[neostyles]

The a7s is looking kind of intriguing. As someone who is wanting to get into video, being able to select your codec was very cool. And then there was the high bitrate (even though i patched my d600 to 64mbps.) It basically offers a consumer version of the codec used in sony's professional movie cameras like the f55 which is very exciting. But it's a mere 12 megapixels. I don't necessarily need the 36 of the d800 but wow.. so little. I dont see there being a lot of cropping ability.

So naturally i looked at the a7r which offered quite a few more megapixels. The inclusion of focus peaking is nice (as is a live histogram ) but apparently the af isnt going to blow peoples socks off. I don't really do a ton of sports or anything (and to be honest i dont really think im too interested in wildlife photography) but as an artist i like to keep my options open. Who knows what im in the mood for? Photography has always been a very sort of spontaneous, spur of the moment thing for me. xD But like the A7s the video looks awesome. You get a choice of codecs.. AVCHD, which from what i can tell is comparable to prores. But jesus christ, that 36 megapixels! From what ive heard you only need 8 megapixels to print on standard a6 8x10 sooo.. with the a7r you could conceivably crop down to a mere 1/5 of the image and still have enough to print 8x10 at 300 dpi!

The vanilla a7 looks a bit more up my alley. Comparable frame rate to my d600, similar megapixels, etc. I dont know if i would really notice half of an fps.. The kit on b&h only runs you $1500! However, im a little unsure as to whether the smallness of the sony mirrorless full frame is an advantage or a not so good thing. I mean, ive really come to love all the controls that a bigger body offers. I *love* the af controls on the d600 that allow you to not only switch from manual to af but also change things like af area, etc. These cameras dont seem like they are really targeted at pro photographers, atleast as i see it. More the travel enthusiast that likes to have something compact to take around with them.

Still what did kind of blow my socks off were the prices! The lenses are so expensive! Even if i was to switch out my d600 for the a7r, i will probably be able to get the body but i doubt i will be able to get myself any lenses! I heard that the fastest lens that sony currently has is f4.. is this really true? Converters seem to be all the rage in the sony world but this causes problems with your af from what i've heard (as in it makes it kind of unreliable but i could be mistaken.) And apparantly it doesnt come with a battary charger you instead have to purchase a $40 one off amazon. Im pretty sure the nikon one costs half that much! Not a very friendly system for someone who just graduated!

[adpo]

I have no idea what you're trying to ask for here, so I'll just cover the points that I can parse through from your post. I'm currently a Sony shooter using the a6000 with plans of adding an a7s once my Xmas bonus comes in.

1. Video quality is damn good, although rendering video can be a pain since it does take quite a bit of computing power to process the codec. I'm running an overclocked i5 with 32gb of ram and using hardware acceleration with a GTX970 and a 12-minute video across 2 cameras with effects/colorgrading/noise reduction/sharpening/etc took a good 6 hours to render and export. Haven't had a chance to work with much XAVC-S/S-LOG2 yet, but from what I can tell, its fantastic if you know what you're doing. If you're new to cinematic color grading and come from shooting video from non-cinema grade cameras (such as the d600, 5d3, ENG style camcorders, etc), its entirely overkill. If not, you might find issue in the slight loss quality in the color gradations vs working from native prores footage (since it is only 8-bit 422@50mbps), but its perfectly usable with some work.

2. Image quality is pretty damn good on the sensor level. All the dynamic range and detail you've come to expect is there, the question of megapixels doesn't concern me too much since I don't need to crop tiny portions of my frame. I came from shooting a K-x, so 12 megapixels seems entirely adequate for most situations. The 24mp on the a6000 is nice to have and the sensor performs well, but I was just as happy with the performance from the 16mp on the K-5 I used to shoot.

3. When shooting crop, you've got plenty of good options as far as fast glass goes. There's the lovely zeiss 24mm f/2, the stabilized 35mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.8, and plenty of options for adapting lenses , additionally with autofocus if you go A mount or EF mount. AF on adapted lenses works, but don't expect to shoot sports with them. As for full frame, remember that its a relatively new mount. Like with crop, you have plenty of options when adapting other lenses, but native first party lens offerings are limited to the 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 f/4 zooms, the zeiss 35mm f/2.8 and zeiss 50mm f/1.8. as well as the upcoming 28-135 f/4 cinema zoom (which I definitely lust over)

4. The small size of the sony ecosystem was actually a happy change for me. I came from dual-wielding gripped 5D's and K-5's with big/fast glass, so the weight savings were quite welcome. I've never found the number of controls lacking in relation to the K-5, and while I do miss the AF joystick from the 5D is missed at times, I've never found it to really slow me down since I'd given up freelance sports shooting years ago. There's enough buttons on the camera for every function I find essential and the quick menu on the interface easily holds the functions I use occasionally. The EVF is actually quite good, so I do not miss my pentaprism at all. That said, nothing compares to a good old medium format viewfinder, so maybe I set myself up to not expect too much

Hope this helps!

[pinholecam]

Hmm... I thought you were beating up the Sony on the D750 thread...


Lenses that are expensive? - I thought that too in the beginning....
But..
Put it this way.
Go look around the lens options out there and their prices.
Any high end OEM lens is not cheap in the first place. (PenCanikony)
A Zeiss anything isn't cheap in any case, and easily adds $150-$200 to a lens.
A ZM 50/2 is easily around $750. (MF, well built; very good optically)

So what is this Sony FE55/1.8....
Take a base 50/1.4 (say $250) , add in the Zeiss name (+$200); add in great optics only behind the Otus at least for wide open to the edge sharpness (+$200); Add in AF (+$100)
Thats a $750 lens, so price is really ~about there~

The same can be said of the other lenses for the system, though as in any system, there will be some that are not so worth it.


My cousin shoots for Reuteurs and its MF and AF.
So if you are into video, MF is quite the norm actually.
Else, you could always stick to a kit lens or make do with some of the cheap E-mount (apsc lenses) for video.


Here's the tip, the Pentax lenses are as good as any other brand out there on an A7 and perhaps even better than many Canikon ones as the Pentax ones are smaller.

[Rondec]

The biggest problem with Sony FE mount (at the present) is the lack of native lenses. If you don't mind adapting lenses, then this is solved, particularly if you don't mind manual focus. I think the A7s is amazing with regard to both high iso ability (holds on to dynamic range at amazing rates) and video capability.

But honestly, you own a D600. You don't need another camera. It is fine. If you have money that's burning a hole in your pocket, get a new lens. That's probably a better investment then flipping your gear into a completely different camera system.

[neostyles]

Checked it out my local camera store (the A7r anyway) pretty nice. Was worried about it being too small in my hands but it actually feels pretty nice and grippy. Maybe because its just because im a nikon user but the controls seemed a little.. unfamiliar at first. I thought the switch on the top would change from af to mf but alas i must have missed something as it was else where to be found. That being said, focu in low light is pretty impressive. Focus peaking and zebra is nice, i dont know why nikon leaves the first one out of their pro level stuff. Video looks very nice too. You get your choice of codecs whch is nice. As i see it the only two downsides are
1. Like you said, lack of first party lenses and third party accessories. For example, not only does metz have some great flashes but they also make some really nice looking video lights and i dont think think anything in their line up is at present compatible with sony.

2. More minor, maybe even approaching "nitpick" but idk if mirror less really inspires the confidence that a dslr does. I mean, just carrying my camera around has gotten people to get me to start asking questions about what i do, book photo shoots, etc. I think many people might assume that its a point and shoot. For many people, dslr is the symbol of being a pro. In the eyes of most people, it says that you can deliver. Which is a shame because i think this can deliver too. And the built in wi fi s great for delivering pics to clients, phones, etc.

What options are there for external power? Is there a dc power adapter or something?