Sony Nex6 or wait for the A7 to come out...

<p>I hope this is the right place to ask this, sorry if it's not. I'm not a professional.<br>

I thought I had it all figured out between the nex 6 and 7, but with the new Alpha 7 and 7R coming out early next year I have no idea anymore. I realize that since they are available yet, this is not an easy question, but was hoping that just going by the info out there someone might have an opinion?<br>

<br />What I'm looking for is something decent to catch shots of siberian huskies, which run like the wind :) I would also be taking kids pics and vacation pics too. I had it all narrowed down to the nex 6 over the 7. Now I'm wondering if maybe the new A7 will be a good choice?<br>

<br />Again, I'm sorry if this is not the right spot for this, or if this is just a ridiculous question that no one could possibly have an opinion on :)<br>

Thanks :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What are your reasons for considering the Nex 6 or 7? What more do you think the 7 or 7R will give you?</p>

<p>Generally, the dSLR cameras, like a Canon Rebel, will focus faster, if that is a major consideration. And picture quality will be similar to a NEX 7.</p>

<p>There's no doubt the new 7 and 7R are going to have great image quality. Important if you are making very large prints, but most system cameras today produce high quality images. And the selection of Sony lenses for the 7 is going to be limited for a while, and expensive. And telephoto lenses are not going to be small.</p>

<p>Thanks for responding. I wanted something better than my point and shoots. I liked the idea that the nex 6 was smaller and lighter than the Canon/Nikon DSLR's I was looking at. I have small hands and just wanted something a little more portable, easier to handle and not as heavy. I was able to check out a nex 6, they did not have the nex 7 in store and I liked the way it felt. I was told that if a person was going to do a lot of video or mainly landscapes then go with the nex 7, but if I was after action shots go with the nex 6. <br>

Then with the new ones coming out I didn't know if I should wait and see if the new A-7 would be a better choice. New sometimes means better, more improved....I know, not always though :)<br>

<br /><br /></p>

<h1> </h1>

 

<p>Yes, the mirrorless cameras are usually smaller and lighter then the dSLR's. And they usually have the EVF's , so they can be viewed at eye level when taking video, which is a feature I like. That's good your were able to check one out in person.</p>

<p>I don't own Sony mirror less, so maybe someone else can comment on the differences between the NEX 6 and 7 for still and video shooting. I'm sure both are capable of very nice results, better then a p&s.</p>

<p>The big new feature of the a7 is the larger full frame sensor, to potentially give better image quality. But probably beyond what most people need. Also the lenses will need to be bigger and heavier, and will be more expensive. The a7 price starts at $2,000 (with the cheapest kit lens), compared to $800/$1100 for NEX 6/7. So, if price is not a consideration, the a7 is improved in some areas, but I'm not sure most people will not see much of a difference in the end result.</p>

<p>I recently bought the Sony NEX 6 as a travel camera and for other times I don't want to carry my Nikon 800 DSLR w/ all of its lenses. With lenses I purchased I'm very happy with this system as a vacation and all around system. The light weight and sensor (APS-C) are the obvious attractions. Look at the number of quality photographs on Photonet taken with the Nikon D300 which has the same sensor size and fewer sensor elements. Unless you are into landscapes, low light level situations requiring high ISO, or want to specialize on sports I think the NEX 6/7 is a great choice. Besides the cost of the body, the cost of lenses for the FF lenses vs the E/NEX lenses will be considerably higher. A major consideration for me in choosing a camera body is how it feels- if it feels cumbersome, changing the shooting conditions difficult then it probably isn't the right choice, I would suggest you handle all of your alternatives before making a choice.</p>

<p>If you have been managing with a point and shoot, then the NEX6 or 7 will be quite an improvement in every way. I don't like DSLRs and have never owned one. They are often big and clunky, and the affordable ones have really dreadful optical viewfinders. Having said that, the autofocus tracking of moving subjects with my Sony NEX 5n has never been something that I found adequate enough to even call usable. The autofocus is fine for quickly shooting most types of subjects that are not moving much like kids at a birthday cake, but kids running across a play ground or perhaps I should say dogs running across a field (your example) is perhaps even a quite specialized type of photography. This would be similar to "sports", and I don't think the NEX cameras are that great for that. I don't have enough experience with DSLRs to know how expensive of a model you would have to get to really get truly good results with these "sports" situations, but perhaps that is the question you should be asking if that is a real priority. Let me repeat though that I don't want a dslr and manage even shots of my running child by using old techniques like prefocusing even with manual focus old lenses, but I'm not sure that you would be happy trying that.<br>

I should probably add that I have not read anything to suggest that the new A7 is truly greatly better in autofocus than the 6. They both have phase detection and contrast hybrid systems. I would love to have an A7 for the full frame, but I'm not sure that part is a prioirty to you, and that is a more expensive and much more sophisticated camera intended to satisfy at least basic professional needs. I think you would be quite happy with the NEX 6 unless you need fast AF tracking.</p>

<p>Quote: "What I'm looking for is something decent to catch shots of siberian huskies, which run like the wind "<br>

<br>

I own Canon DSLRs and the NEX6. You will not be happy with the NEX6 or any other mirrorless camera for action photography - and that seems to be your main reason for considering the NEX6 or the new A7/r.<br>

Why don't you look at the small DSLR offerings from Canon or Nikon. They will be way better in the AF department, including tracking of dogs and kids. Something like the Canon SL1 would probably work really well for you.</p>

The A7 is supposed to be the faster focuser, the A7R will be slower but have a better sensor. The Nex-7 autofocus isn't

that fast either (though I usually use manual focus with older lenses). If you use the expensive AF adapter which allows

you to use Minolta/Sony AF lenses, the AF gets fast and accurate so when I need that I use my Sony Zeiss 16-80 Alpha

mount lens and the adapter.

 

 

I'm torn about the A7R as well. I'm waffling between that and the Leica M9 (used of course). I've liked the Nex 7 a lot and

still do. It's a great camera for working slowly with manual lenses and it's very light (yet built well) with a great EVF. Put on

the adapter and an alpha lens and the AF is pretty good too. The A7R's lenses, while moderately expensive (in the

vicinity of $1000 apiece) are supposed to be kept lighter than you'd think by looking at them, or so they say, but there are

so few that even if you could buy all of them you'd be using other lenses (like alpha lenses) as well. The Nex isn't much

different. Unless you PLAN to use other lenses, buying enough good E mount lenses might be difficult.

 

 

If you're going to do most of your work requiring fast AF you'd probably be better off going with a full up DSLR but with my

age and my back, that is no longer an option for me so lightness is critical regardless of other factors.

<p>The Nikon D5300 has their state-of-the art AF module and is not big and heavy, by itself, <500g. The Canon SL1 is even smaller and very well reviewed. So why not these two with proven track records in AF tracking?</p>

<p>If the overall size of the package and the AF performance are important, then I would pick the m4/3, and Panasonic in particular. To track moving <strong>persons,</strong> "Face detection" works wonders. Their IQs are comparable to those of the NEX, and m4/3 has a great selection of good lenses that are small and not too expensive, compared to NEX and A7.</p>

<p>What is your rationale for going after the A7? The A7 is unlike to be the choice of sports photography, and their lenses are few in choices and very expensive in cost and large in size. You can overcome the DOF issue by shooting faster and longer m4/3 lenses. The A7 chip will have better low light ISO and DR, though ...</p>

<p>wow, thanks so much everyone. So much great information. Sounds like there isn't anything all that great for what I want. I guess I would of stuck with the NEX 6 if I didn't want better husky pics, but they are important to me. They really are what I take the most pics of. I really loved the feel of that camera and the size. Sounds like it wouldn't work for what I want, but wonder if better than my point and shoots.<br>

<br />I did have it in my head that I just didn't want DSLR, because they've all seemed to be just too much bulk. I read up on bridge cameras, then loved how small the Nikon 1 J3, then the Sony caught my eye. Now I just don't know anymore :/<br>

Thanks for all the responses, I really appreciate everyone taking the time :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>then the Sony caught my eye. Now I just don't know anymore :/</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>SONY has proven that the camera itself can be shrunk considerably. However, the physics limits the size of the lens, that larger sensors use larger lenses and fast lenses are even larger. The Nikon 1 is indeed very fast in AF, in good light, and very small. Its lenses are particular small b/c it uses a sensor that is smaller than those in the m/43 system (but still bigger than those in most of the P&S). The IQs from smaller sensors in general are not so good in terms of noise (low light) and DR, and it is harder to get the dSLR 3D shallow DOF look. I personally think m/43 strikes a good balance between size, performance, and cost.</p>

<p>Having said this, your technique is also important in getting good sporty pictures. After all, at one point, people used MF to shoot sports. For dog running, you need a longer lens, may be a full frame equivalent of >100m and more. This will tell you how big a lens you will get for the camera you choose. You can compare the cost and the size of the overall package to see which one on paper looks reasonable. You then just get a kit to try it out. Don't start out with FF for sports, they are not cost-effective and will never be small enough.</p>

<p>If you keep waiting for the better camera to come out you will never have taken any photos and with new features come different compromises ... so often two steps forward and one step backward ... sometimes the reverse.</p>

Sony is trying to fight that effect with lighter weight lenses for their size. We'll see if it works. In the meantime, the

compact, if dense Leica M lenses demonstrate that small lenses that work with full frame can be made and some of my

Voigtlander lenses (such as the 18 and the 25) are REALLY light. The combination of the mirrorless camera and

rangefinder lenses is insanely small and light. Of course you don't get autofocus, but you get great quality.

 

 

I have the 16mm Sony E mount pancake and while its a slow autofocuser and though the quality is not really up to

professional standards, it is really light.

 

 

I think the lesson is that the lenses that come out with the A7R, especially the Zeiss ones, will probably be lighter than they

appear in advertisements and very good. And the Zeiss ZM lenses for Leica M with an adapter would be light and great

but at the expense of no autofocus. If we still had camera stores I'd advise going in and trying them out.