Reading mode: Light Dark

First FF: Sony A7III or Nikon D780

Go to last post
Like some other folks, I went from the Nikon D750 to Sony A7III (and now A7IV). I enjoy the mirrorless experience much more than I did the DSLR - autofocusing being a huge advance. I'll add to what others have offered about lenses. I think the Sony ecosystem is also an advantage there. The third-party lenses, many of which are less expensive and still quite good, are still first-rate since Sony has an open standard. I have a number of primes from Samyang/Rokinon and zooms from Tamron/Sigma that I really enjoy and perform as well as my Sony lenses (my camera caps at 10fps anyway). I also had some third-party lenses on my Nikon and always felt they underperformed and could stop working with the next update (though if you are interested in older lenses, there are certainly more around for Nikon F). Don't underestimate the value of the camera ecosystem.
 
nibedk said:
Sundre said:
What do you shoot, which lenses are you looking at?
Click to expand...
Landscapes and tele (birds, wildlife etc.). This is purely based on types of photos I have taken over the last 5 years. Portraits and street photography always have cheaper prime options irrespective of brands. I am not much into this currently but am not too worried as these lenses are much cheaper as they are mostly primes
Click to expand...

definitely Sony then. Try to find a used a9, or the a7c - much better af than the a7iii.
 
I would get the D780. It has better build quality, AF and versatility for general photography. The lenses are less expensive. It has a more mature pedigree, being the follow-up to the D750 which was a great camera and still is a very good one.
 
nibedk said:
MILC man said:
nibedk said:
Sundre said:
What do you shoot, which lenses are you looking at?
Click to expand...
Landscapes and tele (birds, wildlife etc.).
Click to expand...
nikon doesn't have anything comparable to the sony 200-600, so it's not clear where you think that you are seeing better lens options with a dslr.

if you into shooting bif, later-model milc bodies are a much better option than dslrs, because of things like bird eyeaf and never any need for focus adjustment.

the a7iii came out in 2018, and while it's an xlnt camera, it does not have sony real-time tracking and there isn't any bird eyeaf; you'd be much further ahead by spending an additional $500 for an a7iv.

you could also spend $2k for a used sony a9, it doesn't have bird eyeaf but since it has a stacked sensor the tracking is much better, it has a true blackout-free evf, it'll shoot 20fps with electronic shutter and very little rolling shutter, etc.
Click to expand...
TBH I want to start with least investment. The two bodies I mentioned are the ones I can afford now. The D780 and the A7III are priced equally with the Nikon one being slightly cheaper.
Click to expand...
In the UK the Nikon is 2100 and the Sony is 1550... I can see that on DigitalRev the 780 is a bit cheaper (1420) than the a7iii (1485), but they have quite a good price on the 850 as well (1876)..
nibedk said:
The D850 and A7IV are considerably costlier (am based out of India) and with the money saved I can get a good prime lens.

I had even considered A7II but its not available in this part of the globe now. I am open to third party lenses over a native tele (they being considerably costlier than 3 party ones - in some cases almost double the price). A Sigma 150-600 for either mount will suffice my needs. Assuming it will be easier to sell off lenses and buy a native when I can afford.

My current bridge cam lasted me around 10 years (is still working). Before that I had a Sony A100 which last me for 5 years. I wanted to move to FF but ended buying a bridge because the FF which I could have afforded at that time didn't interest me. Then came the ML brigade and nothing impressed me till the A7III came along which was somewhat mature compared to good DSLRs. I regret not picking up either a good DSLR or ML all these years and COVID didn't help. I don't have GAS and just want to build a system which will keep the hobbyist in me happy. But don't want to end up being penny wise and pound foolish.
Click to expand...
 
What is your budget and what lens types do you need? Fixating on the body cost but being ambiguous about total system cost isn't a good strategy IMO. With your birding needs I'd probably budget to spend at least $4K. If that's too much then the Nikon might be the better route, but you have to accept that the lenses available now are probably all you will ever get.
 
The advantages of a pro-grade body are minimal and the A7III probably offers every lens you will ever need. Having more lenses available doesn't mean anything if you will never buy something that Sony doesn't offer.
 
None of those, get the A9 + 200-600. Best bang for the buck if you're into wildlife.

You can find the A9 for $1600-ish now, used of course, but because people mostly use the electronic-shutter, you won't have to worry about the number of shutter actuations.
 
IrishPhotog said:
SONY uses the thinnest of plastic badly put together, so if we want cameras to do heavy filming for instance out in the wild Irish open they are a risky buy.
Click to expand...
Have you actually disassembled cameras to determine the accuracy of that claim.

--
Tom
 
Last edited:
IrishPhotog said:
SONY uses the thinnest of plastic badly put together, so if we want cameras to do heavy filming for instance out in the wild Irish open they are a risky buy.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure about “thin plastic”. I do know that early Sony ff bodies has worse weather resistance than some other brands. This appears to have been remediated over time and newer models appear to be as sealed as competing models from other brands.



Durability is always a bit subjective. I’ve never had a single cabers damaged in the field. I did once have a dslr ina passed case roll off a desk with a lens attached. The lens was damaged, barrel forced out of alignment and was repaired but all electronics inside were non-functional. Optically, it was fine after a repair.
 
IrishPhotog said:
SONY uses the thinnest of plastic badly put together, so if we want cameras to do heavy filming for instance out in the wild Irish open they are a risky buy.
Click to expand...
I've been shooting them for 15 years without any durability problems. Not a lot of plastic on them - any particular plastic parts you have experienced failures of?
 
Bob Janes said:
IrishPhotog said:
SONY uses the thinnest of plastic badly put together, so if we want cameras to do heavy filming for instance out in the wild Irish open they are a risky buy.
Click to expand...
I've been shooting them for 15 years without any durability problems. Not a lot of plastic on them - any particular plastic parts you have experienced failures of?
Click to expand...
I suspect a bit of anti Sony rhetoric.
 
Why would even consider a DSLR today. The models that you mention can't compete with Sony's AF system. Also, using a modern EVF is far superior to optical VF. With EVF you get WYSIWYG so you much more likely to properly expose.
 
dcstep said:
Why would even consider a DSLR today. The models that you mention can't compete with Sony's AF system. Also, using a modern EVF is far superior to optical VF. With EVF you get WYSIWYG so you much more likely to properly expose.
Click to expand...
Isn't it possible that DSLR AF is good enough for their purposes and they prefer the look of an OVF? We all have things that we like and it may not be the same for someone else.
 
tbcass said:
dcstep said:
Why would even consider a DSLR today. The models that you mention can't compete with Sony's AF system. Also, using a modern EVF is far superior to optical VF. With EVF you get WYSIWYG so you much more likely to properly expose.
Click to expand...
Isn't it possible that DSLR AF is good enough for their purposes and they prefer the look of an OVF? We all have things that we like and it may not be the same for someone else.
Click to expand...
It seemed to me that he was asking performance question. There's no comparison in that regard. If it's only looks, then he should be able to decide for himself.
 
dcstep said:
tbcass said:
dcstep said:
Why would even consider a DSLR today. The models that you mention can't compete with Sony's AF system. Also, using a modern EVF is far superior to optical VF. With EVF you get WYSIWYG so you much more likely to properly expose.
Click to expand...
Isn't it possible that DSLR AF is good enough for their purposes and they prefer the look of an OVF? We all have things that we like and it may not be the same for someone else.
Click to expand...
It seemed to me that he was asking performance question. There's no comparison in that regard. If it's only looks, then he should be able to decide for himself.
Click to expand...
Isn't it possible the AF of a DSLR is good enough?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
My First Camera – How I Got to Sony Mirrorless Cameras
Replies
17
Views
4K
Impulses
I
K
Fujifilm X-M5/Sony ZV-E10 II vs Sigma FP for hiking and traveling?
Replies
15
Views
33K
Martin_99
M
MacroDonata
Megadap for A-mount lenses to Nikon Z
Replies
11
Views
4K
ActionPhotoPassion
A
AfzalKhanVisuals
Upgrade from Full Frame to Medium Format?
2
Replies
24
Views
11K
mujana
M
G
The upgrade path
2 3
Replies
45
Views
14K
GeoffRG
G

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top