Moving from Nikons to Sony A7III

[Duncan_Andison 540]

6 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

 

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

 

 

No problem. I may take a pic to show how it looks the next time I'm out. This has sort of been perfected over years and driven by laziness.... errr.... desire to not stop each time I want the camera/s  and of course, it has the added benefit of keeping the better half happy as I no longer keep stopping 

[Colblimp 1,312]

On 9/7/2018 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.

 

Utter madness.  You've fallen for the hype and, by the looks of it, you've a lot of money invested in Nikon, so why would you waste that money?!  You will lose a big chunk of cash changing to Sony, it just doesn't make sense.

[Marianne 506]

I'm happy I went with a full frame Sony. I bought it in March. The camera is fiddly but the photos are awesome. Low light is great. I got the A7rii and the battery life sucks but I saved over $1,000. Was torn between that and the A7riii. I kept my Nikon 20mm lens and use it with a manual adapter, I also kept an old 50mm f/1.4 (A mount?) I bought on eBay with its original leather case when I started that has the most awesome bokeh. I am torn that I didn't keep my 24-70mm. Sold my D700, D5100 and all the rest of my lenses to fund the purchase of the new camera and some Sony lenses. Even with the 90mm macro (a large lens) it is smaller and lighter than my Nikon kit. 

 

I also have an Olympus mirrorless - the Em-1 I got a few years ago. No one thinks an Olympus is a pro camera. Back during the elections, I was photographing our local Memorial Day Parade (the Clintons live three blocks from me) and used my Olympus with its tiny 40-150mm non-pro, super light zoom. I also had my 17mm with me. I had left the press area because I'm short and wanted to get some images I wasn't tall enough to shoot from that area. Heading back in under the ropes, one of the Secret Service guys looked at my tiny camera and said, "This is just for press."  (none of us had anything around our necks - it was all very informal) One of Hillary's press people intervened as she'd met me before but I've been to many similar events with my Nikons and that hadn't happened, so I'd have to say the Olympus does NOT scream "pro," which I like. 

 

No one gives me a second look when I'm in NYC or any other city taking photos with either of these cameras. I'd get stopped a lot or people would duck my camera or smile and pose when I was out with my Nikons. Mirrorless are much less obvious. And it's easy enough to explain that yes, I'm a pro if I need to. I could've talked my way back under the ropes on my own if needed, grabbed my editor who was around somewhere, or handed them a business card. 

 

Took my Sony to the beach in 90 degree weather. Even then, no overheating problems. 

Edited September 11, 2018 by Marianne

[hsessions 56]

3 hours ago, Colblimp said:

 

Utter madness.  You've fallen for the hype and, by the looks of it, you've a lot of money invested in Nikon, so why would you waste that money?!  You will lose a big chunk of cash changing to Sony, it just doesn't make sense.

 

Yes I've fallen for the hype; it's not all on impulse, it's a good Sony from what everyone is saying, the A9 and A7RII are better but I am going with what is reasonable to me for stock, all those MPs on the A7RIII would start wanting the GM lenses and all that, now that, would be utter madness.  As a back up I am going to keep the D7200, 24-70mm 2.8, 70-200mm 2.8 and the 60mm Nikkor Micro (macro).  It is still hard to part with my other Nikon stuff especially the 80-400mm.

 

 

2 hours ago, Marianne said:

I'm happy I went with a full frame Sony. I bought it in March. The camera is fiddly but the photos are awesome. Low light is great. I got the A7rii and the battery life sucks but I saved over $1,000. Was torn between that and the A7riii. I kept my Nikon 20mm lens and use it with a manual adapter, I also kept an old 50mm f/1.4 (A mount?) I bought on eBay with its original leather case when I started that has the most awesome bokeh. I am torn that I didn't keep my 24-70mm. Sold my D700, D5100 and all the rest of my lenses to fund the purchase of the new camera and some Sony lenses. Even with the 90mm macro (a large lens) it is smaller and lighter than my Nikon kit. 

 

I also have an Olympus mirrorless - the Em-1 I got a few years ago. No one thinks an Olympus is a pro camera. Back during the elections, I was photographing our local Memorial Day Parade (the Clintons live three blocks from me) and used my Olympus with its tiny 40-150mm non-pro, super light zoom. I also had my 17mm with me. I had left the press area because I'm short and wanted to get some images I wasn't tall enough to shoot from that area. Heading back in under the ropes, one of the Secret Service guys looked at my tiny camera and said, "This is just for press."  (none of us had anything around our necks - it was all very informal) One of Hillary's press people intervened as she'd met me before but I've been to many similar events with my Nikons and that hadn't happened, so I'd have to say the Olympus does NOT scream "pro," which I like. 

 

No one gives me a second look when I'm in NYC or any other city taking photos with either of these cameras. I'd get stopped a lot or people would duck my camera or smile and pose when I was out with my Nikons. Mirrorless are much less obvious. And it's easy enough to explain that yes, I'm a pro if I need to. I could've talked my way back under the ropes on my own if needed, grabbed my editor who was around somewhere, or handed them a business card. 

 

Took my Sony to the beach in 90 degree weather. Even then, no overheating problems. 

 

Marianne, you basically were once where I am now,  from your feedback one more reason I don't think I am going to screw up with the move.  So far everyone that's responded likes or loves there A7 system, no one has regrets or wants their big DSLRs back, that's what I needed to hear.

 

Thanks

Helen

[Marianne 506]

6 hours ago, hsessions said:

 

Yes I've fallen for the hype; it's not all on impulse, it's a good Sony from what everyone is saying, the A9 and A7RII are better but I am going with what is reasonable to me for stock, all those MPs on the A7RIII would start wanting the GM lenses and all that, now that, would be utter madness.  As a back up I am going to keep the D7200, 24-70mm 2.8, 70-200mm 2.8 and the 60mm Nikkor Micro (macro).  It is still hard to part with my other Nikon stuff especially the 80-400mm.

 

 

 

Marianne, you basically were once where I am now,  from your feedback one more reason I don't think I am going to screw up with the move.  So far everyone that's responded likes or loves there A7 system, no one has regrets or wants their big DSLRs back, that's what I needed to hear.

 

Thanks

Helen

 

You were probably smart to get the A7 instead of the A7riii - I love the 42 MP but my computers don't - I need to upgrade anyway, but with the new camera it is very obvious. I also love my little Olympus EM-1, and 16 MP is fine. Glad to put your mind at ease - I may be generalizing here but I think that guys don't realize how much harder it is for most women to lug all that heavy equipment around. I crack up every time some guy says his hands are too large for a mirrorless.  At 4'11" I can't even image. I turn 60 in a couple of weeks and just became a grandma so I figure I need to keep my back and neck as healthy as I can. 

[Colblimp 1,312]

7 hours ago, hsessions said:

 

Yes I've fallen for the hype; it's not all on impulse, it's a good Sony from what everyone is saying, the A9 and A7RII are better but I am going with what is reasonable to me for stock, all those MPs on the A7RIII would start wanting the GM lenses and all that, now that, would be utter madness.  As a back up I am going to keep the D7200, 24-70mm 2.8, 70-200mm 2.8 and the 60mm Nikkor Micro (macro).  It is still hard to part with my other Nikon stuff especially the 80-400mm.

 

By keeping the Nikon gear it shows you don't really want to change systems, you're doing it because 'it's cool'!  If you're going to change, go all in and buy two Sony bodies and change all the lenses.  Or just stay with Nikon and save a bunch of money, the sensible option!

[MDM 1,073]

8 hours ago, hsessions said:

 

Yes I've fallen for the hype; it's not all on impulse, it's a good Sony from what everyone is saying, the A9 and A7RII are better but I am going with what is reasonable to me for stock, all those MPs on the A7RIII would start wanting the GM lenses and all that, now that, would be utter madness.  As a back up I am going to keep the D7200, 24-70mm 2.8, 70-200mm 2.8 and the 60mm Nikkor Micro (macro).  It is still hard to part with my other Nikon stuff especially the 80-400mm.

 

39 minutes ago, Colblimp said:

 

By keeping the Nikon gear it shows you don't really want to change systems, you're doing it because 'it's cool'!  If you're going to change, go all in and buy two Sony bodies and change all the lenses.  Or just stay with Nikon and save a bunch of money, the sensible option!

 

 

I've not really been following this thread but skim reading back it seems you want a camera that you can use for candid street photography and the like but you are also keeping a pile of Nikon gear as a backup so you end up with two systems (not ideal as backup if you have to carry it all around).

 

How about buying one of those little Sony RX-100s for the street stuff instead of jumping into the full mirrorless Sony systrm and taking a bit of time to weigh up your options given that Nikon have just released a very viable alternative to the Sony you are considering. You are talking about kit lenses for the Sony and will undoubedtly have to invest more in lenses in due course. On the other hand of you stay with Nikon, your existing lenses would work well with the Nikon adapter on the new Nikon mirrorless and you would save a lot of money - just a thought.  

 

[Duncan_Andison 540]

26 minutes ago, Colblimp said:

 

By keeping the Nikon gear it shows you don't really want to change systems, you're doing it because 'it's cool'!  If you're going to change, go all in and buy two Sony bodies and change all the lenses.  Or just stay with Nikon and save a bunch of money, the sensible option!

 

I'm not sure you can say why someone wants a camera or what they're thinking. That's like applying your own preferences/thoughts to someone else. To be fair, It seems to be a sensible approach. If they've never used this Sony mirrorless camera before, even if they do like all the features/specs on paper, they can never be 100% about whether it will suit them or not. The Nikon cameras as a second body is a safety net, just in case. After using the new camera for a while they can then sell the rest of the Nikon gear if they're happy with the new purchase.

 

Camera gear is a personal journey, a path in which most walk before finding the right solution for them. There are a lot of people who have to much emotion about the brand they use.... like it's their local football team. Keeping an open mind to all manufacturers and trying different systems is a great experience and means you find out first hand whether something is right or wrong for you. Yes it costs money to buy and sell gear but ultimately, it's a small price to pay to find the system that truly works best for you and not just that it got XYorZ in which ever review.

 

For me, I started with Canon 5dmkii, then Sony Nex, then Fuji X-Pro, X-T1 and X-E1 before moving back to Sony A7rii. I paired this up with an Olympus OMD EM1 mk2 for a while but just preferred the ergonomics and performance of the Sony cameras so I sold the Olympus and now have 2 A7riii's with a selection of G and GM lenses. I spent a bit of money over the years but as this is my full time job it was worth the time and effort. Now, for the last 12 months I've never thought of changing as I know I have the right system for me.

 

[MDM 1,073]

1 hour ago, Duncan_Andison said:

 

I'm not sure you can say why someone wants a camera or what they're thinking. That's like applying your own preferences/thoughts to someone else. To be fair, It seems to be a sensible approach. If they've never used this Sony mirrorless camera before, even if they do like all the features/specs on paper, they can never be 100% about whether it will suit them or not. The Nikon cameras as a second body is a safety net, just in case. After using the new camera for a while they can then sell the rest of the Nikon gear if they're happy with the new purchase.

 

Camera gear is a personal journey, a path in which most walk before finding the right solution for them. There are a lot of people who have to much emotion about the brand they use.... like it's their local football team. Keeping an open mind to all manufacturers and trying different systems is a great experience and means you find out first hand whether something is right or wrong for you. Yes it costs money to buy and sell gear but ultimately, it's a small price to pay to find the system that truly works best for you and not just that it got XYorZ in which ever review.

 

For me, I started with Canon 5dmkii, then Sony Nex, then Fuji X-Pro, X-T1 and X-E1 before moving back to Sony A7rii. I paired this up with an Olympus OMD EM1 mk2 for a while but just preferred the ergonomics and performance of the Sony cameras so I sold the Olympus and now have 2 A7riii's with a selection of G and GM lenses. I spent a bit of money over the years but as this is my full time job it was worth the time and effort. Now, for the last 12 months I've never thought of changing as I know I have the right system for me.

 

 

OP: .........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.

 

Asking a question like this is an invitation really to guess what is in the OP''s mind and the original question seems to indicate that the OP primarily wants an unobtrusive camera with a quiet shutter. She is attracted to the Sony mainly because of all the hype as she actually admits. However, Nikon have just release a camera that almost certanly fits the same bill. GIven that she already has a load of Nikon lenses, it would seem more sensible to at least consider the Nikon mirrorless option, moreover given that she declares a love for Nikon gear in the first place.

 

In throwing this in here, it is nothing to do with brand loyalty for me - just maybe a common sense option that could save the OP quite a bit of cash. Buy a Nikon mirrorless first and if she really doesn't like it then sell the lot for the Sony system, not the other way round.

Edited September 12, 2018 by MDM

[Craig Joiner 14]

1 hour ago, MDM said:

 

I've not really been following this thread but skim reading back it seems you want a camera that you can use for candid street photography and the like but you are also keeping a pile of Nikon gear as a backup so you end up with two systems (not ideal as backup if you have to carry it all around).

 

How about buying one of those little Sony RX-100s for the street stuff instead of jumping into the full mirrorless Sony systrm and taking a bit of time to weigh up your options given that Nikon have just released a very viable alternative to the Sony you are considering. You are talking about kit lenses for the Sony and will undoubedtly have to invest more in lenses in due course. On the other hand of you stay with Nikon, your existing lenses would work well with the Nikon adapter on the new Nikon mirrorless and you would save a lot of money - just a thought.  

 

+1

 

The Sony appears to be a fine camera (but no better than any of its peers), but the system (ergonomics, menu, button location etc.) is very different to the Nikon system (and arguably not as mature). Running two very different systems side by side seems counterproductive. I get that people have switched to Sony in the past because they wanted the advantages of full frame mirrorless, but with the Z6 and Z7 pretty much matching the two Sonys, unless you didn’t like the Nikon system, there is no need.

 

If it were me, and given the OP's previous regretted switch to Sony, I would not do anything until the Z6 was out, fully tested and I’d handled both cameras.

 

It's worth pointing out that with the shortest flange distance of any of the full frame mirrorless cameras, the Z mount promises some very high image quality from its lenses. Indeed, the MTF charts for the modest 24-70mm f4 Z-mount kit lens suggest it could have better image quality than the 24-70mm f2.8 F-mount lens with unheard of corner to corner sharpness for a zoom lens. If this proves to be the case in the real world then I could be tempted back to zoom lenses when I come to replace my current DSLR. Even if the Z6/Z7 fall slightly behind the Sonys in other areas in the real world, investment in the Z mount is likely to be worth it

in the long run IMHO.

 

[Duncan_Andison 540]

20 minutes ago, Craig Joiner said:

+1

 

 

 

The Sony appears to be a fine camera (but no better than any of its peers), but the system (ergonomics, menu, button location etc.) is very different to the Nikon system (and arguably not as mature). Running two very different systems side by side seems counterproductive. I get that people have switched to Sony in the past because they wanted the advantages of full frame mirrorless, but with the Z6 and Z7 pretty much matching the two Sonys, unless you didn’t like the Nikon system, there is no need.

 

 

 

 

 

If it were me, and given the OP's previous regretted switch to Sony, I would not do anything until the Z6 was out, fully tested and I’d handled both cameras.

 

It's worth pointing out that with the shortest flange distance of any of the full frame mirrorless cameras, the Z mount promises some very high image quality from its lenses. Indeed, the MTF charts for the modest 24-70mm f4 Z-mount kit lens suggest it could have better image quality than the 24-70mm f2.8 F-mount lens with unheard of corner to corner sharpness for a zoom lens. If this proves to be the case in the real world then I could be tempted back to zoom lenses when I come to replace my current DSLR. Even if the Z6/Z7 fall slightly behind the Sonys in other areas in the real world, investment in the Z mount is likely to be worth it

 

in the long run IMHO.

 

 

 

That would be the best thing. You need to be able to test the camera and adapter to see how it works with existing lenses. If it works great and they feel like native lenses then this would be a excellent option. As you say, it's best to wait until non ambassador reviews are out and not just those who were paid to go to an event etc. Between the Canon and Nikon mirrorless options (discounting Sony for now), I like the look of the Nikon more. By the time they get to 2nd & 3rd versions they could offer great competition to the Sony Mirrorless systems. 

[Allan Bell 1,688]

2 hours ago, Duncan_Andison said:

 

Camera gear is a personal journey, a path in which most walk before finding the right solution for them.

 

 

I am with Duncan on this one. I started my digital journey with Canon 20D through to 5Dmk2. Although I enjoyed the experience I then found I needed something smaller/lighter and that was about the time Fuji XT-1 came out and after a few months watching and reading about the system sold my Canons and bought into Fuji. I loved the fuji XT-1 and even bought a second body. The layout of the Fuji suited me because most of the camera controls, aperture/shutter/ISO etc are manual knobs to turn which I found easier than searching menus as was necessary on other systems at the time. I did have trouble with some of the lenses not being up to standard and the servicing of them at Milton Keynes and having to battle with them over my customer rights. Also whatever I did, despite reading all the information about, I could not get to grips with processing the images from the X-Trans sensor which caused numerous fails with Alamy.

 

To try to keep my sanity I decided to sell up and went over to Nikon D750 and lenses including the 200-500 zoom. Yes I had read the hype and the system did produce better IQ in processing (for me at least) as it had the Bayer sensor, like the Canon, but better. To my chagrin it was only a short while later I found out why I had moved to a smaller/lighter system in the first place. So another change was required and that is when I crossed the divide and moved in on Sony buying two, yes two, A6000 bodies with appropriate lenses for stock work, At the time I did not see any sense in going with the A6300 and the A6500 was not even out. This was great and still is. Then I decided that to get even better images to start using the full frame lenses on the A6000 bodies and of course I ended up purchasing a A7 mk2 body as well. Again the mk3 was not out then.

 

In all I am very happy with Sony system that I have and am able to ring the changes depending on what I am going out to shoot. The system is generally lighter than the Canons and Nikons, and even though they are now appearing to be taking mirrorless seriously I am afraid they have missed the boat, as far as I am concerned, as I will not be going back. I find the images from the Sony cameras to be the easiest to process and have not caused any fails to date. Sorry i have had one fail but that was down to my own stupidity and THAT will not happen again.

 

It was a long and costly journey but I am happy and settled now with the Sony system I have and do not have any hankering to try any more systems out.

 

Allan

 

 

[MDM 1,073]

1 hour ago, Allan Bell said:

 

I am with Duncan on this one. I started my digital journey with Canon 20D through to 5Dmk2. Although I enjoyed the experience I then found I needed something smaller/lighter and that was about the time Fuji XT-1 came out and after a few months watching and reading about the system sold my Canons and bought into Fuji. I loved the fuji XT-1 and even bought a second body. The layout of the Fuji suited me because most of the camera controls, aperture/shutter/ISO etc are manual knobs to turn which I found easier than searching menus as was necessary on other systems at the time. I did have trouble with some of the lenses not being up to standard and the servicing of them at Milton Keynes and having to battle with them over my customer rights. Also whatever I did, despite reading all the information about, I could not get to grips with processing the images from the X-Trans sensor which caused numerous fails with Alamy.

 

To try to keep my sanity I decided to sell up and went over to Nikon D750 and lenses including the 200-500 zoom. Yes I had read the hype and the system did produce better IQ in processing (for me at least) as it had the Bayer sensor, like the Canon, but better. To my chagrin it was only a short while later I found out why I had moved to a smaller/lighter system in the first place. So another change was required and that is when I crossed the divide and moved in on Sony buying two, yes two, A6000 bodies with appropriate lenses for stock work, At the time I did not see any sense in going with the A6300 and the A6500 was not even out. This was great and still is. Then I decided that to get even better images to start using the full frame lenses on the A6000 bodies and of course I ended up purchasing a A7 mk2 body as well. Again the mk3 was not out then.

 

In all I am very happy with Sony system that I have and am able to ring the changes depending on what I am going out to shoot. The system is generally lighter than the Canons and Nikons, and even though they are now appearing to be taking mirrorless seriously I am afraid they have missed the boat, as far as I am concerned, as I will not be going back. I find the images from the Sony cameras to be the easiest to process and have not caused any fails to date. Sorry i have had one fail but that was down to my own stupidity and THAT will not happen again.

 

It was a long and costly journey but I am happy and settled now with the Sony system I have and do not have any hankering to try any more systems out.

 

Allan

 

 

 

 

The OP's situation is somewhat different to yours when you jumped ship as Nikon had not yet produced a decent mirrorless camera whereas that situation has now changed. There is no doubt they are taking it seriously as otherwise they will go out of business and they have produced a very high end piece of mirrorless kit now as well as something a bit more affordable.  I wonder what you would have done if these cameras had existed when you made the jump as I know you had a lot of good Nikon fit lenses at the time and you had not had them for too long so you must have lost quite a bit on the exchange. Some basic calculations of the expenditure involved may have resulted in a different outcome if Nikon had produced this kit at the time. We wll never know really but the key point here is that the OP is in quite a different situation to yours when you jumped.

 

 

[Allan Bell 1,688]

59 minutes ago, MDM said:

the key point here is that the OP is in quite a different situation to yours when you jumped.

 

True. However I was looking for lighter kit and have found it in Sony. If I had gone with Nikon mirrorless I would have still had the heavy Nikon lenses.

 

Allan

 

 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Allan Bell

[MDM 1,073]

38 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

True. However I was looking for lighter kit and have found it in Sony. If I had gone with Nikon mirrorless I would have still had the heavy Nikon lenses.

 

Allan

 

 

 

OK but we need to be comparing like to like. I'm referring to the full frame cameras which is what interests the OP not the A6000 family. I expect there will be a lot of new lighter lenses coming out specially designed  for the new Nikons and I am under the impression that many of the bigger lenses (telephoto zooms and the like) for the full frame Sony mirrorless cameras are broadly similar in weight to the equivalent Nikon and other DSLR lenses but am happy to be corrected.

Edited September 12, 2018 by MDM

[hsessions 56]

8 hours ago, Colblimp said:

 

By keeping the Nikon gear it shows you don't really want to change systems, you're doing it because 'it's cool'!  If you're going to change, go all in and buy two Sony bodies and change all the lenses.  Or just stay with Nikon and save a bunch of money, the sensible option!

If it were about being cool Colblimp, I'd get the A9 add a GM lens and buy it all from a store that sells at the highest price, then I'd be real cool, I think.  No I am doing it for practical reasons. reasons.   Will be hanging on to some of the Nikons until I am convinced the A7III was not a mistake.  Going all in is what I did the last time.

 

7 hours ago, Duncan_Andison said:

 

I'm not sure you can say why someone wants a camera or what they're thinking. That's like applying your own preferences/thoughts to someone else. To be fair, It seems to be a sensible approach. If they've never used this Sony mirrorless camera before, even if they do like all the features/specs on paper, they can never be 100% about whether it will suit them or not. The Nikon cameras as a second body is a safety net, just in case. After using the new camera for a while they can then sell the rest of the Nikon gear if they're happy with the new purchase.

 

Camera gear is a personal journey, a path in which most walk before finding the right solution for them. There are a lot of people who have to much emotion about the brand they use.... like it's their local football team. Keeping an open mind to all manufacturers and trying different systems is a great experience and means you find out first hand whether something is right or wrong for you. Yes it costs money to buy and sell gear but ultimately, it's a small price to pay to find the system that truly works best for you and not just that it got XYorZ in which ever review.

 

For me, I started with Canon 5dmkii, then Sony Nex, then Fuji X-Pro, X-T1 and X-E1 before moving back to Sony A7rii. I paired this up with an Olympus OMD EM1 mk2 for a while but just preferred the ergonomics and performance of the Sony cameras so I sold the Olympus and now have 2 A7riii's with a selection of G and GM lenses. I spent a bit of money over the years but as this is my full time job it was worth the time and effort. Now, for the last 12 months I've never thought of changing as I know I have the right system for me.

 

 

Duncan, thanks for understanding.

 

4 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

 

In all I am very happy with Sony system that I have and am able to ring the changes depending on what I am going out to shoot. The system is generally lighter than the Canons and Nikons, and even though they are now appearing to be taking mirrorless seriously I am afraid they have missed the boat, as far as I am concerned, as I will not be going back. I find the images from the Sony cameras to be the easiest to process and have not caused any fails to date. Sorry i have had one fail but that was down to my own stupidity and THAT will not happen again.

 

It was a long and costly journey but I am happy and settled now with the Sony system I have and do not have any hankering to try any more systems out.

 

Allan

 

 

 

Allan thanks for your feedback as well. 

 

Thanks to everyone for their recommendations, suggestions and advice.  Might not have had a chance reply to everyone but that's because I'm busy researching the cameras and lenses some have recommended, there is quite a bit of reading to do.  I'm looking at and comparing all of them. them, the RXs and so on.

Helen

 

Edited September 12, 2018 by hsessions

[Allan Bell 1,688]

1 hour ago, MDM said:

 

OK but we need to be comparing like to like. I'm referring to the full frame cameras which is what interests the OP not the A6000 family. I expect there will be a lot of new lighter lenses coming out specially designed  for the new Nikons and I am under the impression that many of the bigger lenses (telephoto zooms and the like) for the full frame Sony mirrorless cameras are broadly similar in weight to the equivalent Nikon and other DSLR lenses but am happy to be corrected.

 

But I mentioned that I have an A7 mk2 body which is full frame with full frame lenses too. When I checked the weights of Sony FF lenses in my research the ones I was interested in all came out lighter than Nikon equivalents where there was one.

 

Allan

 

[MDM 1,073]

2 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

But I mentioned that I have an A7 mk2 body which is full frame with full frame lenses too. When I checked the weights of Sony FF lenses in my research the ones I was interested in all came out lighter than Nikon equivalents where there was one.

 

Allan

 

But how much lighter ? Half the weight, 1/10 of the weight. In other words is the difference significant when comparing equivalent lenses? 

[Duncan_Andison 540]

11 minutes ago, MDM said:

But how much lighter ? Half the weight, 1/10 of the weight. In other words is the difference significant when comparing equivalent lenses? 

 

As you say, some lenses are very similar but there are some where there is a big difference. One that I use is the Sony 12-24 f/4 G....  Canon's equivalent is the 11-24 f/4 but that is a lot bigger in size, bit more money and is more than twice the weight.... Nikon, not sure they have an equivalent, closest being 14-24 f/2.8 which is about 400g heavier and not as wide, has an extra stop and is cheaper. I shoot a lot at 12 so I would miss that.

 

Often wide angle lenses on mirrorless tend to be lighter than but once you get to mid/telephoto lenses etc, the weights are very similar. Canon have just followed Sony's lead with the design of their 400 f/2.8 and now matched the weight. 

 

One of the big benefits for me in terms of mirrorless (any mirrorless) is the reduction in camera height/bulk. When carrying dual cameras with a clip system on backpack straps, the lower height means the centre of gravity is closer to your body and the cameras are more comfortable to carry and don't swing around. DSLRs are just not even a consideration. The Canon used to have a life of it's own, the height just took it too far away from the body and, also meant the lens was further away as well. Just no way I'd carry one let alone two. There are a load of other benefits that keep me away from returning to DSLRs but that one is significant.... picked a Canon up the other day and while I liked the OVF, I also missed having all the features of the EVF. For the way I work, DSLRs have no benefits for me anymore... could never go back.

 

The Nikon 850 is an incredible camera though and if I was purely working in the studio all the time, it would be an option but not as a dual camera/lens walk around or out in the mountains camera... just too much extra weight and bulk for my type use. It is great to have these choices though!

[Allan Bell 1,688]

51 minutes ago, MDM said:

But how much lighter ? Half the weight, 1/10 of the weight. In other words is the difference significant when comparing equivalent lenses? 

 

Mick I did reply to your post above but it seems to have disappeared. Anyway Duncan has given you a reply with some weights sizes. I'm afraid I could not have answered in detail because all the comparable listings I made regarding weight size have been thrown. Unfortunately I do not have the time to do it all again butit worked out that my system is quite a bit lighter and that includes FF body and lenses.

 

Allan

 

 

[MDM 1,073]

1 hour ago, Duncan_Andison said:

 

As you say, some lenses are very similar but there are some where there is a big difference. One that I use is the Sony 12-24 f/4 G....  Canon's equivalent is the 11-24 f/4 but that is a lot bigger in size, bit more money and is more than twice the weight.... Nikon, not sure they have an equivalent, closest being 14-24 f/2.8 which is about 400g heavier and not as wide, has an extra stop and is cheaper. I shoot a lot at 12 so I would miss that.

 

Often wide angle lenses on mirrorless tend to be lighter than but once you get to mid/telephoto lenses etc, the weights are very similar. Canon have just followed Sony's lead with the design of their 400 f/2.8 and now matched the weight. 

 

One of the big benefits for me in terms of mirrorless (any mirrorless) is the reduction in camera height/bulk. When carrying dual cameras with a clip system on backpack straps, the lower height means the centre of gravity is closer to your body and the cameras are more comfortable to carry and don't swing around. DSLRs are just not even a consideration. The Canon used to have a life of it's own, the height just took it too far away from the body and, also meant the lens was further away as well. Just no way I'd carry one let alone two. There are a load of other benefits that keep me away from returning to DSLRs but that one is significant.... picked a Canon up the other day and while I liked the OVF, I also missed having all the features of the EVF. For the way I work, DSLRs have no benefits for me anymore... could never go back.

 

The Nikon 850 is an incredible camera though and if I was purely working in the studio all the time, it would be an option but not as a dual camera/lens walk around or out in the mountains camera... just too much extra weight and bulk for my type use. It is great to have these choices though!

 

Thanks for that Duncan. It’s pretty much what I thought without doing any detailed checking. No doubt mirrorless is going to replace the DSLR in time but for now I’ll be sticking with the D850 for the foreseeable future as it does everything I want and does it superbly as well. The AF tracking is out of this world and the hit rate in burst mode even for fast moving objects is astounding, moreover considering it has a 45MP sensor. It  is a monster with a 24-70 VR attached as the lens itself is massive but the image quality is amazing. So not a setup for walkabout street photography which I don’t do anyway or mountain walking for sure. I use primes for that. Exciting times we live in. 😀

[MDM 1,073]

1 hour ago, Allan Bell said:

 

Mick I did reply to your post above but it seems to have disappeared. Anyway Duncan has given you a reply with some weights sizes. I'm afraid I could not have answered in detail because all the comparable listings I made regarding weight size have been thrown. Unfortunately I do not have the time to do it all again butit worked out that my system is quite a bit lighter and that includes FF body and lenses.

 

Allan

 

 

 

No worries Allan. 

[KODAKovic 69]

BTW I found this thread far away from stock purposes.

As Wim and others said a simple (and light) Sony RX100 is enough here , no reasons to buy expensive Nikons or Sonys for selling images here.

I recently bought an old Fuji S3 Pro (150$ used) for its colors and film performance and that's enough (6Mpxs interpolated to 12) for Alamy

[Inchiquin 769]

17 hours ago, hsessions said:

 

Thanks to everyone for their recommendations, suggestions and advice.  Might not have had a chance reply to everyone but that's because I'm busy researching the cameras and lenses some have recommended, there is quite a bit of reading to do.  I'm looking at and comparing all of them. them, the RXs and so on.

 

 

Do let us know which way you decide to go, and why.

 

Alan

[marc 36]

Ignore that nonsense about hype.    Sony (and FUJI) has been making mirrorless for 5 years, and while Nikon and Canon users once dismissed it as some kind of fad,  both companies are now playing catch up and have both put out models that are about one iteration behind the current Sony offering.  It has become obvious that the DSLR is going to be replaced by the DSLM in the next five years or so.    Sony (and Fuji) now has a mature lens line up for their FE range, and it will take a few years before Canon and Nikon  have the optics to go with their new cameras.   There is nothing a DSLR can do that a DSLM can't. There are lots of things a DSLM will do a DSLR won't:  OVF/LCD  that shows your correct exposure,  face and eye tracking, silent shooting,  electronic shutter (no black out while shooting) these are a innovations that will become standard for cameras and will spell the end of DSLRs. 

 

If you match an A7III to the Tamron 28-70 2.8 you will be into the system for $3000 and can add other lenses new or second hand.   The Tamron lens is lighter and shorter than the Sony GM 2.8,  is as sharp - some say sharper - in the middle, though not as good at the edges.  But at $700 compared to $2000 it's a fantastic offering.  Forget about the initial F4 24-70 Sony kit lens.   Probably the worst FE lens made. 

 

Sony menus take a while to learn,  but the cameras are very customisable,  so you can set it up to work quickly.    You can then add smaller fixed focal length lenses for more discreet work.    

Edited September 13, 2018 by marc