Sony Alpha A7, 7r and canon 6d

[Jims]

Hi there.

I currently have a Sony nex 5n and have really enjoyed using it for the nearly two years I have owned it. I am now going to add a full frame camera early in 2014 and have been researching which full frame is the best value for me to buy.

I have short listed the camera down to one of the ones mentioned in the title so likely want to spend a max of 2k for what I want to get (basically FF camera plus kit lens) any additions or accessories may follow but that will be later on.

What I am asking for, hoping to get here is feedback from owners of these particular cameras, including unprocessed image examples if possible sharing in their experience of the pro's and cons of each type of camera.

over to you guys, thanks.

[Black Pearl]

What you really need to ask is why you feel you need a full frame camera and why does the camera you have now limit your photography?

[Jims]

What you really need to ask is why you feel you need a full frame camera and why does the camera you have now limit your photography?

Thanks for the reply. I guess to answer your question briefly with out over complicating things...

I am also still keeping my existing nex5n camera which I enjoy using but it will become more readily available to other members of the family to also use. Also for me each camera will become used in different ways for different reasons when I have acquired the new one but the new one will be exclusively for me. I also hope my children will become more interested in this great hobby as a result of being able to use the nex without the fear of dad worrying as much over his precious toy...

As a result of my research my mind is more or less set on one of these options so am really interested in finding out owner/user views pro's and cons etc. and pre PP image quality results.

Open to other suggestions/options with pro's and cons based on personal experiences. For example I have even considered the. Sony Rx10 or similar which goes against my wish to get a FF camera... Mmmm....decisions decisions...

[NorthernFocus]

I'm also interested in any first hand experience on the new Sony FF mirrorless bodies. Everything I've seen to date on sensor performance is phenomenal.

Not to clutter up your thread, but.... I suppose you have already thought through all of the other aspects of switching to full frame as in lens differences etc. I added full frame to my kit last year and after shooting APS-C format for several years, it was a shock to go back to 300mm acting like 300mm. Then again, if you are a wide angle shooter, it's great.

[inkista]

Just me, but try Fred Miranda's Alt. gear board. Lotsa A7 threads with images over there. The main A7/A7r discussion thread is 128 pages and counting.

[Jims]

Wow the thread over there is certainly an eye opener. A decent lens definitely seems to be needed rather than sticking with just the kit lens to get the full benefit out of the camera. I am guessing the same could be said for most cameras! even my NEX5 but the options have been short and costly and I have never ventured in to the area of adding more lenses other than just using the two kit lenses I got with it.

Thanks for the input.

[chauncey]

Bodies are secondary to glass...I use a Canon body simply because that's what I used when I first started accumulating lenses. Kind of expensive to jump ship midstream.

[inkista]

With Sony, the gap between consumer-grade and high-grade lenses is higher than in most makes because the high-grade lenses are typically going to be Zeiss.

The Fred Miranda Alt. Gear guys, btw, are folks who play around with mount adapters with mad abandon, so there are folks there adapting nearly everything onto their 7Rs. Few of the images on the A7/A7R images thread are using the expensive ZE glass you may be thinking of.

The problem is you might want autofocus.

chauncey: Metabones makes an EOS->E mount adapter. All reports are that if works just fine on the A7. Full aperture control and autofocus function--although AF is compromised and slower than you'd like.

Hanging out on the FM alt. gear board will warp your thinking to the point where you consider it completely natural to get adapter rings and sling manual focus vintage glass onto your digital cameras just for the fun of it...


Canon 50D + C/Y-mount Zeiss Planar T* 100/2.

[Old Veteran]

Hi Jim; I plan on one day being able to get a full frame digital and my dream camera is the Nikon df. It looks like a camera from the "good old days." Big SLR, shutter speed dial, and it looks like it would "fill" my hands. The price for this camera is around 2 grand and from what I've read so far; this is the one goal camera for me. I hope you are able to decide from the answers.

Bob Speicher

[AndrewMcD]

Hello Jim,
I have been shooting a Sony NEX 6. As a novice I have found it to be a very capable camera and a terrific tool as I make an effort to learn "to take pictures on purpose." I chose the NEX 6 primarily because I wanted a small camera that I would take everywhere with no hesitation yet still have very good image quality. I have now decided to go the full frame route; I've thought it through and see it as an expansion of the tool set.

I have decided on the Canon 6D. As I've read elsewhere camera body development is constantly changing and advancing. The body you use today may not be the one that you are using in 5 years; but the glass probably will! The pricing vs. features of the 6D made it very appealing particularly with the Canon glass available. There is a huge choice of good glass for the Canon. Something that makes me a bit wary of getting any deeper into the Sony world has been the lack of choice in decently priced e-mount glass.

As others have pointed out, the feel of the body in your hand and the layout and logic of the controls are significant to selecting the tool appropriate to your use. I have had no end of frustration with the Control Wheel on the back of the NEX 6 body being prone to accidental changes of camera settings; call me clumsy but missing shots because you've bumped the Control Wheel and gone into ISO selection is frustrating. It's the sort of thing that is very personal so picking up and physically manipulating the prospective camera is a very good idea.

The Sony is a very good product but I feel that the Canon/Nikon mainstream has many advantages as this photography thing is growing from an interesting hobby to something of an obsession.

In the end, of course, it's the human element that dictates the true quality of the photograph. Just take a look at a few of the astonishing iPhone photographs posted in these forums. But having said that, I still like to work with the best tools I can afford to maximize the little talent that I have! (not to mention the fun factor!)
Good luck with your choice,
Andrew

[RustBeltRaw]

Hanging out on the FM alt. gear board will warp your thinking to the point where you consider it completely natural to get adapter rings and sling manual focus vintage glass onto your digital cameras just for the fun of it...

Guilty. Canon 60D with M42 to EF mount adapter plus SMC Takumar lens user right here. The 135 f2.8 and 200mm f3.5 make fun portrait lenses. I still shoot action on manual focus sometimes, just to make things interesting and maintain respect for the old ways.

Vintage lenses are actually quite fun. Some are surprisingly high-quality. The SMC Takumars come from my uncle's old Pentax Spotmatic II, and the adapter was a measly $15. Hard to resist giving them a try on that basis. Great fun for street work.

[chauncey]

IMHO...I was a newbie when I got my first high-end camera. I got the Canon 1DsIII simply because I wanted all image errors to be my fault and not the fault of misdialing the camera or a missed focus or whatever. Using adapters simply to try cheaper off-brand lenses with their idiosyncrasies holds no interest to me.

A crop camera has an advantage in using only the centermost "sweet-spot" of your lens. A diminished FOV is easily remedied by photo-merge in PP...a method I use when my 300mm is attached. No big deal!

That crop camera however does not have the light gathering ability of the full frame...you can shoot at higher ISO's with that FF beast.

You can always find niches, guys that swear by what they use, but...go with the big guys, Nikon/Canon.

[Jims]

Thanks for all the input so far, lots to think about and interesting to see others (Andrew, bob) chip in with their feedback being in what seems to be a similar predicament as me.

Also since picking up on the comments about lens quality being a limiting factor or what do I want to use it for etc. The more I have thought about what type of subject I take phot'os of I'd say I seem to focus on family, social occasions, holidays, objects, scenery etc.

In reading another post where some one was hiring a lens it got me thinking to also contemplate try before you buy. I will also look into this further in the mean time.

So far I have researched on the following.

> Zeiss Sonnar T* E24mm F1.8 ZA wide angle lens for the nex. At around £800. Doesn't help me "tick" the full frame box.

> Or buy the 6d and invest in Canon 50mm f1.2L USM at 1.2K or a Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f/1.4 ZE at around half the price!?! Ticks all the boxes but is this a decent lens. I am also questioning myself... Do I want to go up in size? I have a friend with a 700d and although it's a great camera I actually found the bulk of a full size DSLR off putting and think I'd prefer using my nex day to day long term.

> So added to the mix as I love the compactness of the nex, the A7 is ticking all the right boxes on the full frame and compact size department so what lens would work best to meet my requirements, the Zeiss planar (any specific suggestions to point me at welcome) and sticking it on with a EOS->emount adaptor!?!

So I guess I'm still considering the 6d but with an A7 being as "compact" as the nex I'm edging towards this option but adding a better quality lens than just a kit lens to this at the price point I want to keep to (2k tops). So far if you ditch the kit lens I have found the A7 for 1.3K so that leaves a budget of £700 for a decent? Starter lens. What would you recommend I buy?

Thanks in advance for taking the time to read/comment.



Just spotted this but it's not due out until January some time: Sony FE 24-70mm f4 ZA OSS Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* Lens, blows my budget at bit but if it was the right lens to start with it's not an issue... Listed at £1049.00

[DanK]

Jim,

Please take this as I mean it. I mean to be helpful, not critical. My recommendation is: STOP. Do not buy anything until you have a clearer idea about what makes sense for you. I finally decided to write this post when I got to this:

Or buy the 6d and invest in Canon 50mm f1.2L USM at 1.2K or a Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f/1.4 ZE at around half the price!?

I have been shooting with SLRs since 1968, have a full frame now, suffer as much as the next person from gear lust, but have never given a moments thought to buying a 50mm f/1.2. It is a very expensive lens with some substantial drawbacks, which are acceptable if you need the extra stop and extremely narrow DOF that f/1.2 offers. In 45 years of shooting, I have never had reason to buy a lens like that. This is not to say that you don't. You might. But you haven't given a reason that you do.

I really recommend that you go back to basics. FF offers a number of advantages, but it also offers a number of disadvantages. I have both a 50D (crop) and a 5DIII (FF), so I know. Before you spend the substantial extra money for FF, I think you should line up the pros and cons and compare them to what YOU will shoot. For example, a partial list:
-- FF is better in low light
-- FF is better if you print very large. At A4, I don't think you will see much if any difference. I don't.
--FF is more expensive-- a lot more expensive.
--FF bodies and lenses are larger and heavier, as you noted.
--FF bodies are inferior in terms of reach--that is, how far you can be and still fill the frame with a given focal length.
--FF bodies have somewhat shallower DOF. For some people, that is a plus, for others, a minus.

Add these things together, and the best choice clearly depends on what YOU are going to do.

To make best use of the advice here, which is the best I see on any photo site, I suggest you try to be as specific as you can about what you will shoot, how you will use the images (displaying on the web? Printing A4 or smaller? printing large?), and your preferences (e.g., is large size a plus or a minus for you, do you want small and light, etc.). Then you will get more focused answers. If you can't answer those questions in detail yet--that's fine, a lot of people can't when they are early in their photographic work--then I would recommend staying away from really expensive purchases until you learn more about what YOU really need.

I hope this is helpful.

Dan

[inkista]

Yes to the comments up above, btw. Full frame isn't really a straightforward upgrade as many people seem to be thinking in these days of $2k FF bodies. It's more of a sidegrade with tradeoffs. For a lot of folks, APS-C is more than sufficient.

> Or buy the 6d and invest in Canon 50mm f1.2L USM at 1.2K or a Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f/1.4 ZE at around half the price!?! Ticks all the boxes but is this a decent lens. I am also questioning myself... Do I want to go up in size? I have a friend with a 700d and although it's a great camera I actually found the bulk of a full size DSLR off putting and think I'd prefer using my nex day to day long term. ...

Um... if big cameras are a problem, won't big lenses be one, too? the 50L is big. It's heavy. It has a focus shift issue and requires learning how to focus wide open at f/1.2 (not easy). It's an exotic. The Planar isn't exactly tiny, either. And it's manual focus. Granted, it's Zeiss. But why on earth would you be trying to adapt EOS mount lenses for an A7, if what keeps you in the E-mount is the small size?

I'd say go with adapting Leica M-mount rangefinder lenses. Obviously, if you're balking at the price of a ZE/FE lens, though, the Leica Ms are out. And possibly the Zeiss ZMs as well. But there are the Cosina Voigtlander lenses. The 35/1.4 or 40/1.4 might be what you're looking for, if you're insane enough to want to go adapted manual focus, and not native glass.

Personally, if I can't afford the lenses in the native mount, then it's probably not the system for me. YMMV. I'm cheap. I went with mft.

[Glenn NK]

Good post Dan K

[RustBeltRaw]

Listen to Kathy and Dan. They spittin' truth.

[Glenn NK]

M apologies for not mentioning Kathy Li's post - very good too.

One comment on the RF lenses - some have noticed some issues with them:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1247673