josephineblowe

Leica Summicron 50 is absolutely gorgeous on the A7 (and equally so on the A6300). I cannot imagine a better 50, and the Sonys handle so well with manual focus lenses, far better than the old cameras they were made for. I have a Nikon adapter and a Nikkor AIS 35/2 works great, as does a 28/3.5 PC lens. If you want ugly -- none of the wide angle Leica or Voigtlander lenses works worth a d*** on the A7.

A jacket pocket is ok. I've been walking around with the A6300 the last few days and it is acceptably compact with the kit lens. There is no other zoom lens which would be acceptably compact on the A6300, but there are a few primes. Sony make a couple of pancake lenses themselves. But I think having a zoom on the pocket camera is important for that use case. I do have and use a 50 'cron on this camera, but it sticks out a bit far for pocketability. But that's a great lens on this camera, and altogether a great lens, one of my all time faves. A 40 'cron (mentioned by the previous poster) would be much better, but I sold mine with the CL. Voigtlander make a 40 pancake lens which might be good. But as I said, I think I prefer a zoom of some sort. So maybe the Lumix is a better choice.

Naturally, everything is a tradeoff. The whole trick is coming up with that particular tradeoff which is optimal for your particular use case. I think the Lumix LX-100 II is a pretty darned good set of tradeoffs. It does fit in your pocket, and it has an F/1.7 Leica zoom lens. So fast, sharp (I presume?), very compact, and covering 24-75 equivalent. The tradeoff is M43 sensor instead of something bigger, no flash, non-interchangeable lenses. The M43 sensor is maybe not such a big deal -- it's not that much smaller than APS-C The A6300 is compact enough , sort of, with the 16-50 kit zoom, and the sensor is APS-C, as big as you could hope to have in your pocket. The tradeoff is that the lens is slow and perhaps not all that sharp. But it has a flash (I use fill flash sometimes), and I can pop one of my Leica lenses on it if I want something fast (but on the other hand, how often will I happen to have one of my Leica lenses with me? I might as well just reach for the A7). And it has a large 24mp sensor. So that's the dilemma.

Well, you can use APS-C lenses on the A7 -- the A7 will automatically crop to APS-C. If it's the normal A7, you will end up with 10.6 megapixels vs 24. If it's the A7r, then you'll have more and see less difference. The A7 body is very compact -- really not that much bulkier than the A6300. The problem is the FF lenses are rather larger than the APS-C ones. The first gen A7 is as cheap as chips and still available new. Something to think about.

My Sony A7 failed at the worst possible moment during the summer, just as I was about to leave Iceland for a once in a lifetime trip to Greenland. I hurriedly bought a Sony A6300 to stand in for it, as I couldn't get a replacement A7 where I was (in the Eastern fjords). So I shot all summer with the A6300 using adapted Leica lenses and a 24-105 f/4 Sony G zoom lens, which I had bought for the A7. The images are ok, but I sure wish I had had the A7. In fact, the kinds of landscapes I was shooting made me wish for an A7R, which I think I will buy to replace the A7. Meanwhile, what to do with the A6300? I do need a compact camera to replace the old Lumix LX5 I used to keep in my pocket, but which is now well past its sell-by date. The A6300 makes no sense whatsoever with any lens other than the very compact 16-50 kit zoom which came with it -- with the rather bulky 24-105, for example, the difference in volume between the A7 and the A6300 is irrelevant, so you might as well be using the A7. So I've been shooting with the kit zoom the last few days to try to get a feel for whether it is any good. If you compare the images to what you get out of a compact camera (rather than comparing it to the A7), the images are pretty good. Obviously the APS-C sensor has a lot going for it compared to the 1" sensors I'm used to on compact cameras, and the kit zoom doesn't seem terrible so far. But this rig is still a bit bulky for a pocket. And the kit zoom is really slow -- f/3.5 to 5.6. Maybe I would be better off selling it and buying something like a Lumix LX-100 II to use as a pocket camera? The lens is an f/1.7 and if it is as good as the lens is on my old LX5, it should be very nice indeed. The sensor is M45, somewhat smaller than APS-C, but closer to that than it is to a 1". I love the controls on the LX-100, which are much like on a film camera. OTOH, the A6300 has all the same controls the A7 has and will be much easier to switch back and forth with the A7. You can even use the same batteries. I can use an adapted Summilux or Nokton on the A6300 if I need a fast lens. Anyone have any words of wisdom? The pocket camera is an important job, in my particular lifestyle -- when I did chemical photography, I actually shot a lot more with the Leica CL I had than I did with the various M's I had -- because I always had it with me.

My Sony A7 failed at the worst possible moment during the summer, just as I was about to leave Iceland for a once in a lifetime trip to Greenland. I hurriedly bought a Sony A6300 to stand in for it, as I couldn't get a replacement A7 where I was (in the Eastern fjords). So I shot all summer with the A6300 using adapted Leica lenses and a 24-105 f/4 Sony G zoom lens, which I had bought for the A7. The images are ok, but I sure wish I had had the A7. In fact, the kinds of landscapes I was shooting made me wish for an A7R, which I think I will buy to replace the A7. Meanwhile, what to do with the A6300? I do need a compact camera to replace the old Lumix LX5 I used to keep in my pocket, but which is now well past its sell-by date. The A6300 makes no sense whatsoever with any lens other than the very compact 16-50 kit zoom which came with it -- with the rather bulky 24-105, for example, the difference in volume between the A7 and the A6300 is irrelevant, so you might as well be using the A7. So I've been shooting with the kit zoom the last few days to try to get a feel for whether it is any good. If you compare the images to what you get out of a compact camera (rather than comparing it to the A7), the images are pretty good. Obviously the APS-C sensor has a lot going for it compared to the 1" sensors I'm used to on compact cameras, and the kit zoom doesn't seem terrible so far. But this rig is still a bit bulky for a pocket. And the kit zoom is really slow -- f/3.5 to 5.6. Maybe I would be better off selling it and buying something like a Lumix LX-100 II to use as a pocket camera? The lens is an f/1.7 and if it is as good as the lens is on my old LX5, it should be very nice indeed. The sensor is M45, somewhat smaller than APS-C, but closer to that than it is to a 1". I love the controls on the LX-100, which are much like on a film camera. OTOH, the A6300 has all the same controls the A7 has and will be much easier to switch back and forth with the A7. You can even use the same batteries. I can use an adapted Summilux or Nokton on the A6300 if I need a fast lens. Anyone have any words of wisdom? The pocket camera is an important job, in my particular lifestyle -- when I did chemical photography, I actually shot a lot more with the Leica CL I had than I did with the various M's I had -- because I always had it with me.