OK, so I'm getting suckered.

ancient_mariner

ancient_mariner

Messages
23,539
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
Never ask a question if you don't want an answer. And yes, I've already posted something a bit like this, but I'm trying to talk things through with people who have experience that I'd like to tap. This may help others asking similar questions too.

tl:dr what's good and bad about the Sony A7II, A7rII and A7III?

I realised that I've owned my D610 since Dec 2015. I won't talk stupidly about the camera being better than me - it's just a camera, a tool for taking pictures - but there are times when I wish it had features that would help me take pictures, when it's inhibitory instead of helpful. In low light (say 1/60th f2 ISO6400) AF simply doesn't happen, with hunting and usually failure to lock. It's manual focus or nothing:
Gospel Bell-5143 by Toni Ertl, on Flickr

And sometimes I want to take a really low angle on a shot, but I'm not really a fan of laying on the ground, trying to squint through the viewfinder, or trying to use the less than entirely helpful 'live view' on the rear screen that is even closer to terra firma.
Crossing the line 2 by Toni Ertl, on Flickr

The obvious and sensible thing one would have done a couple of years back would be to buy a D750, and this is still an economically winning course of action. I have a potential low-mileage D750 and PX trade organised with LCE in a local-ish store. However I've not heavily invested in Nikon fit lenses, and TBH I don't feel like the recent range of Nikon cameras are where I want to invest further. The mount is a great legacy, but is an old design. The cameras are heading towards the heavy and bulky, and although the D750 is a couple of ounces lighter than my D610, it's still a big camera - if I want to go D810 or even D850 (I have been considering this) then they're even heavier and bulkier still and I'll need to get a backpack instead of the very convenient shoulder bag I can carry all day now.

So as always, the choice is skewed by economics, because this IS a hobby after all, and I am VERY reluctant to spend £2K+ on self-entertainment.

So what I want at minimum is a full frame camera with great controls, dynamic range and sensor resolution to be no smaller than the D610, decent lens mount (the Sony is a little questionable, since it's suggested that it's really a crop mount that was adapted for FF) bright and clearly visible rear screen that folds out, decent viewfinder (happy with OVF & EVF on FF) and an AF system that will work in places like a dimly lit pub, for when I'm photographing the band.

Nice additions would be higher resolution images (but how big are the files??!) for landscape and architecture, eye-AF for people pictures, fast AF (for chasing a grandchild or 2 around) smaller size/lower weight so I can keep walking up the Rockies in the years to come. Long battery life is a distinct benefit.

The 'obvious' options, since Fuji say "we will never go full frame":

Sony A7II, available for around £700ish used.
Sony A7rII, available for £1000-£1200 used/grey
A7III, available for arpund £1500 grey.

The question really is whether the A7rII *apart from* the higher resolution of the sensor is a better camera than the A7II and whether it's worth springing the extra for the A7III in real-world use.

Sony owners - what do you think (and thank you Stephen for very kindly uploading pics for me).

Thanks for reading to the bottom.
 
A7ii isn't worth it over a7 MK1, you're paying a massive premium for ibis. A7rii has a great sensor if you need lots of pixels, a7iii better in every other way. Buy the a7iii.
 
The Sony mount is not questionable, it can do f0.85 already.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
A7ii isn't worth it over a7 MK1, you're paying a massive premium for ibis. A7rii has a great sensor if you need lots of pixels, a7iii better in every other way. Buy the a7iii.
Click to expand...

A7II can be had for around £550-£600 used if you look well enough - ergonomics and IBIS makes it worth the extra £150-£200 IMO. Grip on the first one is horrible.
 
TGphoto said:
Another benefit of Sony is the ability to adapt lenses means you can have a very cheap or very expensive system at your choosing.
Click to expand...

I have a couple of AIS Nikkors that have little market value, but take nice pictures. :D
 
make sure you handle one before buying as for me the sony ff ergonomics meant I sold my a7r11 I found them shockingly bad. but of course this might not apply to you
 
niko said:
make sure you handle one before buying as for me the sony ff ergonomics meant I sold my a7r11 I found them shockingly bad. but of course this might not apply to you
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice Nik, I'll make sure I have a play.
 
Depends on where you look - if you were to trust in DXOmark the D610 should be better in low light than an A7II, in terms of noise handling at least no idea about AF.

Many Sony users find it hard to recommend the older models now, it's A7III/RIII almost every time someone asks about the older models. Sure the III is superior in every way, if you need all the extra bling, but it's also at best twice the price compared to a good cond used A7II. You could have some really nice primes with the older body instead.
 
I have some pre AI lenses and they work well on my A7 via a cheap adapter I bought off evil bay. I can't remember how much it was but I think it was under £20. Yes you can use manual lenses on a DSLR but IMO it's not ideal as the cameras usually aren't built for optimum manual focus. Personally I think that mirrorless cameras are the best place to mount a manual lens because of the focus aids. I find peaking quite accurate at wider apertures and at smaller apertures where everything is peaking and the point of focus is therefore difficult to determine the magnified view allows very accurate focus. Of course you need to have time to focus manually, or zone or hyperfocal can be a quick way to shoot.

Just a quick word on focus performance in low light. I took a picture of my Mrs the other day at f2.8, 1/160 and ISO 20,000 so that was quite low light on her face and the face detect locked on no problem at all.

PS.
A note on handling.
I've never been a big fan of DSLR's. I've always thought they were big fat bloated things compared to the 35mm RF's and SLR's I had and for me the A7 and a compact prime is just like picking up on of those old cameras. The A7 is heavier though as the film cameras were basically an empty box :D I'm perfectly comfortable with the A7 though :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Just a quick word on focus performance in low light. I took a picture of my Mrs the other day at f2.8, 1/160 and ISO 20,000 so that was quite low light on her face and the face detect locked on no problem at all.
Click to expand...

Which model variant is that Alan?
 
woof woof said:
I have the original A7.
Click to expand...

The one other sticking point is file size and lossy compression, because I work my images quite hard sometimes. Has the option for lossless raw output been fixed, and hpw big are the lossless files?

I could probably buy an A7 outright, try it for a bit & re-sell, but I'd rather find out if I'm wasting my time before committing cash.
 
Toni, I have owned Canon, Sony and finally Nikon systems over the digital years.

There are positives and negatives of all of them and none are perfect in their own right.

I strongly think as a DSLR user currently owning a Nikon the right camera for you is a D750.

What you've got just better, will autofocus in low light and has an articulated screen for low pov (landscape orientation) shots.

Without wanting to confuse things I own a D750 and also a D500. Since getting the D500 the D750 has hardly been out of the bag. The D500 is an immense camera, and what it has taught me is that usability is utterly key. The camera needs to be an extension of your hands/mind. A simple little feature like live view touch autofocus that I thought I would never use has become my favourite feature and one I really miss when using a camera without it now.

For me, the usability is what drove me away from Sony, they are super little cameras in a lot of ways but made my teeth itch with regards the functionality and menu layouts. Maybe it was my fault for not learning the camera properly but I'm pretty good with this sort of thing. I just couldn't get on with it, not intuitive at all. Don't believe the EVF is as good as OVF crowd, or that the early A7 cameras are any good at tracking and burst shooting. They are not.
 
Hi Craig, really appreciate your comments.

As you say, there's strengths and weaknesses to all systems, and the D750 should cover off a lot of the weaknesses of the D610. Generally I'm a very simple camera user: central focus point and spot metering, aperture priority with occasional use of manual or shutter priority if needed, I almost never user tracking focus, continuous shooting etc. It was interesting using a F301 film camera a few weeks ago for the first time in 20 years, because it made almost zero difference to how I shoot - I even manual focus the D610 a lot of the time. A D750 would slot straight in.

But perhaps in a way I'd also like to explore the wacky stuff like eye AF, and having some kind of stabilisation (none in any of my older Nikon glass) would be nice. Lower weight does no harm, I also like EVF, having that in my Sony A58, although a large bright OVF is a thing of joy too (but not with a 10 stop filter - EVF all the way there!). And my expectation is that, in the future, Nikon will abandon their F-mount users & I'll be investing further in a tech that is becoming harder to sell on.

I guess a D750 would do for another 3-5 years as a workhorse, and that's quite a while in product development.
 
I don't have eye detect, just face, but even that is a revelation as you can have the face anywhere in the frame rather than having to think about it with a DSLR when you have focus points clustered around the middle and may have to compromise on the composition or perhaps even focus and recompose. With face detect I can concentrate on the subject, the composition and the moment and let e camera acquire the face. I can only imagine that eye detect is even better.

And then there's not having to worry about micro adjusting lenses. The focus is smack on pretty much all the time,

Anyway, mirrorless does bring quite a few new things but it is a change from DSLR's so you have things to think about.

Craig_85 said:
Don't believe the EVF is as good as OVF crowd, or that the early A7 cameras are any good at tracking and burst shooting. They are not.
Click to expand...

Just wanted to add a little to this.

EVF's can have advantages such a WYSIWYG, the in view histogram etc and being able to see detail that's not visible with an OVF and of course with an EVF you can use the magnified view which is like macro at a distance :D and see more in the dark than you ever could with a purely optical system.. I suppose the tracking and burst ability is dependant on what you shoot but certainly my A7 can track my Mrs and there are examples of running dogs etc in the Sony thread so equally don't believe those who say that these cameras can't. Clearly there are levels of performance. They no doubt aren't challenging the best DSLR's in these respects but for many uses they're not exactly basket cases.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
EVF's can have advantages
Click to expand...

If you've ever tried to use a crop DSLR with a superzoom indoors (my brothers D5500 and 18-140 come to mind) then the OVF is like peering into a beer bottle. Indoors or with a 10 stop on the lens) the EVF of my old A58 was brilliant by comparison. It sounds like te new EVFs work OK in strong sunlight now too.
 
I had a Canon 300D for a couple of years and then a 20D for 7 years so I'm familiar with the APS-C DSLR experience. EVF's aren't for everyone but after decades with film and then a decade or so with Canon DSLR's I took to mirrorless and EVF's quickly and I now much prefer them and the last time I used a 5D it felt... strange. I have a technical background so maybe that helped. I'm not saying EVF's and mirrorless are for you as they're not for everyone but if you click with them they can be a revelation.

Take this simple little shot of Mrs WW, 85mm at f1.8 using face detect, it wont win any prizes but I like it and it's framed at home. I took a series of pictures as she wandered about picking brambles, she's moving not posing, and every single one is useable and I doubt that would have been possible with a DSLR if only because her face in most of the shots is way off centre. Face detect sorted out the focus and left me free to frame the shot and press the button.

2JA619m.jpg
 
Wandered up to LCE Leamington Spa today. I had orgaised a possible PX of my D610 for a D750 they had, but didn't specifically request it reserved & they sold the darn thing.

They did have 2 off A7 cameras available used, one in slightly better nick with 28-70 & one BO. Being neither hardcore Canon or Nikon user, the camera felt entirely sensible in my hands, well laid out, intuitive to use (all 3 sides of the exposure triangle have their own rotary control - how smart is that!). I'd have bought one on the spot but for a couple of things:

The body with kit zoom lens fitting was not snug, and I could turn the lens a mm or so , plus it felt like there was some play in the mount - owners, is this normal?
Focus by wire is not ideal, and although I like the automatic zoom in the viewfider, the connection between the ring of the lens and the focal point of the lens isn't great.
The EVF was a bit small, dim and not especially crisp - dimmer, more pixellated and less crisp than my previous sony camera with EVF (just checked).
Overall the behaviour of the various bits turned on in the viewfinder, automatic zooming when manually focussing etc made it feel like a bridge camera more than serious tool, which shouldn't matter but does.

The BO was £400 & the B+kit lens £540. Time for more reading then (IIRC the MkII versions had better viewfinders) or I'll just play safe & find another D750.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Wandered up to LCE Leamington Spa today. I had orgaised a possible PX of my D610 for a D750 they had, but didn't specifically request it reserved & they sold the darn thing.

They did have 2 off A7 cameras available used, one in slightly better nick with 28-70 & one BO. Being neither hardcore Canon or Nikon user, the camera felt entirely sensible in my hands, well laid out, intuitive to use (all 3 sides of the exposure triangle have their own rotary control - how smart is that!). I'd have bought one on the spot but for a couple of things:

The body with kit zoom lens fitting was not snug, and I could turn the lens a mm or so , plus it felt like there was some play in the mount - owners, is this normal?
Focus by wire is not ideal, and although I like the automatic zoom in the viewfider, the connection between the ring of the lens and the focal point of the lens isn't great.
The EVF was a bit small, dim and not especially crisp - dimmer, more pixellated and less crisp than my previous sony camera with EVF (just checked).
Overall the behaviour of the various bits turned on in the viewfinder, automatic zooming when manually focussing etc made it feel like a bridge camera more than serious tool, which shouldn't matter but does.

The BO was £400 & the B+kit lens £540. Time for more reading then (IIRC the MkII versions had better viewfinders) or I'll just play safe & find another D750.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is 100% normal on the older A7s.

Focus by wire will apply to a lot of mirrorless, try them, the higher end lenses will feel much nicer and old manual well... they are great. But why would you need MF on a modern AF lens anyway? None of them have a great feel because they don't need to have, people shoot AF lenses with AF in mind.

Ive used pretty much all the Sonys before the original A7 (and onwards) and it (as newer cameras do) have abetter EVF than the predecessors.

The Sonys are highly customisable and I think you need to consider that the camera you tried was setup in a way you did not like, you can turn off everything in the OVF and MF aids.

The D750 is (IMO) a better camera than the A7 and A7ii IF you need the AF, the colour is also better... but you won't get a D750 for the price of an A7 or A7ii and the A7iii while a bit more again is a much better camera than the D750.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
The body with kit zoom lens fitting was not snug, and I could turn the lens a mm or so , plus it felt like there was some play in the mount - owners, is this normal?
Focus by wire is not ideal, and although I like the automatic zoom in the viewfider, the connection between the ring of the lens and the focal point of the lens isn't great.
The EVF was a bit small, dim and not especially crisp - dimmer, more pixellated and less crisp than my previous sony camera with EVF (just checked).
Overall the behaviour of the various bits turned on in the viewfinder, automatic zooming when manually focussing etc made it feel like a bridge camera more than serious tool, which shouldn't matter but does.

The BO was £400 & the B+kit lens £540. Time for more reading then (IIRC the MkII versions had better viewfinders) or I'll just play safe & find another D750.
Click to expand...

Some but not all lenses can rotate a little and Sony say this is normal and ok. Of the native mount lenses I have I think only the 55mm f1.8 does it the others being ok.

I personally don't like the auto magnified display and I normally turn it off as I prefer to call it up manually when I want it. I do disagree with Twist about manual focus with AF lenses as I find it useful when the camera might want to focus on something different to what I want it to. For example when shooting someone when it's snowing and when shooting through glass or foliage etc manual focus can get you there quickly and once you've focused at the distance you want the AF may then acquire the target.

Dunno why the EVF was poor but if the light was low and you had setting effect on maybe that could cause a problem or two. In low light it's sometimes an advantage to turn the setting effect to off. I'm not trying to sell you on the idea of an A7, just pointing out a couple of things that may make the experience a bit more to your taste.

Good luck choosing.
 
woof woof said:
Some but not all lenses can rotate a little and Sony say this is normal and ok. Of the native mount lenses I have I think only the 55mm f1.8 does it the others being ok.

I personally don't like the auto magnified display and I normally turn it off as I prefer to call it up manually when I want it. I do disagree with Twist about manual focus with AF lenses as I find it useful when the camera might want to focus on something different to what I want it to. For example when shooting someone when it's snowing and when shooting through glass or foliage etc manual focus can get you there quickly and once you've focused at the distance you want the AF may then acquire the target.

Dunno why the EVF was poor but if the light was low and you had setting effect on maybe that could cause a problem or two. In low light it's sometimes an advantage to turn the setting effect to off. I'm not trying to sell you on the idea of an A7, just pointing out a couple of things that may make the experience a bit more to your taste.

Good luck choosing.
Click to expand...

When it's snowing you'd manually change the point or eye AF, through glass the sony will face detect and again eye AF, these simple scenarios may fool the original a7 but not advanced af ime... Actually I'd be surprised if even the MK1 chose to AF a pane of glass Vs contrast subject.
 
Last edited:
Thanks both.

I was very glad to try the camera, not least because it says that, far from being an experimental lame duck, it's actually a serious and viable proposition. The mount rotation is shoddy, but if it's a known characteristic then it's reassuring that the camera wouldn't fall to bits because I ignored a potentially serious fault.

The manual focus side of things is important because having face detection or eye-AF is all well and good, but there will be times when the camera can't know the correct place to focus, and a quick twist of the focus ring can sort things out faster than changing menu settings. And some of the time manual focus is how I work. While I love the idea of eye-AF when I want the camera to help and I want it to get out of the way when I don't. :)

I was surprised at the EVF, and when I got home went straight off to check the finder on my A58. The lens on the camera body was a 50 f1.4, and I assumed the bright, clear finder was due to the fast aperture. Did a quick swap for the kit 18-55 lens and EVF just the same. Thinking back I realise that I didn't touch dioptre adjustment, and that may have been the cause of lack of crispness - perhaps there's a brightness setting too?

The other thing I'm juggling is the possibility of an A7r to work as a landscape camera with adapted primes - that would be my alternative to a D810, which is a step too far in terms of size and weight.

Did like the ability to go down to ISO 50 native, since I sometimes do LE work.

twist said:
When it's snowing you'd manually change the point or eye AF, through glass the sony will face detect and again eye AF, these simple scenarios may fool the original a7 but not advanced af ime... Actually I'd be surprised if even the MK1 chose to AF a pane of glass Vs contrast subject.
Click to expand...

Had a Samsung S850 compact bought in the mid 2000s and my wife had a Lumix superzoom from a few years later. Both of these would focus through glass without trouble, and were fine. Bought a Fufi HS30X bridge camera early 2013 and that ONLY saw the glass in a window - nothing beyond it. Complete PITA for bird shots from our kitchen. :p
 
ancient_mariner said:
Thanks both.

I was very glad to try the camera, not least because it says that, far from being an experimental lame duck, it's actually a serious and viable proposition. The mount rotation is shoddy, but if it's a known characteristic then it's reassuring that the camera wouldn't fall to bits because I ignored a potentially serious fault.

The manual focus side of things is important because having face detection or eye-AF is all well and good, but there will be times when the camera can't know the correct place to focus, and a quick twist of the focus ring can sort things out faster than changing menu settings. And some of the time manual focus is how I work. While I love the idea of eye-AF when I want the camera to help and I want it to get out of the way when I don't. :)

I was surprised at the EVF, and when I got home went straight off to check the finder on my A58. The lens on the camera body was a 50 f1.4, and I assumed the bright, clear finder was due to the fast aperture. Did a quick swap for the kit 18-55 lens and EVF just the same. Thinking back I realise that I didn't touch dioptre adjustment, and that may have been the cause of lack of crispness - perhaps there's a brightness setting too?

The other thing I'm juggling is the possibility of an A7r to work as a landscape camera with adapted primes - that would be my alternative to a D810, which is a step too far in terms of size and weight.

Did like the ability to go down to ISO 50 native, since I sometimes do LE work.

Had a Samsung S850 compact bought in the mid 2000s and my wife had a Lumix superzoom from a few years later. Both of these would focus through glass without trouble, and were fine. Bought a Fufi HS30X bridge camera early 2013 and that ONLY saw the glass in a window - nothing beyond it. Complete PITA for bird shots from our kitchen. :p
Click to expand...

You could always buy and adapt any manual lens if you like manual focus, they are cheap anyway OR buy a better AF lens that offers a nicer MF experience, cheap DSLR lenses don't offer a great manual focusing experience either and you lose all the focus aids a mirrorless offers and the ability to use pretty much any manual lens from any manufacturer.

These are EVF specs...

A58
EVF type; 1/2-inch, 1.44M-dot OLED Tru-Finder, 100% coverage, 0.88x magnification (0.57x 35mm eq.), -4.0 to +4.0 diopter

A7
EVF: 0.5-inch (1.30cm) 2.4M-dot XGA color OLED, 100% coverage, 0.71x magnification, -4.0 to +3.0 diopter

The A7r suffers from shutter shock, something to be aware of. Some people say its bad others not so much so you might want to test that or look at ways around it.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
You could always buy and adapt any manual lens if you like manual focus, they are cheap anyway OR buy a better AF lens that offers a nicer MF experience, cheap DSLR lenses don't offer a great manual focusing experience either and you lose all the focus aids a mirrorless offers and the ability to use pretty much any manual lens from any manufacturer.

These are EVF specs...

A58
EVF type; 1/2-inch, 1.44M-dot OLED Tru-Finder, 100% coverage, 0.88x magnification (0.57x 35mm eq.), -4.0 to +4.0 diopter

A7
EVF: 0.5-inch (1.30cm) 2.4M-dot XGA color OLED, 100% coverage, 0.71x magnification, -4.0 to +3.0 diopter

The A7r suffers from shutter shock, something to be aware of. Some people say its bad others not so much so you might want to test that or look at ways around it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that - I did some more research last night, coming across the shutter shock issue and how electronic first curtain helped but gave rise to other issues. :rolleyes: We have an Oly E-M10 MkI in the house, and the shutter shock on that is so strong as to make it difficult to get a sharp image most of the time - I'd thought the lens we had for it was defective until I tried another and found the same - mostly fixed with EFC of course. E-M10s vary in susceptibility, so that's likely true for A7r as well.

Thanks for digging out the finder info. So the A58 has the same size screen at lower resolution but higher magnification which makes it seem a bit bigger. Maybe it was dioptre adjustment that I needed to crisp things up.

My observations about focus by wire weren't intended to be critical of Sony or the A7 series especially, and was more about noting first impressions. I briefly owned a Nikon AFG lens that had a theoretically premium electronic focus system, and other systems with electronic focusing left me unimpressed too, so it's probably just my ludite tedencies. ;) IF I buy one of these, I fully intend to get a simple adapter for my old Nikon manual lenses (and probably a couple of the AF lenses too - a Sigma 12-24 doesn't need a lot of focusing at f8).

Talking adapters, it's a *little* tempting to get a sony A to FE adapter with AF for the couple of FF lenses I still own (50 f1.4, beercan, 75-300, there may be a 28-85 somewhere too). Did I understand correctly, that this adapter reduces image quality (presumably because of the pellicle)?
 
twist said:
When it's snowing you'd manually change the point or eye AF, through glass the sony will face detect and again eye AF, these simple scenarios may fool the original a7 but not advanced af ime... Actually I'd be surprised if even the MK1 chose to AF a pane of glass Vs contrast subject.
Click to expand...

When shooting through snow, glass or foliage and the like face / eye detect may go beyond and hit the subject but other than those modes the camera wouldn't necessarily know you want to focus on something beyond. I see this when shooting birds in the garden, planes in the sky, light on the hills etc through glass at home, stuff in museums and displays etc, scenic shots with branches or fences in the way etc. These things don't have eyes or faces for the camera to look for so even with modern AF lenses I wouldn't be without the ability to be able to switch to MF quickly. As I said, once the subject has been acquired AF may stay at that distance but initially it may well hit something on the glass / leaves / twigs or whatever it hits first.

PS.
I've use EFCS since day one and I've never seen any evidence of shutter shock.
 
Last edited:
OK, now we're down to the nitty-gritty.

In the end I made a spreadsheet covering all the sensible used A7 series cameras plus a few D750s and some lenses + adapters. I'm now recovering from what I think was a near-miss for pneumonia (I should thank my wife more for making me see the doctor on Thursday - he said you won't get over that on your own and gave me antibiotics). All I've been doing since is sitting on the settee with a computer on my lap. :sleep: Feeling a little better this afternoon, so got tabulating.

So what I want - worth reiterating - is a camera for travel, landscapes, people, architecture. The current camera generally does this well, but lowlight AF is an issue, and the fixed rear screen and Nikon's version of live view make shooting low down or high up difficult. The D750 is a potentially great replacement with flippy screen and better AF, but Nikon's live view still sucks a bit. The D810 is the other camera thatI was considering that is a significant and useful upgrade for most of what I do, with great AF and super image quality with the best lenses, but grossly overweight and lacking the flip out rear screen, plus slightly lower high-ISO performance. I mention this because it makes thinking of the A7 and A7r easier if I start to view them and D610/750 and D810 equivalents in terms of sensor and cost, because the idea of a D810 with flippy rear screen weighing half a kilo is not unattractive, even if there will be other compromises to be made.

A7r I'm counting out. Brilliant sensor and low weight, but shutter shock issues that don't have any real solution, short battery life, noisy shutter & less that ideal AF are issues. If used prices were down another £200 to the £500 mark then I'd probably buy and run alongside the D610, but with used examples around £700 (I did find one with a flaking screen for £650) they're almost at D750 prices.

A7II I'm also counting out. Pretty much the same price as a A7r, and with IBIS, better AF, it's a good camera but not as good as....

A7rII is a serious contender. Brilliant sensor (again, but even better) apparently great AF including eye-AF, IBIS & EFCS/silent shooting. I've found a couple in good conditon around the £1000 mark, and at this level I'd see it as a serious alternative to the D850 that included the features I wanted from the D750 too, but weighing just over 600g.

And last but not least, the original A7 is really tempting because I could afford to run it alongside the D610 using adapted lenses. I really liked the handling, low weight etc so I'm not ruling this out either.

Finally I did run across a few D750s, and I'm still tempted as a route to change of least hassle, but I think I've already started moving back to Sony in my head.
 
@woof woof - quick question about the LA-EA4 adapter.

I keep reading about how it stops a lens down to f3.5 if the aperture is normally greater than that. Is that during video recording only or all the time? I have a nice Sony 50 f1.4 that would adapt well, but would lose a lot of the benefits if f3.5 were the biggest aperture it could manage.
 
Sorry, I don't know as the only adapters I use are just mount and spacer type dumb adapters for film era lenses.
 
Now I find a heavier camera is better, camera shake is less when hand held being the main reason. The Nikon D810 is the best in the range to suit me, and I have had several others.
If I want a lighter smaller camera then I would go for a compact type, however I think I have the best setup by also having a Panasonic HC-X900M camcorder which fits into any pocket yet takes very good stills and video. this camcorder has internal memory 32GB and also takes SD cards recording in any combination. I have taken it on every holiday and never let me down
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
Now I find a heavier camera is better, camera shake is less when hand held being the main reason. The Nikon D810 is the best in the range to suit me, and I have had several others.
Click to expand...

I'm a bit wobbly these days and none of my lenses have any form of stabilisation, nor do I use a tripod except for planned long exposure shots because of the inconvenience. I suspect a heavier camera will help with a more rapid shake, but is harder to hold steady. :p

Thing is, the camera body is just a part of the kit. When on holiday or out general shooting I normally take D610 + 28-105, 135 f2.8, 50 f1.8 and Sigma 12-24, plus a few filters, blower, release etc. Dropping half a pound on the camera body makes the kit just that little bit easer to haul up hils etc, but apart from the physical space in the bag (big already) the extra 6-8 ounces of a D810 would make me want to leave one or 2 of those lenses behind. I did use my Sony A58 as a lightweigh travel kit, and it's certainly a lot lighter than the Nikon outfit, but image quality was never satisfying, and it was frustrating coming back from somewhere and then wishing for better image quality afterward.
 
On my soon Japan holiday it will be the Nikon D810 +Nikon24-70 f2.8 non VR lens and the 50 mm prime. that is together with the Panasonic HC-X900M camcorder . That is about all my Tamrac system 6 bag will take, apart from bits and pieces. I could take a Tamrac professional bag which is a lot larger but it may not be allowed in an aircraft cabin and too heavy loaded with a lot of lenses and another camera. this has suited me on my many travels abroad. I have in the past taken the 70 200 mm Nikon lens as well, but checking up most used was the 24-70 lens so the 70-200 is staying at home
I tend to try and find a natural support, ie tree trunk or wall, which helps keep a camera steady against" free" hand holding.
 
Last edited:
Got an offer from Park Cameras against an A7rII on my D610 that's probably close to what I'd have got through the forum. Looking more likely...... :)

The offer just got a little less attractive - they sold the camera I was interested in. :( There are 3 more in stock, but 2 of them have significant screen damage and the other is £200 more than the one I'd wanted.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top