Moving from Nikons to Sony A7III

[hsessions]

I hope someone will be kind enough to respond and give some sincere, really honest opinion feeling about their A7III.  I am selling a couple of Nikon bodies (D610, D7100) and the Nikkor 80-400mm all just to purchase the A7III.   So much hype around this camera, getting sucked in.  Not the first time I have switched from Nikon to Sony but do remember that after about a year and a half started to feel I had made a mistake buying the NEXs, I liked them, just never 'loved' them and started to find all kinds of reasons to not like them, flaws problems with slowish focusing, and in the images, colouring etc real or imagined, and then fell into a depression (real depression),  feeling I had done wrong and betrayed the Nikons by giving them up so easily.  Sold the Sonys and slowly bought back the Nikons which I love for image quality,  fast focusing of the lenses I have on them and everything else basically, but not the size of the package or the noisy shutter.  And the attention they draw, I am tired of being asked by people to pay for taking a photo of them when I travel, they see the cameras and ask for money up front.

 

Question:  Anyone who has or has had the A7III for a few months what do you like least about the images shot with it, artefacts, banding, moire, weird bokeh, doubling of the image edges strange or unexpected splotches of colour; these are some of the issues that have been kind of brought up on forums discussing this Sony.  Anything that you feel your Canon, Nikon or other DSLR doesn't suffer with.  This is really more for the pixel peeper I guess.  Anything that makes you wish you had stuck with the heavier kit or almost wish you could move back to it?  I only shoot for stock, but a pixel peeper nevertheless, and  perhaps too picky.  I will not at this point be looking at any of the G Master lenses either, just the kit lenses.  Thanks in advance to any responders.

[Colin Woods]

Helen

I know it's all too easy to get sucked into hype around a product. You should go to a camera shop and compare your D610 with its lens with an a7 with its lens. Is it really that much smaller and lighter? I was in this position a few years back when I wanted to change my D300 for something with better moving-subject AF and high ISO. I really considered going mirrorless but, after long reflection and visits to shops, ended up going with the D750. I know that mirrorless now is not the same as mirrorless was in 2014, but in the D750 I have a gorgeous camera that tracks AF, sees in the dark and takes Alamy accepted photos at 10,000 ISO, all for the price of a couple of hundred grams in weight and a bit more bulk. 

[Betty LaRue]

Colin, she is wanting something unobtrusive that doesn’t broadcast “professional.” Mirrorless fits the bill. 

I can’t remark on the Sony, but I’ve been shooting mirrorless now for over 4 years. I’m shooting Fuji X-T2 right now. The X-T3 has just been announced and the specs are nice. 

My X-T2 does everything I need for stock. I don’t shoot sports, so any imperfections there are a non-issue. But if it were, I’d order the new T3 because there are vast improvements with it for focusing on fast movement.

hsessions, I left Nikon, the only system I used from the D70 on, and I don’t regret leaving.  I love the color rendition that Fuji excels at. Oh, and I tried Nikon full-frame and went back to APS-C. I love the crop factor.

Betty

[Craig Joiner]

Why not wait for the Nikon Z6 to arrive in a couple of months before jumping? Seems to me that this camera has all the advantages you are looking for in the Sony but retains the Nikon system (button locations, menu system etc.) that you know plus with the FTZ lens adapter you can keep all your existing F mount glass (unless you have the older screw type AF lenses of course). The Sony system is very different to the Nikon system and I wonder if you were frustrated by these differences when you previously moved to Sony? if so then perhaps the A7III will be no different?

 

If it were me I'd try them both out in a shop side by side with your existing bodies as Colin suggests, and then decide. If there's no decisive winner then I'd personally not change. I've not used the A7III but by all accounts it's a fine camera, but is its image quality significantly better or worse than your existing bodies or the Z6? Probably not.

[hsessions]

Many thanks to you both, you have actually helped me with a decision.  Colin, I 'll keep one Nikon the newer D7200 and a a couple of lenses in case things don't work out with the mirrorless, if I am again disappointed I'll go back to shooting Nikon and possibly with a newer body.   I looked at an older A7 in the store, they didn't have an A7III on display and I didn't ask, the size is very attractive.  Can just slip it into any pocket with a small kit lens attached, reminds me of the NEX days when I could just pretend to be fiddling with the camera all the while taking loads of pictures in crowded places.  But, for being able to judge image quality I'd only be able to do so after a few days of shooting and 'pixel peeping' in camera raw or Photoshop really.  Betty I read in another thread about your getting rid of even your D800 or sorry was it D810?  Anyways, quite a decision, anything to do with the smaller focus area on the full frame?  Or was it just everything weight, size etc.  Another attraction for me to the A7III is the focus points/area on this full frame.  I think I just must try it.

Helen

[wiskerke]

For pixel-peepers I would recommend the Nikon or Sony 40+ megapixel cameras.

However if your only real requirement is to be less obtrusive, there's just no solution if you want to shoot for stock. Because the only unobtrusive and totally acceptable camera is a phone.

Using a phone for stock is possible of course. But not here. And I doubt it's profitable elsewhere, except the odd exceptional case.

I went from big Canons to a Sony A7R2, which looks exactly the same as the rest of the A7's. There are a couple of smallish lenses like the 35mm, but the rest is only marginally less bulky than all the others. Olympus has some smaller camera's and lenses, but still make sure they look just like a dslr. Except the Pen maybe.

Besides the general public will not notice the size difference at all. It's a real camera, that's it. You have a big advantage in that you're not a guy with a real camera, because as we all know those are either perverts or terrorists.

Maybe paint or wrap your cameras pink and emphasize the girly owww cute! thing. Make selfies every 3 minutes and every situation will be defused instantly.

The only advantage I see in the Sony's right now is that they have Sony sensors (like the best Nikons) and you don't want anything else. They're still 2 or 3 generations ahead of the competition. And yes they have silent shooting of course. Like really silent not Nikon or Canon or Leica silent, but really silent. Did I mention you cannot hear them? Right. However, you're still sticking out a mile. So if I were a girl I would paint my Sony pink as well.

 

Personally I have turned to Sony RX100's for unobtrusiveness. Works so far.

 

But I'm still looking for the reverse of this.

 

wim

 

edit:

19 minutes ago, hsessions said:

 I think I just must try it.

Why not rent one?

 

 

 

[hsessions]

Craig thanks for that suggestion about the Z6, hadn't even considered it but will now definitely compare the two. 

Too funny wim, 'pink'!  And selfies so not me though.  But seriously, if you gave up your big Canons for the A7R2 and you do have exceptional images, then I might be going in the right direction after all.  My last trip was the last straw, I went on safari, the guide wanted to help me carry my stuff, the game ranger also just took one camera off me and carried it, clearly it appeared to them I was not coping.  And like I said everyone wanted money for a photo.  Have always wanted to do pictures at some resorts, beaches in the caribbean but how would it look if I walk along the beach fully dressed with a long zoom.  How do people take pictures in places like that without being punched in the face.  All your responses have made me think that I need to do some research and I will have to change and upgrade more than the cameras I think.  Photoshop C6 and camera raw will not open the new sony RAW files.

Helen

[Betty LaRue]

1 hour ago, hsessions said:

Many thanks to you both, you have actually helped me with a decision.  Colin, I 'll keep one Nikon the newer D7200 and a a couple of lenses in case things don't work out with the mirrorless, if I am again disappointed I'll go back to shooting Nikon and possibly with a newer body.   I looked at an older A7 in the store, they didn't have an A7III on display and I didn't ask, the size is very attractive.  Can just slip it into any pocket with a small kit lens attached, reminds me of the NEX days when I could just pretend to be fiddling with the camera all the while taking loads of pictures in crowded places.  But, for being able to judge image quality I'd only be able to do so after a few days of shooting and 'pixel peeping' in camera raw or Photoshop really.  Betty I read in another thread about your getting rid of even your D800 or sorry was it D810?  Anyways, quite a decision, anything to do with the smaller focus area on the full frame?  Or was it just everything weight, size etc.  Another attraction for me to the A7III is the focus points/area on this full frame.  I think I just must try it.

Helen

Ahhh, the D800. Full Frame. All those pixels. The color rendition was not as good as my D7000. And yes, I hated how the scene seemed far away, after being used to the crop factor. I felt disengaged, and it wasn’t fun. I like fun!

Then, I carried around a heavy brick. I had to use a monopod with my 80-400 lens. I can hand hold my X-T2 with 100-400 lens. Plus the extra pixels with the Nikon makes you aware of tiny mistakes in your usage...the tiniest mistake causes non-keepers.

 

wim, when I shot Nikon, people came up to me and asked if I were a professional. They asked if I were with the local newspaper sometimes. Often. Not one single person has asked me that since I got into Fuji. Even with a bigger lens on.  Seldom does anyone even look my way. So no, you don’t have to use a phone to be unobtrusive.

Once, in San  Diego, California while shooting sandpipers with my D300 on a monopod, I tangled with security guys who insisted I was with the newspaper, saying with a rig like that, I had to be. The area was tangled up in lawsuits over private/city property rights. I had to show them the images of birds before they slunk off. By then, I was so furious that I shot every piece of property in range.

 

[Allan Bell]

8 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

 

Once, in San  Diego, California while shooting sandpipers with my D300 on a monopod, I tangled with security guys who insisted I was with the newspaper, saying with a rig like that, I had to be. The area was tangled up in lawsuits over private/city property rights. I had to show them the images of birds before they slunk off. By then, I was so furious that I shot every piece of property in range.

 

 

LOVE IT.

 

Allan

 

 

[CAROL SAUNDERS]

1 hour ago, hsessions said:

Craig thanks for that suggestion about the Z6, hadn't even considered it but will now definitely compare the two. 

Too funny wim, 'pink'!  And selfies so not me though.  But seriously, if you gave up your big Canons for the A7R2 and you do have exceptional images, then I might be going in the right direction after all.  My last trip was the last straw, I went on safari, the guide wanted to help me carry my stuff, the game ranger also just took one camera off me and carried it, clearly it appeared to them I was not coping.  And like I said everyone wanted money for a photo.  Have always wanted to do pictures at some resorts, beaches in the caribbean but how would it look if I walk along the beach fully dressed with a long zoom.  How do people take pictures in places like that without being punched in the face.  All your responses have made me think that I need to do some research and I will have to change and upgrade more than the cameras I think.  Photoshop C6 and camera raw will not open the new sony RAW files.

Helen

 

Helen, on Safari I've found it's the normal for folk to ask for money if you want to take their pictures, I normally just buy something cheapish from them.  I now have a good collection of straw hats and colourful sarongs!  Re: shooting on Caribbean beaches, I've not had a problem using a Nikon full frame with either a 28/300mm or 24/70, could be I wasn't fully dressed it was far too hot!  If I was changing cameras I would definitely look at the Z6 if you are used to Nikons, horses for courses as they say !  I think a 200-400mm might attract a few comments on a Caribbean beach though if you weren't shooting wildlife.

[Betty LaRue]

1 hour ago, Allan Bell said:

 

LOVE IT.

 

Allan

 

 

You don’t want to pi** off an American woman. The fact that I’m very polite and unassuming in normal circumstances meant nothing. I was still very polite, but I got my revenge. The only thing that would have been better is if I’d sold those shots to the newspapers.

I just wanted to get on with my birds. 

[hsessions]

1 hour ago, CAROL SAUNDERS said:

 

Helen, on Safari I've found it's the normal for folk to ask for money if you want to take their pictures, I normally just buy something cheapish from them.  I now have a good collection of straw hats and colourful sarongs!  Re: shooting on Caribbean beaches, I've not had a problem using a Nikon full frame with either a 28/300mm or 24/70, could be I wasn't fully dressed it was far too hot!  If I was changing cameras I would definitely look at the Z6 if you are used to Nikons, horses for courses as they say !  I think a 200-400mm might attract a few comments on a Caribbean beach though if you weren't shooting wildlife.

Thanks Carol, good to know about the Caribbean.  I'll book at a resort,sometime hopefully soon, for the beach, vacation type shots for potential travel & tourism licensing.  Last time I went to Cuba I stayed in Havana.

[hsessions]

3 hours ago, wiskerke said:

And yes they have silent shooting of course. Like really silent not Nikon or Canon or Leica silent, but really silent. Did I mention you cannot hear them?

wim

 

Silent shooting, quiet shutter, very important, VERY.  Thanks for confirming.

Helen

[Betty LaRue]

I’ve been to the Caribbean twice. St. Croix, USVI.

I had no problems shooting pictures. Whether it be tourists or islanders. It mattered not whether I was in a bathing suit and coverup or just warm weather attire.

Our cottage was on the beach, literally 20-30 steps from the water.  It almost seemed that people expected to have their pictures taken. Cameras used at different trips: D800 but not a lot, with Sony RX100 first trip. Fuji X-T1 and  RX100 mk3 2nd trip.

The handiest camera was the very unobtrusive RX100s.  Kept one in a tiny purse about 5 or 6” by 4” with a lipstick, comb, ID, $$ and a tissue. Wore the strap cross body.  I was never without a camera except when I was in the water snorkeling.

It wasn’t fun shooting with the large Nikon although I did it for a deliberate shoot while touring the island. Happily left it home the second trip. Then sold it before the dust got too deep.

 

[marc]

I use the Sony A7 system (A7rII/III) and have been for 2 years.    I have had none of these:  artefacts, banding, moire, weird bokeh, doubling of the image edges strange or unexpected splotches of colour.  I very much doubt that any of them are real except banding when shooting silent mode under some artificial light, which will happen with any camera.  You do need time to work out how you like your colours when migrating from a different system.  The colour is good out of the camera, particularly for landscape, but I sometimes tweak portraits for skin tones, particularly in artificial light.   Easily done in any good software.    The A7RIII is now nearly the same price as the A7III in the UK from some outlets.  The viewfinder is much better in the A7RIII.     

 

You might look at the new Tamron 28-75  2.8  as a walkaround as it is a lighter and smaller than the GM 28-70 and half the price.  Would be a bit less obtrusive.   You could also add a second body A6500 which is APSC and even smaller.  Prices will probably drop soon as there is a A7000 coming, so wait for that announcement.  The good thing about Sony mirrorless is that you can shrink the kit with smaller lenses, or use the GM lenses when you are looking for the very best range and resolution.   

[hsessions]

2 hours ago, marc said:

I use the Sony A7 system (A7rII/III) and have been for 2 years.    I have had none of these:  artefacts, banding, moire, weird bokeh, doubling of the image edges strange or unexpected splotches of colour.  I very much doubt that any of them are real except banding when shooting silent mode under some artificial light, which will happen with any camera.  You do need time to work out how you like your colours when migrating from a different system.  The colour is good out of the camera, particularly for landscape, but I sometimes tweak portraits for skin tones, particularly in artificial light.   Easily done in any good software.    The A7RIII is now nearly the same price as the A7III in the UK from some outlets.  The viewfinder is much better in the A7RIII.     

 

 

Thank you Marc, very useful info on the A7 system.  I know colour being different is something I will just have to get used to and tweak as you say.  I was planning to wait just until there was a small price drop on the A7III, at this time there aren't even any in the stores that I usually buy from, all on order, one can pre-order.  Also, the Tamron 28-75 2.8 is an idea, thanks for that as well.

[marc]

I would go and try the A7RIII in a store and see what you think.   The viewfinder in the A7III is the same as in the A7rII and it's not as as bright as the new Sony viewfinders.   That said the A7III is a lot of camera for its price and I suspect it will be difficult to come by for a while. Particularly as neither the Nikon or Canon first gen cameras have moved ahead of the current Sony lineup, and a lot of people are going to swap systems to Sony and maybe Fuji. 

[Steve F]

On 9/7/2018 at 03:39, hsessions said:

I hope someone will be kind enough to respond and give some sincere, really honest opinion feeling about their A7III.  I am selling a couple of Nikon bodies (D610, D7100) and the Nikkor 80-400mm all just to purchase the A7III.   So much hype around this camera, getting sucked in.  Not the first time I have switched from Nikon to Sony but do remember that after about a year and a half started to feel I had made a mistake buying the NEXs, I liked them, just never 'loved' them and started to find all kinds of reasons to not like them, flaws problems with slowish focusing, and in the images, colouring etc real or imagined, and then fell into a depression (real depression),  feeling I had done wrong and betrayed the Nikons by giving them up so easily.  Sold the Sonys and slowly bought back the Nikons which I love for image quality,  fast focusing of the lenses I have on them and everything else basically, but not the size of the package or the noisy shutter.  And the attention they draw, I am tired of being asked by people to pay for taking a photo of them when I travel, they see the cameras and ask for money up front.

 

Question:  Anyone who has or has had the A7III for a few months what do you like least about the images shot with it, artefacts, banding, moire, weird bokeh, doubling of the image edges strange or unexpected splotches of colour; these are some of the issues that have been kind of brought up on forums discussing this Sony.  Anything that you feel your Canon, Nikon or other DSLR doesn't suffer with.  This is really more for the pixel peeper I guess.  Anything that makes you wish you had stuck with the heavier kit or almost wish you could move back to it?  I only shoot for stock, but a pixel peeper nevertheless, and  perhaps too picky.  I will not at this point be looking at any of the G Master lenses either, just the kit lenses.  Thanks in advance to any responders.

 

Hi, I've been using the A7iii for a couple of months now. I am very pleased with it. Very compact and unobtrusive. Silent shooting. I have the Sony F2.8 35mm (really small, great for street photography), Sony 90mm F2.8 macro and the Sony 24-105mm F4 as a general walkaround lens. The image quality is excellent with all of the lenses - I haven't noticed any of the image quality issues you mention above. Autofocus is very fast. Dual memory card slots. You don't need to get fast lenses (e.g. F1.8) with this camera either because the dynamic range and ISO quality of the sensor is so good. This can save a lot of weight and size with your lenses (although the lenses are often not too much smaller than DSLR lenses I have to admit). You get in-body stabilisation with the Sony and a lot of the lenses are also stabilised meaning it is great for handheld shooting.

 

Some negatives - the screen doesn't flip out to the side or top to allow you to do selfie type shots or so you can see the screen from the front of the camera. Apparently the body is not too waterproof although the lenses are dust and weather sealed. I was shooting 4k video recently and the camera overheated and briefly switched off every 20mins to half an hour, although it was quite warm outside. Other than these things, I can highly recommend it.

 

Nikon had just announced (and released?) two mirrorless cameras. One has specs similar to the A7iii although I haven't looked too much into it. I would assume they wouldn't have got everything right with their first generation mirrorless camera - Sony mirrorless are now 3rd generation. Also, the mirrorless lens selection for the Nikon is a lot smaller than for the Sony, although you could get an adapter for your existing lenses. I wouldn't want to use an adaptor though, it kind of defeats the purposes of going mirrorless for the compact size.

 

I hope this helps.

Stephen

[Duncan_Andison]

1 hour ago, Steve F said:

 

Hi, I've been using the A7iii for a couple of months now. I am very pleased with it. Very compact and unobtrusive. Silent shooting. I have the Sony F2.8 35mm (really small, great for street photography), Sony 90mm F2.8 macro and the Sony 24-105mm F4 as a general walkaround lens. The image quality is excellent with all of the lenses - I haven't noticed any of the image quality issues you mention above. Autofocus is very fast. Dual memory card slots. You don't need to get fast lenses (e.g. F1.8) with this camera either because the dynamic range and ISO quality of the sensor is so good. This can save a lot of weight and size with your lenses (although the lenses are often not too much smaller than DSLR lenses I have to admit). You get in-body stabilisation with the Sony and a lot of the lenses are also stabilised meaning it is great for handheld shooting.

 

Some negatives - the screen doesn't flip out to the side or top to allow you to do selfie type shots or so you can see the screen from the front of the camera. Apparently the body is not too waterproof although the lenses are dust and weather sealed. I was shooting 4k video recently and the camera overheated and briefly switched off every 20mins to half an hour, although it was quite warm outside. Other than these things, I can highly recommend it.

 

Nikon had just announced (and released?) two mirrorless cameras. One has specs similar to the A7iii although I haven't looked too much into it. I would assume they wouldn't have got everything right with their first generation mirrorless camera - Sony mirrorless are now 3rd generation. Also, the mirrorless lens selection for the Nikon is a lot smaller than for the Sony, although you could get an adapter for your existing lenses. I wouldn't want to use an adaptor though, it kind of defeats the purposes of going mirrorless for the compact size.

 

I hope this helps.

Stephen

 

I would imagine the A7iii is similar to the A7riii that I use. The weather sealing is actually quite good.... except, the issue it does have is poor protection on the battery door. Seems a little crazy given the sealing in the rest of the camera is very good... a bit of a Duh, moment! Avoid standing the camera  in puddles or allowing water to settle around this area and you should be ok. That said, no matter how well sealed a camera is, it's best to place cover of some sort over them if sitting out in heavy rain for any period of time. No warranty will cover for water damage and I've had cameras that are supposed to have excellent sealing and they did let in moisture which damaged lenses.

 

Never had any issues with overheating in 4k with the A7riii.... might be set up a little different to the A7iii.... or, you've been unlucky. If it overheats quite quickly, it may be worth getting in touch with Sony for a checkup while it's under warranty.... just in case. The A7rii I used to shoot with was fine in 30c sunshine for shooting off and on for a good hour. 

[Dave Richards]

On ‎07‎/‎09‎/‎2018 at 02:39, hsessions said:

I hope someone will be kind enough to respond and give some sincere, really honest opinion feeling about their A7III.  I am selling a couple of Nikon bodies (D610, D7100) and the Nikkor 80-400mm all just to purchase the A7III.   So much hype around this camera, getting sucked in.  Not the first time I have switched from Nikon to Sony but do remember that after about a year and a half started to feel I had made a mistake buying the NEXs, I liked them, just never 'loved' them and started to find all kinds of reasons to not like them, flaws problems with slowish focusing, and in the images, colouring etc real or imagined, and then fell into a depression (real depression),  feeling I had done wrong and betrayed the Nikons by giving them up so easily.  Sold the Sonys and slowly bought back the Nikons which I love for image quality,  fast focusing of the lenses I have on them and everything else basically, but not the size of the package or the noisy shutter.  And the attention they draw, I am tired of being asked by people to pay for taking a photo of them when I travel, they see the cameras and ask for money up front.

 

Question:  Anyone who has or has had the A7III for a few months what do you like least about the images shot with it, artefacts, banding, moire, weird bokeh, doubling of the image edges strange or unexpected splotches of colour; these are some of the issues that have been kind of brought up on forums discussing this Sony.  Anything that you feel your Canon, Nikon or other DSLR doesn't suffer with.  This is really more for the pixel peeper I guess.  Anything that makes you wish you had stuck with the heavier kit or almost wish you could move back to it?  I only shoot for stock, but a pixel peeper nevertheless, and  perhaps too picky.  I will not at this point be looking at any of the G Master lenses either, just the kit lenses.  Thanks in advance to any responders.

I currently use a Nikon D610 and still use a D90. There are a lot of developments on-going with mirrorless kit at the moment; the introduction of the Nikon Z6 and Z7 being the latest example. I have considered going mirrorless, but with a considerable investment in Nikkor F mount DSLR lenses I am going to leave it a year or two to see how things go. Whilst Nikon have an adaptor for F mount lenses to the new Z mount, I doubt the weight saving of having the Z6 or 7 body would be significant enough to sway me that way at the moment. The ergonomics of using heavy F mount lenses with a small body also needs to be considered. Why not hire the Sony for a few days to see how it goes before taking the plunge?

[Allan Bell]

 

4 hours ago, Duncan_Andison said:

 

Never had any issues with overheating in 4k with the A7riii.... might be set up a little different to the A7iii.... or, you've been unlucky. If it overheats quite quickly, it may be worth getting in touch with Sony for a checkup while it's under warranty.... just in case. The A7rii I used to shoot with was fine in 30c sunshine for shooting off and on for a good hour. 

 

 

Hi Duncan if you are still about could you answer an off topic question for me please, and hoping hsessions won't mind.

 

I know you do at lot of hiking in the mountainous regions and wondered which backpack you use to carry your gear please?

 

I am looking for something to carry all my Sony gear in with out breaking my shoulders but lightweight and not bulky.

 

Allan

 

 

[hsessions]

5 hours ago, Steve F said:

 

Hi, I've been using the A7iii for a couple of months now. I am very pleased with it. Very compact and unobtrusive. Silent shooting. I have the Sony F2.8 35mm (really small, great for street photography), Sony 90mm F2.8 macro and the Sony 24-105mm F4 as a general walkaround lens.

 

Thanks for the feed back Stephen  I was looking at the 28-75mm 2.8 Tamron that Marc mentioned now also looking at the 24-105mm, might be a tough decision, although the Tamron appears more appealing and I could forget about the 85 1.8 I was looking at if the iso it's good as you say, I was considering it for low light shooting.  The weather sealing and 4K video are not major concerns though.

 

4 hours ago, Dave Richards said:

I currently use a Nikon D610 and still use a D90. There are a lot of developments on-going with mirrorless kit at the moment; the introduction of the Nikon Z6 and Z7 being the latest example. I have considered going mirrorless, but with a considerable investment in Nikkor F mount DSLR lenses I am going to leave it a year or two to see how things go. Whilst Nikon have an adaptor for F mount lenses to the new Z mount, I doubt the weight saving of having the Z6 or 7 body would be significant enough to sway me that way at the moment. The ergonomics of using heavy F mount lenses with a small body also needs to be considered. Why not hire the Sony for a few days to see how it goes before taking the plunge?

I had the D90 the longest, when I sold off the first one to upgrade to the D7000 which had issues with back focusing (returned it) I bought another D90.  I agree about The Z6, Z7  I think Sony would be the safer bet and I think I'm pretty much decided but will look at those two just to compare, thanks for your input.

Helen

 

[Marvin McAbee]

For a small camera the a6000 with lens is only $650.00 and keep the Nikons for non discrete shooting.  Much less money than the a7III.  I have Nikons and the a5000 Sony and use both.  The only thing bad about the a5000 is no viewfinder but the a6000 has one.

Marvin

 

[Duncan_Andison]

15 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

 

 

 

Hi Duncan if you are still about could you answer an off topic question for me please, and hoping hsessions won't mind.

 

I know you do at lot of hiking in the mountainous regions and wondered which backpack you use to carry your gear please?

 

I am looking for something to carry all my Sony gear in with out breaking my shoulders but lightweight and not bulky.

 

Allan

 

 

 

No worries.... I use a Osprey Stratos 36.... 2013 model. I'm not sure if the newer versions have exactly the same pockets. Here's a youtube review of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pfMDe8_yDo 

 

I use 2 Peak Designs capture clips, one each strap to carry a a7riii 24-105 and a 2nd A7riii with either the 12-24 or the 100-400. This works well as it balances the weight in the backpack and makes it very comfortable to carry. Two cameras also balance the side to side weight. The straps are strong/wide enough to easy support the clip system. You can buy small water proof covers to go with the clip system so everything can be left in place, even if it is chucking it down. I prefer to have cameras to hand and never have them inside the pack. It can look a little OTT but it's comfortable and easy to use. I regularly do 12-15 mile walks with both cameras and 100-400 and never have neck ache etc.

 

There is a large pocket on the back of the backpack, separate from the main compartment which is excellent for additional lenses. there are 2-3 netted pockets inside and plenty of space to add an additional top (that also acts as protection for lenses). The main compartment is used purely for waterproofs and drinks etc. The two hipped pockets comfortably take mobile phones, batteries and keys etc. Side netted pockets are great for mini tripods/filters. On the left strap there is an elasticated strap that is supposed to be used for walking sticks. However, it's the perfect size and position to hold long lenses in position while the camera is attached to a capture clip. It means when you lean forward, even with the 100-400, the lens stays in place and doesn't swing out from the body. 

 

Of course, there are a load of other pockets as well but these are the key things from a photographic point of view. I never use a bag designed for cameras in the mountains because... well, they're designed with cameras in mind and don't excel in carrying weight comfortably in the mountains.... or providing the space needed for all your outdoor gear. I've lost count how many bags I've tried before settling on Osprey.... also use a 70L pack of theirs when wild camping on the summits... still with the same camera gear etc. The Osprey bags tend to be a little heavier, not much, than others but their weight distribution system is excellent and it is this that lets you carry more without feeling it as much.

 

The best thing is to go in to a shop and check them out for size and fit. Hope this helps :-)

 

[Allan Bell]

2 hours ago, Duncan_Andison said:

 

No worries.... I use a Osprey Stratos 36.... 2013 model. I'm not sure if the newer versions have exactly the same pockets. Here's a youtube review of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pfMDe8_yDo 

 

I use 2 Peak Designs capture clips, one each strap to carry a a7riii 24-105 and a 2nd A7riii with either the 12-24 or the 100-400. This works well as it balances the weight in the backpack and makes it very comfortable to carry. Two cameras also balance the side to side weight. The straps are strong/wide enough to easy support the clip system. You can buy small water proof covers to go with the clip system so everything can be left in place, even if it is chucking it down. I prefer to have cameras to hand and never have them inside the pack. It can look a little OTT but it's comfortable and easy to use. I regularly do 12-15 mile walks with both cameras and 100-400 and never have neck ache etc.

 

There is a large pocket on the back of the backpack, separate from the main compartment which is excellent for additional lenses. there are 2-3 netted pockets inside and plenty of space to add an additional top (that also acts as protection for lenses). The main compartment is used purely for waterproofs and drinks etc. The two hipped pockets comfortably take mobile phones, batteries and keys etc. Side netted pockets are great for mini tripods/filters. On the left strap there is an elasticated strap that is supposed to be used for walking sticks. However, it's the perfect size and position to hold long lenses in position while the camera is attached to a capture clip. It means when you lean forward, even with the 100-400, the lens stays in place and doesn't swing out from the body. 

 

Of course, there are a load of other pockets as well but these are the key things from a photographic point of view. I never use a bag designed for cameras in the mountains because... well, they're designed with cameras in mind and don't excel in carrying weight comfortably in the mountains.... or providing the space needed for all your outdoor gear. I've lost count how many bags I've tried before settling on Osprey.... also use a 70L pack of theirs when wild camping on the summits... still with the same camera gear etc. The Osprey bags tend to be a little heavier, not much, than others but their weight distribution system is excellent and it is this that lets you carry more without feeling it as much.

 

The best thing is to go in to a shop and check them out for size and fit. Hope this helps :-)

 

 

Many thanks for your very explanatory guide and video link Duncan. I have copied it to a file on my desktop so I can keep on reading it to get the best out of your explanation of your methods.

 

Allan