I found a great deal for an R7 and everything looks good, except for the battery recharge capacity being 2/3.I'm a hobbyist and would use it primarily for street photography and wildlife. But I'd to also do professional portrait photography in 1 or 2 years.And I don't really do video, but would learn the basics, since it has IBIS.What do you think of that camera?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width860Image Height860
>>4385958Go fool frame for that money
>>4385960The question is: Do I need full-frame as a hobbyist?
>>4385962No.For all intents and purposes it just gives a slightly different look.Get a couple of nice lenses and you'll be set.
>>4385962If you're ever gonna shoot in sub-optimal lighting conditions, then unequivocally yes.
>>4385967You're confusing need and optimally.
>>4385968Unless he plays to shoot wildlife in broad daylight, getting a camera like the R7 makes literally zero sense.
>>4385970I don't like the R8, personally. Not saying it's bad, but doesn't fill some requirements such as mechanical shutter.
>>4385971I had similar reservations, but the electronic first curtain proved pretty sufficient.
>>4385970Yeah but how much do 500mm FF lenses cost compared to 300mm aps-c or even FF lenses?
>>4385962Not really. Depends on what you shoot. Crop gets bonus points for wildlife and macro, but that's about it. Foolframe dominates other areas BUT only if you're autistic about maximum IQ. The equivalent FF camera would be the R8 in terms of money, and the R6II in terms of specs. Unfortunately, to keep up with specs is like twice the cost of the R7.Lenses matter more though, and a nice stabilised, bright prime lens will get you better street photos, and a good super telelphoto lens will get your better wildlife photos than simply faging on over FF or crop.>>4385972EFCS is sufficent for most things. Bokeh takes a small hit. Artifical lighting can cause banding at high shutter speeds 1/1000th+. That's... about it.>>4385970Interesting, here the R8 costs more than the R7.
>>4385973What would you even need a 500 mil for, unless you're gonna shoot wildlife? APS-C really isn't suited for sports, mind you.
>>4385975Dude, OP said he wanted it for wildlife in the second sentence.
>>4385976>Dude, OP said he wanted it for wildlife in the second sentence.And I made it clear that it would require optimal lighting regardless. >>4385974>Interesting, here the R8 costs more than the R7.Where is over here?
>>4385973OP could get one of those meme f/11 super telephotos. They're not any more expensive than the RF 100-400mm.
>>4385977Our market is fucked mind you. But the only time I've seen an R7 cost less is on deep sales. Used market is also similar. R7s going for like $1500 AUD but R8s staying around $2k.
>>4385974>Artifical lighting can cause banding at high shutter speeds 1/1000th+I shot indoor sports using EFCS in dismal lighting conditions and never noticed any banding.
>>4385972Not for me. I use HSS about 80% of the time.
