Camera choice dilemma - 7D or 5D MkII

[Logsi]

Not just about optics quality, but choice.

You have choice with Sony/Minolta mount too?

I ordered a Sony A77 this week for delivery either tomorrow or saturday. Got it for a good price with the 16-50mm lens. £1349.99. If it's bad then i'll just sell it on, not sure i'm going to lose much if i do.

I just feel there is better out there at this moment in time in terms of features to the 7D. It was a close call between the 7D, D7000, A77 and K-5. I just feel the A77 offers the most at this time. I fell out with the 7D after going for a shoot over the weekend with one and a 50mm F/1.2 and all the shots i took were out of focus. I stupidly didn't test and micro adjust for the lens before going out...lesson learnt.

 

[Raymond Lin]

You have choice with Sony/Minolta mount too?

As a system, Canon & Nikon offer much more, Sony has a LOT of ground to catch up on.

The Minolta argument is old and personally I don't think it hold water. It akin to like Nikon users saying they can use all the FD glass. Sure you can, but how many people actually put on a 30 year old FD glass on their D700? Or are you likely to buy a modern 24-70?

I am not that familiar with Sony glass, but let me ask you, off my head, does Sony make these?

24-70/2.8 (£900)
35/1.4 (£1000)
70-200/2.8
135/2.0 (£800)

and more importantly, how much would that cost?

The bracket price is roughly what i paid for them.

That is before i even get to the T/S glass, and the 1.2s.

Limitation and COSTS is the downside of Sony, their body is nice and they know it, they use that to get consumers to buy into their system.

Oh, the secondhand market for Sony is a lot smaller, it will be harder to sell a Sony part than it is for Canon or Nikon.

 

[Logsi]

Doing a rough scan of the net there are those focal lengths available and for not much more. There is also the Sigma and Tamron range to pick from if you so wish. I think the lens gap has been bridged in the past few years. I am a Canon boy though and taking a gamble with the A77 but "Those who dare wins, Rodney!".

I like the idea of getting a 50mm 1.4 and whacking it on the Sony body which has IS.

 

[Raymond Lin]

When you say "for not much more" we are talking about 10%? Then they soon add up. And the sigma and tamron plugging the gap isn't the point as they plug the gap for all the brands. Plus, your Carl zeiss glass argument immediate goes out the window with it.

The built in IS part, I always think IS should be on a lens, as that IS system would be built to suit that lens, to tolerate the weight of that glass in that lens, IS in body is a bit like jack of all trades and will never be as effective. However, I can't deny that it is nice to have.

 

[D.P.]

In Body IS also doesn't stabilise the viewfinder, the focus system or the metering system. It is a nice addition but not a substitute for in-lens IS/VR. It would be nice to have a hybrid system

 

[Logsi]

In Body IS also doesn't stabilise the viewfinder, the focus system or the metering system. It is a nice addition but not a substitute for in-lens IS/VR. It would be nice to have a hybrid system

Well, yeah...if the camera didn't use a EVF.

EDIT - I'm not fussed at all about that extra 10%. They're fantastic lenses, it's not just some silly PR thing sticking Carl Zeiss on them, they're actually great lenses. I'm only going to have a max of 3 lenses so it's really a non issue in my opinion (35mm equivalent, 50/85mm equivalent and a everyday lens like the 16-50) Also, how will IS in the body never be that effective, give me some information. I'm intrigued.

 

[Rojin]

The A77 specs do look good, I'm not a fan of the evf though. Also it may only lose a 1/3 of a stop of light due to the translucent mirror, but that's a 1/3 of a stop I'd rather keep! AF performance seems patchy, but some people have problems with the 7D as well.

When I first looked at a dslr the Sony approach did look pretty good to me with inbody stabilisation and access to all the old minolta stuff. I went with Canon in the end due to the lens lineup and the massive second hand market. It was also a lot easier to find info/help on Canon gear when I first started out.

I'm really hoping Sony might take the NEX7 onto a full frame sensor sometime in the future, a decent full frame dslr in the mode of the 1DX but cheaper would be nice too

To the OP, you'll be happy with the 7D it does everthing well and is a great all round camera.

 

[Logsi]

Yeah, i am taking a gamble going for the A77 but i hope it pays off. I'm mainly intrigued by the camera more than anything. The video modes and constant phase focus is interesting too.

I have access to numerous 5Dii and 7Ds so if it really is that bad then i can just use those for anything important.

 

[Rojin]

If you can afford the carl zeiss glass to go with it I'm sure it'll be a very nice setup. To be honest there is also decent 3rd party glass from Sigma etc as well. If I was still in the market for a crop I'd be interested in it. Decent competition is good for we consumers as we'll benefit in the long run

 

[Clown]

I want to upgrade and I was looking at the same two cameras as the OP. I just don't really want to get the 7D crop sensor as it would just be a shame for my L lens. And I'm too impatient to wait for the 5D3.

Mrgh.

 

[Logsi]

If you can afford the carl zeiss glass to go with it I'm sure it'll be a very nice setup. To be honest there is also decent 3rd party glass from Sigma etc as well. If I was still in the market for a crop I'd be interested in it. Decent competition is good for we consumers as we'll benefit in the long run

Yeah, i hope it will be. I'm intrigued by the features it adds. I just could't part with a large wedge on tech that is quite old ala the 5Dii and 7D with features that newer cameras have. We'll no doubt see the same sensor in the Nikon D400 as well.

The glass is very good. I think people get carried away with the "L" glass reality distortion field and think it's THE best glass money can buy.

I'll be sure to do a write up here about the camera once it's received. Looks like i'll be getting it Monday now.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Yeah, i hope it will be. I'm intrigued by the features it adds. I just could't part with a large wedge on tech that is quite old ala the 5Dii and 7D with features that newer cameras have. We'll no doubt see the same sensor in the Nikon D400 as well.

The glass is very good. I think people get carried away with the "L" glass reality distortion field and think it's THE best glass money can buy.

I'll be sure to do a write up here about the camera once it's received. Looks like i'll be getting it Monday now.

I think you will find that i never mention quality of L glass in my argument.

My argument is purely base on 2 areas.

1 - Range and choice as a system
2 - Costs.

The fact that Sony needs Sigma or Tamron to plug those holes means they have gaps in their system.

As for bodies, old tech, new tech. Bodies comes and goes, glass last much much longer. It is short sighted to buy into a brand base on the body it offers, photography is a money pit and it is not easy to switch system without taking a hit in costs so you need to think well ahead on what you are going to buy. Getting Canon or Nikon gives you that range and choice. That's what i am saying.

Trust me, my 5Dii will be long gone and my 85/1.2 will be here to stay for years and decade(s) to come. So long as they keep the mount going, but then again, the EOS mount has been around since the 80's!

 

[Logsi]

I think you will find that i never mention quality of L glass in my argument.

My argument is purely base on 2 areas.

1 - Range and choice as a system
2 - Costs.

The fact that Sony needs Sigma or Tamron to plug those holes means they have gaps in their system.

As for bodies, old tech, new tech. Bodies comes and goes, glass last much much longer. It is short sighted to buy into a brand base on the body it offers, photography is a money pit and it is not easy to switch system without taking a hit in costs so you need to think well ahead on what you are going to buy. Getting Canon or Nikon gives you that range and choice. That's what i am saying.

Trust me, my 5Dii will be long gone and my 85/1.2 will be here to stay for years and decade(s) to come.

I don't understand what you mean about range of lenses. I'm only going to have 3-5 lenses so i really don't understand your point. I'll have an everyday lens, a telephoto and the 3 main primes of 35/50/85. I'm only interested in the premium lenses. I'm sure you don't have the full varied range of Canon lenses do you, like say over 10+ lenses?

Yes, Canon and Nikon supposedly give you this endless supply of lenses but i know which ones i want and Sony has all of them. So a non issue for me.

As you say, lenses are an investment so i'm not really fussed about that measly difference in price. They retain their value when come to resale so i'm not bothered. I don't think Sigma or Tamron need to plug any holes, i think you need to look at Sonys range again to be honest.

Photography may be a money pit but lenses retain value very well. I only need 1 lens at this point in time and the 16-50mm lens will do just fine for the forseeable future. If i need anything else i'll get the 5Dii out with a 24-70mm/85mm F/1.2/50mm F/1.2.

Yes, indeed, bodies do come and go but for me, i don't want to spend top dollar for old technology. The sensor is great in the 5Dii but i just can't part with that cash when some of the features of the newer cameras are too appealing.

I do agree the 85mm F/1.2 is an amazing lens though. I regularly use one.

 

[Raymond Lin]

You say that now, I hear that all the time "oh, i am only going to buy 2 lenses" Then a year later they want more, why? human nature!

I went through the whole thing with my brother in law a few years ago. He got a Sony, and yes he wish he hadn't because he now has some Tamron lenses to "plug those gaps", and the 35/1.4 that he likes of mine for Canon, the same Sony one cost a lot more ! (scrap that comment, they cost the same in this instance lol)

and FYI, i don't have 10 plus lenses.

I have 8 lol

Trust me when i say i am not finished. I want a T/S or 2, 24/1.4 and possibly something like a 100mm macro.

and only one of those lenses will reach 200mm. (my Sigma 70-200/2.8)

 

[Rojin]

Yeah, i hope it will be. I'm intrigued by the features it adds. I just could't part with a large wedge on tech that is quite old ala the 5Dii and 7D with features that newer cameras have. We'll no doubt see the same sensor in the Nikon D400 as well.

The glass is very good. I think people get carried away with the "L" glass reality distortion field and think it's THE best glass money can buy.

I'll be sure to do a write up here about the camera once it's received. Looks like i'll be getting it Monday now.

Yeah at least you get AF with the CZ lenses on Sony The D400 has the potential to be a storming camera, Nikon seem to drag just that little bit more out of the Sony sensors. The 7D may have been out a couple of years, but it's still up there for the vast majority of uses. I was in Jessops today having a look at the A77, they didn't have one to actually use though! The display model has bit of a chunky hand grip, but you'd soon get used to that. I wanted to have a good look at the evf though...

 

[Logsi]

That EVF, it could be so good or a total mess!

I think that we'll be seeing more then in the future though or better overlays.

 

[fozzybear]

As a system, Canon & Nikon offer much more, Sony has a LOT of ground to catch up on.

.....
I am not that familiar with Sony glass, but let me ask you, off my head, does Sony make these?

24-70/2.8 (£900)
35/1.4 (£1000)
70-200/2.8
135/2.0 (£800)

and more importantly, how much would that cost?

......

24-70/2.8 (£900) - Sony, no. There is the Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 24-70 F2.8 ZA SSM (stupidly expensive at around £1400) and the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM which gets good reviews on Dyxum (price around £640).

35/1.4 (£1000) - Yes, the Sony AF 35 F1.4 G for just over £1000.

70-200/2.8 - Yes, the Sony 70-200mm f2.8 G for around £1500.

135/2.0 (£800) - Sony 135mm f1.8 ZA Sonnar (around £1175) or the slightly slower Sony 135mm f2.8 STF (manual focus for around £899).

Don't forget that ALL these lenses basically have IS through Sony's in body SSS.

I just don't see why it matters anyway what name is on the front of the lens! If they're good enough, what does the name matter? There's plenty of Sigma and Tamron lenses available for Sony that cover the ranges.

I could make the argument about "Can you get a stabilized (through Sony's in body SSS) 70-200 f2.8 for Canon/Nikon for around £550?". There's plenty of advantages in the Sony system.

Far too many 'brand snobs' in the photography world and the ones on this particular forum certainly don't try to hide it!

 

[Raymond Lin]

Far too many 'brand snobs' in the photography world and the ones on this particular forum certainly don't try to hide it!

Sigh...brand snobbery?

All that after throwing the Carl Zeiss name around? My argument has been on RANGE and COSTS.

Both of which you have proven my point - No 24-70, and costing more in most cases.

The only advantage i can see in buying Sony is they have inbuilt IS...which as I stated earlier, not as good as one built into the lens. Which as I said earlier, shortsighted, to base on the purchase mostly due to the body.

When I bought Canon, it wasn't because of the body, I bought it for the system, 10 years ago on a film camera. The argument was true then and it is still the same today. Sony/Minolta hasn't gained much ground in a decade. 10 years ago Minolta had brilliant bodies too, the Dynax 7 was amazing but again, as a system it is not as complete.

 

[Logsi]

One of the main disadvantages about lens-based image stabilization is the higher price tag that comes with it; image stabilisation has to be paid for each lens anew. Also, not every lens is available as an image-stabilised variant. This is often the case for fast primes and wide-angle lenses. While the most obvious advantage for image stabilisation lies with longer focal lengths, even normal and wide-angle lenses benefit from it in low-light applications. Furthermore, because light passing through the lens is shifted from its true optical path when it projects out the rear element onto the sensor, poor 'bokeh' can result.

The advantage with moving the image sensor, instead of the lens, is that the image will be stabilized regardless of what lens is being used. This allows the stabilization to work with any lens the photographer chooses and reduces the weight and complexity of the lenses. Further, when sensor-based image stabilization technology improves, it only requires replacing the camera to take advantage of the improvements, which is typically far less expensive than replacing all existing lenses if relying on lens-based image stabilization. Some sensor-based image stabilization implementations are capable of correcting camera roll rotation, a motion that is easily excited by pressing the shutter button. No lens-based system can address this potential source of image blur.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Again with the IS.

I think that is being extremely short sighted, buying into a system and locking yourself into a brand because of 1 reason. If you want to shoot some wide angle in low light. With Canon/Nikon you go and get a 24/1.4. How is the IS going to help you?

I have no IS in any of my lenses, do you think I suffer from the lack of it? I don't.

If you want a nice macro, 1:1. What does Sony has on offer?

What do they offer in terms of fisheye?

What do they offer to cater for wildlife - 300mm and up?

What about the Tilt Shifts?

Again, i am not that familiar with their lineup but if you can show me some good lenses they have on offer then i am prepared to stand corrected.