Change of kit, A7 or stick with Nikon: help me decide?

Nixon

Nixon

Messages
34
Edit My Images
Yes
Good morning all, my apologies if this is a boring topic and posted in the wrong place. But I'm looking for the experiences and tips from those that have been there before me.

I'm not too happy with the performance of my D7000, it's AF is significantly softer than my back up D3200 with the same lenses. So I'm on the market for a change. My initial plan was to pick up a used D7200, the processor and AF changes are a significant enough upgrade to keep me happy for a few more months. On top of that I may have an opportunity to pick up a tatty but functioning 70-200 f2.8 VR for £500.

But ...

I'm liking the idea of an A7: either the A7, the A7R or the A7ii, paired with the Sony 24-240mm and the plan to expand with a small fast prime at some point soon. My budget will not stretch to a iii and new glass unfortunately. The images that it can capture look fantastic, the contrast and dynamic range with the sharpness and portability make it a very desirable piece of kit.

My concerns with the A7 is the lack of AF-C, and rumors that it's not too capable as an wildlife / sports shooter. I like to do a bit of track side shooting and the local wildlife in country parks and the like, but deer stalking, or 300 mm+ super zooms are not a priority at the moment. But would like to be able to capture action, sports and a bit of street photography.
My understanding is my Nikon glass will be pretty useless on the Sony, even with the best converters.

I have an upcoming trip to Costa Rica, with lots of trekking, landscape, scenery, wildlife, street and portrait shots planned, so need an adaptive and generalist setup, which is a good description for what I need in general really. I loved my D300, but that's getting a it long in the tooth now.

The weight of the 70-200 2.8 VR is off putting to be frank, a great lens and lovely quality, but heavy for trekking and worth the change from the slower, but lighter 70-300? But that is another conversation all together...

My current kit:
Nikon D7000
Nikon D3200
Nikon 70-300 AF-S f/4.5-5.6
Nikon 35mm AF-S f1.8
Nikon 50mm AF f1.8

TLDR:-
Will I be disappointed if I get the Sony A7ii and the 24-240mm f/3.5-6.3 over a D7200 and 70-200 f/2.8
Will the portability and weight savings pay off, or is there another option you can suggest? ...

Thanks.
 
Welcome Nixon.

You;re off to Costa Rica? Hang onto the Nikon gear, that 300mm (assuming it is VR) will be valuable. for wildlife and birds I have just bought the 200-500VR for my trip in May. I believe that for sharpness the 70-300 is on par with the 70-200.

I'd try to find out why the D7000 is softer than the D3200, is it the histogram of the image seen at 100%, Did you buy the camera new or S/H, maybe some setting are off and perhaps it just needs a reset or service. Ponder on the idea of getting a SH D7200 plus say an 18-105/140, The lens will be an ideal 'walkabout' for the D3200 and use the 70-300 on the D7200. Don't bother with the D7100, the D7200 has better buffer for action shots.

A FF camera will not be optimal for a CR trip as the tropical birds will be some distance away so a 300mm lens will be benefical on DX (so you'll get 450+mm equivalent).

Regarding the 70-200 at least you would be able to use the 2x TCE20Mk2 converter with it - giving you 140-400 f5.6 (210-600 equivalent) - this combo does work.

But get that D7000 checked out.
 
Something to consider for remote trips is battery life, and battery life on the Sony's is terrible.

If there are was of charging in the field (battery banks etc) then it can be mitigated but it is something serious to consider.

As you'll be trekking and generally travelling, personally I would take one camera, a superzoom and a fast prime plus a decent compact as a backup. I quickly realised that lugging a load of camera gear around is a waste of time, unless the trip is specifically for photography (e.g. safari) then travelling light is the way to go.
 
The Sony is a far better camera (newer and a better sensor)

Only you can decide if your photography will improve if you swap.

How about hiring one first before you take the plunge?
 
Many moons / cameras ago I had a d3100 and decided to upgrade to a d7000. In reality, the only "upgrade" was usability as the IQ was nigh on identical. A waste of money. That said, my eldest then had a d3100 and now my youngest has it - cracking camera for peanuts...

Anyway...I've thought about adding Sony to my collection but steered away from the original a7 ( no ibis and some comments about sensor reflections put me off ) so I'd go for the a7ii personally if on a budget. Just remember FF aren't small or cheap and as said above, you'll be pleased of the extra range a crop offers you for your trip.

Back to the d7000, maybe it needs some MA to get the best out of it ? You could always get the Tamron 100-400 for mid£400s ( eglobal etc ) to give you more reach if needed but I've always found the 70-300 afs pretty sharp if you don't need more than 300mm
 
Have you looked at micro four thirds , 2x crop factor , ultra lightweight , ibis , cheap lenses , my Panasonic g80 and a 100-400 lens = 800mm weighs in at under 1.5 kilos camera and lens , no problem with b.i.f either it just works
 
Forget the A7 unless you can jump to one of the third gen cameras with the much improved a.f capability and vastly improved battery life.
 
f/2.8 said:
Forget the A7 unless you can jump to one of the third gen cameras with the much improved a.f capability and vastly improved battery life.
Click to expand...

That would be my thoughts too. For portraits or landscapes or stuff that's generally still, the gen 1 and 2 are great but it feels like it's the gen 3 Sony's that compete and/or beat good DSLR's across the board. It would be shame to compromise. Personally, I'd stick to the DSLR for now. The sensible thing to do would be to get the D7000 serviced. It really should be performing at least as well as the D3200. You could also try a little AF tuning on it too. But if that fails, not a lot wrong with a D7200 and a 70-200 (VR1 version I assume?) is an absolutely spanking lens. I know someone earlier mentioned that the 70-300 competes with the 70-200 but IMO the difference is actually quite big. The 70-300vr is a fine lens in its own right but the step up to a 70-200 2.8 is a big one. The subject isolation, speed of AF and image quality are a big jump up. But they're big and heavy and you lose 100mm, which is a lot so.... your choice!
 
The D7000 was quite well known for back focusing issues. The one I had didn’t have great AF. It made a 70-200 f2.8 look awful and I nearly sold that 70-200 before trying it on a D7100. The strange thing is others had the opposite problem finding the D7000 better than the D7100.
 
I get some great shots with the original A7 (even if I do say so myself :D) but I wouldn't advise it if you are shooting (fairly) fast moving subjects in all honesty.
 
Thank you for all the advice and input, I have spent a few days chewing through it, reviews and you tube. I had a play with a few A7 and decided that maybe I need to give the mirror less revolution a few more years to mature or save a bit extra cash to do it properly.
I had a good play with a Nikon Z6, now that is a nice piece of kit, but outside of my budget at the moment.

I have had 2 D7000 now and they both have similar poor performance, maybe I'm being harsh, the images are certainly not unusable, but I know they could be sharper and better contrast with my "inferior" body. I think I have lost confidence in it, so time for a change.

While having a gander, I came across the D750 ... similar size, similar weight, similar performance to the D7200, now I have a different dilemma.
 
Last edited:
Nixon said:
Thank you for all the advice and input, I have spent a few days chewing through it, reviews and you tube. I had a play with a few A7 and decided that maybe I need to give the mirror less revolution a few more years to mature or save a bit extra cash to do it properly.
I had a good play with a Nikon Z6, now that is a nice piece of kit, but outside of my budget at the moment.

I have had 2 D7000 now and they both have similar poor performance, maybe I'm being harsh, the images are certainly not unusable, but I know they could be sharper and better contrast with my "inferior" body. I think I have lost confidence in it, so time for a change.

While having a gander, I came across the D750 ... similar size, similar weight, similar performance to the D7200, now I have a different dilemma.
Click to expand...

The D750 is an awesome camera for the price.
 
I went for an A7ii, for all of six weeks, I just could not get on with the size of it (Fat Fingers.), the lack of affordable native glass and the battery life. There were positives, I have little doubt that mirrorless is the future of cameras, but for me, its not ready yet.

I sold it for what I paid and bought a D750 with the Nikon cashback deal. Fortunately I had kept my Nikon glass.
 
D750 is a great camera and will get good pictures with all your lenses. Not sure about the 300mm (11MPix on DX?) but the 35mm AF-S gives a good 1.2 crop or a heavily vignetted full frame picture. You might find a D750 and a f/2.8 200mm gives clearer cropped pictures than your current camera and lens.
 
had the D7000 - very hit or miss on the shots - never knew what I was going to get.
Bought the D7100 - night & day difference.
D7200 is just better...lol
 
Erty said:
D750 is a great camera and will get good pictures with all your lenses. Not sure about the 300mm (11MPix on DX?) but the 35mm AF-S gives a good 1.2 crop or a heavily vignetted full frame picture. You might find a D750 and a f/2.8 200mm gives clearer cropped pictures than your current camera and lens.
Click to expand...

The 70-300 af-s is a full frame lens :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top