Guys im torn. Nikon D7200 or the Sony a7? Virtually the same price, leaning towards the a7 for its lowlight performance and compactability, but the D7200 also looks very promising. Just wanted to hear your opinions.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2698646
for the record this is my first camera purchase. looking to go all out on a intermediate level camera without spending too much
>>2698646
A7 II.
Can't afford it? Get the D7200, the cost of lenses will likely be a problem on the A7 anyways if you can't afford the A7 II.
Also, these questions are better put into the gear thread.
>>2698646
a7ii.
you can pdaf with canun lens now.
>>2698646
I got the A7s and never regretted it, all my lenses are still adapted manual focus lenses.
>>2698660
> if i were to invest that much i'd might as well save up for the a7r2
Doesn't really make sense, but anyways, how are you going to buy nice lenses for the A7?
Most of the good ones cost as much or more than the price difference between the A7 and the A7 II.
Or are you only going to work with adapted manual lenses, without OS?
I think you might want the D7200 here.
>>2698646
I don't know about the a7, but if you're leaning toward the d7200, do consider the d7100, the only change being processor and buffer if I'm not mistaken and you can keep money for glass.
The a7 is a lot more suitable as a first proper camera.
Due to it using an evf you always get a wysiwyg preview in your viewfinder, the viewfinder is also MUCH larger, can magnify in, has a blown indicator (anywhere that's fully white in the image blinks at you) and focus peaking.
It's also obviously a lot smaller, meaning you're more likely to take it out and about and get in as much practice as possible.
The main "concerns" are a lack of native lenses, considering the phenomenal price to quality ratio of the new Sony lenses, and sony, sigma and voigtlanders pledge to commit to fe lenses, there's little to worry about. Not to mention it's the only full frame camera that can take almost any lens with a cheap adapter.
People will also say the battery life is poor. I've got 500 shots off one battery in a day, extra batteries are cheap and small. It's a moot point.
As for comparing image quality of the a7 and d7200, obviously the a7 has is superior due to its full frame sensor, the nikon doesn't come close.
>>2698671
28 f2 is kinda cheap.
>>2698671
a7 ii has in-body stabilization
>>2698793
It's ridiculously cheap when you consider its the 17th best lens dxo have tested. And look at the top 20, it's packed full of sony. http://www.dxomark.com/lenses#hideAdvancedOptions=false&viewMode=list&yDataType=global
>>2698658
And if you update the firmware you can even PDAF with Sony lenses.
Shocking, I know.
How the Sony engineers managed to let a Sony body work properly with a Sony lens is beyond me.
>>2698646
Look at that design abortion
>>2698816
Yep, that lens and adapter don't belong on an award winning icon of modern product design.
>>2698793
Yea, but I wasn't assuming he'd only use one lens.
>>2698803
But the point is exactly that anon said he/she couldn't afford the A7 II (which I suggested to get), just the A7, over the ~$600 difference.
That puts doubt on being able to afford the nice lenses for the A7 series, which mostly cost like $600-1500. And yea, no OS on adapted lenses because no A7 II.
>>2698827
Lol wut?
There is literally no other camera that has more affordable lens options, everyone can afford a cy mount nifty fifty and dumb adapter.
IS is over rated, just don't have parkinsons.
>>2698827
But your logic is flawed. He might be able to afford the A7 and some lenses, but then that extra $600 means if he gets the A7ii then he CAN'T afford any lenses, which makes the A7ii unaffordable/unrealistic.
Since he'll need to buy lenses for either body, that extra $600 is just an extra $600, it's not like he just magically saves money and gets a free lens by upgrading to the A7ii.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2698848
For example. I'm torn between the A7ii and the A7Rii. I could afford the A7ii and like three lenses, but if I got the A7Rii I could afford maybe like one legacy 50mm and an adapter. MAYBE. So for me, getting the A7rii doesn't actually make any sense, because what good is the way nicer body if I can't get a single reasonable lens to use on it?
>>2698843
Use a longer lens and things get difficult handheld without OS.
Also, the D7200 can provide this useful feature, just like everything from a consumer level DSLR onwards - because everyone apparently has parkinsons? Can't see a reason not to go with the D7200.
>>2698848
For most people one single lens is not enough, especially not on this system where most good lenses are primes?
Never mind actually the A7 II with two adapted lenses might even cost less than an A7 with a native lens, unless you pick one of the cheaper native lenses for A7.
Besides it just did not sound like that, but simply like he had not planned for a lens.
>>2698857
Of course you would get the A7 II, and he should likely get the D7200 or something, because getting two good lenses will matter.
Yea, I say two 'cause you could a 55mm Sonnar and a 85mm Batis or 90mm FE macro and your budget difference between an A7 II and A7R II is already pretty much covered. And that is not a particularly contrived choice of lenses.
>>2698858
Look at all of p, how many shots are the other side of 85mm?
I have an a7sii and leave my ibis off, for every shot it saves itmakes another slightly blurry.
Why would you say you would still go with the 7200, the viewfinder is a joke, you can't focus on a lens faster than 2.8, it's xboxhuge, it has significantly worse image quality and is plasticky as hell. What possible arbitrary reason would you take it over an a7?
>>2698872
All I'm saying bro is that I have a D7100 and it's a really cool camera that takes great photos, i don't see how the a7 could be better, look how small it is.
I advise OP to go with the D7200
Even with the A7 mk2, mirrorless is still bleeding edge. The last thing you want to do is buy an older model. D7200 is an excellent camera and Nikon has more versatile lens options
>>2698872
> Look at all of p, how many shots are the other side of 85mm?
Actually quite many.
> I have an a7sii and leave my ibis off, for every shot it saves it makes another slightly blurry.
No shit, the A7S II is like 3-4 t-stops better in ISO sensitivity and thus can shoot short exposures in a a lot more circumstances. So yea, you can handhold it no problem in most cases.
Besides you *do* have IBIS when you need it anyways.
But your A7S II working fine does not really make the A7 a good plan for adapted lenses.
> What possible arbitrary reason would you take it over an a7?
I explained it. If $600 is an actual issue then this is probably not the right camera.
Almost all lenses are $600-1500 (some options cost more, though), and I just think you'll quite possibly want more than one or two with them mostly being primes.
>>2698874
I agree with your suggestion, but this is wrong:
> i don't see how the a7 could be better, look how small it is.
Actually, with both cameras sporting high-end native lenses, the A7 will be better.
And the almost equally small A7S, A7 II, A7S II, A7R II and so on are vastly better than the D7200 in a lot of regards and equal in almost all the remaining points. Body size isn't the problem, but usually price is.
>>2698887
>not having a flappy mirror in between the lens and sensor
>"bleeding edge"
Lol, noob.
>>2698893
>Actually quite many.
If we're going by the 3 most recent RPT's, the answer you were looking for is zero. lol.
>But your A7S II working fine does not really make the A7 a good plan for adapted lenses.
Is english not your first language? the point I made was that I gimp my a7s ii down to the exact same feature set as the a7, use legacy adapted lenses, and everything is just fine.
>I explained it. If $600 is an actual issue then this is probably not the right camera.
So you're implying that Nikon lenses are more affordable? as opposed to literally any lens from any system.
BUTTHURT NIGGON OWNER DETECTED.
>>2698646
Forget the Nikon, Go with the Sony
Dumped my Canon and Nikon's and haven't looked back
Size/Weight was never a consideration for me, it was all about the EVF and the unbeatable lens adaptability, almost any lens ever made can be adapted to the Sony
The a7 is a great camera, if you can swing it get the a7II body and grab a manual lens or two off ebay, get an adapter and have fun, lots of fun
While you are learning about photography and using a manual lens, rather than leaning on the auto-focus, you can save up for one of the AF Sony lenses
Best of both worlds
Good Luck
>>2698972
>almost any lens ever made can be adapted to the Sony
I realize that this is a legitimate market out there, but the majority of photographers don't need adaptability, and are not interested in getting lenses from 30-90 years ago. Most people buy a Nikon D7000, three compatible Nikon lenses, and then go out and shoot.
If you're an old guy with a ton of legacy glass that you love to use, sure, Sony is amazing. If you're on a strict budget and want a great sensor, and don't mind using older (but still expensive) nice glass to take nice photos, great, look into a Sony.
If you're telling your average 2015 photographer that their best bet is to buy a quirky ugly and still under-performing body and forfeit autofocus and aperture control for old ebay lenses, you're being ridiculous, and you should stop it.
>>2698977
But the 28mm f2 is a very affordable, excellent performing lens, and sony have said they have plenty more lenses on the way.
He's new, so the kit lens will suffice for at least the first year, by which time there will be plenty more lenses.
Implying a new photographer wouldn't benefit from a manual focus, aperture ring prime for learning reasons is also fairly short sighted.
>>2698980
>short sighted
How so?
A beginner should be putting all his effort into figuring out what makes a good photo, not spending time worrying about focus and where the aperture knob is. It's a needless and useless obstacle.
>>2698646
What do you need it for?
D7200 is a crop sensor camera, the a7 is a full frame sensor.
In conclusion a7 for portraits, 7D MarkII for wild life.
Nikon isn't hot at this price point imo.
>>2698816
I work in a photo store
We can't get rid of the a7 models because noone likes the placement of the trigger button
Luckily The a7II doesn't suffer from that
>>2698646
get the a7, pentacks 50mm f1.7, 1.4 if you want to pay money and olympus 24mm f2.8
>>2698982
Yes. And the quickest way to learn lesson 1, the exposure triangle is, imo, with an evf and a lens with a manual aperture ring. The instant feedback of how the image will change from adjusting all 3 parameters is a superb learning tool.
And yes, learning how to use a tool should always be the first step. Not running about clicking a button, do that if you want snapshots.
Get a cheap use 4-5 year old dslr and a kit lens. After a month or two shooting you know which camera will suit you best.
If this seems unattractive to you, you should start taking precautions for your incubating gearfaggorty.
Bought an A7 and the only lenses I have are Canon FD mount primes. Absolutely love it. If lens costs are an issue going Nikon is dumb.
>>2698985
do a price cut.
i'll buy it for $500.
>>2698646
Isn't the a7 ff and the d7200 aps-c? Why is this a question? Get the smaller camera with a bigger sensor.
this whole sensor thing is one of the worst pitfalls when starting photography. honestly what you should do is this >>2699159
>>2699301
What? Straight up waste a couple of hundred dollars on outdated hardware that's probably almost dead.
FANTASTIC IDEA FRIEND!
Alternatively you can hold back the autism for 5 minutes and go into a store and ask to play with a d7200 and a7 and actually make an informed decision about both cameras for free.
>>2699325
>Straight up waste
Its not waste to have a backup camera later. Also old equipment can still take good pictures.
>>2699368
>buying a backup camera before buying your first camera.
fucks sake /p you bunch of cum drooling faggots.
The A7 has been proven time and time again to be a complete pile of dog shit. The sensor just isn't up to par and the expensive lens options make the Sony A7 one of the worst cameras to ever hit the market. Get the Mark III and call it a day.
