Nikon to Sony. Should i do it?

355858

355858

Messages
676
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello,

This is a nervous and also exciting time for me as i'm thinking about leaving behind Nikon and moving to a Sony A7R II.

What i'd like to know is how have you guys found the jump or who uses Sony and would recommend or not?

I mainly shoot portraits in studio and location, Boudoir and the the odd landscape photo.

My current setup is the D800, 50 1.4, 70-200mm, lensbaby composer and a 200-200mm F4 which is not used very often.

Ben
 
For me the move from DSLR to CSC was to save bulk but since then I've come to value the in view histogram, seeing the exposure and dof, peaking, the magnified view and all of the advantages of the evf rather than ovf systems. I also like the ease with which manual lenses can be used and then there's the accuracy and consistancy of the af.

If you like those things I'd say go for it.
 
All of the above :agree:
I made the jump from Canon to Sony last March and haven't for one moment regretted it.
Can't comment regards studio work but for landscapes, the a7rii + Zeiss lenses are amazing.
Why the change if you don't mind me asking?
 
Jason lanier videos are one of the reason i'd like to move. The main reason is mentioned above the preview through the viewfinder. I also like the idea of the eye tracking. Nikon has just stood still for too long for me and its time for a change i just hope its the right thing to do...?
 
I'd say it will be a good move if it's paid work you do and if ultimate IQ is a must. Having owned the A7RII along with Zeiss Batis and Sony G Master lenses you need to be prepared to buy quality (expensive) lenses to get the best out of the 42.2mp sensor.
The best portrait lens for the Sony system would have to be the Sony 85mm f1.4 G Master (which I have for sale) ;) or the Zeiss Batis 85mm f1.8
 
I would certainly go and handle and try out any new camera system to make sure it meets your needs or it can become very expensive:(
 
A7's are great cameras, however there's two main things that's stopped me from buying one. Firstly the ergonomics, I find the grip horrible to hold, and secondly that you can't directly move the AF points with the d pad without having to press a button first, at least you couldn't when I last tried.
 
snerkler said:
A7's are great cameras, however there's two main things that's stopped me from buying one. Firstly the ergonomics, I find the grip horrible to hold, and secondly that you can't directly move the AF points with the d pad without having to press a button first, at least you couldn't when I last tried.
Click to expand...

The button you press is in the centre of the d pad, so hardly a problem, and I move the focus point for every shot.
 
David so if you press the button in the centre it allows you to choose the autofocus in the same way as the Nikon allows via the D-Pad?
 
david357 said:
The button you press is in the centre of the d pad, so hardly a problem, and I move the focus point for every shot.
Click to expand...
I've had various cameras like this and just can't get used to and I end up forgetting and opening the ISO or WB setting or something :facepalm:
 
355858 said:
David so if you press the button in the centre it allows you to choose the autofocus in the same way as the Nikon allows via the D-Pad?
Click to expand...

You can choose which button calls up the focus point. I find it convenient to use the centre button and once pressed you use the left, right, up, down buttons around it. The trash can button centres it again. I wont say that I move the focus point for every shot I take but certainly for a lot of them.

If you're in mf you can press the centre button to call up the focus point and if you press it again you get a magnified view and pressing it again magnifies the view more. Touching the shutter button return you to the normal full frame view.
 
Snerkler - i held the camera and found it just as comfortable as my D800z in fact because it was lighter than what i'm used to i think it may have been more comfortable.
 
355858 said:
Snerkler - i held the camera and found it just as comfortable as my D800z in fact because it was lighter than what i'm used to i think it may have been more comfortable.
Click to expand...
Exactly why we have to try these things for ourselves (y)
 
355858 said:
Snerkler - i held the camera and found it just as comfortable as my D800z in fact because it was lighter than what i'm used to i think it may have been more comfortable.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you have ... but remember not to try it just with the standard lenses but with a range of lenses you might be interested in. Its size and weight might be an advantage (to you) when matched with its "standard" zoom or a 50mm; but what about when using it with larger 70-200 f/2.8 or even larger lenses - there the body weight becomes less relevant and the additional size may offer better grip.

As snorkeler says though ... different people will find different bodies suit them (ergonomically) better than others. Just don't try it at a store with the intention of buying online for the cheapest price!
 
Last edited:
I initially posted this in Neil's Wanted ad by mistake, now copied here:

Just my opinion of course, but I am speaking from personal experience - I did what you are doing, I sold all my Nikon kit and purchased a Sony A7R2, which is brilliant in a lot of situations
.
BUT
.
I soon bought another Nikon and some lenses, as for some subjects and some situations, the Sony just doesn't cut it.

I will ALWAYS take the Nikon if there is any chance of movement or if I need to catch a shot that may not be repeatable, as the Sony always seems to have a delay before taking the shot, it may not be much but that shutter lag DOES show itself too often for me.

Sorry if that doesn't help your decision.
 
Depend on what lens you planning to use. I believe their fast zoom lenses weight is similar to what you use to. The body is defo smaller and lighter. Imagine you mounting your Nikon glass to the sony, the weight balance could be a problem in my opinion.

If i'm going to put a battery grip to improve balance and use the heavy zooms, I might as well just shoot with my DSLR. I shoot with a mirrorless Fuji XT1 but I limit myself to use prime lens only similar for compact, light and creative. If I want to use fast zoom, I might as well pull my D3 out and shoot with that.
 
david357 said:
I will ALWAYS take the Nikon if there is any chance of movement or if I need to catch a shot that may not be repeatable, as the Sony always seems to have a delay before taking the shot, it may not be much but that shutter lag DOES show itself too often for me.

Sorry if that doesn't help your decision.
Click to expand...

Are you sure this is actually shutter lag or perhaps a delay in acquiring focus and firing? I ask because the quoted figures for shutter lag are normally insignificant. Certainly when shooting with manual lenses there doesn't seem to be any perceptibly delay between pressing the button and the camera firing.

In the end it may not matter what the delay is as a delay is a delay but the obsessive in me always wants to know exactly what the issue is and I'm not sure it's shutter lag as such.
 
355858 said:
Hello,

This is a nervous and also exciting time for me as i'm thinking about leaving behind Nikon and moving to a Sony A7R II.

What i'd like to know is how have you guys found the jump or who uses Sony and would recommend or not?

I mainly shoot portraits in studio and location, Boudoir and the the odd landscape photo.

My current setup is the D800, 50 1.4, 70-200mm, lensbaby composer and a 200-200mm F4 which is not used very often.

Ben
Click to expand...

Im in the same boat - but wanting to change the body only to an A7R from a D800E. Reason for this is three fold. Lighter body, adaptability with third party lenses and focus peaking!
I only really take landscape images, and whilst the Nikon is a great overall option with fantastic IQ the lack of accurate MF via LV is making me consider the Sony.
 
NeilA1975 said:
Im in the same boat - but wanting to change the body only to an A7R from a D800E. Reason for this is three fold. Lighter body, adaptability with third party lenses and focus peaking!
I only really take landscape images, and whilst the Nikon is a great overall option with fantastic IQ the lack of accurate MF via LV is making me consider the Sony.
Click to expand...

For landscapes the Sony is perfect, and the reason I bought it in the first place was to lighten the load when walking in the hills. The Sony 16-35mm lens is brilliant too.
 
woof woof said:
Are you sure this is actually shutter lag or perhaps a delay in acquiring focus and firing? I ask because the quoted figures for shutter lag are normally insignificant. Certainly when shooting with manual lenses there doesn't seem to be any perceptibly delay between pressing the button and the camera firing.

In the end it may not matter what the delay is as a delay is a delay but the obsessive in me always wants to know exactly what the issue is and I'm not sure it's shutter lag as such.
Click to expand...

You are probably correct in that it is the focus acquisition that is the delay, but it still does feel like a delay that I can't live with when I try to get a shot and the bl**dy thing won't fire!! Whatever causes the delay has had me so frustrated so many times, I always end up wishing I had brought the Nikon.

On the other hand, for planned, studio type portraits and landscape work on a tripod, the Sony is superb, and being able to see the image on the screen before taking the shot is really helpful.
 
Well firstly why do you want to change? what are you hoping to gain?

If it's weight then that is often misleading as you'll get all the weight back with the lens anyway.

As for Jason Lanier, that would be a reason NOT to buy it, he's just a complete sellout these days and I wouldn't trust a word he says! He'll promote whatever he's going to get paid for and deny the fact. When he moved to Sony one of the reasons he gave was to save weight, he's slagged of the adaptor to use Canon lenses yet he's now using massive canon lenses on a lot of his videos. He went through a period of promoting Rotolight then you dont hear about it again. I'm not saying he's not a good photographer but the results he's getting has nothing to do with the camera.

I'd personnally wait until the D820/850 or whatever it's going to be called is announced and see what that has to offer and if you are still fixed on Sony then maybe the A7RIII will be out..
 
There are some very good reasons why an A7 might suit the OP better than his present Nikon system for the type of photography listed, particularly to do with focus peaking and histogram display. As a D610 user, the idea that you have to press a button to activate moving the focus point sounds wonderful - I'm left-eye dominant, and my nose presses the rocker to move the focus point with the camera to my eye, which is very annoying.

I use both Sony (APS-C) and Nikon (FX) generally for landscape and travel, and certainly prefer Sony for handling, interaction and feedback. If Sony had kept the A mount for the A7 series then I'd certainly have part-ex'd the D610 for an A7r by now.
 
ancient_mariner said:
...
I use both Sony (APS-C) and Nikon (FX) generally for landscape and travel, and certainly prefer Sony for handling, interaction and feedback. If Sony had kept the A mount for the A7 series then I'd certainly have part-ex'd the D610 for an A7r by now.
Click to expand...

You might want to take a look at the A99II - it's been described as an A7RII in an A77II body, with a hybrid PDAF system (combining Translucent Mirror based PDAF and on-sensor PDAF) that looks very good.
 
ancient_mariner said:
If Sony had kept the A mount for the A7 series then I'd certainly have part-ex'd the D610 for an A7r by now.
Click to expand...

I bought the A7 then tried using legacy glass (Canon FD), but the cheap adapters I used meant lenses didn't focus to infinity. Should probably have explored better adapters but ended up buying the LA-EA4 adapter and used A mount glass, and later got a Minolta film camera.
 
I've just bought an a7ii and love the low weight and dynamic range of the files.

It has some nifty landscape features too, and for me this next point is not a massive problem because I use the screen.

However I hate the evf with a passion (maybe il get used to it) and would recommend you try before you buy and see if it hinders your type of shooting.
 
an1uk said:
I bought the A7 then tried using legacy glass (Canon FD), but the cheap adapters I used meant lenses didn't focus to infinity. Should probably have explored better adapters but ended up buying the LA-EA4 adapter and used A mount glass, and later got a Minolta film camera.
Click to expand...

You must have been unlucky.

I have a number of cheap adapters and the only issue I've ever had with them is an adapter designed for the APS-C Sony Nex series vignetting with a 24mm lens on my A7 which is fair enough... but I've never had an infinity issue and I do have an FD to Sony adapter.

I also have three Novoflex adapters (Canon FD, Minolta Rokkor and Olympus Zuiko) which are in the region of £90-100 each and nice though they are I can't hand on heart say that they're any better than the cheap ones off evil bay, the Novoflex ones are lovely of course :D but all of the adapters I have even the not so lovely cheapo ones have done their job.
 
Faldrax said:
You might want to take a look at the A99II - it's been described as an A7RII in an A77II body, with a hybrid PDAF system (combining Translucent Mirror based PDAF and on-sensor PDAF) that looks very good.
Click to expand...

I'd really quite like something the size & shape of the A7 TBH. Sadly I also couldn't afford a new Sony at that level, but might have been able to stretch to an A7 MkI.

Personally I find the EVF pretty good even on my lowly a58, and miles ahead of OVFs on budget APS-C cameras except in extremely bright sunlight, but it IS a big change from a great OVF.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
I'd really quite like something the size & shape of the A7 TBH. Sadly I also couldn't afford a new Sony at that level, but might have been able to stretch to an A7 MkI.

Personally I find the EVF pretty good even on my lowly a58, and miles ahead of OVFs on budget APS-C cameras except in extremely bright sunlight, but it IS a big change from a great OVF.
Click to expand...

Agree with the comments on the EVF - they have been getting steadily better, and when I had a play with an A99II a month ago I was very impressed - and good enough, I thought, to make me feel comfortable with switching from the A900 OVF (which is very good). The cost, as you say, is something of a limiting factor though :(

I have an EVF on my A6000, which is 'acceptable' - not as good as a good OVF, but better than the small pentamirror based OVF that entry level cameras used to have (and may well still do, I'm not sure).
 
At least even a relatively poor first generation evf allows you to see the whole scene. I remember framing my DSLR shots to account for the parts of the scene I couldn't see which would be visible in the final image.

I suppose my background in electronics helped me to be more accepting and transition from ovf to evf better than some but even so reading some of the comments on forums about how poor evf's are and how wonderful and so much superior ovf's are I often wonder what people have been using. I think that some people perhaps put on the rose tinted when talking about ovf's and overlook the downfalls and downright poor whilst perhaps tending to be far more critical of the newer technology evf's and failing to consider the positive attributes and judge them fairly.

All MHO of course :D
 
I have moved from Canon to m4/3 (mainly Olympus) to save bulk and weight when travelling or while on the move. Having said that, I still have a Canon system that I use at home and when I travel by car. Since starting to use m4/3, I have also become a big fan of EVF's.

I recently had the opportunity to handle my brother-in-law's Sony A7RII, and his 16-35 and 70-200 lenses. I was actually surprised by how heavy and bulky this setup still is compared to a full-frame Canon system. Sure the Sony body is smaller, but it still feels heavy, certainly compared to an Olympus e-M10II. So before you switch, I think you should carefully analyse what advantages you want/expect to obtain by switching and trying to verify that this is what you will actually achieve if you do switch.
 
woof woof said:
At least even a relatively poor first generation evf allows you to see the whole scene. I remember framing my DSLR shots to account for the parts of the scene I couldn't see which would be visible in the final image.

I suppose my background in electronics helped me to be more accepting and transition from ovf to evf better than some but even so reading some of the comments on forums about how poor evf's are and how wonderful and so much superior ovf's are I often wonder what people have been using. I think that some people perhaps put on the rose tinted when talking about ovf's and overlook the downfalls and downright poor whilst perhaps tending to be far more critical of the newer technology evf's and failing to consider the positive attributes and judge them fairly.

All MHO of course :D
Click to expand...

I suspect there is a fair amount of failing to compare like for like, and also each has strengths and weaknesses which depend on what and how you are shooting.

If you have only used a cheap EVF from 5 years ago, an OVF will seem much superior
If you have only used an entry level pentamirror OVF with cropped view of the scene, a modern 100 EVF will seem much superior.

An EVF can give a lot of ancillary information, and can adjust the view to reflect camera settings
An OVF is flicker free, making you feel less 'disconnect' from the scene (and making tracking at high FPS easier - though the latest Sony A99ii has supposedly fixed this issue with its 8fps EVF mode).

When I tried the A99ii I found the 'EVF experience' to be much closer to that of the A900 OVF (FF, bright 100%) than any I had tried before, no visible flicker (indoors in mixed lighting), customisable information overlays, etc. A big step up from the EVF in my more modest A6000, which while nice, lacked the 'refinement' I found in the A99ii EVF.

There may still be situations where the OVF is superior, but the progression in EVF over the last 5-10 years means that these situations are becoming less and less common.
I would need to get an A99ii and use it extensively to be fully confident,but it certainly seems that the EVF has 'come of age', and is a worthy alternative to an OVF in even a high end camera.
 
woof woof said:
I suppose my background in electronics helped me to be more accepting and transition from ovf to evf better than some but even so reading some of the comments on forums about how poor evf's are and how wonderful and so much superior ovf's are I often wonder what people have been using. I think that some people perhaps put on the rose tinted when talking about ovf's and overlook the downfalls and downright poor whilst perhaps tending to be far more critical of the newer technology evf's and failing to consider the positive attributes and judge them fairly.
Click to expand...
I'm sure there are downfalls in OVF (especially in budget cameras); but some people (like me) just can't get along with EVF. You speak as if everyones negatives about EVFs are invalid... they aren't we just all have different opinions. Thats why I always try and express my opinion as "I don't get on with the EVFs that I've tried, but you should try it yourself".

Remember too that the downfalls of OVFs are something we have been living with and getting used to for 50-odd years ... perhaps thats why people don't see the limitations as downfalls.

For me I still see blurring (that may not be the correct term but its what it feels like) when panning with an EVF ... that just annoys me too much; and thats coming from a budget D3200 and looking at the likes of the Sony A7mkII. I also found the display fussy and over complicated compared with the D750 view finder though I imagine the information could be changed.
 
Last edited:
Eloise said:
I'm sure there are downfalls in OVF (especially in budget cameras); but some people (like me) just can't get along with EVF. You speak as if everyones negatives about EVFs are invalid... they aren't we just all have different opinions.
Click to expand...

Dunno what gave you that impression.

Having used OVF's for something like 40 years I'm well aware of how good and bad they can be and in what situations. I'll admit to being a convert to the whole CSC experience but I do see the negatives too and have posted about them many times on this very forum.

All I'd ask is that folk drop the hyperbole and drama and put the rose tinted glasses back in their case and assess each system intelligently based on their own wants and needs.
 
woof woof said:
All I'd ask is that folk drop the hyperbole and drama and put the rose tinted glasses back in their case and assess each system intelligently based on their own wants and needs.
Click to expand...
I think we both agree here ... but of course it goes both ways! (And that last part wasn't necessarily owned at you).
 
This is an interesting read. Especially To someone who has started out with Nikon - then moved between Sony and Fuji before coming back full circle to Nikon (while keeping some Fuji gear :fuji:)

There's some fine tech loaded into the Sony a7rii. It does produce fine images and Jason Lanier certainly sells it well (keep in mind he has a whole team of assistants holding his lights, reflectors, bags etc).

For landscape and travel the a7rii is probably the best option out there. For most other situations I would consider Fuji, Nikon and canon much more complete and capable systems.
 
Im sure its more important to make correct decisions if one does photography as a living or additional income
,for a hobbyist its all just good fun buying ,selling and taking some photos because at the end of the day
no one is really interested in your photos but oneself really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top