Nikon D750 vs A7 : help!

[Hans vdC]

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.

 

[Astrophotographer 10]

The Nikon for sure. A7 AF is reported many many times to not be so great in low light where a lot of wedding photos are taken.
D750 has the guts of the D800 and I take it the same sensor as the A7 at a reduced price.

There was a thread about an A7s being used for weddings. Lack of good flashes may be an issue. As well as lack of fast glass for the Sony as most FE zoom lenses coming out are F4. That means you would be leaning on the high ISO performance a lot. D750 will also have excellent high ISO performance, proper 14bit RAW, good selection of lenses and flashes.

Greg.

 

[le_alain]

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).

For weddings:

If compactness doesn't matter, the 1st combo will be more efficient, but both are good.

The second combo will be more compatible with your A6000 as backup, as you need 2 camras for a wedding.

Top for wedding, sell your A6000 and APSC lenses

and get A7s + A7R + 16-35 F4 (or 10-18 on A7R, cheaper ) + 24-70/F4 + FE55mm/1.8

Edit (write at the same time): For flashes, you have Metz 52 now.

 

[nevercat]

Hans, it is close to impossible to give a realy good advice. The best advice that can be given is: try them out. When possible rent both cameras and try them for a day or two (not during a wedding but under the same conditions (a wedding whne you fail you have an unhapy bride and groom, not funny).

When you can't rent them go to a shop and try them out for as long as possible (or buy online with a send back garantee).

In the end go for the camera that handles best for you.

 

[Dstilio]

If you take the A7 (s) you do not need the 55mm f/1.8

You can pump up the ISO instead.

The f/4 is enough. And you do not need that extreme swallow DOF in a wedding. f/4 in a full frame is swallow enough for almost all artistic ideas you may come up with. And usually even smaller apperture e.g. f/8 can do the work. Don't forget you will need some times to have everybody in focus.

So, if it is to go the A7 way, and specifically the (s), save your money.

Even sell your a6000. Having a second camera will not help you in this case. The 24-70 is all around. I use two cameras when I want one of the cameras to mount a good prime lens.

But with the ISO capabilities of the A7s...you don't need this that much.

Now, regarding moving subjects indoor...

You may want to start using flashes bouncing on the ceiling to create some light.

However I haven't experienced the A7s speed of AF. I don't know if it can keep up with kids.

If that is a concern, then I suspect that the nikon 750 will be better.

As you understand...there is no clear opinion on your situation.

You have to decide...maybe you can rent first and try and see what is more convenient to you?

 

[MarsObserver]

AF Sensitivity: SONY wins (A7S AF -4EV / D750 AF -3EV / A7 AF 0EV)

ISO Performance: SONY wins (likely an easy win for the A7S)

Fast Glass: NIKON wins (an easy win for Nikkor unless you want to use MF lenses)

Flash: NIKON wins (hard to beat Nikon's flash system)

Sony is expected to bring much improved AF performance to the next A7 cameras (4D focus, like on the A6000) - possibly a consideration but of no help now I know.

So... for indoor shooting I might be inclined to give Sony the edge in Natural Light, and Nikon the edge in Flash Photography.

Tough call tough.

Good luck!

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.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mars_observer/

 

[Dstilio]

Sony is expected to bring much improved AF performance to the next A7 cameras (4D focus, like on the A6000) - possibly a consideration but of no help now I know.

I wouldn't advice someone to take a decision based on the promise for this 4D focus.

I own the a6000 and I am not very happy with the AF performance. The burst is fast but the failure ratio is quite big also.

Sorry to say this, but at the end I did not see better results that when I was using the entry level Nikon d5100...(not a happy customer as you understand).

So, first wait for the real tests of thie feature and then decide.

That's why I am saying to try first.

His call is indeed touch

 

[PaulW2020]

My experiences with the a6000 mirror those of Dstilio.

Great frame rate but very few focussed on the right thing.

I'd planned to use the a6000 for wildlife shooting due to its high frame rate - but what's the point of high frame rate if tracking is poor and you have lots of out of focus photos.

I'm hoping the Nikon D750's AF will work much better at tracking moving objects.

Paul

 

[nevercat]

My experiences with the a6000 mirror those of Dstilio.

Great frame rate but very few focussed on the right thing.

I'd planned to use the a6000 for wildlife shooting due to its high frame rate - but what's the point of high frame rate if tracking is poor and you have lots of out of focus photos.

I'm hoping the Nikon D750's AF will work much better at tracking moving objects.

Paul

Paul, did you set up the camera right? Many people who started with the camera had simular problems but they where mostly soved when they used the right settings.

 

[Nicklau81]

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)

I was coming from Nikon and Canon and I loved Nikon the most. The reason for me changing the system is because the compactness otherwise I'd go all the way with nikon.

If lens selection comes important thing to you then Nikon definitely to go.

Hope that helps

 

[Focus Breather]

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.

As much as I am biased to Sony, I would choose Nikon for wedding photography. No need to mention that Nikon SLR system was used worldwide as (best?) equipment money can buy, in respect of light metering, AF, accessories, etc, etc... However, I consider A7 as best possible platform for nice collection of MF glasss I have.

Try this equation:

4298 - 3144 = 1154, ie you can get mentioned Nikon equipment plus A7 body to play with some nice and cheap MF fast lenses that you can get latter. There are tons of nice legacy lenses 50-58mm lenses available, Helios-40-2, Samyang 1.4/85 (moreover, you can get both in Nikon mount and use them on both cameras) for portraits, etc, etc... Nikon 2.5/105, tons of great 135mm, etc, etc, 180mm.......

--
www.TaraMountain.com
www.PlaninaTara.rs

 

[robbinsbox]

good luck with the unbiased thing For me the big difference isnt really the size. its the evf. I never really used a dslr, (i use a rangefinder though and a had a canon rebel once)

1) I like wysiwyg, big time. Through a viewfinder I mean. It is a completely different experience. Immersive, dof sensitive, awareness of the beginnings of crushed blacks or blown highlights, the way a shadow makes shapes. I adjust with my eye to the viewfinder.

2) and moving the focus point to wherever I want. For shallow dof portraiture (or other types where the focal plane may be critically affected) I think it is really important. Stopped focus and recompose a long time ago and wont go back. Other deeper dof stuff focus and recompose is fine and quicker.

I forgot to add that dslr and slt have limited scope for moving the focus point over the entire frame. Particularly ff. Weirdly, composing using third rules usually means that the focus points fall outside where i would usually focus, APCS is better but not comparable to any mirrorless as far as I know.

Dont get me wrong, I get that dslrs are still better in some ways, particularly against the a7, but I thk they are a different enough now for some users that it is an easy decision. Of course others users needs may be better served by dslrs. I dont really know much about the d750 except that its lower and higher end siblings have some beautiful tones and dr. Guess it will come down to personal need.

Next gen alpha bodies though, qui sait.

--blank, empty, gap, language, letters, meaning, missing, sign, space, tiles, void, words

Michael Robbins

Explore Michael Robbins’s 998 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[nandbytes]

The others have spoken well for D750.

The advantage (and its a reasonable advantage IMO) with buying Sony is that you can share the glass between your A7 and A6000, this will also give you a different FoV which can be useful. The other advantage is EVF like the above post suggested.

If you are in no particular hurry to make this purchase you could wait for the next instalment of the FF sony a-mount (can't be far off now). This way will be able to use the a-mount glass with reasonable AF with your A6000 too.

D750 is a good choice, there is nothing wrong with it but others have already discussed it. I am just adding a couple more points for consideration.

--
Focus on what you have, not on what you don't.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nandbytes/

 

[Erik Magnuson]

AF Sensitivity: SONY wins (A7S AF -4EV / D750 AF -3EV / A7 AF 0EV)

ISO Performance: SONY wins (likely an easy win for the A7S)

I know you really want to write "SONY wins" but you do realize for the A7 body (and not the A7s) Sony actually doesn't win for either of those? That Nikon uses Sony sensors in the equivalent models (D610, D810 and likely D750) yet gets a little more out of them in terms of ISO and DR than the Sony A7/A7r? The difference borders on insignificant but it's enough to reverse the claim of "wins" -- unless you think the OP needs to buy both an A7 and A7s in which case he has to redo his price comparison as well.

 

[nevercat]

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)

Just to compare the price you should use the A7 camera (same MP, same class) and then you will see this price: €1279,-- + €1100,-- + €899,-- = € 3278,--
When you go for the Sony A7 with the kitlens you will pay $2448 (€1549,-- + € 899,--)

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.

The question is, do you realy need a FF camera for your running kids. Is the A6000 not good enough? For the weddings, do you realy need the more expensive Sony lenses or is the kitlens good enough? Do you realy need blazing fast AF for a wedding? And even there, is the A6000 not good enough?

For me: I think the A6000 is the better choice for all you're shots at home. The weddings is a bit difficult to say. The A6000 is up to the task IQ wise, but does it deliver PR wise. For many people a bigger camera is a better camera and a professional needs the best (read the biggest) camera. So when you are doing the weddings for freinds and family you can keep the A6000. Do you do the weddings professionaly, then go for the Nikon, and use large lenses, people want large, it does not matter if the IQ is top notch or not (in most prints you won't see the difference between a good lens or the best lens...)

And what I said in my other post: take a good look at the handling. Good handling is very personal and very, very important

 

[Hans vdC]

Went to the shop and handled both the Nikon and A7 (both without batteries though). The a7 really felt nice, the Nikon is a lot heavier as expected but got a nice grip to it. Liked both. I might wait a bit and hope Sony releases an A7 with the a6000 af. It really amazed me how close the A7 was to my A6000 in both feel and weight, and it looked and felt very sturdy.

It didn't help much of course when the salesperson in the shop was over the moon with his A7 + primes, was considering to sell his 5D3+L lenses (like I did) and really was so enthusiastic about it, that he even offered me to borrow his A7 + primes for a day or two (happens he lives very close to where I live).

 

[nandbytes]

Went to the shop and handled both the Nikon and A7 (both without batteries though). The a7 really felt nice, the Nikon is a lot heavier as expected but got a nice grip to it. Liked both. I might wait a bit and hope Sony releases an A7 with the a6000 af. It really amazed me how close the A7 was to my A6000 in both feel and weight, and it looked and felt very sturdy.

If you can live with nikons UI and liveview system+chimping, D750 is a better camera. But if you are like me and you can't then Sony is the only option as far as FF goes. I dumped my A99 to buy a nikon. After using Sony, every time I used a nikon in the shop I felt like I had gone back 20 years (and believe me I went countless times to convince myself I could live with nikon).

But thats just personal tastes, there are many many user who use it with no problems and you could be one of them.

It didn't help much of course when the salesperson in the shop was over the moon with his A7 + primes, was considering to sell his 5D3+L lenses (like I did) and really was so enthusiastic about it, that he even offered me to borrow his A7 + primes for a day or two (happens he lives very close to where I live).

You should take him up on the offer.

 

[eeper]

If you take the A7 (s) you do not need the 55mm f/1.8

You can pump up the ISO instead.

The f/4 is enough. And you do not need that extreme swallow DOF in a wedding. f/4 in a full frame is swallow enough for almost all artistic ideas you may come up with. And usually even smaller apperture e.g. f/8 can do the work. Don't forget you will need some times to have everybody in focus.

So, if it is to go the A7 way, and specifically the (s), save your money.

Even sell your a6000. Having a second camera will not help you in this case. The 24-70 is all around. I use two cameras when I want one of the cameras to mount a good prime lens.

If you're doing a wedding, always always have a backup. When I help out my wife with family portraits she always has a second body that can use her lenses just in case there is a problem. Her mentor had his main camera poop out on him, luckily he had a backup on him. There is no redo's on the wedding so having two bodies is essential.

But with the ISO capabilities of the A7s...you don't need this that much.

Now, regarding moving subjects indoor...

You may want to start using flashes bouncing on the ceiling to create some light.

However I haven't experienced the A7s speed of AF. I don't know if it can keep up with kids.

If that is a concern, then I suspect that the nikon 750 will be better.

As you understand...there is no clear opinion on your situation.

You have to decide...maybe you can rent first and try and see what is more convenient to you?

 

[eeper]

good luck with the unbiased thing For me the big difference isnt really the size. its the evf. I never really used a dslr, (i use a rangefinder though and a had a canon rebel once)

1) I like wysiwyg, big time. Through a viewfinder I mean. It is a completely different experience. Immersive, dof sensitive, awareness of the beginnings of crushed blacks or blown highlights, the way a shadow makes shapes. I adjust with my eye to the viewfinder.

This is one of the many things I like about the a7s,this is fantastic. I love being able to change anything on my camera without having to move away from the viewfinder, it actually makes taking portraits a ton easier since I can see the DOF. Absolutely love it.

2) and moving the focus point to wherever I want. For shallow dof portraiture (or other types where the focal plane may be critically affected) I think it is really important. Stopped focus and recompose a long time ago and wont go back. Other deeper dof stuff focus and recompose is fine and quicker.

I forgot to add that dslr and slt have limited scope for moving the focus point over the entire frame. Particularly ff. Weirdly, composing using third rules usually means that the focus points fall outside where i would usually focus, APCS is better but not comparable to any mirrorless as far as I know.

Dont get me wrong, I get that dslrs are still better in some ways, particularly against the a7, but I thk they are a different enough now for some users that it is an easy decision. Of course others users needs may be better served by dslrs. I dont really know much about the d750 except that its lower and higher end siblings have some beautiful tones and dr. Guess it will come down to personal need.

Next gen alpha bodies though, qui sait.

--blank, empty, gap, language, letters, meaning, missing, sign, space, tiles, void, words
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robbinsbox

 

[red fuji]

"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 dont think the current A7 will satisfy your requirements right now. the biggest quality the A7 has going for it right now is its small size-which you dont care much for.