Sony is it worth it

lucien

Legend
Hi I have a question regarding the Sony A7. Is it a better camera than my D7500? I have some old Minolta glass and I would like to use my old glass on the body with an adapter. Sony LA-EA4 which allows complete auto-focus on A mount glass which I have lying around. Does anyone shoot both of these cameras? Cam anyone vouch for the A7 being better and in what regard?

Thanks,
 
I don’t shoot both cameras but would have thought that the D7500 would be a “better” camera than the first version A7 as it’s much newer. But if you want to utilise old manual glass, then the Sony will be inherently more useful as you can basically adapt any old manual lens to it, whereas the D7500 is not really built for that. Later versions of the A7 will even more usefully allow you to use adapters facilitating AF use with Canikon lenses. This would be subject to you finding an A7 comfortable to use. I believe the D7500 will be more comfortable and balanced in the hand, but that’s just me; if you don’t have an issue with that then that’s a plus point in Sony’s favour. But I generally would recommend utilising manual focus lenses on the A7 or any mirrorless camera rather than a DSLR if you have the time and means, in my experience it’s fun, makes you think and improves image output.
 
thanks rayvonn, I'm not a very technical guy. I do have the D7500, but I'm expanding into model photography now. Nothing will be manual focus. All of my Minolta glass is AF is a priority for me. That's why I mentioned the adapter. Because I have a Maxxum A7 35mm now. Which is full frame. It's something that came to my mind. Would the full frame sensor win out in lower light conditions vs an aps-c sensor?
 
D7500 is a great camera. I wouldn’t consider a Sony as an equal(ish) until maybe the 3rd generation A7. However sensor wise alone, according to DxOmark scores, the original A7 still bests the d7500. I would imagine maybe some low light or higher iso advantages, but honestly probably pretty minimal until you get to that 2nd or 3rd gen Sony.
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/
 
It is not worth buying a Sony FF E-mount camera in order for making use of A-mount lenes because A-mount lenes on an adopter can't beat FE lenes in any aspect. The case-senario other way around would be worth, saying that you already had a sony a7III/IV or a7rIII/rIV, buying an adopter could make existing A-mount lenes useful and AF would still works.
IMHO model photography doesn't require excellent performance AF-S/AF-C, which I believe it is the only performance that sony cameras are in the leading position to date, especially in the realm of videography. The lenses matter much more than cameras for a photographer shooting still objects. Buying a fast prime lens for D7500 could be an option.
 
Last edited:
Ok that settles it. Thanks guys. I'll keep what I have for now. Wait for prices to drop and maybe down the road acquire those items for fun factor.
 
I have an A7 bought when the camera first came out.
I was keen to see if FF was worth it and to my surprise it proved to have excellent IQ even with the much maligned kit lens.
The original A7 body is quite small and when fitted with the fixed 35mm or 50mm Sony lenses it becomes pocketable. Even fitted with the kit zoom it will go into a jacket pocket.

But , it's a camera I've never used much and it has been idle for years.
It's not that I don't like it , it's simply larger than I want to carry these days.
If the price is right I'd recommend it. Later models gained size and weight and the A7R has shaking problems
 
Oooh noooo, now I'm at the beginning again. But , I must digress I will hold out for now. It just goes to show you, there are 6 sides to every coin.
 
No experience with an A7, but plenty of experience with A-Mount on E-Mount bodies. There are absolutely A lenses that are well worth owning, especially if budget is a consideration.
And I do own some already, that's why I posted. Not the cream of the crop stuff but enough
 
The A7 was a surprisingly small body and had a loud shutter. It wasn’t as great at hi iso as it’s successors, but it could take great images if you learned how to use it. I miss it and I’m occasionally tempted to get another and stick the Sigma 45 on it.
 
Lucien, in almost every case, any person is better off learning how to better use the gear they have, rather than vanishing into the black hole of searching for the 'perfect' camera, whatever they think that might be.

You have some very nice Nikon gear. Like me with my gear, I'm certain that you can improve your use of it. Concentrate on that.

One day, we may both actually reach the limit of our gear in some way.

In my case, I'll probably die first ...
 
The A7 was a surprisingly small body and had a loud shutter. It wasn’t as great at hi iso as it’s successors, but it could take great images if you learned how to use it. I miss it and I’m occasionally tempted to get another and stick the Sigma 45 on it.
Was it that much smaller? The current prices are so low it may be worth having one to leave in the car.
 
for reference I just got the specs in metric of course

127mm 94mm 48mm if you have the specs of your current body just do a quick comparison. And they are cheap and I do have the glass lying around. John the bodies I'm using are quite old. I understand what your saying about knowing the gear. Actually I love how the Sony A230 renders. It's s ccd sensor. I think I'll try to burn them out first A65 as well. It's the adapter that's getting in the way. $300. I might as well, and you loose steady shot. aka image stabilzation. Might look at an A99 stay with the slt's. When these bodies go.
 
for reference I just got the specs in metric of course

127mm 94mm 48mm if you have the specs of your current body just do a quick comparison. And they are cheap and I do have the glass lying around. John the bodies I'm using are quite old. I understand what your saying about knowing the gear. Actually I love how the Sony A230 renders. It's s ccd sensor. I think I'll try to burn them out first A65 as well. It's the adapter that's getting in the way. $300. I might as well, and you loose steady shot. aka image stabilzation. Might look at an A99 stay with the slt's. When these bodies go.
I‘ve seen the specs, but nothing like someone having held both in their hand for comparison and comment. In looking at used prices, the 7R is only about $60 more. I know if has more MP but not sure if the sensor was any more advanced. Might poke around The ‘net and see what I can find.
 
found a comparison. I guess it's up to the buyer. For $60 more. I'd get the R. They came out the same year. I guess reviews might help

 
found a comparison. I guess it's up to the buyer. For $60 more. I'd get the R. They came out the same year. I guess reviews might help

One very important aspect is not mentioned in the comparison you referred to: the A7 has the option to use EFCS (Electronic first curtain shutter). The A7R only has a fully mechanical shutter. This makes a difference in shutter shock: the A7R's first curtain moves at the beginning of the exposure and the resulting vibration can cause motion blur, especially with longer focal lengths.

I once had a Panasonic GH2 which didn't have EFCS and no telephoto lens delivered sharp pictures unless the shutter speed was way shorter than 1/500 s! Awful really. The possible detriments of shutter shock to image quality was the main reason I bought the A7 in 2013 and not the A7R, and I'm glad I did. All later Sony FF bodies featured EFCS so no problems there.
 
your correct. I found out at dpreviews they compared the RII with the R and and the A. I'd suggested doing "homework" like anything else before you make a purchase. That way your well informed about pro's and con's. My link was just a starter, to be further pursued
 
One very important aspect is not mentioned in the comparison you referred to: the A7 has the option to use EFCS (Electronic first curtain shutter). The A7R only has a fully mechanical shutter. This makes a difference in shutter shock: the A7R's first curtain moves at the beginning of the exposure and the resulting vibration can cause motion blur, especially with longer focal lengths.

I once had a Panasonic GH2 which didn't have EFCS and no telephoto lens delivered sharp pictures unless the shutter speed was way shorter than 1/500 s! Awful really. The possible detriments of shutter shock to image quality was the main reason I bought the A7 in 2013 and not the A7R, and I'm glad I did. All later Sony FF bodies featured EFCS so no problems there.

your correct. I found out at dpreviews they compared the RII with the R and and the A. I'd suggested doing "homework" like anything else before you make a purchase. That way your well informed about pro's and con's. My link was just a starter, to be further pursued
BUT! Sony recommends turning off e-first curtain shutter for use with most A-Mount lenses to provide correct exposure and even lighting. I guess those old lenses like the mechanical shutters.
 
Back
Top