OK, so I'm getting suckered.

[Cagey75]

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.

Double check to see if it's not just screen protector damage. I know with some of the older Sony bodies there was a protective layer on the LCD that could be removed, they all got a bit worn and shabby looking over time.

In this vid he shows just this, on an A7RII:

 

[T_J_G]

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.

Screen can be sorted easily and cheaply. Just remove the film and re apply a new one.

I think the A7RII is a good choice with the right lenses.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Screen can be sorted easily and cheaply. Just remove the film and re apply a new one.

I think the A7RII is a good choice with the right lenses.

Thanks for the tip - are you saying there's just a simple film over the screen as std then? I've seen quite a few A7rII units for sale with damaged rear screens, posibly more than others, and assumed it was just Sony varying their choice of screen material with those being fragile.

BTW good luck with the sale of that D750 - I've just realised you've moved across.

 

[Cagey75]

Thanks for the tip - are you saying there's just a simple film over the screen as std then? I've seen quite a few A7rII units for sale with damaged rear screens, posibly more than others, and assumed it was just Sony varying their choice of screen material with those being fragile.

BTW good luck with the sale of that D750 - I've just realised you've moved across.

Er, I posted a video on it just above

 

[T_J_G]

Thanks for the tip - are you saying there's just a simple film over the screen as std then? I've seen quite a few A7rII units for sale with damaged rear screens, posibly more than others, and assumed it was just Sony varying their choice of screen material with those being fragile.

BTW good luck with the sale of that D750 - I've just realised you've moved across.

Thanks, gradual move from Nikon and second Sony on the way

 

[ancient_mariner]

Thanks, gradual move from Nikon and second Sony on the way

I don't dislike Nikon at all, but their DSLRs are resolutely old-school, and in many ways are just like shooting a film camera only with better quality output.

Hope you enjoy the new 'baby'.

 

[twist]

@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.

Only video

 

[Adam Bonn]

Skim read this, so apologies if its covered...

One thing the latest A7 models have (the Riii and 7iii) is a far bigger battery (and in the Riii a better EVF)

Of the course the cost difference between lastest and yesteryear models buys a few spares, but FWIW many (not all) folk that transition from DSLR to mirrorless are initially displeased at the speed at which they consume batteries

I thought it was worth mentioning.

The only mirrorless you’re going to get with an OVF and live view is the fuji (not FF) and the leica M240/10 (big bucks and not great iso on the former and ever bigger bucks and still not Sony et el quality iso on the latter)

Anyway, good luck with whatever you chose.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Thanks for commenting Adam. I had the info about battery life for the A7III series already, but a little reiteration does no harm.

 

[Phiggys]

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.

What a bummer I have been in the same position in the past (n)
Im sure something will come along when the time is right

 

[twist]

What is your budget?

 

[ancient_mariner]

What is your budget?

Some.

One problem for me is that there's a moving functionality target. Moving to a straight A7 with some cash outlay means slightly better handling, slightly worse AF (and possibly reduced image quality & dynamic range) compared to the D610 I currently use. The A7r appears to be un-fixably flawed with the shutter shock problem, but isn't cheap enough to risk it. The A7II is much better, but another step up again in price, while the A7rII appears to be at the sweet spot for functionality, image quality and price. The A7III is REALLY tempting, with improved functionality again, but lags the A7rII on image quality while being a LOT more expensive (I've seen one around £1500 used, and around £1400 grey (but I'd prefer not to buy grey). The A7rIII is way beyond what I can spend in good cosncience in any form.

I'm not working to a specific budget as such, but would *prefer* not to spend more than £1000 on a body (less any PX/private sale of kit). On top of that I'll likely add an LA-EA4 and a native lens of some kind, possibly the kit zoom or possibly a used 28 f2, maybe even a used ART 50 or 24. I'll also add a cheap adapter for manual only use of my Nikon-fit lenses.

Realistically then I'm looking at about £1600ish outlay, less what I get for my kit, but that's flexible.

However it's very tempting to make Spencer an offer for his A7 & 55 and just see how we get along without trading the D610 yet. It's also tempting to say 'sod it' and just splurge on a MkIII, and then try to limp along with budget lenses.

 

[Craigus]

One problem for me is that there's a moving functionality target. Moving to a straight A7 with some cash outlay means slightly better handling, slightly worse AF (and possibly reduced image quality & dynamic range) compared to the D610 I currently use. The A7r appears to be un-fixably flawed with the shutter shock problem, but isn't cheap enough to risk it. The A7II is much better, but another step up again in price, while the A7rII appears to be at the sweet spot for functionality, image quality and price. The A7III is REALLY tempting, with improved functionality again, but lags the A7rII on image quality while being a LOT more expensive (I've seen one around £1500 used, and around £1400 grey (but I'd prefer not to buy grey). The A7rIII is way beyond what I can spend in good cosncience in any form.

You're in the vicious spiral of there always being better things available. In one paragraph you've gone from a £400 A7 to over triple the cost for an A7iii seemingly just 'because better'.

'Good body - budget lens' is never a wise move.

 

[gad-westy]

Seems like the same sort of head scratching I've done from time to time. Must admit the MK2 Sony's don't interest me that much though. Every time I do the sums on jumping to FF mirrorless (either Sony A7Riii or Nikon Z7 to replace D800) I come to the conclusion that I'll have spent an awful lot of money to end up with a more modern body and a far less interesting range of lenses. Usually having to substitute F2.8's for F/4 zooms and losing the super telephoto to claw back some cost. Progress is expensive! I'll do it one day but it's going to be bloody hard to justify.

 

[kendo1]

All this talk and you haven't got anywhere, Toni!

Just go for it! It's like watching Eastenders (a never ending story)

I took the plunge and went for the 750 a month or so ago. Definitely better than the 600 I still have.

 

[woof woof]

Seems like the same sort of head scratching I've done from time to time. Must admit the MK2 Sony's don't interest me that much though. Every time I do the sums on jumping to FF mirrorless (either Sony A7Riii or Nikon Z7 to replace D800) I come to the conclusion that I'll have spent an awful lot of money to end up with a more modern body and a far less interesting range of lenses. Usually having to substitute F2.8's for F/4 zooms and losing the super telephoto to claw back some cost. Progress is expensive! I'll do it one day but it's going to be bloody hard to justify.

That could be true for the newer systems but for Sony that surely must only be true for a number of specialist and even very specialist options.

 

[woof woof]

You're in the vicious spiral of there always being better things available. In one paragraph you've gone from a £400 A7 to over triple the cost for an A7iii seemingly just 'because better'.

'Good body - budget lens' is never a wise move.

I'm not sure that's always true. I have a lot of fun with cheap old lenses and I have some modern ones too and I'm sure that apart from at the wider apertures even people on nit picking internet forums will struggle to tell what lens was used.

 

[gad-westy]

That could be true for the newer systems but for Sony that surely must only be true for a number of specialist and even very specialist options.

I tend to buy used where it makes sense. Nikon 24-70 2.8 - £600-£750 used, Sony £1300 ish used. F/4 version about the same cost as the Nikon f/2.8 and sounds okay but not spectacular. 70-200 2.8 same sort of thing used Nikon VR1's or VR2's about £700-£900 for Nikon (Tamron option in there too) which is about the same ballpark as a used Sony F/4. Paid about £500 for a 150-600 sigma C, not sure there is anything like that available for Sony yet. It's not really a like for like comparison and not a reflection on new pricing but it is the cost difference for someone like myself to change system. Definitely a stumbling block at present.

 

[woof woof]

I tend to buy used where it makes sense. Nikon 24-70 2.8 - £600-£750 used, Sony £1300 ish used. F/4 version about the same cost as the Nikon f/2.8 and sounds okay but not spectacular. 70-200 2.8 same sort of thing used Nikon VR1's or VR2's about £700-£900 for Nikon (Tamron option in there too) which is about the same ballpark as a used Sony F/4. Paid about £500 for a 150-600 sigma C, not sure there is anything like that available for Sony yet. It's not really a like for like comparison and not a reflection on new pricing but it is the cost difference for someone like myself to change system. Definitely a stumbling block at present.

Used prices are another thing entirely and it'll take any new system lenses time to drop to DSLR lens price levels for obvious reasons, the mirrorless stuff is newer and there isn't as much of it about yet.

New lens wise people whinge like mad about Sony prices but look at them without bias and they're often competitively priced for what they are against the DSLR alternatives. Also look at what some of the new system lenses are priced at, even higher in some cases than Sony but these are new lenses from all of the mirrorless gang are often of very high quality, arguably higher than some of the DSLR lenses that can be had for relatively bargain prices.

 

[gad-westy]

Used prices are another thing entirely and it'll take any new system lenses time to drop to DSLR lens price levels for obvious reasons, the mirrorless stuff is newer and there isn't as much of it about yet.

New lens wise people whinge like mad about Sony prices but look at them without bias and they're often competitively priced against the DSLR alternatives. Also look at what some of the new systems lenses are priced at, even higher in some cases but these are new lenses and often of very high quality, arguably higher than some of the DSLR lenses that can be had for relatively bargain prices.

Yep, that's more or less what I said. Buying new, there isn't much in it. Buying used (as I tend to) there is a big gulf for the sort of kit I'd want. It does make life tricky as you end up having to either justify spending a lot more to end with something more modern but broadly similar or spend about the same and end up with something arguably worse overall.

 

[f/2.8]

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.

If it’s the blemished screen thing you can just take off the manufacturer fitted screen protector and replace with a third party one.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I'm *almost* there.

In a world of limited funds theres always a trade-off between features and cost, and the clever/lucky part is finding the sweet spot. I'm almost certainly going grey now - grey prices on new kit are the same or lower than used UK stuff, and at least there's a year's warranty instead of 6 months.

The range of choices - £400 A7 to £1500 A7III (actually I've even included the A7rIII at £1850 as a grey import) - indicate how good the basic cameras are and also how well they're being developed. It's not so much a spiral of features added by the marketing dept. but instead additional functions that make the tool more and more useful.

I need at least 1 native lens, and it's likely to be the 24-105. I did look at the reviews of the £130 kit lens, and actually looking at example images makes me sure that is NOT the lens for me - nor the zeiss 24-70 or Tamron 28-75. And while my Nikon 28-105 is fine on the D610, I don't think it will be acceptable on an A7rII or similar.

 

[twist]

I'm *almost* there.

In a world of limited funds theres always a trade-off between features and cost, and the clever/lucky part is finding the sweet spot. I'm almost certainly going grey now - grey prices on new kit are the same or lower than used UK stuff, and at least there's a year's warranty instead of 6 months.

The range of choices - £400 A7 to £1500 A7III (actually I've even included the A7rIII at £1850 as a grey import) - indicate how good the basic cameras are and also how well they're being developed. It's not so much a spiral of features added by the marketing dept. but instead additional functions that make the tool more and more useful.

I need at least 1 native lens, and it's likely to be the 24-105. I did look at the reviews of the £130 kit lens, and actually looking at example images makes me sure that is NOT the lens for me - nor the zeiss 24-70 or Tamron 28-75. And while my Nikon 28-105 is fine on the D610, I don't think it will be acceptable on an A7rII or similar.

I doubt the Nikon kit lens will be any better than the cheap Sony kit lens.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I doubt the Nikon kit lens will be any better than the cheap Sony kit lens.

That's what I said (although it's not a kit lens).

 

[ancient_mariner]

I doubt the Nikon kit lens will be any better than the cheap Sony kit lens.

OK, StephenM was kind enough to let me have a look at some of his files from the A7r using the Zeiss 24-70, and I'm really grateful for the comparison. That lens has amazing centre sharpness from wide open, but at no aperture up to f11 did the edges get really sharp (esp LHS) and it can't really match the old Nikon 28-105 that's my regular lens when stopped down. This exactly matches what I'd read in the reviews, that this and the kit lens (and the new Tamron, to a degree) are designed to deliver excellent centre sharpness wide open, but gain little from stopping down and have soft sides (There is also an issue of decentering in the case of some copies of the Zeiss).

This is a bit of a surprise - I'd gone with the urban legend of my lens being a good performer, but haven't always been that impressed and had assumed a modern lens design would really overwhelm it. I normally run the lens around f11-f13 for maximum depth of field and even sharpness, and would much rather have a lens that turned in a super perfomance like this than one that's a bit sharper wide open but doesn't get any better.

Love the A7r image quality like that though. If only they were a little closer to the A7 in price, used.

More thinking required.