# Sony A7 - Great Camera



## sonicbuffalo (Sep 1, 2014)

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!


----------



## jaomul (Sep 1, 2014)

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


----------



## gsgary (Sep 1, 2014)

Voiglander 12mm or 15mm great wide lenses


----------



## sonicbuffalo (Sep 1, 2014)

gsgary said:


> 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.


----------



## gsgary (Sep 1, 2014)

I'm away week on Wednesday got 30 rolls ready probably only use A7 for colour and at night


----------



## sonicbuffalo (Sep 1, 2014)

gsgary said:


> 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?


----------



## gsgary (Sep 1, 2014)

sonicbuffalo said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > I'm away week on Wednesday got 30 rolls ready probably only use A7 for colour and at night
> ...


Leica m to sony E I use the expensive Voigtlander close focus


----------



## gsgary (Sep 1, 2014)

The close focus adapter reduces minimum focus on the 12mm from 500mm down to 100mm


----------



## sonicbuffalo (Sep 1, 2014)

I saw your equestrian pictures, and they were definitely tack sharp.....taken with the Voigtlander?


----------



## Usul (Sep 1, 2014)

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.


----------



## gsgary (Sep 1, 2014)

Usul said:


> 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


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (Sep 1, 2014)

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

Mkv&#1058;&#1086;Mp4 v0.224 - rapid tool for repack Mkv to Mp4

John.


----------



## sonicbuffalo (Sep 1, 2014)

Usul said:


> 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!


----------



## gsgary (Sep 1, 2014)

Tinderbox (UK) said:


> 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
> 
> Mkv&#1058;&#1086;Mp4 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


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 1, 2014)

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.


----------



## Usul (Sep 1, 2014)

sonicbuffalo said:


> Usul said:
> 
> 
> > 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 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 (Sep 1, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Usul said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Sep 1, 2014)

Usul said:


> sonicbuffalo said:
> 
> 
> > Usul said:
> ...



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.&#8203;


----------



## sonicbuffalo (Sep 1, 2014)

Usul said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Usul said:
> ...



[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 (Sep 1, 2014)

sonicbuffalo said:


> Usul said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...




Okay, okay, relax man. Too much red.


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 1, 2014)

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 (Sep 1, 2014)

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 (Sep 1, 2014)

Usul said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Usul said:
> ...


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 (Sep 1, 2014)

gsgary said:


> 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 (Sep 1, 2014)

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 (Sep 1, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > 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
> ...



Is that all you have to contribute?  Not much!


----------



## rexbobcat (Sep 1, 2014)

sonicbuffalo said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



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 (Sep 1, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> sonicbuffalo said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...


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


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 1, 2014)

sonicbuffalo said:


> 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 (Sep 1, 2014)

gsgary said:


> 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.


----------



## sonicbuffalo (Sep 1, 2014)

rex.....i like your signature quote....it's really true for most of us!


----------



## gsgary (Sep 1, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


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



What autofocus issue ?


----------



## sonicbuffalo (Sep 1, 2014)

damn good question.....I have no _issues_!


----------



## Derrel (Sep 1, 2014)

24 megapixels on full-frame is a nice capture size, and allows high-volume shooting without an incredible download and storage hassle. I shot a HUGE set of 1,055 raw 24-megapixel images yesterday on 28 gigabytes of memory. You get fairly big pixels on FF, compared to the same number crammed onto a smaller sensor, so you get a bit better High ISO performance capability, and the real advantage is the way the lens focal lengths work on the 24x36 sized capture medium; a 50 is a normal lens, and 85mm is a USABLE telephoto, even inside of a living room! You don't have to be 35 feet back to successfully deploy the 85mm for vertically-framed, full-length, standing portraits! I hope you enjoy the new rig!

Real, old-school manual focus lenses have slower, more-precise, and usually mechanically superb focusing ring control; MOST autofocus lenses have an incredibly loose, sloppy, non-dampened focus ring movement, which goes like this: Infinity, then in 10 degrees of rotation, 3 meters! it makes it damned near IMPOSSIBLE to accurately and repeatedly focus on stuff in the all-important ranges between infinity and over 10 feet!!!! ACK! Sure, you can hit focus, but not always consistently, because the mechanics are so loosey-goosey. But...use a precision-built, manual-focus designed lens, and the focusing distances are spread out over up to 240 degrees of rotation, so its EASY to get the focus right, time after time!


----------



## usayit (Sep 1, 2014)

Congrats on the new camera.  I'm pretty much sold on the idea of the Sony A7R to be used with adapted lenses... in particular my M-mount lenses and perhaps my collection of Pentax/Takumar.   Just waiting for the right price.

My only issue with a FF mirror-less cameras is that the lenses themselves haven't really gotten any smaller.  I think its simply a physical limitation from the size of the image circle needed for a FF sensor.   I am also a MFT shooter and I find that system established the ideal balance between performance and size.  There is a huge difference in size between the Sony A7# + 70-200 f/4 + 24-70 f/4 and the OMD EM5 + 35-100 f/2.8 + 12-35 f/2.8.  So with that size difference and "enough" performance delivered, I'm content.   Of course, everyone has their own notion of "ideal balance".  

EM5 12-35 f/2.8, A7 24-70 f/4

Compact Camera Meter

EM5 35-100 f/2.8, A7 70-200 f4

Compact Camera Meter



On the other hand, I found that adapting lenses designed for FF on a sub-sized sensor results in an experience that is less than interesting to me.    I still love shooting the M9 BUT I have to say Sony offers an interesting proposition; small body with small high quality FF lenses.   With that the A7R has my interest.... and I am willing to explore (yes I have heard of corner issues).     Looking forward to trying it out.. 

M9 50/2, EM5 25/1.8, A7 55 1.8

Compact Camera Meter


----------



## Derrel (Sep 1, 2014)

Autofocus has made many lenses a LOT larger than their manual focus predecessors. From left, 85mm f/1.4D, 85mm f/1.8 AF-S G, and 85mm f/2 Ai-S Nikkor lenses.






[    DSC_4931_85mm trio.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com    ]  The 85mm f/2 Ai-S is about the same size as the 35mm f/2 Ai-S is; they in fact appear to be almost identical in size, almost as if they were built on the same barrel and helicoid systems! The 85mm f/2 (far right lens) has a VERY high "telephoto factor" compared against the newer 85mm autofocusing lenses, which are significantly longer in physical length. The 85mm f/2 AI-S is about the size of a 50mm f/1.4 lens. It is VERY compact. Super-easy to carry, and affordable.

Nikon's 105mm f/2.5 Ai-S is a splendid lens in terms of optics and mechanical smoothness, and focuses amazingly well. The *one-oh-five-two-five* might be one of the easiest lenses to focus by hand-and-eye. It's almost perfectly engineered!


----------



## usayit (Sep 1, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Autofocus has made many lenses a LOT larger than their manual focus predecessors. From left, 85mm f/1.4D, 85mm f/1.8 AF-S G, and 85mm f/2 Ai-S Nikkor lenses.



Absoutely.   Of course these are just "loose" comparisons since they don't account for complexity etc... but here's a similar comparison when you can design around a smaller image circle:

EM5 45/1.8, EM5 75mm f/1.8 (just for kickers), D3300 85mm f/1.4

Compact Camera Meter

Of course, I'm not saying that one, FF, APS, or MFT,  is better but certainly there are certain things at play here when it comes to size.   A lens that is both designed for FF with AF is going to be large.   Make it a faster lens and it will only get larger.   Me, a A7R + M adapter + M lens (FF no AF of course) seems to be within size that I'm willing to deal with... so its certainly got my curiosity.   One thing is for sure, Olympus and Panasonic have demonstrated how well a smaller image circle can translate to nice small packages.


----------



## gsgary (Sep 1, 2014)

Derrel said:


> 24 megapixels on full-frame is a nice capture size, and allows high-volume shooting without an incredible download and storage hassle. I shot a HUGE set of 1,055 raw 24-megapixel images yesterday on 28 gigabytes of memory. You get fairly big pixels on FF, compared to the same number crammed onto a smaller sensor, so you get a bit better High ISO performance capability, and the real advantage is the way the lens focal lengths work on the 24x36 sized capture medium; a 50 is a normal lens, and 85mm is a USABLE telephoto, even inside of a living room! You don't have to be 35 feet back to successfully deploy the 85mm for vertically-framed, full-length, standing portraits! I hope you enjoy the new rig!
> 
> Real, old-school manual focus lenses have slower, more-precise, and usually mechanically superb focusing ring control; MOST autofocus lenses have an incredibly loose, sloppy, non-dampened focus ring movement, which goes like this: Infinity, then in 10 degrees of rotation, 3 meters! it makes it damned near IMPOSSIBLE to accurately and repeatedly focus on stuff in the all-important ranges between infinity and over 10 feet!!!! ACK! Sure, you can hit focus, but not always consistently, because the mechanics are so loosey-goosey. But...use a precision-built, manual-focus designed lens, and the focusing distances are spread out over up to 240 degrees of rotation, so its EASY to get the focus right, time after time!



Have you got any Voigtlander lenses ? they seem to work better on the A7


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 1, 2014)

If the next version of the Sony has faster AF then I can easily live with f4 lenses. 
I did a Lightroom search and 5.6% of 42,000 images with exif were shot at f2.8 or wider (and ~2% were between 2.1 and 2.8) so I can live with slightly slower lenses if the AF is fast.


----------



## Lucryster (Sep 26, 2014)

I did kinda the opposite, I used to use the nex7 and switched back to dslr with the d810. I do a lot of HDR, and sony's 3 shot max brackets was driving me nuts. Plus, even with the nex series being out for a couple years, there were still no really good lens for it, and using the adapter to use 3rd party lens like nikon and canon (with no auto focus, mind you) was just too much of a pia.


----------

