# GX-8 or A7ii? I need help!



## thinkscotty (Aug 10, 2015)

I do a lot of photo and video work in my advocacy/nonprofit job.  After taking some classes and practicing a lot, it's time to have a system of my own, possibly to do some paid work with in the future - but at the very least to take very high quality photos when I travel and to satisfy my high standards for the photos I've come to enjoy taking.

I've never invested in a system. At the moment, it's down to this:  the brand new Panasonic GX-8 or the Sony A7ii.  It all hinges on how genuinely important a full-frame sensor is.  I rarely shoot at any ISO over 1600 - and never over 3200. And I prefer the look and capabilities of the panasonic over the Sony in almost every way.  Also, not unimportantly, the price of the system - there are some incredible 4/3 lenses at under $900, while it seems like you have to spend a grand or so for anything decent in Sony's system.

And still...that sensor. I'm pretty much sold on mirrorless.  But I need help here, people!


----------



## enerlevel (Aug 12, 2015)

I have tired a lot of cameras but none from Panasonic unfortunately. For mirror less, I have tried fujifilm, sony, Olympus etc. I have used FF in the past so the 4/3 or apsc just Doesnt give me the performance specially in low light situations. Now i have the sony a7s and that's the camera I will be keeping with me for a long time.  1600 and 3200 ISO is still considered high for a apsc or 4/3 camera.. And if you comparing the A7II against the Panasonic 4/3 sensor at 1600 or 3200 ISO, then the image quality will be very different on the a7II.  Why not try the a7R? I have tried all the a7 series so far and I think the a7R is perfect for not so dark situations and its megapixels gives you more room to crop or shoot high detailed images


----------



## sashbar (Aug 12, 2015)

I guess you need to decide what your main priority is. From your post I can see three somehow contradicting priorities. 

Is it an image quality?
Is it the look and functions of the camera?
Is it the price range? 

Since camera is a long term investment, in my view it is sensible to select one main overriding priority and go for it, rather than seeking a compromise only to regret it six months later. 

If it all hinges on how important a FF sensor is, then yes, it is important enough to bite the bullet and go for it. 

(Having said that, I am using FUJI X-T1 with FUJINON XF lenses that give me an image quality, that I personally prefer to Sony, even though it is an APS-C camera. But this is a different story, since this camera is not on your list )

It also depends on whether photography is going to be your casual interest or a more or less serious hobby or a source of income. There is a huge difference between "doing some paid work in the future" and "take very high quality photos when travel" . A HUGE difference. 

If it is going to be your hobby, experience shows that a hobbyist usually regrets his compromise when buying his/her first camera/system. His/her demands usually raise considerably during the initial stage of learning photography, and changing or upgrading often proves more costly compared to buying the best system in the first place. The image quality is usually an overriding priority here, because image quality also means things like high dynamic range, the flexibility of you files in post production.  If you are a dedicated hobbyist you will probably spend a lot of time in editing your images in post production. 

But if it is just a casual interest, if your photography is just for memory shots when you travel, and you are not going beyond a camera and a couple of lenses, then reasonable budget is important. There is no sense in buying an expensive stuff for it to lay in a cupboard most of the time.  And most probably you are not going to spend your time pulling highlights in pp just to shape your clouds a bit more and do similar things that make no sense whatsoever to "normal" people. So the budget, the look and feel of the camera is maybe more important here than the ultimate IQ.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 12, 2015)

Sounds to me like you are trying very hard to convince yourself that the less-expensive choice, the Panasonic, will be every bit as good as the new Sony, which is a $3,000 body with a handful of good lenses available.


----------



## jaomul (Aug 13, 2015)

Why are you limiting to these 2? Only asking because of the relatively big difference in sensor size, what I mean is there are choices in between.

I'm not sure if it was tour post, but there was a similar one a few days ago where points were made about some pros able to use m4/3 for magazine prints. This is true but there is no overcoming physics, and generally larger sensors are better assuming your in the same tech time frame.

I would not overlook the sony A6000. It seems to be very capable for video and stills at a price similar to panasonic (if not cheaper), yet slightly bigger, probably a little better sensor, also the newer canons with dual pixel autofocus are good options for both (I know you said your stuck on mirrorless, but does it matter how the camera works, as long as it does the job).

In answer to first question the sony is lots more expensive because it has higher quality output


----------

