Sony A7 - Great Camera

[Usul]

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 inocrrect facts like you just did. I've had both and I know!

I compare sony FE 70-200 f4 (840 g) and Nikon 70-200 f4 (850 g) or sony 28-70 f3.5-5.6 (295 g) and nikon 24-85 f3.5-4.5 (405 g). Sony just has no lenses to compete the Trinity. I guess you won't argue with this 'incorrect' facts. Will see maybe somtimes sony will introduce f2.8 zooms but I'm pretty sure they won't be much lighter than the nikon's ones.

 

[Usul]

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

You right but unfortunaly these lenses have no AF so many people (and me as well) don't consider them as a reall replacement for DSLR's AF lenses.

 

[sonicbuffalo]

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 inocrrect facts like you just did. I've had both and I know!

I compare sony FE 70-200 f4 (840 g) and Nikon 70-200 f4 (850 g)[compare the Trinity's VR II] or sony 28-70 f3.5-5.6 (295 g) and nikon 24-85 f3.5-4.5 (405 g). Sony just has no lenses to compete the Trinity. I guess you won't argue with this 'incorrect' facts. Will see maybe somtimes sony will introduce f2.8 zooms but I'm pretty sure they won't be much lighter than the nikon's ones.

Of course I won't argue that Sony has no full frame Trinity right now and i don't expect them to come out with a f/2.8. That would defeat the purpose of having lighter weight.​

 

[sonicbuffalo]

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

You right but unfortunaly these lenses have no AF so many people (and me as well) don't consider them as a reall replacement for DSLR's AF lenses.

[h=2]Sony 70-200mm Features[/h]

• Cutting edge optical technologies, including Nano AR Coating and Super ED and EDglass elements, combine to deliver performance befitting the G Lens label with aconstant F4 maximum aperture.
• Compact and lightweight for enhanced handling and portability.
• Focus hold button, focus range limiter, and panning mode switch give intermediate and advanced shooters extra control.
• Optical SteadyShot image stabilization.
• Removable tripod mount, dust and moisture resistant design.

 

[Usul]

Not using my Leica mount lenses are much lighter

You right but unfortunaly these lenses have no AF so many people (and me as well) don't consider them as a reall replacement for DSLR's AF lenses.

That's your best argument and I won't disagree with you there.

Okay, okay, relax man. Too much red.

 

[astroNikon]

I know for one thing I need AF
I did a photoshoot the other day and my eyes decided to whack out on me.
If it wasn't for AF nothing probably would have turned out as well as it did.

 

[sonicbuffalo]

ok....no more red.....your point is well taken, but if you learn to use the camera and the lens, you won't have a problem. It's like anything else, the more you use it, the better you get. I just traded the weight and some light for a lighter backpack, which now has enough room for everything. When I had the Nikon Trinity, I had to yank the dividers out of the backpack to get all 3 lenses in, and even then it was tight. Now, I have more than enough room. As far as these conversations pretty much go.....everyone has a preference and no one thing is right for everyone all the time. Now, having said that, I will say one more thing, and I resist the red very reluctantly.....Sony charges too damn much for their lenses, but they are sharp.

 

[gsgary]

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

You right but unfortunaly these lenses have no AF so many people (and me as well) don't consider them as a reall replacement for DSLR's AF lenses.

Don't need AF, MFis just as quick when you are used to it, I shoot Leica M cameras and I can shoot on the streets fast than anyone using AF

 

[rexbobcat]

Don't need AF just as quick when you are used to it, I shoot Leica M cameras and I can shoot on the streets fast than anyone using AF

This point is irrelevant to the statement above.

 

[sonicbuffalo]

The sad thing is that the whole camera system among major manufacturers are going rapidly to mirrorless. Photogs don't want to lug heavy artillery to the range anymore. They want small and compact with great resolution. That's the way it's heading. Rapidly. The old tank lenses and bodies will depreciate rapidly.

 

[sonicbuffalo]

Don't need AF just as quick when you are used to it, I shoot Leica M cameras and I can shoot on the streets fast than anyone using AF

This point is irrelevant to the statement above.

Is that all you have to contribute? Not much!

 

[rexbobcat]

Don't need AF just as quick when you are used to it, I shoot Leica M cameras and I can shoot on the streets fast than anyone using AF

This point is irrelevant to the statement above.

Is that all you have to contribute? Not much!

Ooooooo you sure got me.


I don't feel the need to give a thought-out response to an irrelevant argument.

I only wanted to point out its irrelevance.

Also, look up the word "irony."

 

[gsgary]

This point is irrelevant to the statement above.

Is that all you have to contribute? Not much!

Ooooooo you sure got me.


I don't feel the need to give a thought-out response to an irrelevant argument.

I only wanted to point out its irrelevance.

Also, look up the word "irony."

have you ever tried manual focus, thats the big problem with Nikon and Canon digital cameras its a lot harder than the A7

 

[astroNikon]

The sad thing is that the whole camera system among major manufacturers are going rapidly to mirrorless. Photogs don't want to lug heavy artillery to the range anymore. They want small and compact with great resolution. That's the way it's heading. Rapidly. The old tank lenses and bodies will depreciate rapidly.

Except if you want f/2.8 you'll get a tank lens
If you want f/2.8 with VR and the bells and whistles (more technology) it's going to be larger.
If you want f/2.8 manual focus then it loses all that technology and is quite a bit smaller and lighter.
f/4 .. smaller and lighter yet
variable aperture .. smaller and lighter yet
variable and manual focusing .. smaller and lighter even more.

it all depends upon what you want.

The bodies are of course smaller the dslrs.

It just comes down to using the specific equipment that you need for the photography that you need.
once Mirrorless has all the bell and whistles of the DSLRs but smaller and lighter (and less money) then there's going to be a big switchover.

But then who knows

 

[rexbobcat]

have you ever tried manual focus, thats the big problem with Nikon and Canon digital cameras its a lot harder than the A7

Yes I have. Two of the first three lenses I had for my Canon were a Takumar 55mm and an Auto-Chinon 135mm.

However, I did not have a proper focus screen and it was more difficult than it's worth.

And it may be much easier to manual focus on the A7 than the Canon, but that doesn't mean it's easy.

The fact that manual focus on the A7 is easy to you doesn't help out the people who don't have that skillset.

It makes more sense (to me) to just buy a different camera as opposed to buying the A7 and learning an entirely different, specialized skillset, in order to workaround the camera's autofocus issues.