Nikon D750 vs A7 : help!

I follow you and the convenience of the same system is why I still have not ordered anything, I'm very (very) much considering the A7 (of whatever comes next) mainly because I can use the lenses on both cameras and especially the FE55 and FE35. So I know and understand there's a major advantage staying with Sony. And like you said, the A6000+1670 is just stellar (and so are the primes I have for the E mount).
 
You're 100% right and I am kicking myself in the lower regions each day because I was so stupid to sell my whole setup. Sometimes gearheads like myself do stupid thing, and I'm quite sure I'm not the only one here :)
 
You're 100% right and I am kicking myself in the lower regions each day because I was so stupid to sell my whole setup. Sometimes gearheads like myself do stupid thing, and I'm quite sure I'm not the only one here :)
At first I thought about selling off all of my Canon DSLR gear but after careful consideration I decided to keep most of it and just sell whatever I don't need or need in the future. I changed my mind after going back to the images I've taken in the past. I'm a glass guy and Canon L lenses are among the best out there.

I am still debating whether I should trade in my 5DMKII and 1DMKIII for a 5DMKIII or keep the 1D and trade in the 5DMKII for the 6D. Or just stay the course since my 5DMKII still delivers high IQ. Here are some of my fave images from the 5DMKII



152633776.3tEbjXlT.MIMG_2214.jpg




127471042.WxYWorpi.ZIMG_2716.jpg




115950043.LOkBVHqd.SIMG_7269.jpg




112866031.RAkPNMlz.JIMG_0699c.jpg




110549108.hoUCAQwC.IMG_8028d_cropped.jpg




107060655.0PNqNGv3.cIMG_0648c.jpg




152247563.KJGiSoaA.MIMG_0948.jpg




146708814.uAG0C0uA.LIMG_9326.jpg
 
I wish I had the time and patience to read all the earlier posts. But I am expressing my opinion briefly to give you a longer-term view. If you have and love the Sony A6000 (which I do) the decision to buy any full-frame camera has the potential to disappoint but with the real opportunity to add enough creative gain to risk it.

That said, I decided on a longer-term strategy to buy the best glass for e-mount (inclusive of FE) in the belief that like legacy Leica lenses, they will outlive the bodies. IMHO mirrorless systems have sustainable advantage over dslr designs. I have given up my Nikon D700/D800 for a Sony A7S and A7R. I have replaced my heavy f2.8 zooms with Sony-Zeiss f4 zooms and primes. I have ordered the LOXIA 50mm and 35mm lenses as well as the FE1635f4 Z.

Many complain about the limited range and cost of the better Sony e-mount glass but if you can take a long-term perspective, you may conclude as I did that Sony is a better long term investment. And I love the interchangeability of lenses, batteries, flashes between the A6000 and the A7S/7R and the commonality of the menu system makes moving amongst these so much easier.

And by the way, I have no difficulty producing gratifying images for events such as weddings with all these cameras. You need multiple cameras for these shoots and having the extended range of features makes for a very flexible approach.

Finally, I think the A6000/1670Z is the best multi-purpose photographic I have ever used; miles ahead of my NEX-7… making my point that bodies come and go.
Words of wisdom! :)
 
Looking for some unbiased opinions (yeah I know, difficult). Anyway, I'm thinking very much to get a FF camera to complement my A6000 and RX100M which I'll keep for those moments when weight or compactness matter.

But for all those other moments, and I do a wedding now and then and a lot of indoor work (kids, moving!!), I would get a FF camera. So compactness isn't exactly the most important thing. Things that DO matter in those situations though are AF speed, AF accuracy and lens selection. I'm currently debating between this:

Nikon D750 + 24-120/F4 (kit) + Nikkor 50mm/1.4 (total cost = € 2.799 + € 345 = € 3.144)

or

Sony A7(s) + 24-70/F4 + FE55mm/1.8 (total cost = € 2.299 + € 1.100 + € 899 = € 4.298)

So the Sony would cost me quite a bit more. Which one would you recommend, considering you know I also have an a6000 for weight/compactness (with some very good glass). Still a bit unsure about going to Nikon since I've been shooting Canon for all my life, but the deal I got for the D750 is really very good and the specs/reviews seem to point out that the Nikon could very well be the camera I'm looking for.
Firstly if you are going to charge for your wedding work, you need at least TWO bodies. I suggest identical ones. Preferably you need three - two working and one as a spare.

It is unacceptable to take money for work and then have a body fail on the day and say "sorry I can't shoot your wedding because I do not have enough gear". Also it means you can work seamlessly with two lenses attached.

For wedding work I would probably pick the Nikons. The bulk and weight would not be so much of an issue for a few hours at a time and you can leave what you are not using in the car or in your bag somewhere out of the way.
 
You're 100% right and I am kicking myself in the lower regions each day because I was so stupid to sell my whole setup. Sometimes gearheads like myself do stupid thing, and I'm quite sure I'm not the only one here :)
At first I thought about selling off all of my Canon DSLR gear but after careful consideration I decided to keep most of it and just sell whatever I don't need or need in the future. I changed my mind after going back to the images I've taken in the past. I'm a glass guy and Canon L lenses are among the best out there.

I am still debating whether I should trade in my 5DMKII and 1DMKIII for a 5DMKIII or keep the 1D and trade in the 5DMKII for the 6D. Or just stay the course since my 5DMKII still delivers high IQ. Here are some of my fave images from the 5DMKII

152633776.3tEbjXlT.MIMG_2214.jpg


127471042.WxYWorpi.ZIMG_2716.jpg


115950043.LOkBVHqd.SIMG_7269.jpg


112866031.RAkPNMlz.JIMG_0699c.jpg


110549108.hoUCAQwC.IMG_8028d_cropped.jpg


107060655.0PNqNGv3.cIMG_0648c.jpg


152247563.KJGiSoaA.MIMG_0948.jpg


146708814.uAG0C0uA.LIMG_9326.jpg
Nice images Jose, and it does bring up a small concern I have...

Of these images, my favourites are the longer focal lengths, opened up (the 85mm f1.6 but especially the 300mm f2.8).

The lack of f2.8 FE zooms isn't something I'm fully comfortable with yet (and/or using un-stabilized A-mount lenses).

Do you shoot a lot at 200-300mm? Do you think an f4 lens would give you the results you want (as opposed to an f2.8). Would love your input.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mars_observer/
 
Last edited:
You're 100% right and I am kicking myself in the lower regions each day because I was so stupid to sell my whole setup. Sometimes gearheads like myself do stupid thing, and I'm quite sure I'm not the only one here :)
At first I thought about selling off all of my Canon DSLR gear but after careful consideration I decided to keep most of it and just sell whatever I don't need or need in the future. I changed my mind after going back to the images I've taken in the past. I'm a glass guy and Canon L lenses are among the best out there.

I am still debating whether I should trade in my 5DMKII and 1DMKIII for a 5DMKIII or keep the 1D and trade in the 5DMKII for the 6D. Or just stay the course since my 5DMKII still delivers high IQ. Here are some of my fave images from the 5DMKII

152633776.3tEbjXlT.MIMG_2214.jpg


127471042.WxYWorpi.ZIMG_2716.jpg


115950043.LOkBVHqd.SIMG_7269.jpg


112866031.RAkPNMlz.JIMG_0699c.jpg


110549108.hoUCAQwC.IMG_8028d_cropped.jpg


107060655.0PNqNGv3.cIMG_0648c.jpg


152247563.KJGiSoaA.MIMG_0948.jpg


146708814.uAG0C0uA.LIMG_9326.jpg
Nice images Jose, and it does bring up a small concern I have...

Of these images, my favourites are the longer focal lengths, opened up (the 85mm f1.6 but especially the 300mm f2.8).

The lack of f2.8 FE zooms isn't something I'm fully comfortable with yet (and/or using un-stabilized A-mount lenses).

Do you shoot a lot at 200-300mm? Do you think an f4 lens would give you the results you want (as opposed to an f2.8). Would love your input.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mars_observer/
Thanks for the kind words.

BTW, I looked at your flickr port----excellent variety of images!

I don't have a lens that covers 200mm to 300mm in full-frame. I used to have a 1.6x 7D and still own a 70-200/2.8 L IS which would cover the 200mm to 300mm but like I said I no longer have a 7D.

I mentioned this a few times that I prefer to use a 70-200/2.8 than an f/4 so I can isolate the subject more but someone told me that the handling of a 70-200/4 G is not bad with the A7 series and A6000. If I'm going to shoot entirely with the e-mount system, I will definitely consider the f/4 telezoom.
 
Nice images Jose, and it does bring up a small concern I have...

Of these images, my favourites are the longer focal lengths, opened up (the 85mm f1.6 but especially the 300mm f2.8).

The lack of f2.8 FE zooms isn't something I'm fully comfortable with yet (and/or using un-stabilized A-mount lenses).
At the shutter speeds he's shooting at, it'd probably be better to turn off the stabilization.

I don't think stabilization is needed tbh (its useful to have for sure but not NEEDED like people make it out to be). Just my £0.02...

e7224e9736ba4790b4b8f998591454d6.jpg

aff88eb9dd3a4548af2bedefd22cf6b8.jpg

Do you shoot a lot at 200-300mm? Do you think an f4 lens would give you the results you want (as opposed to an f2.8). Would love your input.
I do but not people (or rarely people). At 300mm I think f/4 is plenty, more depends on your technique and setting.

Sorry, I know you asked for Jose's input, I just felt I could shed a different point of view. What works for me may not for you etc, but at least now you can consider a different idea :)


--
Focus on what you have, not on what you don't.
 
Good point about shutter speeds and stabilization - thanks Nandbytes (and great images!)
Nice images Jose, and it does bring up a small concern I have...

Of these images, my favourites are the longer focal lengths, opened up (the 85mm f1.6 but especially the 300mm f2.8).

The lack of f2.8 FE zooms isn't something I'm fully comfortable with yet (and/or using un-stabilized A-mount lenses).
At the shutter speeds he's shooting at, it'd probably be better to turn off the stabilization.

I don't think stabilization is needed tbh (its useful to have for sure but not NEEDED like people make it out to be). Just my £0.02...

e7224e9736ba4790b4b8f998591454d6.jpg

aff88eb9dd3a4548af2bedefd22cf6b8.jpg
Do you shoot a lot at 200-300mm? Do you think an f4 lens would give you the results you want (as opposed to an f2.8). Would love your input.
I do but not people (or rarely people). At 300mm I think f/4 is plenty, more depends on your technique and setting.

Sorry, I know you asked for Jose's input, I just felt I could shed a different point of view. What works for me may not for you etc, but at least now you can consider a different idea :)
--
Focus on what you have, not on what you don't.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nandbytes/


--
 
You're 100% right and I am kicking myself in the lower regions each day because I was so stupid to sell my whole setup. Sometimes gearheads like myself do stupid thing, and I'm quite sure I'm not the only one here :)
At first I thought about selling off all of my Canon DSLR gear but after careful consideration I decided to keep most of it and just sell whatever I don't need or need in the future. I changed my mind after going back to the images I've taken in the past. I'm a glass guy and Canon L lenses are among the best out there.

I am still debating whether I should trade in my 5DMKII and 1DMKIII for a 5DMKIII or keep the 1D and trade in the 5DMKII for the 6D. Or just stay the course since my 5DMKII still delivers high IQ. Here are some of my fave images from the 5DMKII

152633776.3tEbjXlT.MIMG_2214.jpg


127471042.WxYWorpi.ZIMG_2716.jpg


115950043.LOkBVHqd.SIMG_7269.jpg


112866031.RAkPNMlz.JIMG_0699c.jpg


110549108.hoUCAQwC.IMG_8028d_cropped.jpg


107060655.0PNqNGv3.cIMG_0648c.jpg


152247563.KJGiSoaA.MIMG_0948.jpg


146708814.uAG0C0uA.LIMG_9326.jpg
Nice images Jose, and it does bring up a small concern I have...

Of these images, my favourites are the longer focal lengths, opened up (the 85mm f1.6 but especially the 300mm f2.8).

The lack of f2.8 FE zooms isn't something I'm fully comfortable with yet (and/or using un-stabilized A-mount lenses).

Do you shoot a lot at 200-300mm? Do you think an f4 lens would give you the results you want (as opposed to an f2.8). Would love your input.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mars_observer/
Thanks for the kind words.

BTW, I looked at your flickr port----excellent variety of images!

I don't have a lens that covers 200mm to 300mm in full-frame. I used to have a 1.6x 7D and still own a 70-200/2.8 L IS which would cover the 200mm to 300mm but like I said I no longer have a 7D.

I mentioned this a few times that I prefer to use a 70-200/2.8 than an f/4 so I can isolate the subject more but someone told me that the handling of a 70-200/4 G is not bad with the A7 series and A6000. If I'm going to shoot entirely with the e-mount system, I will definitely consider the f/4 telezoom.
Thanks Jose!

--
 
I have just come back fro ma three week tour in Tibetan region...with A7r and 5D3. 5D3 was mounted with 100-400L and 17-40L...for landscape and for portrait. The good news is it performs marvelously with 90% accuracy in capturing portraits of Tibetan people in street and in many of the forbidden monasteries. The bad news is I failed to retrieve them...maybe due to contaminated pins of CF cards during my travel.

However, when we talk about landscape, A7r is a much better candidate in terms of dynamic range.
 
I have just come back fro ma three week tour in Tibetan region...with A7r and 5D3. 5D3 was mounted with 100-400L and 17-40L...for landscape and for portrait. The good news is it performs marvelously with 90% accuracy in capturing portraits of Tibetan people in street and in many of the forbidden monasteries. The bad news is I failed to retrieve them...maybe due to contaminated pins of CF cards during my travel.
How do you now you had 90% accuracy if you failed to retrieve the images?
However, when we talk about landscape, A7r is a much better candidate in terms of dynamic range.
 
I failed to retrieve my images on my computers....because of bad contacts of my CF card. Before that, I preview my images during my trip...and the focus was perfect.

The colour rendering of portrait by Canon cameras are somewhat different from Sony/Nikon and they are very pleased to look at. I used to have Sony A850. I have never had similar results using A850 with Sony 70-400G lens which has always been considered as a sharper lens against Canon 100-400L
 
I failed to retrieve my images on my computers....because of bad contacts of my CF card. Before that, I preview my images during my trip...and the focus was perfect.
are you saying you chimped/previewed at least 90% of your images plus zoomed into them to confirm the focus was perfect? (on a small LCD unless you zoom in you can't really say)
The colour rendering of portrait by Canon cameras are somewhat different from Sony/Nikon and they are very pleased to look at. I used to have Sony A850. I have never had similar results using A850 with Sony 70-400G lens which has always been considered as a sharper lens against Canon 100-400L
this is just personal preference, can't argue with this. Also I never shot with any Sony. But I have shot events with Nikon (that used Sony sensors). All I can say is I don't normally like canon colours/rendering.
--
Mark K
 
Ha..welll the colour does not bother me any longer...The preview jpg images use Canon colour but I shoot RAW

I am slowly copying images to my internal harddisk... fingers crossed
 
Looking for some unbiased opinions (yeah I know, difficult). Anyway, I'm thinking very much to get a FF camera to complement my A6000 and RX100M which I'll keep for those moments when weight or compactness matter.

But for all those other moments, and I do a wedding now and then and a lot of indoor work (kids, moving!!), I would get a FF camera. So compactness isn't exactly the most important thing. Things that DO matter in those situations though are AF speed, AF accuracy and lens selection. I'm currently debating between this:

Nikon D750 + 24-120/F4 (kit) + Nikkor 50mm/1.4 (total cost = € 2.799 + € 345 = € 3.144)

or

Sony A7(s) + 24-70/F4 + FE55mm/1.8 (total cost = € 2.299 + € 1.100 + € 899 = € 4.298)

So the Sony would cost me quite a bit more. Which one would you recommend, considering you know I also have an a6000 for weight/compactness (with some very good glass). Still a bit unsure about going to Nikon since I've been shooting Canon for all my life, but the deal I got for the D750 is really very good and the specs/reviews seem to point out that the Nikon could very well be the camera I'm looking for.
D750 or even better, D810 if you can swing it. I've been very impressed with the D810 that my friend got. For weddings, I think it would be great.
 
Until you are sure you want to swap, C and N both go forward looking over their shoulders at each other doing nothing new, but for paid event work, no clients will appreciate the superior lenses available to FE shooters - FE primes, Loxia, alt from everyone. Sony will fast become the Leica alternative, and no one uses them for weddings. Where the dinosaur cams cannot compete is: street, low light, casual, travel, discreet, fine art. 50% of a7 series camera are being bought by users who never owned a Sony before, but it's perfectly OK to either be a late adopter, or opt out entirely. Just don't imagine you can obtain the same elevated level of image quality - the reason underlying all the experienced users moving in their direction. Good luck.
 
I would second everyone else who is recommending the D750 for weddings. It is a heck of a camera with great AF and pretty solid high ISO performance. For whatever reason Nikon seems to have been able to eek out a bit extra high ISO out of that Sony sensor.

Really though it comes down to the AF in my opinion. The D750 has pretty fantastic AF and is leagues beyond the A7 AF. I have the Df and just sold my D600 and they are way better at AF than the Sony and neither one of those are as good as the D750 when it comes to AF. Weddings are just too critical to not have that reliability.

For me, I use my A7 with the Zeiss 35mm, Zeiss 55mm, and some adapted lenses for just about everything else. Portraits, travel, street. The A7 can basically do everything except autofocus quickly and shoot in extreme low light.

My Df comes out when the light gets low or when I'm shooting concerts or events and need reliable continuous AF. I shoot mostly editorial and portraits so I use the A7 for that type of work and I'll sometimes take on a wedding so my plan is to now just rent a second Df(since I sold my D600) and use two Df cameras for weddings.

I would, however, like to eventually add a A7s for taking available light candids at weddings using the silent shutter. I think the low light ability, low profile of the camera, and silent shutter would help with getting some really great documentary style candids.
 
NTNphoto said:
I would second everyone else who is recommending the D750 for weddings. It is a heck of a camera with great AF and pretty solid high ISO performance. For whatever reason Nikon seems to have been able to eek out a bit extra high ISO out of that Sony sensor.

Really though it comes down to the AF in my opinion. The D750 has pretty fantastic AF and is leagues beyond the A7 AF. I have the Df and just sold my D600 and they are way better at AF than the Sony and neither one of those are as good as the D750 when it comes to AF. Weddings are just too critical to not have that reliability.

For me, I use my A7 with the Zeiss 35mm, Zeiss 55mm, and some adapted lenses for just about everything else. Portraits, travel, street. The A7 can basically do everything except autofocus quickly and shoot in extreme low light.

My Df comes out when the light gets low or when I'm shooting concerts or events and need reliable continuous AF. I shoot mostly editorial and portraits so I use the A7 for that type of work and I'll sometimes take on a wedding so my plan is to now just rent a second Df(since I sold my D600) and use two Df cameras for weddings.

I would, however, like to eventually add a A7s for taking available light candids at weddings using the silent shutter. I think the low light ability, low profile of the camera, and silent shutter would help with getting some really great documentary style candids.

Have you tried the A7 for concerts?



I think it is a wonderful concert camera and auto focus works great for it too......even Canon EF lenses for auto focus can work ok.

















 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top