I am upgrading my Nikon d90 and I cannot decide wether to stay with Nikon and get the new d7200 (which is due out next month) or to get the Sony mirror less7s or a.
The reason for staying with Nikon is familiarity. I finally know the camera, how to navigate the menu etc. The thought of starting over with a new system seems daunting.
Also, I have Nikon lenses and am used to telephoto lenses. Sony has yet to introduce a telephoto that has the range that I am used to. Also, the Sony is a full frame which I
have never used.
A more compact size is not a factor for me. I like the size and weight of my Nikon and I always have my phone in my pocket. My reason for changing to Sony would be for better image quality
and low light function.
The faculty at Visual Arts are encouraging us to go with mirror less as dslr's are 'old technology". I have been postponing a decision but my d90 needs to be replaced.
Congrats on the upgrade! So exciting, I really don't think you can go wrong with either of them.
I don't know anything about the 7200 but I have spent a lot of time in my local camera store the last few months trying different cameras.
I was looking into the sony myself and fell in love with the A. The quality was just amazing to me, plus they were so much lighter and I love the menu and how it worked..for me it was way easier than the than the Nikon 7100... and I put the 7100 in my hands and it was way to heavy and I did not like how it handled as for the 7200 I don't even know the specs on that one nor know what the size will be compared to the 7100.. (but that was just me and my preference). I decided to change to pantex instead and get out of Nikon all together. I still may rent the cameras before actually purchasing that way I know its not wasted money and I am getting what I wish for.
Go with what you feel is best in your hands and works best with your budget, I am sure others have better opionions on things LOL
good luck and can't wait to see what you decide on :-)) It is a fun thing to search for.
The faculty at Visual Arts are encouraging us to go with mirror less as dslr's are 'old technology"
To be blunt, I'm calling B.S. On this statement. There may be some inherent advantages of mirrorless, depending upon your needs and wants, but to simply say that an electronic viewfinder makes it automatically superior is nonsense.
I may eventually get a mirrorless myself simply for the size advantages when I head out on my bicycle. I did "downgrade" from an EOD 50D to a Rebel T2i for that size reason. I do like having an optical viewfinder, however.
Get the camera that you like for real reasons that matter to you.
The faculty at Visual Arts are encouraging us to go with mirror less as dslr's are 'old technology"
To be blunt, I'm calling B.S. On this statement. There may be some inherent advantages of mirrorless, depending upon your needs and wants, but to simply say that an electronic viewfinder makes it automatically superior is nonsense.
Get the camera that you like for real reasons that matter to you.
I no longer own an SLR. If I was advising someone who was buying a new camera, I'd point them in the direction of the Sony A7 (series). It is almost a no-brainer. This is why:
1. It’s full frame - very important to me, I think the ability to isolate subjects is one of the most important affordances of a camera.
2. It's compatible with pretty much any lens ever made. That's huge. There is a whole world of vintage lenses out there.
3. It's very, very light.
4. The Zeiss system lenses are superb.
5. The A7S and the A7II have feature sets that make shooting in low light a dream.
I'm neutral about the EVF, it doesn't really beat the mirrored finder on an SLR but exposure simulation can make a difference.
But...
I hate how complicated it is (many of the features are unnecessary).
The focussing system, selection of focus point remains a nightmare - I'm sure this is me not understanding how to set it up as I would like.
But... The points 1-5, especially '2' override the deficiencies.
Shooting sports? A DSLR is probably the way to go but other than that, to have a small camera that practically sees in the dark, that is full frame and can use any lens is a truly unique feature set that is hard to bet against.
2. It's compatible with pretty much any lens ever made. That's huge. There is a whole world of vintage lenses out there.
How is this accomplished? Is an adapter for each mount type needed? For example, say I wanted to use some older Pentax K mount lens, or Canon FD lens, etc...
2. It's compatible with pretty much any lens ever made. That's huge. There is a whole world of vintage lenses out there.
How is this accomplished? Is an adapter for each mount type needed?
Yes, you get an adapter for each mount. These can range in price though, from the higher end ones like the metabones and very handy ones like the voigtlander close focus adapter ( which decreases the minimum focus distance- very handy for many older lenses) to very cheap adapters. I've got adapters for leica M and Leica LTM mounts and also for the Nikon F and they were all very cheap, less than £10, and seem to work fine. I do fancy the Voigtlander close up one though, if it ever becomes availible again.
2. It's compatible with pretty much any lens ever made. That's huge. There is a whole world of vintage lenses out there.
How is this accomplished? Is an adapter for each mount type needed?
Yes, you get an adapter for each mount. These can range in price though, from the higher end ones like the metabones and very handy ones like the voigtlander close focus adapter ( which decreases the minimum focus distance- very handy for many older lenses) to very cheap adapters. I've got adapters for leica M and Leica LTM mounts and also for the Nikon F and they were all very cheap, less than £10, and seem to work fine. I do fancy the Voigtlander close up one though, if it ever becomes availible again.
Clive, can you recommend a cheap Leica M one, I've ordered the Voigtlander Close Up but fear I might wait a while...
In relation to LTM, can I just attach my LTM to M to the M to E (or indeed my R to M to the M to E)?
2. It's compatible with pretty much any lens ever made. That's huge. There is a whole world of vintage lenses out there.
How is this accomplished? Is an adapter for each mount type needed? For example, say I wanted to use some older Pentax K mount lens, or Canon FD lens, etc...
Indeed and there are loads of bargains to be had in old fast (unpopular/ redundant system) glass to more than offset the outlay on adapters.
Second-hand camera shops have never been so enticing!
If you decide you want mirrorless later, the Nikon will probably hold better value especially if you buy a used one now.
Resale values on the Sony and Fuji stuff at least have gone way down in the past year since I got my Fuji.
As far as adapters, I've had great luck with a cheap off-brand adapter for pentax screwmount to Fuji X. YMMV, of course, but I'm using $50 lenses so I didn't want a $300 adapter.
thanks everyone for your opinions, I appreciate your time and especially your experience.
Paul, the two things that you sighted, that have given me second thoughts about the Sony
1} it is complicated and has a lot of unnecessary features and that the auto focus is a nightmare.
I am not exaggerating about how long it has taken me to learn the Nikon. Being familiar with the settings and menu and really
understanding the way it works is a big deal to me. Learning a new system and one that is overly complicated gives me pause.
I hear you about full frame and I am now thinking that maybe I should consider a Nikon full frame and deal with the lens issues.
To the OP: per your initial post, telephoto range seems to be somewhat important to you. Bear in mind that with FF, you will need 1.5x the focal length to get the same field of view. In order to match the 200mm long end of your current lens, you will need 300mm on a FF camera.
FF cameras also have a larger mirror box and so the body sizes tend to be slightly larger. Frame rates tend to be slower, because you are moving more mass around. Faster frame rates on FF are available, but come with a higher price tag. Good lenses for FF are more expensive because they need to cover a much larger image circle.
That's the down-side to FF. The upside is better noise performance, generally better "acuity" (per-pixel sharpness), better control of DoF, and generally bigger, brighter viewfinders. Personally, I'm a FF kinda guy, but my advice to those considering jumping from APS-C to FF is to consider carefully both the costs and benefits, and then if the larger format suits your needs and you are OK with the costs, do it and don't look back.
but my advice to those considering jumping from APS-C to FF is to consider carefully both the costs and benefits, and then if the larger format suits your needs and you are OK with the costs, do it and don't look back.
For myself, if I were a professional, I would probably go full frame. But as a amateur, the added size and expense does not offer enough advantage to me. In fact, I'm one of the folks likely to make an eventual move to mirrorless when the price and benefits are right for me.
Now you have opinions ranging from "go mirrorless" to "only full frame will do". Asking for advice in any decent sized forum will usually get you conflicting answers. But you also have a lot of useful information including the pros and cons to base your own decision off of.
But with the Sony A7 you are mirrorless and full frame!
With a full-frame mirrorless, you don't have much advantage of smaller size as most FF lenses are bigger and heavier than its body - especially telephoto zooms. Thus overall camera package is not that much smaller/pocketable.
Also if I understood it correctly then using lens adapters, especially cheap ones, you won't have autofocus or aperture control (if camera driven) even if the lens offers it.
And though I haven't used the modern MILCs, the DSLRs still have much faster auto focusing system thru the viewfinder.
As for FF vs crop it depends on what you need. I find out that most of my shots were indoor in low light where high ISO performance becomes critical so I opted for FF. Modern crop sensor cameras are perfectly fine for any other type of shooting.
Nothing aubstutes for what feels best in your hands, and has the controls that are the most logical for you.
The gazillion pixel mega sized sensor, with the prettiest glass you ever saw, does absolutely nothing for the shot you just missed.
Find a store where you can play with the cameras, and pick the one that is best for you. Then buy it there. Yes it will cost more. But then they will still be there when you are ready for your next camera.
Yikes...Paul I didn't realize that you have only had it for three days but if the auto focus is a nightmare, that is probably not going to change with time.
Thanks Fritz for pointing out the pros and cons of a full frame. I am at the other end of pro but I am in need of a new camera and since there are now very
new options for cameras I am trying to make an informed choice.
But with the Sony A7 you are mirrorless and full frame!
With a full-frame mirrorless, you don't have much advantage of smaller size as most FF lenses are bigger and heavier than its body - especially telephoto zooms. Thus overall camera package is not that much smaller/pocketable.
Also if I understood it correctly then using lens adapters, especially cheap ones, you won't have autofocus or aperture control (if camera driven) even if the lens offers it.
And though I haven't used the modern MILCs, the DSLRs still have much faster auto focusing system thru the viewfinder.
As for FF vs crop it depends on what you need. I find out that most of my shots were indoor in low light where high ISO performance becomes critical so I opted for FF. Modern crop sensor cameras are perfectly fine for any other type of shooting.
Weight and size wise I don't agree at all. The A7 is much, much lighter than my 5d3. As for lenses, M mount lenses are tiny and manual focus with peaking is very straightforward.
Silly question perhaps ... E-Mount on Sony A6000 is the same as that on an A7, yes? I ask because I'm looking at adapters and wanted to make sure it would fit either APS-C or Full-Frame camera body. I have a pile of M42 lens that I like to use. :-)
Silly question perhaps ... E-Mount on Sony A6000 is the same as that on an A7, yes? I ask because I'm looking at adapters and wanted to make sure it would fit either APS-C or Full-Frame camera body. I have a pile of M42 lens that I like to use. :-)
Should be the same yes. A lot of E-mount lenses are crop-sensor lenses but they use the same flanges, they just won't cover full frame. The ones built specifically for FF are FE Lenses, but the mount, I believe, is the same.
Weight and size wise I don't agree at all. The A7 is much, much lighter than my 5d3. As for lenses, M mount lenses are tiny and manual focus with peaking is very straightforward.
Of course the body size/weight difference is there. Just saying with FF telezooms that gets marginalized: //j.mp/18cKtST
