Is the a7 as good as they say and what kind of lens cost am I looking at?

Started 8 months ago | Discussions
cxsparc
Senior MemberPosts: 1,487
Like?
Re: Is the a7 as good as they say and what kind of lens cost am I looking at?
In reply to Northoceanbeach, 8 months ago

Your pics look great, except the one of man on the bridge with blown highlights on face and hands, but could also be my phone LCD. Don't know what you feel you are lacking with Nikon, the a7 is far from perfect also 😉
--
Nex-Blog: http://luxorphotoart.blogspot.de/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
le_alain
Senior MemberPosts: 1,011Gear list
Like?
Re: Is the a7 as good as they say and what kind of lens cost am I looking at?
In reply to cxsparc, 8 months ago

cxsparc wrote:

Your pics look great, except the one of man on the bridge with blown highlights on face and hands, but could also be my phone LCD. Don't know what you feel you are lacking with Nikon, the a7 is far from perfect also 😉
--
Nex-Blog: http://luxorphotoart.blogspot.de/

in films date, every body who wanted to upgrade had to go FF

A7 is not perfect but the best flexible camera I have ever own.

I don't think buying an intermediate system is a ggod Idea if you want to upgrade another time in 2 years. You'll have to change all your lenses except if you buy only FF lenses.

If you do sport or birding, OK for A6000, but nothing to do with "beginner"

I sold my D700 to buy the A7 ( had it for 5 years), and even if I don't shoot sport ( D700 was always set on continuous 3fps, and A7 on continuous 2.5fps), I find the AF on par with D700 which is a reference.

tracking is not it's speciqlity, but acquiriring is fast and acurate.

in PDAF mode, its around 0.1-0.15s,

indoors correct light, PDAF works great too, and when CDAF, ~0.4s

in very bad light, it needs aroud 1s, but very difficult to put AF in fault.

just it needs something with vertical contrast, or matrix contrast to focus, horizontal contrast doesnt help.

I really have no problems to AF indoors, and if exceptionnally it fails, MF adjust is so easy.

 le_alain's gear list:le_alain's gear list
Fujifilm X20
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sean lancaster
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,553Gear list
Like?
Re: Is the a7 as good as they say and what kind of lens cost am I looking at?
In reply to ktc9, 8 months ago

ktc9 wrote:

Everyone here has good, well-meaning advice. But they're also focused on what you "need", and that's really different than "want." Most people on the road don't "need" the cars that they have, and don't have the ability to drive at the cars' limits. We get things because we want them

This comes up from time to time and I never agree with it. Need, in the context of our discussions here, implies desire or want and that's how it's used and intended and how the vast majority of posters read it.

 sean lancaster's gear list:sean lancaster's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony Alpha 7 Voigtlander 35mm F1.2 Nokton Sony FE 55mm F1.8 OnePlus One +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
D Cox
Senior MemberPosts: 8,752
Like?
Re: Is the a7 as good as they say and what kind of lens cost am I looking at?
In reply to bryanchicken, 8 months ago

bryanchicken wrote:

How is the A7 vastly better with regards to legacy lenses? APS-C legacy lenses will be in lower res crop mode on the A7 but full sensor on the A6000.

Half frame legacy lenses are a tiny minority. Really, the lenses for the Olympus Pen F are the only ones you might find.

Yes, wide angle will be wider on A7 but telephoto will be more tele on A6000, so we'll call that a draw.

Yes, smaller pixels are definitely better for long tele lenses. Until the a6000 appeared, the NEX-7 was king for birds in flight.

Small pixels are also better for macro.

But generally, and particularly in low light, the A7 gives outstanding results.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bryanchicken
Regular MemberPosts: 309
Like?
Re: Is the a7 as good as they say and what kind of lens cost am I looking at?
In reply to D Cox, 8 months ago

D Cox wrote:

bryanchicken wrote:

How is the A7 vastly better with regards to legacy lenses? APS-C legacy lenses will be in lower res crop mode on the A7 but full sensor on the A6000.

Half frame legacy lenses are a tiny minority. Really, the lenses for the Olympus Pen F are the only ones you might find.

Yes, wide angle will be wider on A7 but telephoto will be more tele on A6000, so we'll call that a draw.

Yes, smaller pixels are definitely better for long tele lenses. Until the a6000 appeared, the NEX-7 was king for birds in flight.

Small pixels are also better for macro.

But generally, and particularly in low light, the A7 gives outstanding results.

I see it more as "swings and roundabouts" with regards to what is better for legacy lenses, especially, as someone else pointed out, the focal reducer option which makes APS-C more adaptable due to each lens fullfilling 2 FLs. Even if the A7 does give better IQ

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
liquid stereo
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,110Gear list
Like?
All true except for A6000
In reply to DonSantos, 8 months ago

DonSantos wrote:

I'm not sure you need the a7 as a beginner.

Your just beginning. Take it slow. Take the v1 to it's limit and actually learn what you would gain when upgrading to a full frame camera.

In terms of upgrade path you'll probably be more happy with the a6000.

Perfect response except for the A6000 bit. If one is going to upgrade, may as well go to the A7 (and not the A6000). Unless money/cost/price is an issue.

 liquid stereo's gear list:liquid stereo's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS 7D Fujifilm X-Pro1 Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lightshow
Senior MemberPosts: 2,652Gear list
Like?
Re: Is the a7 as good as they say and what kind of lens cost am I looking at?
In reply to Northoceanbeach, 8 months ago

Northoceanbeach wrote:

I'm a beginner. I bought a nikon j1 and three lenses four months ago. I would like to upgrade to the v2 or maybe v3, but at v3 prices, the a7 starts to look really tempting.

hmm, why? What does the J1 not do that the A7 does?

if it's because it's "the best" or what ever, then you are upgrading for the wrong reasons, as an analogy, I've seen beginner motorcyclists jump right into the Yamaha R1/Honda CBR. 1000 because they are "the best" they end up crashing them on the way home from the dealer and writing them off.

I too think you will be better served by the A6000

is it really that good? One of the issues people complain about with the nikon 1 series is the small sensor, so full frame sounds great. Of course it would be a bigger system.

A6000 or NEX-6

Ive ve seen the a7 body go for 1300 on ebay and 14-1500 with the kit lens. i would want three. Lenses to start out. What two make a good second and third? You have to use the new ones for the a7 full frame right? I mean, you can use the new, since they have the e mount, but then you lose the benefits of full frame?

is the kit lens good and. Are the other lenses a lot more than for. The nikon 1 series. For example I got a. Zoom for 250 and a prime for also 250. Thanks for you help.--

https://www.flickr.com/photos/northoceanbeach/

 Lightshow's gear list:Lightshow's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony Alpha 7R +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Juhaz
Regular MemberPosts: 325Gear list
Like?
Re: Is the a7 as good as they say and what kind of lens cost am I looking at?
In reply to Aasmund G, 8 months ago

Aasmund G wrote:

While I appreciate your comments, I think it is fair to challenge the notion that APS-C is somewhat automatically better for beginners.

I don't think anyone is arguing that it's "automatically" better in every possible scenario. In this one, though...

You said you'd understand it if it were Nikon system we're talking about, but I think it's the exact opposite, it might be sensible with Nikon, but not here. The price difference between bodies is similar, but the majority of Nikon lenses are full frame and there's lot of affordable glass available - whereas most E-mount lenses are APS-C and all of the FF options are quite expensive.

Nor are there any indications that that situation is going to change, Sony is clearly trying to capitalize on the IQ with FE system and there's every reason to assume most if not all of the upcoming lenses to the foreseeable future will not be cheap.

I think a beginners camera should be most of all versatile, after all, they ARE beginners and something that can do it all is exactly what they need to find what - if any - is their thing in photography. And it's really hard to argue that A6000 is not a versatility king. It has all the same features, faster AF, more - and more affordable - native glass with reach advantage both in the wide, traditionally the stronghold of FF, AND tele end, and just as good with adapted lenses. And the IQ compromise is rather slight in non-extreme circumstances. What's not to like?

Even if you do get "unhappy" after a couple of years, that's a long time to think about what you liked and disliked about it, and what kind of shooting you did. And then you're much better off making a decision about what direction you want to go long-term.

The only kind of beginner for whom I can see FE system as the best choice is one who has enough disposable income to spend a thousand dollars on a lens without even blinking.

If you want to get the most bang for your buck it might as well argue for 5N or A5000.

I wouldn't have any qualms whatsoever about arguing for 5N. Why should I? It was, and continues to be a fantastic little camera and you won't find very many owners who would disagree. But seeing as how it's no longer in production, it's not very relevant. And as far as the successors go, NEX-5T doesn't exactly shine in the bang for buck comparison as it's only $100 cheaper than A6000, and you get a lot for that hundred bucks.

A5000 I think lacks potential for growth, which is something I agree with you that even a beginner's camera should have, since it doesn't have EVF or capability for adding one or an external flash unlike 5's.

I could very well imagine recommending A3000 for someone looking ultimate bang for the buck, though.

 Juhaz's gear list:Juhaz's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
doracapi
Forum MemberPosts: 68Gear list
Like?
Re: Is the a7 as good as they say and what kind of lens cost am I looking at?
In reply to Lightshow, 8 months ago

With A7 is not so easy for a beginner but you can learn and have better results. A full frame camera is a huge upgrade for you. With good lenses and some tricks about AF,  ISO, shutter speed, aperture, results are better.

 doracapi's gear list:doracapi's gear list
Sony SLT-A65 Sony Alpha 7 Sony 75-300mm F4.5-5.6 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Northoceanbeach
Regular MemberPosts: 450Gear list
Like?
Re: Is the a7 as good as they say and what kind of lens cost am I looking at?
In reply to doracapi, 8 months ago

Oh yeah, the man on bridge with blown highlight is a POS.  I just wanted one of me on there for friends looking at my flickr.  I just don't have many good photos of me.  I'll generally stay away from posting myself or friends or family though.

i do know exactly what I want to do. Here's what I want to do:

take 70% landscape and nature

10-15% cities and architecture.

Very very little sports except surfing, but only surfing if the waves and natural surroundings are the focus of the picture.

little portraits and people

little animals, excepting when I am lucky enough to see a unique one.

alot of sky, water and sailboats

the absolute crispest and most vibrantly colored photos I can find.

Learn a lot about post processing

-- hide signature --

I want to not be limited by my camera.  If you look at the sunset picture I have on flicker the colors are amazing, but there is a lot of noise.  Mow admittedly it's not a great picture.  I didn't have time to prepare and find the right spot.  I just saw the colors and that was the best location with the minimal amount of crap between me and the water I could find before the sun set.  But I do love taking sunsets but ,y camera has trouble focusing and if has a lot of noise.  Maybe once I learn how to use photoshop I can take that out, but having better low light capabilitoes would be better.

Im im alsp not getting the bokeh I want.  I could get the nikon 18.5 lens that has a lower aperture, but I'm just wondering how much I want to invest in this system, which is why I ask here,  I figure whatever system I go with, nikon or sony, I'll stay with it for years, and collect lenses and such.  If I stay with nikon I'll get on of the v's and work on more lenses.  But is that what I should do?  this is the only camera I have ever owned. Never had a point and shoot, never used a cellphone.  I've heard that on the nikon I have to di a lot of menu diving, where others have buttons for ISO and everything to make it quick.--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/northoceanbeach/

 Northoceanbeach's gear list:Northoceanbeach's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS5 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Nikon 1 J1 Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
osv
osv
Senior MemberPosts: 2,010
Like?
Re: Is the a7 as good as they say and what kind of lens cost am I looking at?
In reply to Northoceanbeach, 8 months ago

Northoceanbeach wrote:

i do know exactly what I want to do. Here's what I want to do:

take 70% landscape and nature

10-15% cities and architecture.

that says wide glass...

full frame sensor will allow you to use the huge selection of wide glass at it's designed focal length... however, a lot of those old lenses have issues with curvature, mold, interior dust, etc... but they are fairly cheap, and you'll learn a heck of lot by working with them.

flip side is, if i wanted a crop sensor for landscape and such, i'd start out with that killer little sigma 30mm, maybe the 10-18(?) zoom, etc... very very tempting... the full-frame version of that sigma is the old 24mm superwide II, or the 28mm miniwide II, both of which are plenty sharp, but they have field curvature problems on the sides... mount 'em on a crop sensor, most of the field curvature is out of the frame, but you've lost some native width, that the lens was designed for.

so it's not like there's no wide glass for the nex e-mount, you'll just have difficulty getting width out of the legacy glass, because it's mounted to a crop sensor.

Very very little sports except surfing, but only surfing if the waves and natural surroundings are the focus of the picture.

hard-core surfer here i've seen those shots of north o.b. but the conditions have to be perfect, which doesn't happen much up there... or anywhere else, really, lol

it's very difficult to find a good surf spot, that has good light, with a good swell.

gotta have a long lens.

-- hide signature --

dan

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DFPanno
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,033Gear list
Like?
A contrarian viewpoint…...
In reply to Northoceanbeach, 8 months ago

If your pictures are a guide then by all means get the A7 if you can afford it.

I don't believe in the notion that you have to buy and sell several grades of equipment before you tap into good gear. In my life I would consider that a waste of my time and money.

I lost a good number of years by not going FF because I listened to advice on dpreview.

Mistake.

If I were to to it again I would have purchased a 5D the day it was introduced.

As pointed out the A7 not a first choice when it comes to things that move.

I would also point out that FF DSLRs are by far and away better cameras in most contexts BUT; they are fairly heavy with good glass and unless you are very committed you might have a tendency to leave it home.

Again; I think you have a good eye and would find a camera that produces A7 levels of picture quality a source of pleasure.

 DFPanno's gear list:DFPanno's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX1 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
munro harrap
Contributing MemberPosts: 764
Like?
Re: Is the a7 as good as they say and what kind of lens cost am I looking at?
In reply to Northoceanbeach, 8 months ago

Wait till the camera is fast enough for snaps. The A7 and A7R shutterlag is too slow . They can only take a picture a quarter of a second AFTER you have pressed the shutter.

My 2005 Sony R1 takes a picture a 1/125th second after.

They are really only good for pics where the people dont move!! Studio stuff, weddings and landscapes, at a pinch.

You need to research more. But you dont want to have to buy again and again, so it is difficult due to the limited life of these things.

If you like small but want good and Sony, an a6000 with a Zeiss zoom 16-70 f4 OSS) might do the trick but its very expensive.

I'd buy what I have now. A Nikon D7100. Takes any old lens, is 24MP but has no low pass filter so looks better than 24MP, crops to a 15MP  for birding and sports, has excellent low iso image quality up to 400 and is light and fast-face recognition too and video.

Takes loads of old manual nikon lenses and all the super-duper new ones. I use an old 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 because it is sharp.

Wider than 18mm costs a lot more and usually 24mm or equivalent  wide is not as good on an SLR due to design problems.

I'm pleased with the results from mine and I have a D800 and used to use a 1Ds Mk i and MkII Canon full-frame.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Northoceanbeach
Regular MemberPosts: 450Gear list
Like?
Re: A contrarian viewpoint…...
In reply to DFPanno, 8 months ago

DFPanno wrote:

If your pictures are a guide then by all means get the A7 if you can afford it.

I don't believe in the notion that you have to buy and sell several grades of equipment before you tap into good gear. In my life I would consider that a waste of my time and money.

I lost a good number of years by not going FF because I listened to advice on dpreview.

Mistake.

If I were to to it again I would have purchased a 5D the day it was introduced.

As pointed out the A7 not a first choice when it comes to things that move.

I would also point out that FF DSLRs are by far and away better cameras in most contexts BUT; they are fairly heavy with good glass and unless you are very committed you might have a tendency to leave it home.

Again; I think you have a good eye and would find a camera that produces A7 levels of picture quality a source of pleasure.

Awesome!  your are the first person I have ever talked to that knows where I got my screen name!

I'm actually one month away from sailing to canada and then down to San Diego, with much surfing along the way. It's going to be a surf and photo fest!  I hoping to park my dinghy near some point breaks and get a good angle on the waves.  Or one benefit to staying with the nikon and getting a longer zoom, I could get close shots.  They are coming out with a 800mm soon.  Also, spots like steamer lame with the view from the cliff, that might work well.  I'll have to play around with it.  I'll need a waterproof case to bring it in the dinghy in though.  Don't want it getting wet!

on another note.  I got to try out the a7 at the store today.  Took some side by side pictures with my nikon j1.  I loved the look and feel of the sony, the lenses are beautiful.  I like the size of the zooms on the nikon, the autofocus is supposedly better.  I'll be thinking about this for a week or two.

 Northoceanbeach's gear list:Northoceanbeach's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS5 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Nikon 1 J1 Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
viking79
Forum ProPosts: 13,799Gear list
Like?
Re: Is the a7 as good as they say and what kind of lens cost am I looking at?
In reply to munro harrap, 8 months ago

munro harrap wrote:

Wait till the camera is fast enough for snaps. The A7 and A7R shutterlag is too slow . They can only take a picture a quarter of a second AFTER you have pressed the shutter.

Not the A7, the A7 is much faster than the A7R.  Much less shutter blackout too.  Feels like a different camera.  A7 is almost instant, maybe 50 ms or so lag time.  I agree, when I shoot my A7R I avoid using it for people because of the delay, not my A7.  A7 worked great for a portrait shoot.

Eric

 viking79's gear list:viking79's gear list
Sony Alpha 7R Samsung NX1 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 85mm F1.4 ED SSA Samsung NX 60mm F2.8 Macro ED OIS SSA +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
steve vida
Regular MemberPosts: 358Gear list
Like?
Re: A contrarian viewpoint…...
In reply to Northoceanbeach, 8 months ago

Hi NOB,

From the sounds of your itinerey traveling light would be a big factor,the water proof factor another.I have no experience with the Nikon V system but for a compact system it seems they have a extensive lens range ,all with speedy AF. To change systems now would be a big step.I moved up to the A7 from a 5n but had a few legacy Nikon lenses & adapters so the A7 is made to appeal to my use of MF lenses.I have noticed that my photography has changed back to a slower & more planned approach,more often on a tripod with the A7.It is not a compact camera.

Your interest in surfing seems to  require  longer lenses unless you are in the water.I saw a few people in Hawaii at the Van`s Sunset beach contest shooting with 600 - 800mm huge grey telescopes,on tripods,but some had smaller hand held mirror lenses,what does Nikon offer you in this area?The tech side of digital photography changes so quickly these days, 6 months can bring many new breakthroughs.

 steve vida's gear list:steve vida's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony Alpha 7 Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads