Jumping back in... A7, X-T1 or something else.

robwdavies

robwdavies

Messages
28
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
Jumping back in to (something other than iPhone) photography after a year or so without a 'proper' camera.

Budget of around £800 (give or take, it can move a bit for the right deal) and looking at something mirrorless as a). don't want to lug a huge lump around b). want the flexibility to change lenses.

Been looking at both the Sony A7 (currently £799 with the 28-70 kit lens after cashback) and the Fuji X-T1 (£699 with a 35mm f1.4 both refurbished). Appreciate both those lenses are quite different, but longer term will want a standard zoom, couple of primes and a dedicated macro, so looking to build a system.

Have hands on both of them in-store, but it's no substitute for use in the field, looking for some input here to help guide me.

Photography wise it will be a mix of baby shots, family, architecture, street and macro.

Not averse to using older manual lenses as well as modern, native AF glass.

What are everyone's thoughts on the above two cameras, also is there anything else that I may have overlooked?
 
Well, one is full frame the other an APSC sensor, you could decide on that alone. From what I hear, the Sony system is pricier to get into. I use an XT-1 with the 35 1.4 mostly and love it. I also have a bunch of old MF lenses that I attach on there with adaptors, it's a great camera for that purpose. I can't really speak for Sony.
 
maarten.dhaese said:
Another obvious alternative you should consider is m4/3 if size and weight are a concern. You can build a very high-quality, lightweight and affordable setup using Olympus/Panasonic kit.

Link to a pro photog who switched from Nikon to Olympus and doesn't regret it: http://www.intufisuri.ro/2017/07/olympus-om-d-e-m-1-mk-ii-review-or-how.html
Click to expand...

The Olympus E-M1 was probably third on my list, so consider it officially added to the list. Thanks for the review link, interesting reading!
 
Get a macro lens for macro, doesn't matter what body you choose, what's your favourite macro lens? The Canon MPE is nice.

Get a tilt shift lens for architecture shots, Canon do a 17mm and 24mmTSE that is stonkingly good.

For general "family and baby", it depends how far you step back, can do it with a 24/35/50/85/100/135........whatever really.

But if you want to build a system then get something with the lenses that does what you need.
 
I have the A7, bought it recently and it is a pricey system to start. However you mentioned that you wouldn't mind older manual lenses which can be very cheap and only need a £15 adapter.

I have a mixture of new and old. Just buying and selling a few at the moment to see what is going to work best for me. At the moment I'm looking to settle on a kit with the 28-70mm (undecided whether to sell) - 35mm 2.8 and Olympus either 21mm 3.5 (currently have) or Olympus 24mm 2.8. I currently also have a Olympus 100mm 2.8 which is great for macro.

Its miles smaller than a DSLR and when I have picked up DSLR's since owning it, they feel enormous.

Its not the quickest thing in the world but for your uses it should be great.

With the kit I have described, its probably cheaper than most other FF set ups you could have. However the XT-1 will definitely have more and cheaper native lenses.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Get a macro lens for macro, doesn't matter what body you choose, what's your favourite macro lens? The Canon MPE is nice.

Get a tilt shift lens for architecture shots, Canon do a 17mm and 24mmTSE that is stonkingly good.

For general "family and baby", it depends how far you step back, can do it with a 24/35/50/85/100/135........whatever really.

But if you want to build a system then get something with the lenses that does what you need.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice, building around lenses is clearly sensible advice.

My last dedicated Macro lens was my favourite, and it was the Pentax DFA 100mm, that's going back a few years now though.

Excuse my ignorance, but outside of the miniaturisation (sp?) effect, what does a tilt shift lens allow? Genuine question, I've never owned one.

I had considered lens choice when narrowing down my options, and I'd specifically gone away from DSLR as I want to try and keep bulk down as far as possible, for a number of reasons but largely that I've found when my kit is bigger I use it less. That is why I'd pretty much struck Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc. from my list. Have I been too hasty in doing that?

EDIT: Just looking at the lenses you linked, likely to be out of my budget as nice as they may be. Two young kids and a partner in the middle of a medicine degree means I have to show a little restraint (for now!).
 
Last edited:
The miniaturisation effect from a tilt shift lens is not its main intention, that is just what people do with it but the main use is to make stitching much easier. You are able to remove the narrowing effect in the lines, you are able to look to left or right (or top the bottom) without moving the camera.
 
Raymond Lin said:
The miniaturisation effect from a tilt shift lens is not its main intention, that is just what people do with it but the main use is to make stitching much easier. You are able to remove the narrowing effect in the lines, you are able to look to left or right (or top the bottom) without moving the camera.
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to explain. That sounds like very useful functionality.
 
The only problem with discounting an SLR is there is a wide range of lens at most budgets.

I agree mirrorless has its size and weight advantages but some of the more "pro" lenses seem to be almost the same size as an SLR lens. Also the cost of some to me is eye watering, no doubt the quality is worth paying for though. There is of course second hand stuff which makes it more affordable.
 
Yup. Lens size is pretty much dictated by sensor size. The only real saving you make is the camera itself.
 
twist said:
Yup. Lens size is pretty much dictated by sensor size. The only real saving you make is the camera itself.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough, but an A7 plus lens will still be significantly smaller than full frame DSLR and equivalent lens, right? Same for X-T1 versus APSC DSLR?

If people still think that DSLR would be the way to go I'd be interested in hearing recommendations.
 
robwdavies said:
That's fair enough, but an A7 plus lens will still be significantly smaller than full frame DSLR and equivalent lens, right? Same for X-T1 versus APSC DSLR?

If people still think that DSLR would be the way to go I'd be interested in hearing recommendations.
Click to expand...

The lenses for the Sony A7 are same if not bigger than a lot of the Canon or Nikon lenses. Big sensor = big lenses.
 
robwdavies said:
That's fair enough, but an A7 plus lens will still be significantly smaller than full frame DSLR and equivalent lens, right? Same for X-T1 versus APSC DSLR?

If people still think that DSLR would be the way to go I'd be interested in hearing recommendations.
Click to expand...

It would if you were looking at the Old lenses. The Oly 21mm and 100mm I have are very small and very good.
 
For approx £800-£900 you could get secondhand:
  • E-M10 £200 or E-M10II £300
  • Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS £100
  • Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-150mm f/4.0-5.6 OIS £120
  • Olympus 45 f/1.8 £150
  • Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 9‑18mm 1:4.0‑5.6 £250 OR Olympus 17 f/1.8 OR Olympus 60 f/2.8 Macro - £250
This would cover a full-frame Field Of View (FOV) from 18mm to 300mm and you would have some low-light options as well. All the zooms in the suggestion above have good to very good optics and have a 52mm filter thread so you can share e.g. a polarising filter. Olympus primes are excellent in every way.

In fact the configuration above is my basic travel setup and I can comfortably carry most of this gear in a normal backpack with space for other stuff.
 
Is full frame necessary? Have a look at the Sony A6300 or if your budget can stretch, the A6500 with IBIS built in. Coming from someone who has had Canon DSLR's, and M43 (olympus E-M10), i've recently picked the A6500 up as i want to get into video more and i absolutely love it! I've got my lenses which were reasonably priced, cover a decent range from ultra wide (10-18), macro Oshiro 2:1 manual macro from amazon, fast Sigma 30mm F/1.4 and travel zoom (18-105). For the first time, i feel i have a complete package for video and photography and even better, i'll take it everywhere with me as it's not bulky like a dslr, but the IQ is better than that of the m43 system, i'd say it's the perfect compromise. I used to be a Canon fanboy ;)
 
wez130 said:
Is full frame necessary? Have a look at the Sony A6300 or if your budget can stretch, the A6500 with IBIS built in. Coming from someone who has had Canon DSLR's, and M43 (olympus E-M10), i've recently picked the A6500 up as i want to get into video more and i absolutely love it! I've got my lenses which were reasonably priced, cover a decent range from ultra wide (10-18), macro Oshiro 2:1 manual macro from amazon, fast Sigma 30mm F/1.4 and travel zoom (18-105). For the first time, i feel i have a complete package for video and photography and even better, i'll take it everywhere with me as it's not bulky like a dslr, but the IQ is better than that of the m43 system, i'd say it's the perfect compromise. I used to be a Canon fanboy ;)
Click to expand...

I'm considering full frame if it can give a significant advantage (particularly low light applications), plus the A7 (and other A range cameras seem to be regarded as the best cameras for using older lenses on).

The A6500 looks a great body, but I can currently get an A7 far cheaper. If that additional money is worthwhile then perhaps it's worth considering, but we're talking the price of a reasonable lens being the difference between the two bodies.
 
Wez hilighted the very excellent video capabilities of the 6500,if thats not the most important you could be paying more for something not so useful to you
 
Wayne Els said:
That's an incorrect generalisation. A lot of the lenses are considerably smaller and lighter than their SLR equivalents. The Sony GM ones are the only ones that are pretty much the same.
Click to expand...

They are the only ones worth looking at IMO, the rest are like canon entry level lenses...one can argue the 50/1.8 and the STM lenses is tiny too and Canon make tiny lenses are only the L glass are large.

The truth is both Sony and Canon make "small" and "large" lenses, so to argue that Sony lenses are "considerably smaller and lighter" than their SLR counterpart is not true since Canon too has many tiny lenses.

I mean look at the standard work horse lenses.

24-70/2.8
70-200/2.8
35/1.4
85/1.2 or 1.4

Those would be pretty standard lenses IMO, you can shoot anything from an event to sports to weddings to portraiture with that.

Sony and Canon it Nikon lenses for those are all about the same size.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
They are the only ones worth looking at IMO, the rest are like canon entry level lenses...one can argue the 50/1.8 and the STM lenses is tiny too and Canon make tiny lenses are only the L glass are large.
Click to expand...

Reymond, you're on drugs man. If you're talking image quality you must be to make a sweeping generalisation like this.
 
robwdavies said:
What are everyone's thoughts on the above two cameras, also is there anything else that I may have overlooked?
Click to expand...

I have a first generation A7 and few complaints. An electronic shutter would be nice as would a focus joystick but the rest is good for me :D

Focus is fast enough for me and the three native lenses I have all seem excellent. the 55mm f1.8 and 35mm f2.8 are IMO outstanding lenses and the 28-70mm kit lens is the best "kit lens" I've used. I use manual lenses quite a lot on mine and I'm happy with the results and I think old manual lenses are a great way of taking pictures if you have the time to focus manually or if you want to use some non focusing technique such as zone, hyperfocal or Merklinger.

The A7 is IMO well worth a serious look.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Sorry, I forgot the Zeiss made E-mount :p
Click to expand...

Raymond. I think it's quite likely that there's some very nice lenses that aren't GM.

Beyond that, sorry but I'm getting tired of the sweeping generalisations and utter crap I keep reading on this site.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Reymond, you're on drugs man. If you're talking image quality you must be to make a sweeping generalisation like this.
Click to expand...
Pretty much what would say too apart from the drugs bit. Whilst not quite as fast a lot of the primes, FE and Batis, appear to be of a very high quality optically and are significantly smaller and lighter than L or Art equivalents.
 
woof woof said:
Raymond. I think it's quite likely that there's some very nice lenses that aren't GM.

Beyond that, sorry but I'm getting tired of the sweeping generalisations and utter crap I keep reading on this site.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are some nice lenses that are not GM but if there is a GM version of the same focal length then to me there is little point getting them. Save up for the best glass, it'll serve you for decades and save money not having to upgrade. If one has the money to get into the Sony A7 family then really should do themselves justice in getting the best glass, instead of "good enough".

I also discount any 2.8 primes...I mean why?!? Why would anyone get a 2.8 prime when the same focal length is covered in a zoom, waste of money if you ask me.
 
None the cameras listed are bad choices.
It's all about the compromises you make.
How much does size matter how much does handling matter how image quality matter how much does weight matter.

You need to choose your own compromises.
If you go on Flickr and use the camera finder you can see what people produce with each.
 
Tom Green said:
Because they are smaller, lighter, and more than likely sharper than a zoom. Also to get a 2.8 zoom on the A7 is astronomical, a 2.8 prime isn't.
Click to expand...

I like to see a sharpness comparison to the 24-70 GM. Also, I hate the fact that I am sacrificing IQ because I am too weak to carry a 800g lens. Fair enough if you have some kind of back problem or travelling the world and and the airline sets a maximum weight. If you are taking photos day to day, driving to your son's football match, photo of your kid around the house. Get the better lens.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I like to see a sharpness comparison to the 24-70 GM. Also, I hate the fact that I am sacrificing IQ because I am too weak to carry a 800g lens. Fair enough if you have some kind of back problem or travelling the world and and the airline sets a maximum weight. If you are taking photos day to day, driving to your son's football match, photo of your kid around the house. Get the better lens.
Click to expand...


For me, I wanted a lighter kit so I would take it out and use it more and also for travelling.

Considered a Sigma 35mm 1.4 ART in the classifieds but going to get the Zeiss 35mm 2.8 instead due to portability - might not be 'quite' as good but its still bloody good. Everyone just has different requirements and some, like me, don't want to lug around masses of equipment.

The GM lens you mentioned is almost £2000 - almost 4 times the price, and I did say more than likely; so yes, that probably is as good but so it should be for that money.
 
Swiss Toni said:
I'll let you know all the details tomorrow, but basically a UK model, two months old boxed mint.
Click to expand...

Excellent.

As far as I can tell the A7ii offers some useful upgrades over the A7 so would certainly be interested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top