Getting into FF on a semi-budget

[Dr_Metalhead]

Hello everyone!

About half a year ago, i got into photography and bought a Panasonic G7(0). Although i really love the small form factor of MFT and i am overall pleased with image quality, after i went on holiday with a friend, who owned a D750, i can not longer deny that FF has it's advantages. We compared our photos, and in good light, we couldn't really tell a huge difference between the cameras. But as soon as we cranked up the ISO, i have to say, that even ISO 1000, compared to FF, felt somewhat lacking and ISO 1600 upwards was not acceptable to me anymore.

Long story short, i want to keep my MFT system, but i really want to get a second FF system for nightphotography/low light situations/landscape with much dynamic range/etc... I read a lot of articles and reviews on the web and if i had the money, i would order a Nikon Z6 right away. But, truth be told, new devices always suffer from first-gen problems, despite the fact, that i simply couldn't afford a new Z6. Right now, i do not care much about mirror/mirrorless, i can work with both, but in a few years, i can see myself switching to mirrorless exclusively.

So, more reasonably, i want to decide between a D750 and a A7III. I love the Nikon's aesthetics, the bigger and heavier body, the well-known weather sealing and the huge amount of good (and cheap) Nikon and third party glasses. And if the Z-series adapter would allow me to use the old F-mount glasses on the mirrorless bodies without much compromises, i could start a collection of good glasses now and wouldn't have to sell them in a few years. On top of that, used D750s are commonly available and are quite a bit cheaper than used A7IIIs. The difference could be so big, that i could buy additional glass on top!

Now on the other hand i unfortunately have somawhat of a bias against Sony, that i can't really explain myself. I completely understand that the A7III is better than the D750 in many relevant aspects. Better dynamic range, lower noise, IBIS, better AF (if i recall correctly)... But the fact that good glass is not available used yet and insanely expensive if buyed new (though it's getting better afaik), that some features feel somewhat half-baked (touchscreen does not work in menues, for example), weather sealing is not that great, still lower battery cpacity, last-gen EVF and last but not least the lack of used A7IIIs and therefor higher costs to get into FF.

I feel somewhat lost, because i really don't know what to go for. My plan is to wait for Fotokina in a few weeks, where Sony may present a A7sIII what could result in falling prices for the A7III. After that i would start looking for a new camera. Right now my plan is to get a best-bang-for-the-buck entry into FF and maybe upgrade in a few years. I think the Nikon would fit this plan better, but i still know of my bias against Sony.

What are your thoughts? What would you recommend me to do?

Thanks a lot for your comments and help!

 

[TDL2024]

A7III isn't going to drop in price anytime soon. An A7SIII is a completely different beast for different uses so it wouldn't really have any effect on A7III prices. You're right about glass, the few used lenses are still fairly expensive. 16-35 f4, 90mm macro, and 70-200 f4 are getting cheap, but other than that most lenses are still hard to find and fairly close to price as new.

Weather sealing is largely dependant upon the photographer and where they shoot. Most people who scream "but it's not sealed like CaNikon!" shoot photos of their kids in the backyard. If you shoot in the rainforests of Borneo, or on a crab fishing boat in the middle of a storm...then yeah, weather sealing is important. That being said, I've used Sony, and cheaper entry level Panasonic, Nikon, and Canon bodies in the deserts in sandstorms, splashed with waves in the beach, and in light rain. None have failed despite not being sealed at all. I'm sure the Sony even with it's so-so sealing will be fine for most usage.

Battery life is at the very least as good as Nikon, probably better. My D610 and 800e got around 1500 shots per battery. The new Z Sony batteries get me around 2500 on average, lowest I've seen so far has been 1800.

EVF is a real issue though. Haven't held an A7III, but as I understand the EVF is worse than the A7RIII I have. I'm not a fan of the EVF in the RIII so....

That being said, I think you'll be better off with the Nikon. Lenses are more abundant, the lineup is filled with almost every focal length and usage imaginable, and the used market is aplenty. Plus, the biggest thing is you just like the size/ergonomics of the Nikon. No amount of tech will improve your photos if you hate handling the body.

In fact, I think the best entry to FF (other than the original A7) would be a Nikon D600. The prices tanked after the "oil on the sensor" fiasco...you can find them easily for around $600-700. Best case scenario you have oil on your sensor and you send it in to Nikon to fix for free (it's a recall so warranty doesn't matter). The shutter fix doesn't work and you'll have to send it in one or two more times...but that's good news, because depending on the service center (mine did it the second time) they'll just give you a brand new D610. Can't beat that for $600. IQ would be basically the same as the D750, but the D750 has better AF. For landscapes it shouldn't be a problem. I used mine for fashion and portraiture, probably wouldn't try sports or wildlife with it though.

 

[QuietOC]

Lens size determines low light performance, not sensor size. Were you using your lenses wide- open? Four-thirds needs one fouth the ISO of FF to capture the same image, but to match a large aperture full-frame image you might need a lens brighter than what is available for your system. Adapting fast lenses like the Sigma 18-35 F1.8 using a Speed Booster is a way to basically match a full-frame 28-50 F2.8. In fact with such a lens some Four-Thirds sensors will show less noise in low light than the full-frame camera.

 

[Cato1040]

Based on your needs, I think you're overthinking and potentially might be overspending.

You said you want a full frame camera for "nightphotography/low light situations/landscape" photography. If what you're talking about is shooting things that are still, then you don't need to worry about AF, but rather only about sensor quality.

For these genres of photography, you might be best off just getting an older camera and a good tripod. If you buy an A7 or A7R, you'll be able to adapt pretty much any lens to it, including something like the affordable Rokinon 14mm. If you really want a Nikon, the D600 or D610 could be a good enough option, though I prefer having a tilting screen and focus peaking for this style of shooting.