Sony A7 - Great Camera

sonicbuffalo

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Nov 17, 2013
Messages
316
Reaction score
42
Location
Durham, NC
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
It was just about this time last month that I realized something. I suddenly realized that I had spent a small fortune on investing in Nikon's Holy Trinity and two camera body's. I had the 14-24 mm f/2.8, the 24-70 f/2.8, and the 70-200 VR II f/2.8. All of this plus I had some DX lenses left over from my beginning DX days. I had bought first a D5100, sold that and just about broke even, then I bought a D7100 as I heard without the Anti- Aliasing filter, it took pretty near perfectly clear pictures. What I really yearned for though was a full frame camera. Don't ask me why, except that my first of the 'Trinity', the 14-24 mm was said to be so much better on a full frame body. So, now I owned a D7100 (a great camera by the way), and a D610, which is another great camera.

Well, I took quite a few pictures with the different rigs, and was happy with the results. I also realized since I was fairly new to digital photography, I had quite a lot to learn about post processing. I found a great website, and decided since I already had Photoshop Elements, I might as well grab a copy of Lightroom. The Creative Cloud hadn't yet come out, or at least I hadn't heard of it. I just don't like giving anybody a certain amount of money a month for the use of their programs. I get claustophobia. So far, I surmise that I have spent close to $7000.00 by buying my 'Trinity' lenses used in excellent condition. They really were.

After my months of shooting using the new gear and weighing my backpack, which topped out at over 35 lbs. with the Trinity Lenses in it, I decided to do a little investigating. I started looking at mirrorless cameras after seeing some pictures taken by a Sony NEX that had blown me away. The pictures were every bit as sharp as mine were, and the clodhopper who took them was probably laughing his butt off as he told us (on his blog) about what camera he had bought (his GAS is nearly as bad as mine still). I still loved the look of his pictures from a camera nearly half the size of mine. I mean when you're lugging around a 3 lb. 70-200 lens, it gets very heavy, very quick. Then if you want to change lenses, you have to have them with you, duh!

I finally had done enough watching YouTube videos on the Fuji XT1 and had my choices narrowed down to that camera, and the Sony A7 or A7r. I knew a guy on another forum who had a Nikon D800, which is also a 36 mp camera. After reading his comments over the months, I gathered that 36 mp's are just too much. I mean I can live with 24, but 36 just takes so much more gb in storage space. Plus the A7r didn't have an AA filter which almost tipped the scales in it's favor. I realized I was just selling my quality stuff for something I wanted that was smaller. Both the D7100 and the D610 had 24 mp sensors. The D610 obviously had the full frame sensor. I finally decided to invest (for good this time) in the A7. As I said, I wanted to downsize, not have to buy more storage space for a 36 mp camera. The Sony A7 had everything I wanted. It had the full frame 24 mp sensor. I also bought (and I know you really shouldnt) the 28-70 Sony kit lens, and ordered a Sony 70-200 f/4 zoom. All I really want now is to find me a good wide zoom (Sony is playing catch up now with producing lenses for their full frame cameras).

The rest of the story is this. Don't get caught up in the buy it all now GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome). A year from now, you'll want something newer and better. You will lose money in the long run. One of my main reasons for buying and selling now is simple. More and more photogs are buying mirrorless and will continue as they improve on what they have available. I don't get paid for writing all this, but Sony and Fuji are the apparent leaders in mirrorless cameras. I prefer the Sony for several reasons. It has the full frame sensor for one thing, and an excellent EVF. It does take some getting used to though after coming from a couple of mirror cameras with pentaprism viewfinders. With the Sony, you get your EVF directly off the sensor as there is no mirror. Let me also mention that a friend on another website said he had a mirrorless camera and a regular Nikon DSLR, and they both had the same problem (I forget what it was), and he said that it costs less to repair his mirrorless camera than his DSLR. I thought smaller, therefore requiring special equipment and hence, repairs would be more expensive on the mirrorless. I was pleasantly surprised. Well, I've written a small book, and all I will be able to do is to post pictures now, and hope my photography improves as my days shooting mirrorless increase. As of now, I don't regreat my choices of selling my Nikon gear and buying the Sony. I'm happy where I'm at with the exception that darn it, I really want a wide angle zoom, or a wide prime. I neglected accidently to tell you I did buy an off camera flash for the Sony. I guess it's in my blood now!
 
Last edited:
Good for you but for me the Sony lenses equivalent to Nikon are not different enough in size or weight to matter. And I like continuous autofocus
 
Voiglander 12mm or 15mm great wide lenses

Thanks GsGary......I'm not ready to purchase just yet. I have a vacation coming up this month, and that wil require my extra funds. Maybe for Christmas.
 
I'm away week on Wednesday got 30 rolls ready probably only use A7 for colour and at night

I went to Adorama and put the lens on my wish list in the basket. What kind of adapter will I need?
 
I saw your equestrian pictures, and they were definitely tack sharp.....taken with the Voigtlander?
 
For me full-frame mirrorless cameras have little sense in terms of weight/size saving. The differnse in weight between d600 and A7 is 350g but the glass weight is almost the same. So if you want the same set of lenses as you had with Nikon you will save only around 350g.
 
For me full-frame mirrorless cameras have little sense in terms of weight/size saving. The differnse in weight between d600 and A7 is 350g but the glass weight is almost the same. So if you want the same set of lenses as you had with Nikon you will save only around 350g.
Not using my Leica mount lenses are much lighter
 
Not sure what the video capability's of the A7 are like, if it`s like the A6000 the best video quality is in AVCHD mode, but the .mts format is a pain, if you use the program mkvtomp4 below it works with mts files and converts them without recompression in a few seconds, be sure to select the output format in the setup/video to mp4 instead of m4v

MkvТоMp4 v0.224 - rapid tool for repack Mkv to Mp4

John.
 
For me full-frame mirrorless cameras have little sense in terms of weight/size saving. The differnse in weight between d600 and A7 is 350g but the glass weight is almost the same. So if you want the same set of lenses as you had with Nikon you will save only around 350g.

I don't know what lens you are comparing....but the glass of the Trinity is much heavier than the weight of the glass I have now. As for camera, well, you go to the store and try them side by side. You're just not being accurate. When you put my 14-24 mm f/2.8 on my Nikon D610, it was very heavy and bulky as heck. You can't even put a lens filter on them because they're so bulbous. When you compare my Sony's 70-200 f/4 (granted I'm losing a little light) to the 70-200 f/2.8 VR II, there is absolutely no comparison.

If you want to think so, just keep feeding your head incorrect facts like you just did. I've had both and I know!
 
Last edited:
Not sure what the video capability's of the A7 are like, if it`s like the A6000 the best video quality is in AVCHD mode, but the .mts format is a pain, if you use the program mkvtomp4 below it works with mts files and converts them without recompression in a few seconds, be sure to select the output format in the setup/video to mp4 instead of m4v

MkvТоMp4 v0.224 - rapid tool for repack Mkv to Mp4

John.
Personally I don't care what the video is like, I will never use it
 
I think you made a great decision.
The mirrorless are smaller and lighter due to the design.

The f/2.8 lenses are large due to the aperture, and f/4s are smaller, then variables even smaller & lighter.

My 70-300 VRII f/4.5-5.6 is no comparison at 200mm to my 80-200/2.8 for light gathering. But it is a bunch lighter, and if used during the day time with proper ISO control is a great lens by comparison for weight and cost.

I never went for the 14-24/2.8 as I see no need for it. My 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 has all that I want right now and it takes regular 77mm filters and is light by comparison. I also made $$ choices, VR (need it or not ?), AFS or AFD or even AI-S, ... all can save $$ and weight.

Basically, I've selected the lens for what I want and saved on $$ and weight.

But the FullFrame choice to me has been the best one - dslr or mirrorless. The same conclusion you came up with.

In the end it's all about satisfaction and approach. So no one can go wrong with dslr or mirrorless.
I do know though, that a mirrorless FF would help on my telescope front/rear weight balance and would help it track better (or course I could get off my lazy butt and balance it with weights too).

If Nikon comes out with a Mirrorless FF that accepts my current lenses that would simply be the cat's meow because I don't see ditching my dslr's anytime soon.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top