Sony a7ii or upcoming mirrorless full frame?

Badger_grr

Badger_grr

Badger_grr

Associate
Joined
31 Oct 2006
Posts
270
Just sold my nikon d5100 and lenses as I want to move into full frame and something more compact.

At the moment my eye is on an A7ii and the Sony fe 35mm f2.8 which I think would make a nice tidy combo and also force me to move around more instead of using zoom lenses and super wide angle.

I'm on holiday in July so I will need something new by then but I was wondering people's thoughts on alternatives or news of upcoming mirrorless cameras. I have read canon and nikon may be releasing end of the year but that will be too late for my trip.

Many thanks
 
Moving to a mirrorless camera with a full frame sensor would be arguably heavier than your previous Nikon D5100. Why didn't you try using a single prime lens with that camera ?

I think you need to ask yourself what your priority is : to have the lightest gear possible for travel, or the best image quality regardless of cost, weight etc .

If it's the former then a full frame mirrorless is not the direction to go in : if you can't restrict yourself to just one small prime lens ( I don't know of many who can ) then the weight of additional lenses will soon stack up. Lenses designed for full frame cameras are heavier than those designed for smaller format cameras eg. APS-C, micro four thirds. Don't be fooled by the term "mirrorless" - you barely reduce any weight by picking a full frame variant.

In my opinion, if you are keen to go the mirrorless route but want something compact look at the APS-C or micro four thirds options eg. Fuji X series, Olympus O-MD E-M1 ....
 
Good reply by xaldub.

You also seem to be making the beginners mistake "zoom with your feet". I don't why people come up with this stuff, if there is some website that promotes it it should be taken down in order to stop bad habits!

Photographs should understand and control perspective. To do that they have to control BOTH distance to subject AND focal length, not one or the other. Swapping a zoom lens for a single prime and then just getting closer or further to the subject is just as bad as standing still and zooming in. From this perspective a single prime lens is much worse because it doesn't give you the options t change focal length. You are much better served by a zoom lens and an understanding if perspective, going out and practicing the difference between zooming in and getting closer (and vice versa).

35mm on FF is quite wide and very unflattering for close up portraiture due to perspective. A quick rule of thumb, 24mm large group shots, 35mm For couple and small groups, 50/85mm portrait, 85/105mm head and should portrait, 135mm head and shoulder portrait with very smooth background.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Primes do offer more IQ and less weight though. Nothing wrong with the op wanting to try primes
Click to expand...

I think you have failed to understand what I wrote earlier. I don't dispute that prime lenses weigh less than zooms. But why didn't the OP try using a prime on his D5100 to see if that suited his style ? Going full frame mirrorless doesn't somehow magically transform someone's photographic ability. Oh, and by the way, not all primes have better image quality than their zoom equivalents.

As for weight, have a look at this :

D5100 body =560g

Sony A7ii body = 556g

And, compatible lenses for the full frame Sony mirrorless camera are generally heavier than the APS-C equivalent.

So, where is the weight advantage ? I don't see it ...
 
xaldub said:
I think you have failed to understand what I wrote earlier. I don't dispute that prime lenses weigh less than zooms. But why didn't the OP try using a prime on his D5100 to see if that suited his style ? Going full frame mirrorless doesn't somehow magically transform someone's photographic ability. Oh, and by the way, not all primes have better image quality than their zoom equivalents.

As for weight, have a look at this :

D5100 body =560g

Sony A7ii body = 556g

And, compatible lenses for the full frame Sony mirrorless camera are generally heavier than the APS-C equivalent.

So, where is the weight advantage ? I don't see it ...
Click to expand...
A7 is smaller as well. It's not just about weight but size too from what op said.

Toss in the fact that it's a full sensor as well should be a good thing to consider too
 
jonneymendoza said:
Primes do offer more IQ and less weight though. Nothing wrong with the op wanting to try primes
Click to expand...

Lighter if you for the f/1.8 versions (if you for the 1.4 variants then you quickly end up with much more weight), and yes they are typically sharper buts it's not particularly relevant for a lot of photography. The 24-70mm f/2.8s are plenty sharp enough.

Not that I'm against using primes, just using a single prime under the pretense that is somehow better than a zoom and forcing better use of perspective is completely. A 24mm, 35mm and 85mm f/1.8 prime trio is definitely better than using a 24-70mm, but you are carrying 3 lenses with you and have to continuously swap them around, or have 2 cameras with 35 and 85mm mounted & 24mm in the bag.


I'm also not against going out with a single prime lens on, just that you have to accept its only appropriate for certain photos and you will miss opportunities, walking closer or further from a subject to get it framed can be very dangerous for perspective.
 
jonneymendoza said:
A7 is smaller as well. It's not just about weight but size too from what op said.

Toss in the fact that it's a full sensor as well should be a good thing to consider too
Click to expand...

But the lenses are no smaller, In fact a 70-200mm f/4 for Sony FE is bigger than the Canon version. Many of the sony FE lenses are just huge.

As for the FF vs APS-C, the 35mm prime the OP listed is at f/2.8, getting the 35mm f/1.8 DX lens will largely neglect the sensor difference.

If the OP is most concerned about size and weight they should look at a m43 setup, smaller and lighter system with a complete lens line up.
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
But the lenses are no smaller, In fact a 70-200mm f/4 for Sony FE is bigger than the Canon version. Many of the sony FE lenses are just huge.

As for the FF vs APS-C, the 35mm prime the OP listed is at f/2.8, getting the 35mm f/1.8 DX lens will largely neglect the sensor difference.

If the OP is most concerned about size and weight they should look at a m43 setup, smaller and lighter system with a complete lens line up.
Click to expand...

True. But op risks IQ then in xeyrkna) certain situations.

I'm a FF sensor fan myself so I would suggest a mirrorless FF sensor camera. Be in a a7 etc as it is one of the lightest and compact full frame bodies around.

Also it's not just about dof from FF sensors you get. But you tend to get better Dr and High iso performance.
 
D.P. said:
Lighter if you for the f/1.8 versions (if you for the 1.4 variants then you quickly end up with much more weight), and yes they are typically sharper buts it's not particularly relevant for a lot of photography. The 24-70mm f/2.8s are plenty sharp enough.

Not that I'm against using primes, just using a single prime under the pretense that is somehow better than a zoom and forcing better use of perspective is completely. A 24mm, 35mm and 85mm f/1.8 prime trio is definitely better than using a 24-70mm, but you are carrying 3 lenses with you and have to continuously swap them around, or have 2 cameras with 35 and 85mm mounted & 24mm in the bag.


I'm also not against going out with a single prime lens on, just that you have to accept its only appropriate for certain photos and you will miss opportunities, walking closer or further from a subject to get it framed can be very dangerous for perspective.
Click to expand...
Do you use primes?

I use both primes and zooms. Both have its pros and cons and just saying that nothing wrong with the op wanting to use primes for its pros. Ie weight and compactness
 
I use both primes and zooms.

I agree that primes are compact and light if you use 1 or 2. My objection was to the OP thinking using a single prime will some how improve his photography.
 
Some great points here guys. With regards to zoom lenses and longer than 35mm I just don't take portraits or much close up material. Mostly this will be used for traveling, city/ town shots, landscapes and groups of people. I will have a look into olympus but I was put off by the size 4/3s sensor. I always felt with my d5100 couldn't capture the subject matter without being further away and ended up using 11-16 tokina most of the time.
I also like to take night shots and I believe the full frame will allow me to achieve a better picture in lower light.
 
Then you will find a single prime even more constraining. You simply can't "zoom with feet" for a city or landscape shot due to the scale.

The fact that you found you used the 11-16mm a lot highlights you don't want a 35mm prime on FF, something more like the 16-35mm zoom.

For night shots you need a tripod, and for landscape and cityscape it really helps. The biggest benfits of a FF sensor under such scenarios is the ability to print larger with better definition. An ApS-C sensor on a tripod will outperform a handheld FF image, especial at night time.
 
Last edited:
Badger_grr said:
Some great points here guys. With regards to zoom lenses and longer than 35mm I just don't take portraits or much close up material. Mostly this will be used for traveling, city/ town shots, landscapes and groups of people. I will have a look into olympus but I was put off by the size 4/3s sensor. I always felt with my d5100 couldn't capture the subject matter without being further away and ended up using 11-16 tokina most of the time.
I also like to take night shots and I believe the full frame will allow me to achieve a better picture in lower light.
Click to expand...

If you ended up mostly using an 11-16mm zoom on your D5100 then a 35mmm prime on a full frame body won't be wide enough. To get the same coverage on a full frame body you'd be requiring something like a 14-24mm zoom lens. Which kind of illustrates my point : I'm not convinced you really know what you want, or need. The Sony A7ii will definitely have better IQ compared to your D5100, but it won't be as compact ( once you factor lenses into the equation ) and will be more costly.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming that the purpose of your upcoming holiday is primarily to relax and have fun with friends and/or family. If that is the case, then you do not need a camera that will provide the "best" IQ. Any modern camera, irrespective of format, will deliver great pictures in normal lighting conditions.

If you're travelling to visit exotic locations purely for photgraphic purposes with the mindset of avoiding crowds, and waiting to catch the best light at dawn and dusk then that is a different matter ....
 
If you are used to using a tripod then the biggest difference between an m43 camera and a FF sony A7 is simply how bif you can print the photo since you can use base ISO on both, stop.down to optimal.apertures etc. The A7 will have more latitude and the ability to pull up more details from shadows but a good exposure will help moderate the differences. The M43 Sensors are very good.

The Sony A7 may still be the best camera for you, it's just not very clear if that is the case based on what you are saying.
 
Well I'm just an amateur. A friend has the Sony and I do like it which why it's top of of the list but I haven't handled any of the others. This camera will be used for the next 5 to 10 years so I want something to last.

The other camera I might be interested in is em1 which is m43. It looks nice, I will have to get a look in person.

I'm also not after a bang for buck camera, like I said I will not be upgrading for a long time so regardless of what lenses I choose etc I want a good quality Base to work off.
 
Badger_grr said:
Well I'm just an amateur. A friend has the Sony and I do like it which why it's top of of the list but I haven't handled any of the others. This camera will be used for the next 5 to 10 years so I want something to last.

The other camera I might be interested in is em1 which is m43. It looks nice, I will have to get a look in person.

I'm also not after a bang for buck camera, like I said I will not be upgrading for a long time so regardless of what lenses I choose etc I want a good quality Base to work off.
Click to expand...

It's it's going to last that long, wait for the mkiii and keep using what you have in the meantime.
The mkii was a huge improvement in terms of usability over the original A7r, so I would wait for the 3rd revision personally.
 
An Exception said:
It's it's going to last that long, wait for the mkiii and keep using what you have in the meantime.
The mkii was a huge improvement in terms of usability over the original A7r, so I would wait for the 3rd revision personally.
Click to expand...

Agreed - the Sony A7R series is a work in progress. Within a generation, or two, I think they will succeed in creating a mirrorless camera that is able to compete with the very best DSLRs. They do, also, need to work on their lens line up and flesh it out a bit more, but again this is an area they seem to be actively trying to address.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom