Sony or Nikon ? (I can't think of a proper title)

Raymond Lin · 23 Dec 2014 at 13:16

I can't decide, I am going to sell/trade my 5D2 and 50/1.4 (it's my spare 50mm), either for a Sony A7 or a Nikon something. Purely to try something different, and before the price of the 5D2 gets any lower.

D800, D600, D610 or Sony A7?

What I worry about with the Sony is that I don't know what glass is good, and probably end up getting an adaptor for my Canon lenses, but then is there a point then to get the Sony with a Canon lens on the end of it?

p.s. The plans isn't to replace my entire Canon set up, but something to test the waters mostly and perhaps in the case of the Sony, smaller camera that I could carry out more.

robj20 · 23 Dec 2014 at 13:37

If your invested in Canon lenses it makes sense to try the A7 that way you can use your lenses and try some of the Sony ones.

Lens wise you wont go wrong with the 35 f2.8 and 55 f1.8 there amongst the best lenses made for any system.
You could always try the manual Loxias as well. Zoom wise you have the kit lens and ther 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 all f4. The 16-35 being the standout lens. I really rate the 24-70 as well.

gary996 · 23 Dec 2014 at 16:18

+1 for the Sony

D.P. · 23 Dec 2014 at 16:34

The D6x0s are very similar to your 5Dmk2, slightly more consumer orientated but with better AF and more DR. They are excellent value for money but I don't think you will gain an awful lot. They wont make you wish to sell up your canon gear and they wont open up any new photographic possibilities.

The D800, or preferably D810 will change what you shoot,give you new results and let you experiment in new ways. The extra detail and dynamic rang will open doors. The D800 is good value for money, you might find it slow. I doubt it but if if you do then the D810 will give you the speed of the 5Dmk3 with the best sensor you can get.
Ultimately I only see this being useful if you invest in some quality glass to really test the system. Luckily Nikon's f/1.8 primes are really excellent and affordable giving you 20mm,28mm,35mm,50mm and 85mm options.

The A7 is interesting and will feel truly different. I think it is a better bet than the D600/D610 choice. The unfortunate thing is the lack of foo and fast glass. The 5mm f/1.8 is good but not exactly cheap for what it is. The 35mm is OK but only f/2.8 , and the 24-70mm is only f/4. You can of course use your canon lenses but you are manually focusing then.

Raymond Lin · 23 Dec 2014 at 16:40

You can get Canon lenses to work with Auto focus on the A7, but the adaptor is £300 and the Autofocus is not as quick compare to when it is mounted on the Canon.

An Exception · 23 Dec 2014 at 16:43

I would wait 6 months.
I would then get an A7ii type of camera (whatever is best at the time) with the rumoured Zeiss 35mm 1.4.
Would then wait for the 85 1.4 but possibly pickup the 1.8 while waiting.

englishpremier · 23 Dec 2014 at 17:53

The Sony offers more options but be warned in certain situations especially night photography with bright light sources near the edge of the frame, you get horrible green sensor reflections unless you're really careful.

The button placement isn't perfect, and there is a fair amount of start-up lag when turning the camera.

That being said, the OVF is great. Peaking is a bit over zealous, but manual focusing is nice and easy.

As you said, you can use your current Canon lenses. There are plenty of other 'smart' adapters besides the £300 metabones one, and they work just as well.

D.P. · 23 Dec 2014 at 17:59

Raymond Lin said:
You can get Canon lenses to work with Auto focus on the A7, but the adaptor is £300 and the Autofocus is not as quick compare to when it is mounted on the Canon.

From what I have read the performance is really bad and not really worth it, you are better off manually focusing and trying out the focus peaking

If you are going for an A7 you really need to use the Sony FE lenses to give it a fair judgement.

Raymond Lin · 23 Dec 2014 at 18:06

D.P. said:
From what I have read the performance is really bad and not really worth it, you are better off manually focusing and trying out the focus peaking

If you are going for an A7 you really need to use the Sony FE lenses to give it a fair judgement.

What really putting me off right now for the Sony is the lack of 35/1.4.

englishpremier · 23 Dec 2014 at 18:23

A Zeiss is on the way.

There is also a Sony Zeiss 1.4 being target for shipment in March 2015

D.P. · 23 Dec 2014 at 18:34

Raymond Lin said:
What really putting me off right now for the Sony is the lack of 35/1.4.

The biggest single issue with the A7 cameras is the lack of compatible lenses.
that and the fact that to keep the "mirrorless is smaller" myth alive they have only released slower lenses, f2.8 primes and f/4.0 zooms

PU7E · 23 Dec 2014 at 19:31

My concern with the A7 would be retention of value, it's more then halved within a year which isn't a good sign in my opinion, especially if it's an experiment.

I'd pick up a cheap D800 (they're a real bargain right now and you won't really lose much resale value) and nifty fifty and test the dark side there's cookies!...

Sony haven't really got a great track record when it comes to longevity of systems

Rojin · 23 Dec 2014 at 20:19

Get a D750, you can play with a flip screen as well then

I'm thinking of an A7*, but with decent manual glass. I'll have to rent one to see how good the focus peaking is.

D.P. · 23 Dec 2014 at 20:43

PU7E said:
My concern with the A7 would be retention of value, it's more then halved within a year which isn't a good sign in my opinion, especially if it's an experiment.

I'd pick up a cheap D800 (they're a real bargain right now and you won't really lose much resale value) and nifty fifty and test the dark side there's cookies!...

Sony haven't really got a great track record when it comes to longevity of systems

Sony try and reinvent things every =few years and let their R&D department run free. Their policy is to try to see what can break the CaNikon duopoly by funding what sticks and what doesn't. Sony get 10/10 for invention, they were fast to get liveview mainstream, pushed SLTs out on the market, got the first APS-C mirrorless, first FF mirrorless, first large sensor compact, first FF compact (RX1), first big sensor bridge, as well as things like the Lensor things to attach to smartphones. They also make the best sensors going, have proven proficiency in new technologies, are way better than Canon and Nikon in software, work along side Zeiss etc.

But try as they might they can't increase their market share, in fact if anything it is dropping.

The net result is the sony line up really is a shambles. I try to follow Sony camers but I 'm not even sure which mounts are which, what is compatible with what, if the Alpha DSLRs are actually dead or Sony will support both?

Then there are the weird things like the A7II is released in Japan only, WTF?. Is this going to be like the whole Canon EOS-M japan only thing when they realize sales of small cameras outside the Asia market is unprofitable?

The Sony A99 actually looks like a better deal to me as you get access to ll the sony Alpha-mount lenses including finally those wanted by rpos (35mm f1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8,24mm f/2.0, 85mm f/1.5, 135mm f/1.8).
Sony struggles to get CaNikon users because their lens line up was not comparable. Over 0 years Sony finally fleshes out the alpha mount and then it gets dumped for an FE mount with all the same problems all over again.

Sony really messed up changing mounts. they should have kept the A7 camera Alpha mount.

An Exception · 23 Dec 2014 at 21:37

It's not Japan only. Also I think you said IBIS wouldn't be possible on FE mount yet it's here, although a little later than I personally expected.
http://www.sony.co.uk/buy/ilce-7m2-body-kit

Sony is like the rain man, it just needs Charlie Babbitt to point it in the right direction.
Sony could actually take huge swathes of marketshare from Canon/Nikon customers fairly easily. There are allot of people out there that don't give a damn what name is on the front of the camera, they just want the best (for them) that there is. Right now all they need to do is release a 35 + 85 F1.4 (should have been released at launch instead of that 1.8/2.8 BS), and a crap tone of wedding and portrait photographers will begin making the switch. Next on the list is some really really good (in low light) phase detect AF. The best thing about Nikon's imo is the ability to change compositionally significant AF points really quickly (D800 D pad isn't so good, D810 is improved). Having 51 points active while using shallow DOF's in a fast paced environment like a wedding is foolish to say the least imo.

Neither Canon or Nikon wouldn't have anything that could match 5 stop stabilised F1.4 primes, and frankly Nikon haven't made any real improvement in AF for years and years.

Edit:
Next thing I'm looking forward to is when Sony ditch the mechanical shutter and go full electronic shutter.

Rojin · 23 Dec 2014 at 21:47

Sony are apparently bringing better than A6000 AF performance to the next FF mirrorless, although it also may be 46MP... Who knows though really?!

An A7 sized camera with improved ergonomics/AF, a 35f1.4, 85f1.4, 70-200f2.8 and a 100-400 (150-600 would be awesome) would do me fine. I can just throw on a nice manual bit of glass when I want something a bit smaller to walk around with. At the moment Fuji nearly gets me there, and to be honest for my happy snapper needs is probably all I need. I would like FF though, but would have to put up with the larger AF glass... which I could live with.

D.P. · 23 Dec 2014 at 22:13

I didn't realize it had been released in the UK, it certainly isn't released in the US. Just shows how confusing Sony's launches are. Supposedly there were rumours for a pre-christmas US release but no where received any stock AFIK.

If it was so easy for Sony to get market share they would have done so. They have been trying incredibly hard and got no where. If all it took was a 35mm and 85mm f/1.4 prime set then they should have already succeeded because they already have that for Alpha mount, but where are the hordes of converts using A99 cameras?

Adding FF IBIS was an interesting move. It was me who said it was impossible, I was agreeing with everyone else who said it would be extremely difficult and have issues due to the short flange distance The IBS has also added 125g weight and 10mm depth t the camera which was part of the argument against it. Another couple of hundred grams and you can get a D750 which is faster, bigger buffer, true 14bit RAW files and a far better battery life.

That latter point is actually quite important - to get the same battery life as the D750 you would have to buy another 3 batteries at 43grams each suddenly the D750 is doing a heck of a lot more for a mere additional 100grams!

Rojin · 23 Dec 2014 at 22:21

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/son...european-store-to-ship-right-before-christmas

D.P. · 23 Dec 2014 at 22:30

Rojin said:
http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/son...european-store-to-ship-right-before-christmas

And if you actually visit any if those stores they say things like:

out of stock. Order now and we'll deliver when available.

New Item, Available for pre-order

Adorama think they can ship in a few days.

Anyway, that just highlights the confusion and the issues that Sony have. They should have announced the camera world wide and set shipping dates for the US, explaining stock issues. Instead someone like me who closely follows the camera news doesn't even realize they made a US release.
Not the best way to get market share.

D.P. · 23 Dec 2014 at 22:36

Rojin said:
Sony are apparently bringing better than A6000 AF performance to the next FF mirrorless, although it also may be 46MP... Who knows though really?!

An A7 sized camera with improved ergonomics/AF, a 35f1.4, 85f1.4, 70-200f2.8 and a 100-400 (150-600 would be awesome) would do me fine. I can just throw on a nice manual bit of glass when I want something a bit smaller to walk around with. At the moment Fuji nearly gets me there, and to be honest for my happy snapper needs is probably all I need. I would like FF though, but would have to put up with the larger AF glass... which I could live with.

The thing is the A7 bodies are getting heavier. We now hit 600g for the A7II. And as I said above, you need to buy 3 more batteries to get the same battery life as a DSLR meaning the weight difference is now down to like 100g compared to a D750 or 5DmkIII.

Then you factor in the 70-200mm f/4.0 weighs 100g more than the canon equivalent and the same as the Nikon (not surprising). The Sony is actually a little larger than the Canon as well. Therefore a 5DmkIII + 70-200mm f/4.0 with enough batteries for the A7 to keep up will weigh the same amount. I prefer the 5DmkII ergonomics over the Sony A7 cameras although I haven't tried the A7II.