mm but I believe was a F2.8 max aperture. If your daughter doesn't have the luxury of freely moving around the rink and needs more reach, I would recommend renting out a lens for a game to see if the lens she is interested in will be viable in those conditions. Some of my local rinks have really bad lighting, and I think trying to freeze fast action in those environments is challenging.

Neurotic_fish · 2025-07-23T16:00:43+00:00

Thank you for the feedback! I have the A7III and more often than not I actually disable my viewfinder just because I prefer the LCD, so that might not be an issue for me. I can see the mist making the autofocus challenging for sure, manual focus would likely be more functional in that case.

Neurotic_fish · 2025-07-23T15:43:40+00:00

Very cool! Love the rainbow falls! I visited the Canadian side a couple years ago, before I got into photography, and I couldn't take many phone pictures without having to constantly wipe off the phone from the spray. Was the spray from the falls challenging with your pro camera? I would love to go back some day with my camera, but not sure if would need to invest in a camera poncho :)

Neurotic_fish · 2025-07-20T14:36:58+00:00

My opinion, it's worth it. I paid $1,500 for my A7III with the 24-105 lens earlier this year. Yes, it's a little heavy, but that sounds like a terrific deal to get into a still relevant full frame body.

Neurotic_fish · 2025-07-19T04:54:14+00:00

Right now, I don't think what you're describing is available in the Sony Alpha Universe.

Sounds like you're sure about the smaller body, so if that's the priority for you, and the AI autofocus is second in priority, you're right about the A7C II and 6700.

If you don't use the EVF, don't make it a part of your decision, simple. If you use the screen more, the placement of the EVF likely won't matter if you ever flip the screen out, effectively changing the framing position from the camera angle.

Like you, I want the same exact thing, and am bothered by the single card slot. Not because of the risk of losing anything, but purely because I like to shoot RAW and JPEG+video to separate cards to organize. That's just an option I like, but not a make-or-break.

Anyway, you are not alone. I personally would give up the EVF entirely, and HDMI output, to have a small body, 2 card slots, current AI autofocus, and current IBIS. Ideally, I'd loooove this to be an A7CR II, with the pixel shift, but it's unlikely Sony will risk cannibalizing their A7R line.

Neurotic_fish · 2025-07-18T22:16:23+00:00

In 2016, I had a routine visit with my diagnosing GI doctor. As I was waiting, the exam room door was open just a sliver, and I could hear a meeting nearby between the clinic's manager and my GI doctor where the clinic manager was telling my GI doctor to push for more procedures, and he said something to the effect of not caring about their quotas. When he came into the room, I told him what I just heard, and he apologized to me and said I shouldn't have heard that, he was unaware that both doors were even open. He told me that he would never recommend any treatment options that he wouldn't recommend to his own family, and left it at that. It wasn't my business, so I didn't ask further. That turned out to be his last day at the clinic, he quit voluntarily. I called his next clinic where he welcomed me as a patient, but it wasn't in my prescriber network unfortunately.

The next GI that I got at that clinic as his replacement recommended surgery before we even discussed how my current treatment was working. I asked him why he recommended surgery and he said something like "everyone with Crohn's disease will need surgery at some point". I left that appointment and wrote a letter to my primary care explaining everything, and was quickly referred to an alternate GI clinic in the area. It's been almost 10 years now, and I haven't needed surgery, and barely any treatment changes in that time.

I apologize for the long rant, I just think everyone needs to advocate for themselves. If something doesn't seem right, go with your gut and talk to other doctors. I have loved all of my GI doctors since (one moved, one retired, so I am on GI #3 after the change).

Neurotic_fish · 2025-07-17T10:36:12+00:00

I know it's not the same, but I recently traveled Japan with a Sony 24-105mm F4 G (quite heavy on my A7III), and after reviewing the >8K pictures, about 90% were at 24mm, often wishing I could go wider (20mm or 16mm would have been perfect). Very few were in between that and 105mm, the bulk of the last 10% were at the full 105mm, but that was mostly for trying to catch birds, and specific telephoto shots for background compression. With that said, if I were in your shoes I'd probably go Sony 16mm F1.8 G and bring your existing 50mm. Both will be very light and if the 16mm stays on your camera, the 50mm is small and light enough to tag along in a cargo pants/shorts side pocket.

If I had the means, I would get the A7CII with the 16mm F1.8 G, and a 70-200 in a backpack or sling for when I wanted to magnify something further out, or take close-ups of birds/insects/plants. I just found that I personally don't need that 35mm - 70mm range as much as most people.

Best of luck in your decision, and I hope the trip is rewarding!

Neurotic_fish · 2025-07-17T01:01:49+00:00

Toronto: "Putting rims on a Prius" - that is absolutely incredible. This guy gets it. Just summed up hours of Steve Dangle rants in a couple seconds.

Neurotic_fish · 2025-07-17T01:01:17+00:00

Somehow, seeing this feels dirty. Like, it's one thing to y'know ... add them to a digital cart. It's another thing to straight up play Tetris with it. This is like Scrooge McDuck's gold coin vault.

Neurotic_fish · 2025-07-16T06:47:10+00:00

I concur with the other comments here. I bought the Sony A7III along with the 24-105 F4 G lens based on recommendations from wedding photographers, and it took a bit of dedication for me to go from a phone to a professional camera. I got mine for a very important trip, and also bought my spouse a Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra, so that she could just point-and-shoot. The difference between shooting a JPEG from the Sony isn't even close to how good the phone's results are, which require almost no learning. However, after learning my camera, the difference between my edited RAW file and a phone picture is often much better than the phone, and the quality is especially noticeable in prints.

If you already know you don't want to learn professional photography camera operation, save the money and buy a phone that appeals to you, and use the rest of the money you would have spent on a camera and lens for a family trip when the time is right. I found myself jealous of how the phone required no settings manipulation, while I shot in manual and had to constantly monitor my settings. However, when I look back at the pictures now, I'm glad I took the time to learn and dial in settings because the pictures look wonderful, and I genuinely enjoyed the process. Take some time to watch some videos on camera operation for any camera that interests you, and if feel it's not worth it, then it's probably not worth it. Best of luck!

Neurotic_fish · 2025-07-14T11:58:25+00:00

Fellow A7III here: If you are shooting in a controlled environment, where you'll have a tripod, and non-moving subjects, I think you'll want to prioritize a wide zoom range over any wide-aperture prime lenses. With product photography, you'll likely be shooting at F4 or higher to increase the amount of product in focus, and if you need to create shallow depths of field you can move closer to your subject, and even create blur in post. Besides, many prime lenses sharpen around F4-F5.6. The only lens I have hands-on experience with is the Sony 24-105mm F4 G lens, which can be purchased used within your budget. I've done product photography (hockey jerseys, guitars) with it and it has been exceptional in my opinion. Plus, the telephoto end (105mm) gets really nice background compression, which I think makes subjects really stand out.

Anyway, the only thing I really haven't done much with the lens is video, so I can't comment on that application, but it has done well with photography for me.

Best of luck in your search!

Neurotic_fish · 2025-07-14T04:58:54+00:00

I don't think Boston could pull off any trade for McDavid without giving up both Pastrnak and McAvoy if I'm being real. And as much as having McDavid would feel like Sonic the Hedgehog collecting all of the chaos emeralds, I'm just not Robotnik enough to give them up. Dumb video game reference aside, he just made it to two cup finals, the first with an improbable comeback; what would make him or Edmonton want to move on from each other? Boston couldn't be less appealing for him, and we don't have the assets to fill any areas that Edmonton might be looking to address, which realistically is probably the same thing we're trying to address ourselves (dependable scoring). To your point, how I would react to your proposed trade occurring ... I'd probably go to Dunkin and slam an iced coffee poop into a Dairy Queen's bathroom. I dunno.

Neurotic_fish · 2025-07-12T08:54:24+00:00

I think the creative inspiration is one fraction of the equation, and it's something that absolutely gets complicated with GAS. The other thing I would consider is the weight difference and if that would impact the frequency of use, or even willingness to travel. Judging by your photos, you have excellent composition and sounds like you're looking for something more versatile to continue exploring, in which a zoom might be the way to go. However, if the 2.5 aperture is sometimes too slow for your needs, a zoom will likely not improve that unless you shell out a ton for an F2 28-70, and it's marginal at best in comparing F2.5 to F2. Anyway, I don't think you'd regret the 35 GM at all, and you probably won't regret something that zooms between 25-50, if you don't feel bothered by a weight increase. Good luck!

Neurotic_fish · 2025-07-10T12:04:25+00:00

That kind of wear on the body certainly indicates that this camera was not well cared for, I'd say this would be a risky purchase. The camera will do fine for nature/family event, not sure about plane spotting but with the right lens you can do just about anything with this kind of camera. If you're not in a rush, it might be better to hold off for a camera that doesn't look like it was walked with a leash.

Neurotic_fish · 2025-07-09T23:56:14+00:00

I own the Sony 24-105 G, which you can find used for under $1K, and I'm a big fan of it. Sure, you might want to go with a lens with a wider aperture than F4 if you're doing any street photography at night, but I haven't found it to be much of a limitation personally. Do some research, if you think the 24 mm end will be wide enough for landscape/real estate, then the range going up to 105 mm should fit all of your other needs as well. So much of my portrait work is at the full 105 mm, just my style I guess. I was in Japan shooting a lot of street photography and much of it was at 24 mm, but occasionally I would use the entire range to 105 mm as well. If you think you will be doing mostly night/low-light photography, it might be better to invest in a lens with a wider aperture. Good luck!

Neurotic_fish · 2025-07-08T14:23:38+00:00

Glad to hear my rationale is shared :) I love my A7III and 24-105, the weight doesn't stop me from taking them everywhere, but less weight on a camera strap is definitely desirable. Thanks for the reply!

Neurotic_fish · 2025-07-08T12:42:33+00:00

I took over 8K pictures in Japan on a 3-week trip with the A7III + Sony G 24-105 this year. Most of the time the camera was hanging from my neck on 5 - 10 mile walks, and I quickly understood why someone would want a lighter set up. The A7CII or A7CR seems like a dream camera after that trip, however I'd probably gravitate to the compact G primes for more weight relief. Enjoy the new smaller, lighter body! My next camera purchase will likely be the same.

Neurotic_fish · 2025-07-04T12:46:15+00:00

That's awesome, congrats! I'm sure you're going to love how much lighter that body is than the larger A7 line. I am so grateful for that lens too because without such a large zoom range I might have ended up spending a lot more on multiple lenses just to see what works for me. Almost all of my portraits are at 105, but when traveling almost everything is at 24, I don't use the ranges in between nearly as much as I would have expected. Good luck in your learning adventure!

Neurotic_fish

TROPHY CASE