A Sony A7II as 2nd camera to a 6D?

Hello
I'm wondering if this solution is a good one?.

What I love with the 6D: (I own the one without gps & wi-fi)
- ISO Performance
- Picture quality
- 3EV center af
- Good feeling to hold. Magnesium.

What sounds good with the A7II:
- More megapixels
- Picture quality, DR, ISO Performance (Maybe not better ISO but better quality overall)
- Focus peaking and Focus magnification built-in
- Sensor based IS (all lenses will have IS)
- Many AF points
- Tilting LCD
- Wi-fi & NFC

I've always wanted to have a camera that can handle old mf lenses and other brands lenses and this Sony will also add IS to these lenses.
I will also begin to produce more video work (for myself) in the future. I do mostly landscape and wildlife photography. Not so much birds in flight and moving subjects. My 6D has been good even to moving subjects.

Is this Sony so good that I should sell the 6D and keep the lenses with a metabones? Or is it a good combination to the 6D?

If I'm buying into a system I'd probably try to keep the lenses native. Using a $400usd metabone adapter is nice to have but will perform sluggishly. However apparently the A6300 crop sensor sony seems to be blazing fast using canon lenses with a metabone adapter.

At this moment in time I feel comfortable using a heavier Canon dslr with my current Canon glass. The zoom f/2.8 mk2 Canon glass is what I'm happy with at the moment. Love the selection of prime's too

If you do buy a sony make sure you have a pocket full of batteries to assure ample shooting time. Once sony puts out more lenses I'm still holding out in replacing my dslr.

However for a natural light casual rig with video capabilities the Sony is enticing.

AlanU wrote in post #17922926
If I'm buying into a system I'd probably try to keep the lenses native. Using a $400usd metabone adapter is nice to have but will perform sluggishly. However apparently the A6300 crop sensor sony seems to be blazing fast using canon lenses with a metabone adapter.

At this moment in time I feel comfortable using a heavier Canon dslr with my current Canon glass. The zoom f/2.8 mk2 Canon glass is what I'm happy with at the moment. Love the selection of prime's too

If you do buy a sony make sure you have a pocket full of batteries to assure ample shooting time. Once sony puts out more lenses I'm still holding out in replacing my dslr.

However for a natural light casual rig with video capabilities the Sony is enticing.

Depending on how you shoot...that pocket full of batteries is an exaggeration. I typically carry 2 spare batteries and only once did I have to change to one of the spares...never had to use a 2nd spare. I get roughly 400 photos per battery and typically don't come close to shooting 400 photos in an outing. The only time I has to change batteries was shooting a music concert.

Hogloff wrote in post #17924666
Depending on how you shoot...that pocket full of batteries is an exaggeration. I typically carry 2 spare batteries and only once did I have to change to one of the spares...never had to use a 2nd spare. I get roughly 400 photos per battery and typically don't come close to shooting 400 photos in an outing. The only time I has to change batteries was shooting a music concert.

I usually don't even bother carrying a spare anymore... I used to carry two because of all the fear spreading here on the forums, then realized I never needed them. True, if out on a long day you'll probably need one more, or if you leave your camera on all the time like you would a DSLR then you will need more, but shooting normally a whole day on my a7S one battery is almost always enough.

As for the OP; If the top 2 reasons are your main ones for wanting the a7ii, I'd stick with the 6D...

More megapixels is irrelevant in my opinion... I went from 20, to 36 and now down to 12, from a practical standpoint it made zero difference to the quality of the shots I'm getting, and 4 megapixels is as near as makes no difference.

As for picture quality... yeah, it's better at low ISO, how much so really depends on who you ask, but if you ask me, it's again a wash (having owned a 6D). The DR advantage can be handy sometimes, but it's not something to switch systems over in my opinion. I made a before and after sample with my 6D that I constantly used to defend it's DR and switching to Sony hasn't changed that perspective/argument, the 6D's DR is fine. As for ISO performance... you'll be disappointed, the 6D is better in this regard from all that I've read/seen. I had the a7R right after my 6D and was astounded at how much worse it's high ISO ability was coming from the 6D, so much so that I sold it for the a7S (because I loved the ergonomics) and most people agree that the a7R files are actually easier to work with in regards to high-ISO than the a7/ii files are.

If the other points you brought up are more important to you (minus the WiFi, since the 6D also has that) than by all means, get the a7ii. I'm a huge fan of mirrorless for all of those reasons (and a few more).

Another thing you may want to try is to get an EG-S screen for your 6D, in my experience it makes manual focusing much easier with fast glass.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17924911
I usually don't even bother carrying a spare anymore... I used to carry two because of all the fear spreading here on the forums, then realized I never needed them. True, if out on a long day you'll probably need one more, or if you leave your camera on all the time like you would a DSLR then you will need more, but shooting normally a whole day on my a7S one battery is almost always enough.

As for the OP; If the top 2 reasons are your main ones for wanting the a7ii, I'd stick with the 6D...

More megapixels is irrelevant in my opinion... I went from 20, to 36 and now down to 12, from a practical standpoint it made zero difference to the quality of the shots I'm getting, and 4 megapixels is as near as makes no difference.

As for picture quality... yeah, it's better at low ISO, how much so really depends on who you ask, but if you ask me, it's again a wash (having owned a 6D). The DR advantage can be handy sometimes, but it's not something to switch systems over in my opinion. I made a before and after sample with my 6D that I constantly used to defend it's DR and switching to Sony hasn't changed that perspective/argument, the 6D's DR is fine. As for ISO performance... you'll be disappointed, the 6D is better in this regard from all that I've read/seen. I had the a7R right after my 6D and was astounded at how much worse it's high ISO ability was coming from the 6D, so much so that I sold it for the a7S (because I loved the ergonomics) and most people agree that the a7R files are actually easier to work with in regards to high-ISO than the a7/ii files are.

If the other points you brought up are more important to you (minus the WiFi, since the 6D also has that) than by all means, get the a7ii. I'm a huge fan of mirrorless for all of those reasons (and a few more).

Another thing you may want to try is to get an EG-S screen for your 6D, in my experience it makes manual focusing much easier with fast glass.

Appreciate the comment here. I've read your thoughts on the Canon/Sony debate before and find your opinion decidedly un-fanboy-ish, which I appreciate! Seems like you remain pretty objective about your use of these cameras.

I came from a 6D and picked up an A7ii and maybe because I'm using mostly Canon glass (the 40/50 STM and the 85 1.8) I'm not sure if I'm realizing any real gains in image quality, which was my main reason for the switch. Wondering now if this is a matter of using native glass versus adapted glass, though it's clear the STM lenses perform very well on the Sony bodies, but maybe not as well as on Canon..unsure. Originally I had the 6D and A6000 as a duo and consolidated with the A72; now I'm wondering if what I had before was the better setup.

crashwins wrote in post #17926676
Appreciate the comment here. I've read your thoughts on the Canon/Sony debate before and find your opinion decidedly un-fanboy-ish, which I appreciate! Seems like you remain pretty objective about your use of these cameras.

I came from a 6D and picked up an A7ii and maybe because I'm using mostly Canon glass (the 40/50 STM and the 85 1.8) I'm not sure if I'm realizing any real gains in image quality, which was my main reason for the switch. Wondering now if this is a matter of using native glass versus adapted glass, though it's clear the STM lenses perform very well on the Sony bodies, but maybe not as well as on Canon..unsure. Originally I had the 6D and A6000 as a duo and consolidated with the A72; now I'm wondering if what I had before was the better setup.

I think jumping to canon is totally based on personal preference and application.

Their new Sony 24-70 f/2.8 zoom glass is BIG and even with my average sized hands will probably prefer a full size grip that balances well with a Canon 24-70L f/2.8 mk2.

The Sony A6300 is more appealing to me at the moment over the A7II. The reason is the 1.5 crop factor and the image quality will be very good for a crop sensor. Video capabilities is incredibly impressive so far even in the A6000 and the A6300 should be even better. I'm curious how the A7mk2 and A6300 perform against each other at high ISO testing. BUT mind you I'll still be keeping my M43 gear and Canon gear.

Huh...as I write this I'm also anticipating the 80D for video application for family documentation and crop factor for extra reach. Of course in a heavier package

The A7S (also mk2) and A7Rmk2 seems to be the game changer in performance of jumping to mirrorless due to ISO performance and the "R" for resolution. I wouldn't complain owning an A7ii however it would be more for casual smaller form factor. I'm still on the fence in having a small body with a full sized FE full frame f/2.8 sony zoom glass as a primary system. I'm going to be testing the A7 series with larger zooms in the near future.

The choices these days is mind boggling!!

AlanU wrote in post #17928038
I think jumping to canon is totally based on personal preference and application.

Their new Sony 24-70 f/2.8 zoom glass is BIG and even with my average sized hands will probably prefer a full size grip that balances well with a Canon 24-70L f/2.8 mk2.

The Sony A6300 is more appealing to me at the moment over the A7II. The reason is the 1.5 crop factor and the image quality will be very good for a crop sensor. Video capabilities is incredibly impressive so far even in the A6000 and the A6300 should be even better. I'm curious how the A7mk2 and A6300 perform against each other at high ISO testing. BUT mind you I'll still be keeping my M43 gear and Canon gear.

Huh...as I write this I'm also anticipating the 80D for video application for family documentation and crop factor for extra reach. Of course in a heavier package

The A7S (also mk2) and A7Rmk2 seems to be the game changer in performance of jumping to mirrorless due to ISO performance and the "R" for resolution. I wouldn't complain owning an A7ii however it would be more for casual smaller form factor. I'm still on the fence in having a small body with a full sized FE full frame f/2.8 sony zoom glass as a primary system. I'm going to be testing the A7 series with larger zooms in the near future.

The choices these days is mind boggling!!

the choice is easy, just large F2.8 zooms when you need it, and when you dont use small light stuff. You're not shooting a 24-70/70-200 f2.8 one handed anyhow, the body size is pure preference, and IMO, not even close to a dealbreaker. I do have a 24-70 F2.8 and it focuses about as good and sometimes better on the A7rii. I have BOTH small AND large kit in on one body. I will likely get the canon 70-200mm F2.8 non IS simply because it's inexpensive, and nice to have just in case. The 24-70 turned out great for video as it's effectively 24-105mm f2.8 due to the crop factor. For day to day shooting, 2.8 zoom is not what I would shoot, but a combo of three lenses 12/24 + 40/55 + 100/200, and all are fairly small lenses, with the largest 200mm weighing ~400g. It's great having a small kit handy. if you're the type that prefers zooms, the 28-70 is a hollow lens , somewhat big ish looking, but so light and ok optics @f8.

Charlie wrote in post #17928220
the choice is easy, just large F2.8 zooms when you need it, and when you dont use small light stuff. You're not shooting a 24-70/70-200 f2.8 one handed anyhow, the body size is pure preference, and IMO, not even close to a dealbreaker. I do have a 24-70 F2.8 and it focuses about as good and sometimes better on the A7rii. I have BOTH small AND large kit in on one body. I will likely get the canon 70-200mm F2.8 non IS simply because it's inexpensive, and nice to have just in case. The 24-70 turned out great for video as it's effectively 24-105mm f2.8 due to the crop factor. For day to day shooting, 2.8 zoom is not what I would shoot, but a combo of three lenses 12/24 + 40/55 + 100/200, and all are fairly small lenses, with the largest 200mm weighing ~400g. It's great having a small kit handy. if you're the type that prefers zooms, the 28-70 is a hollow lens , somewhat big ish looking, but so light and ok optics @f8.

I think the "new" A6300 will have stellar video capabilities that surpasses any A7 series in the AF department. That is my draw to this Sony body. Casual family documentation with very good IQ.

So far the lates M43 bodies with the 20mpx sensors have not made any drastic advancements in low ligth performance.

The AF tracking of the A6300 or even the A6000 seems to be excellent. I could simply have a UWA lens and fast wide prime and maybe an 85mm prime range and satisfy majority of my casual shooting requirements.

I cannot dump my Canon gear just yet since I have almost everything I need now. I use my 24-70Lmk2 infrequently so my main zoom is the UWA. Otherwise it's a 24mm prime I typically shoot with.

I almost bought a 6d simply for a smaller lighter canon full frame LOL!!

AlanU wrote in post #17922926
If I'm buying into a system I'd probably try to keep the lenses native. Using a $400usd metabone adapter is nice to have but will perform sluggishly. However apparently the A6300 crop sensor sony seems to be blazing fast using canon lenses with a metabone adapter.

At this moment in time I feel comfortable using a heavier Canon dslr with my current Canon glass. The zoom f/2.8 mk2 Canon glass is what I'm happy with at the moment. Love the selection of prime's too

If you do buy a sony make sure you have a pocket full of batteries to assure ample shooting time. Once sony puts out more lenses I'm still holding out in replacing my dslr.

However for a natural light casual rig with video capabilities the Sony is enticing.

sounds like DSLR shooter that never used a Sony.

Metabones is not sluggish, it was back in the day with original A7 series, not anymore.

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #17929339
sounds like DSLR shooter that never used a Sony.

Metabones is not sluggish, it was back in the day with original A7 series, not anymore.

More like somebody who shot Sony in the past and hasn't shot with an A7Rii or A7ii with the latest firmware. If you've shot with a 1st gen A7 series or an A7sII, sluggish AF performance on adapted lenses would be par for the course.

What bothers me is every time you see a review of an adapted lens (just like the reviews of third-party lenses in general) the evaluation always seems to say something like "almost as fast as an OEM lens." That's supposed to be praise, but as a sports shooter, "almost as fast" doesn't cut it. I know there are excellent third-party lenses and adapters, but I've used enough non-native lenses on my cameras to be sure that their performance will be less than confidence-inspiring. If AF speed isn't a critical parameter for you (landscape or portrait shooters), great.

I thought about picking up a Sony to use with MF lenses, since the configuration seems ideal. But after using a couple of them in-store I had to reconsider. I'm sure I could figure out the menu system after a while, but my hands just engulf the camera body - I had to literally hold it with my fingertips in order to manipulate the controls - and I don't have large hands. It felt much like my EOS-M (which I tend to use for tripod work and astrophotography; it's not a great camera to shoot events with) and just wasn't comfortable to hold at all. I'm glad Sony is trying to expand the boundaries of modern camera systems, but their system is just not my cuppa.

GregDunn wrote in post #17938705
What bothers me is every time you see a review of an adapted lens (just like the reviews of third-party lenses in general) the evaluation always seems to say something like "almost as fast as an OEM lens." That's supposed to be praise, but as a sports shooter, "almost as fast" doesn't cut it. I know there are excellent third-party lenses and adapters, but I've used enough non-native lenses on my cameras to be sure that their performance will be less than confidence-inspiring. If AF speed isn't a critical parameter for you (landscape or portrait shooters), great.

I thought about picking up a Sony to use with MF lenses, since the configuration seems ideal. But after using a couple of them in-store I had to reconsider. I'm sure I could figure out the menu system after a while, but my hands just engulf the camera body - I had to literally hold it with my fingertips in order to manipulate the controls - and I don't have large hands. It felt much like my EOS-M (which I tend to use for tripod work and astrophotography; it's not a great camera to shoot events with) and just wasn't comfortable to hold at all. I'm glad Sony is trying to expand the boundaries of modern camera systems, but their system is just not my cuppa.

Nobody would ever tell you that any of the Sony mirrorless cameras were good for sports unless they were totally full of it. The TS also never mentioned any needs for any kind of demanding AF system, or even with adapted lenses for that matter (the 6D's AF isn't great for sports either btw). So while I can appreciate that the Sony is "not your cuppa", it doesn't really help the TS here.

I think you're pretty dramatically exaggerating the size issue. I had a 6D immediately before my a7R (and then a7S) and it didn't feel any less comfortable to hold and I certainly don't hold it with my finger tips, and I have pretty large hands.

I'm not trying to argue the a7 is for everyone, it isn't... but the negatives you brought up are either exaggerated or have nothing to do with the TS' needs/wants.

Its just the typical DSLR user making BS claims because of his/hers insecurities when tech changes. Tech changes, and DSLR era is over.

I had a 5DIII and I went to a7RII, AF between 5DIII and a7RII is very comparable, I would dare to say a7RII has better AF, especially when I take pictures of my kid, face detect, eye-af and tracking is so much better on a7RII, tracking my 20 month old running around is so much easier with a7RII then 5DIII.

I don't have small hands either, and holding A7RII is super confortable, the only camera that was better in that regard is Olympus E-M1.

E-M1 is still my favorite camera of all time. If Olympus would go full frame, I would sell everything over night to switch to it.

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #17939518
Its just the typical DSLR user making BS claims because of his/hers insecurities when tech changes. Tech changes, and DSLR era is over.

I had a 5DIII and I went to a7RII, AF between 5DIII and a7RII is very comparable, I would dare to say a7RII has better AF, especially when I take pictures of my kid, face detect, eye-af and tracking is so much better on a7RII, tracking my 20 month old running around is so much easier with a7RII then 5DIII.

I don't have small hands either, and holding A7RII is super confortable, the only camera that was better in that regard is Olympus E-M1.

E-M1 is still my favorite camera of all time. If Olympus would go full frame, I would sell everything over night to switch to it.

Obviously your passionate about your gear. I think many folks familiar with the dslr will have a comfort zone using their gear. I don't think the word "BS" is really necessary. People have preferences and they are entitled to their opinions.

I still haven't purchased any sony gear yet. I'm still debating one sticking with my Canon gear and purchasing an A7s for my casual family needs. My M43 gear is heavily used for casual purposes for HD video but the high ISO performance does not meet my needs fully. If I buy a UWA and a wide prime and 85mm for an A7S that will be perfect for my casual needs. Any professional events my Canon gear is second nature for me without sweating.

The E-M1 is one of the better M43 camera's until the rear dial falls off the body !!! It's very common and a well known problem. Historically the Panasonic M43 seems to have the least issues. Shutter shock is an issue but it seems many mirrorless camera's have this issue including Sony (iirc). I love the M43 system but the high iso performance isn't there. I'm seriously looking into fuji at the moment but the Video capabilities is dreadful. However Fuji has an incredible lens lineup and would be awesome if I had no interest in video.

I could rock a Sony A7 series and a 6D for majority of the situations.

I think financial reasons this can cause resistance in a system change. Another reason is that Sony lacks fast glass (most seems to be f/4). The new f/2.8 sony zooms are not on sale "just yet". However more and more f/2 and f/1.4 glass primes and f/2.8 zoooms are being introduced slowly as they develop.

The A7mk2 will suite most enthusiastic/pro and even soccer mom/dads. I think it's an awesome gear to buy for anyone. I'd suggest an A6000/63000 over any consumer grade nikon/canon gear. Honestly I don't think most people care about a camera body having "mirrorless" or "mirror" . If I generalize I think most people care about image quality and locking on focus using AF.

I'd personally rather stick with native lenses on any system. However for casual use I would happily purchase a metabone adapter and use my Canon lenses. If I was fully dedicated to sony I'd sell all my Canon lenses and buy all sony native lenses.

AlanU wrote in post #17939618
Obviously your passionate about your gear. I think many folks familiar with the dslr will have a comfort zone using their gear. I don't think the word "BS" is really necessary. People have preferences and they are entitled to their opinions.

with claims like this "literally hold it with my fingertips" yes it was necessary.