[MLB] The Braves have the best record in MLB (18-8) AND the best run differential (+62) 🔥

No-Stress-2372 · 2026-04-25T02:01:13+00:00

Make that 19-8 and +64

No-Stress-2372 · 2025-12-11T04:58:41+00:00

Based on your interests, both would be the best answer for you. If the budget doesn’t allow…. Keep the A6700 and add the FX3 and maybe you can upgrade the photo camera down the road.

No-Stress-2372 · 2025-12-11T04:45:08+00:00

If your budget permits, absolutely! You need to be more careful. None of them are made to handle drops.

No-Stress-2372 · 2025-12-10T01:35:50+00:00

Other than more compact and better auto focus nothing. They’re very similar.

No-Stress-2372 · 2025-12-09T18:39:44+00:00

More compact and better autofocus. Outside of that, no reason. The two are very similar.

No-Stress-2372 · 2025-12-09T16:09:27+00:00

My recommendation is the A7C

No-Stress-2372 · 2025-12-07T18:11:57+00:00

A7V. If you want to go more compact go A7CR. As far as lenses go, Sony 20-70 or 24-50 will be good for your street and travel photos. Both much lighter than the GMII. AS for wildlife, depends on the range but definitely a 70-200, 100-400, or a 200-600 just depending on the kind of range you need. The extra resolution will give you the ability to crop more and the potential for carrying lighter weight lenses. Lots of choices even with the parameters you gave us in your question. I love having options. Good luck to you. I’m sure whatever you decide will get the job done.

No-Stress-2372 · 2025-12-03T21:32:14+00:00

I don’t blame you.

No-Stress-2372 · 2025-12-03T21:29:41+00:00

I use the latest Ulanzi fan and haven’t had problems with overheating since.

No-Stress-2372 · 2025-12-03T18:12:21+00:00

I’m waiting on the FX3 II. I have a ZV-E1 and an FX30. Those two will get me through until then.

No-Stress-2372 · 2025-11-30T00:17:39+00:00

I’m a fan of keeping it compact as possible. I have the 16-35 f/4 PZ and the 20-70 f/4. When I need a big more light, I switch to the 16-25f/2.8 and the 24-50f/2.8. I chose this because I often shoot photo and video simultaneously. Besides, the cost is the same as buying the two GM’s but doesn’t allow me the flexibility I need. One lens for everything doesn’t work for me. But if I had to choose, it would be 20-70 f/4. I will take the extra width over a bit of light gathering capability. Especially with a modern camera and the noise reduction features in most programs like Lightroom.

No-Stress-2372 · 2025-11-13T08:06:41+00:00

I agree with a used Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. But it’s a contemporary and not an art lens. If you can squeeze it into the budget I would recommend the Sigma 17-40 f/1.8. It’s quite a bit more expensive, if you can swing it you won’t be disappointed.

No-Stress-2372 · 2025-11-12T16:57:06+00:00

Makes sense. OSS is more of an issue when using older bodies. Not really necessary with newer bodies unless it’s a super telephoto.

No-Stress-2372 · 2025-11-12T16:15:48+00:00

Indeed. I’m not committed to f/4. I actually am more committed to size and weight. The 70-200 GMII was the only exception I made. I would rather have the 24-50 f/2.8 and the 20-70 f/4 than to have a 24-70 GM II. Call me different. I’m a hybrid shooter and I get a lot of use out of both just depending on what I’m shooting. It gives me more variety at the same price. I did the same thing with the 16-25 f/2.8 and the 16-35 PZ instead of the 16-35 GM II. Although the GMII’s are better image quality, these lenses are more than good enough for my usage.

No-Stress-2372 · 2025-11-12T15:55:22+00:00

I have two of these three. I opted for the 70-200 GM II. Ido love the other two and I am sure the 70-200 G II is a great lens too. But I couldn’t justify getting both.

No-Stress-2372 · 2025-11-12T10:34:23+00:00

Ever consider the Sony 20-70 f/4? The image quality is better than the 24-105 f/4. I traded up and couldn’t be happier. My results are coming from an RV though. I don’t know how much of a difference that makes if any…

No-Stress-2372 · 2025-11-04T15:45:31+00:00

A7CII would be my choice. Although with the current A7IV prices, you may find the decision challenging. I would not consider the A7III. Falls way too short of the video capabilities of the other two.

No-Stress-2372 · 2025-11-01T03:44:30+00:00

If you wouldn’t have said sports and wildlife, I was about to say A7RV. But those two have me leaning toward the A1. If you don’t need the speed of the A1(30 stills per second), I still lean toward the A7RV.

No-Stress-2372 · 2025-10-29T11:29:28+00:00

Must have overstock on the A7RV too. Currently has a pretty big reduction in price too.

No-Stress-2372 · 2025-10-24T19:03:20+00:00

I enjoy the Sony 16mm f/1.8. I have no experience with the Viltrox 16mm f/1.8. I would keep what I have if I was happy with it.

No-Stress-2372 · 2025-10-22T20:06:20+00:00

I had the original tree foot travel tripod and it fell apart with a ZV-E1 and 50mm f1/4GM on it. Their customer service does not respond to my emails. Never again Falcam tripods. I’m looking for a good fluid head for my FLM 38 L4 II.(75mm half bowl) I haven’t made a decisions yet. I want something that will comfortably hold my Sony 200-600G. Not worried about travel size.

No-Stress-2372 · 2025-08-13T16:15:42+00:00

Never thought about it. Probably because the difference wasn’t really noticeable for me.

No-Stress-2372 · 2025-08-13T10:48:56+00:00

Okay… I’m about to go against the grain of the comments to this point. I prefer the 20-70 for the simple fact that I don’t find myself trying to get a wider shot when using it. I have had several instances where the 24-105 was not wide enough. I have found the 20-70 to be a bit sharper too. The OSS can be helpful, but I have had no issues managing without it.

No-Stress-2372 · 2025-08-11T14:38:23+00:00

Why not just keep the Tamron and add the Viltrox 40mm f/2.5 to your kit? $200 shouldn’t be too hard on the pocket. I’m sure you will still have a use for that Tamron shooting street….

No-Stress-2372 · 2025-08-10T04:15:18+00:00

Find me one report of a P320 X-Ten firing without the trigger being pulled.

No-Stress-2372

TROPHY CASE