Sony a7 - 24mp

...the line up is a bit confusing so I mean the 'entry level' model. How good is it with vintage lenses? I've got a couple of PC Nikkors, Helios 58mm, Zeiss 135mm, Lydith 30mm. Also, what about the kit lens? 28-75mm? Seems like the lens range is quite restricted (like the Sony half-frame mirrorless cams) but as a mount for 'vintage' it might have a use to me.

The A7 is full-frame and has the same E lens mount as its successors. With the proper adapter, lenses from nearly any FF camera can be used in manual mode (focus and aperture), including Leica, Nikon and Canon. In addition, there are over 70 lenses by Sony, Zeiss and others which are fully compatible though electronic coupling.

 

The A7 does not have an electronic first shutter (vibration free), nor in-body image stabilization added in the A7ii and other second versions. I would recommend the A7ii as the entry level model, since it is a significant improvement over the earlier versions. A used A7ii is selling for about $1000, the same as a new A7. There's not much to wear out - virtually no moving parts.

 

Third party, wide angle lenses are not as sharp in the corners as lenses designed for the A7. This is due to a thick, 2 mm, cover glass over the sensor. This does not affect lenses made for SLRs, except they don't reach the same level of performance as dedicated lenses overall.

The A7 does not have an electronic first shutter

Sure it does.

seems like the lens range is quite restricted

I don't think that's true anymore.

 

Adaptability of mainly M-mount lenses was the primary reason I acquired an A7. Just recently traded my last M-mount lens in and now use the A7II (that replaced my A7 earlier this year) with native E-mount lenses only. Still a side-show to my Nikon DSLR system though.

In-body stabilization was the key factor that prompted me to skip the A7 for the A7ii. That frees you from using a tripod for all but the most particular applications. Another, which I didn't mention before, is the improved ergonomics. The A7Rii has much more resolution and no AA filter, and a silent shutter option. After barely 6 months, the A7ii was pushed to the back of my bag. At that point, I started replacing my legacy lenses (Leica and Nikon) with native E-mount lenses. I haven't been tempted to use a DSLR in nearly 3 years. My son now puts my D3 kit to good use.

 

I'm sure you could dig through the operation manuals and come up with a comprehensive list of improvements over the A7, but these are the things that made the difference for me.The big things you can learn from literature and countless reviews. In the end it's the little things you discover along the way that make all the difference.

After barely 6 months, the A7ii was pushed to the back of my bag.

...is that a coveted spot? An unexpected benefit of mirrorless is that image review through the vf is possible. Looking at an unshielded screen in bright conditions isn't too easy.

I first used my A7 with the lenses of my M Leica kit; but I soon decided on a somewhat larger set of lenses which cost less. Image stabilisation does not tempt me so much as the A7 works well at higher ISOs than my earlier cameras.

...is that a coveted spot? An unexpected benefit of mirrorless is that image review through the vf is possible. Looking at an unshielded screen in bright conditions isn't too easy.

I carry two bodies. My A7ii was purchased December, 2014 and the A7Rii the following June (6 months). The A7ii went to second place because the A7Rii does everything plus higher resolution, faster AF and a silent shutter. On the other hand, the A9 has unique capabilities, which are more important to me than resolution alone. The A7Rii will still be my preference for landscapes, large groups, and possibly portraits (things I would otherwise do with medium format).

 

Without image stabilization or a tripod, camera shake effectively limits resolution to the equivalent of 6 MP or less, using the 1/F rule. With IS, you get all the resolution you paid for, down to ridiculously slow shutter speeds.

Edited October 16, 2017 by Ed_Ingold

I'm happy with my A7. I think the sensor in the mk1 and mk2 versions is the same, the mk2 bodies bring in-body stabilisation in addition to optical stabilisation available in some Sony E-mount lenses.

 

Adapting the camera to take other older lenses is easy with plenty of options for the lenses you list.

 

I find it convenient to use E-mount lenses though, and the 28-70 kit lens is fine. I also use the Sony LA-EA4 adapter for the A-mount and that brings autofocus to older Sony and Minolta AF lenses. I'd welcome the in body stabilisation though and I am keen to see what the next generation of A7 camera will offer.

In-body stabilization was the key factor that prompted me to skip the A7 for the A7ii. That frees you from using a tripod for all but the most particular applications.

 

What is the slowest shutter speed that you can manage hand-held with the A7ii?

What is the slowest shutter speed that you can manage hand-held with the A7ii?

It depends on the focal length. I can get good results as low as 1/60 with a Nikon 300 mm lens. 1/15 sec is not hard with a 50mm lens, even slower. Of course any motion in the subject is obvious, even if the fixed objects stay sharp. Using auto ISO (another excellent option), the shutter speed is limited to 1/F until the ISO reaches a set maximum (e.g., 25,600). At that point, you can barely read the controls on the camera or lens.

Edited October 17, 2017 by Ed_Ingold

So, IBIS buys you about 2 stops of hand-held? I typically don't go below 1/60" with 50mm. If IBIS would give an equivalent of 4 stops (i.e., 1/4" with 50mm) that would be very attractive for certain shots.

I'm citing practical limits for images that are really sharp at nearly the pixel level, not just with a recognizable subject. I have attached a snapshot, hand-held, with a 200 mm lens at 0.5 seconds, which is slightly greater than 5 stops stabilization relative to 1/200 second (1/F).

 

 

This is 1/60, which would be the lowest I would normally go.

This is a pixel=pixel crop from the center of the 0.5" exposure. All were taken with a Sony A9 + FE70-200/4 G OSS. The lens is IS, but the effect is the same as internal only.

 

[ATTACH=full]1214796[/ATTACH]

Sony cameras with in-body image stabilization (IBIS) share duties with OSS (optical image stabilization) lenses. OSS is more effective than IBIS for long lenses in correcting tilt and yaw. IBIS continues to correct for vertical and horizontal translation, and newer cameras for rotation about the lens axis, for which OSS (or IS) are relatively ineffective. When used with non-OSS lenses, IBIS corrects for tilt and yaw as best as possible. This is not a problem for 50 mm and shorter lenses, because the angular deviation is proportional to focal length. The 300 mm lens I tested at 1/60 sec was a Nikon 300/4, non-IS or OSS, barely useable without a tripod at speeds longer than 1/300. The original collar was so wobbly, I had to replace it with one by RRS to achieve reasonable control even with support.