Really want to make the jump to A7... Just not impressed with the lenses so far...

[gregcoad]

I have been a Canon guy for the past 15 years. My kit

includes a 1Ds, a bunch of L-series glass, 3 speedlites,

a whack of filters, and a decent tripod to hold it all up.

My main interest is landscape, which fuels my passion

for backpacking (or vice versa). When it was just me

going on adventures, I could pack ultra-light with a tiny

tent, solo pot set, and minimal food, so I didn't mind the

20 lbs of camera gear.

 

About 3 years ago my kids began to grow old enough to

accompany me on my adventures, and I haven't taken a

single picture in the outdoors since. Yes, it is quite sad.

But now I have to carry food and kitchen for 3 and a

larger tent (they carry their own clothes and bedding but

that's about it). And so each time we are packing up, I

have the camera gear all laid out, ready to go, but when

it comes down to it and my pack is completely loaded,

another 20 lbs of glass and metal just does not make

the cut.

 

So for the past few years I have been hoping, praying,

wishing, for a small, light, weatherproof, full frame

camera to come along to replace my bulky 1Ds and it's

family of L-series glass.

 

Hallelujah! Sony announces the new a7 and a7r? I am

all-in. My entire collection is going up for sale the next

day right? Not quite...

 

What's with the lens collection announced so far? I

don't get it. A body that has all the specs to fulfill every

wish of so many enthusiasts like me, but a lens line-up

that falls so far short. I just can't get excited about

what's on offer so far (including the announced but yet

to be released offerings). A 55mm prime is great but

seriously, is f/1.8 the best they can do? And am I

supposed to be excited about a 35mm f/2.8? "But wait...

We have 24-70 and 70-200 coming next year. You'll

surely love that." Ummm... Sorry... Did you say f/4?

 

Can someone smarter than me please tell me if these

are just business decisions that Sony has made, or are

there physical constraints of design that mean we will

likely never see f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 or faster

standard/wide primes? If they are physical design

constraints, I guess I will stick with my current kit and

hope that my kids can start carrying more of the load

sooner than later. If they are simply business decisions

that Sony has made, I suppose that leaves me with

some hope that the day that I can replace "the hulk" may

still come.

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Maybe your expectations are too high. I'd jump on the Alpha 7 and 55/1.8 and 35/2.8 if I could afford it. That's the first full frame digital kit that's compact enough for me to carry (chronic back and neck pain due to injury) and entirely comparable to my Olympus OM-1 kit with f/2.8 wide angle prime, 50/1.8 and 70-150/4 Zuikos.</p>

<p>My affordable compromise is the Nikon V1, slowpoke 10-30/3.5-5.6 VR, dinky SB-N5 flash and, soon, the 18.5/1.8. I'd swap all that and my entire Nikon SLR and dSLR kit for the Alpha 7 and one lens, but I doubt I'd find any takers.</p>

<p>Do you want those photos of outdoor time with your family now, even if it means some compromises? Or would you rather wait until the perfect kit comes along and maybe your kids will still be interested in spending time with dad? Go play Harry Chapin's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s5r2spPJ8g">"Cat's in the Cradle"</a> a few times while you think it over.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>I'm certain that Sony is making a business decision to roll out lenses for its latest bodies more slowly that many potential buyers might prefer. What I don't understand is the basis for your decision. Do photos of the landscapes you'll encounter with your children need to be captured with primes faster than f/1.8 and zooms faster than f/4? What is the point of fast lenses in landscape photography anyway?</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I'm going to take a contrarian view of your situation, hopefully without upsetting you too much. I'm not sure your landscape photography is all that important to you. If it were you'd have cobbled together an abbreviated kit to take on your hikes that would weigh a lot less than 20lbs and wouldn't take up much room. For example - and there may be better ones- my 5dii and 24-105 with a couple of filters and a ring for my grads weighs 4lb. OK, I couldn't use it for absolutely everything but that combination does account for 70% of what I take now , and whilst a tripod would be ideal, decent high ISO performance and IS mean that I can use it handheld when I need to without feeling too restricted. So by maybe selling a bit here and buying a bit there I reckon you could have resolved your issue before now and at low or minimal cost.</p>

<p>Sure the A7 gets you closer to carrying a full, flexible outfit at a manageable weight, but as I say you could have taken firm steps in that direction already. I might be in the market for a A7 myself at some point- might keep me out there for another few years . They've issued a list of future lenses and approximate launch dates. I like landscapes too, and its easy to conclude looking at my 3 L zoom outfit, that fast primes and f2.8 zooms are not important to me. What they are is a recipe for high cost, larger size and big weight that is the exact opposite of what you ideally want to solve your dilemma and get you photographing again. Most landscapes won't benefit from faster lenses.</p>

<p>I imagine I'll step to the A7 when they've launched lenses to give me the coverage I want at reasonable size and weight. Its scarcely surprising that they haven't spent all the investment funds necessary for the entire lens range before they make a cent from the camera and indeed gauge the marketplace reaction. </p>

 

[Jochen_S]

<p>Excuse me you complain about no payload for your Canon and want insanely fast glass? Where would be the gain of switching systems then? Just a few ounces safed on the camera body? If you look at other manufacturers: lens speed usually means either low quality images or a lot of bulk to carry and it also slows down the AF. - I guess Sony are playing safeimage quality wise since they have a lot of pixels to feed. Their AF isn't the fastest either so why shall they frustrate customers at all? - "I spent 4k on my fast zooms but need to shave till they are finally focused. - I'll switch back to some capable DSLR" </p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<blockquote>

<p>Most landscapes won't benefit from faster lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My thoughts as well. Why are you concerned about larger, heavier high speed lenses for landscape work?</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>If you want lenses as fast (and therefor just as big and heavy) as your current lenses ... just use your current lenses and a simple adapter that will mate them to the A7. Otherwise, consider stopping down some for those landscape shots (which you'd be doing <em>anyway</em>, right?) and save a ton of mass and space.</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>I have a Nikon D3, D800, and a bunch of f1.4 primes. They get a lot of use around town but I've never travelled more than 100 miles with any of them.</p>

<p>When I go on a trip to national parks I take my D7100 (DX 1.5X crop APS-C sensor) 12-24 f4, and 16-85 f3.5-5.6 lens. I almost always stop down to f8. What is f1.4 going to buy me other than a back ache?</p>

<p>If I know I'm going to be active with my kids I take my Nikon V1, Sony NEX-6, or just use my phone. Your kids are only young once. If you want to wait for a perfect system then fine but today there are more great cameras and lenses than at any time in history.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I'd go for a 5D with 24-105L. Not ultralight, but it fits the system you already have, you know how it works and it covers the needs more than fine. Overall a lot cheaper too, as the Sony lenses announced so far aren't exactly budget items.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>You are asking for the impossible. Fast full frame lenses are going to be big and heavy no matter what camera they are going on. If that's what you want you may as well swap your 1Ds for a 6D and keep all the lenses.</p>

<p>My advice? Buy yourself a good Micro 4/3 camera such as the E-PL5 and a few of the superb Olympus lenses such as the 12mm f/2, 17mm f/1.8, 45mm f/1.8 and 75mm f/1.8. You can fit the whole lot in a large jacket pocket. Depth of field is much deeper and the built in IS so effective that you could even consider leaving the tripod at home for landscape work. It may not give 4 foot by 3 foot prints like your 1Ds but at least you'll be taking pictures.</p>

 

[ariel_s1]

<p>Greg, I agree with others that you are turned up to 11 here. Consider toning down your needs, as they are pretty extreme if f/1.8 isn't enough for you. God forbid you have anything but the absolute highest image quality and highest aperture absolutely available at any time. Go look at the Flickr groups of people making great photos with much lesser equipment. I'd rather have 100 photos from a Canon T3i with kit lens than 0 photos from a 1Ds with L glass sitting in my closet. What wilderness/nature photos are you shooting that require f/2.8 in a zoom or f/1.4 in a prime lens on a full frame camera? Looking at Canon's lineup, you can clearly see why Sony made the design decisions that they did. Canon's 35mm f/2 is 1/3 the price and nearly half the weight of the f/1.4 version. Consider stepping back and viewing camera capability for what it is, as you've been living too deep in the ultra-high-end spectrum for too long. The new Sony, being full frame, even with its "hobbled" aperture lenses, is going to give amazing image quality and very good capability of depth of field control. Not the absolute best, but better than a very overwhelming majority of what's out there, and even more impressive given the cost and SIZE. Go look at what professionals are using today. Two of my photography professors in college, both respected in their fields and quite a profound influence on my shooting, both used cameras that were decidedly mid-level, because it is what worked for them.</p>

<p>I have two travel kits. One WAS a Nikon D200 with lenses, but I traded it down to a D3100 for the size and weight. With the 16-85mm it does more than what I expected it to. The other, which I bought because my fiance is much more likely to pick up, is a micro 4/3 Panasonic G2 with 14-42mm, 45-150mm, and Leica 25mm (normal lens). Do they give me the same image quality as your $30,000 and 20lb setup? Hell no. Do they give me more than enough image quality, and ensure that photos are actually taken that day? Hell yes. A friend just bought a photograph from a New Mexico surveyor whose passion is photography. 50x24", taken with a Canon Rebel with I believe 15-85mm lens, and I'd challenge anyone to be able to look at the photograph and be able to conclusively state that it was taken with Canon's lowest-end crop sensor DSLR and a "mediocre" lens.</p>

[Vlado]

<p><em>"When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk." -</em> Tuco from Good Bad and Ugly.</p>

[mark_amos]

<p>How about a Rollei 35 with Fuji Velvia in it. Tessar or Sonnar is fine. Stop it down to f8...tiny tripod...exciting to see the results after you get back home...those were the days....</p><div></div>

[gregcoad]

All very good points that I

didn't touch on much in my first

post. Fast zooms are of course

not critical for landscape but I

like investing in glass that has

more than one use if possible.

And yes, there are a lot of

other reasons that my photography

has fallen by the wayside lately,

a heavy kit is not the primary

reason. It's just one barrier

lately and a smaller, lighter,

more compact kit has been on my

wishlist for many years.

 

Jamie points out the other major

hole in Sony's lineup though and

possibly the one that has more

concerned than the lack of fast

zooms. Where are the wide angles?

[andylynn]

How about going with one of the many small cameras available that have either well developed systems or built in lenses

that meet your needs? Sure, you've built up certain expectations of your gear, but a Micro 4/3, a NEX or a Fuji with an

appropriate lens and a MeFoto Backpacker tripod makes a very respectable landscape shooter without taking up much

space, and when you're not out on hikes you can still use the Canon. You don't get full frame but when you're shooting

landscape how narrow do you need your DOF and how high do you need your ISO anyway?

[scottelly]

<p>Sony will never replace Canon 1D series with Canon L series lenses, I fear. Sony doesn't seem to give a rat's ass about weather sealing their lenses, and that's too bad, because the advantage of their in-body stabilization and their built-in GPS and their fold-out screens is not going to be an advantage for much longer. Other than those things Sony really doesn't offer much that Canon doesn't provide. Some day Canon will produce a full-frame camera with a fold-out screen. Already they made the 60 D, which brought them into the world of fold-out screen DSLR style cameras, and now they have the 70 D, T3i, T4i, and T5i too (though I think they have discontinued the T4i). They still don't have a weather sealed camera with a fold-out screen, like the Sony A77 or A99, but some day they will. By the time Sony actually makes a significant number of good lenses with weather seals, Canon will be including GPS and fold-out screens. In-camera image stabilization is another matter, and that may end up being the reason Sony reaches the same level as Canon in their market share.</p>

<p>But the A7 doesn't include any in-body image stabilization. Neither does the A7r. They also don't save you THAT much weight.</p>

<p>If you REALLY want good image quality, while saving weight, get the Sigma DP cameras. There is one for each focal length. Of course, you will not be able to shoot really wide-angle or really long stuff either. That is the problem with those cameras and the reason people buy the SD1. If you really want incredible performance with a weather-sealed body, but you don't want to shoot video and you don't care about weather sealed lenses, then get the Sigma SD1. It will save you weight, give you image quality comparable to the Nikon D800, and it is about 1 lb. less in weight, when including the wide landscape photographers' typical lens choice.</p>

<p>http://madshutter.blogspot.com/2013/09/d800e-vs-sd1-merrill-part-ii-wide-angle.html</p>

<p>Just so you are aware, the Sigma can shoot at 6 fps. The Nikon can not . . . but once you fill the little buffer, you have to wait a LONG time for it to empty, unlike with the Nikon.</p>

<p>If I were you, I would just get a 70 D and take only two or three lenses. Yes, the 70 D lacks weather seals, but Canon makes their cameras pretty weather resistant anyway. I'd also look at the Tokina 10-17 fisheye, if I were you, to solve the problem of shooting wide-angle stuff with the smaller sensor. You just might find you LOVE that lens with that camera. The camera produces better image quality than a 5 D (not the 5 D Mk II, but I think it would give the 5 D Mk II a run for its money at ISO 100 and maybe even ISO 200).</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

[Nick D.]

<p>Fast glass on full frame will have the same size and weight Canon or Sony, doesn't matter, it is physics, if you want it light, you have to cut frame size to m4/3 or APS-C and even then, I wouldn't call 2.8 zooms light.<br>

When they said 'Good things come in small packages", they did not mean 50/1.2 lenses:)</p>

[Aoresteen]

<p>If you want small, get an Olympus E420 (very very cheap used) and the 25mm f/2.8. Just bump the iso to 800 and snap away.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i think the OP is right that the Sony doesn't really make rational sense, the current lens lineup being a big reason for that. but when you really think about it, the need for a FF mirrorless body is really only critical for people migrating a lot of legacy glass onto a new system, which by default is going to be mostly canon and nikon users. for everyone else, a hi-end m4/3 or aps-c MILC is a much better compact camera system. i just bought a fuji x-e1 with 18-55 for $800. the only thing i really give up over my FF DSLR is AF speed and continuous focus performance and i'm shaving a considerable amount of weight and bulk. for the same $2300 the sony would cost, body-only, i could add the 55-200 and the 35/1.4 or the 14/2.8. i could get all four lenses plus the body--pretty much a complete system for landscape or travel--for the cost of the sony with one lens. the IQ of a fuji x system is going to be as good as a FF sony or canon system for most intents and purposes. unless you need to print larger than 24x36 on a regular basis, a APS-C MILC is plenty of sensor.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"unless you need to print larger than 24x36 on a regular basis, a APS-C MILC is plenty of sensor."</p>

<p>Eric, have you tried that with busy landscape images? That is not easy, even with a film or digital medium format camera, unless you are content to view the prints at a considerable distance (from say 10 feet, in which case with an APS or Micro 4/3rds camera you wouldn't see the non-existant detail of the landscape). Those seeking a small FF camera for detailed architectural or landscape photos are often doing so in the hope of going beyond the much smaller 12 x 18 inch print rectangle.</p>

<p>The question of wide angles on the A7 or A7r needs yet to be judged. Its short lens plane to sensor distance requires wide angle optics designed for that. Sony makes the 24 and 36 MP sensors and because they are being used in bigger and heavier cameras decided no doubt to release a camera body even before the wide angles or light zooms were created and available. Canon and Nikon and other DSLR companies have less problems in that regard in view of their retrofocus lenses which overcome the additional space occupied by the mirror.</p>

<p>Legacy lens owners searching for something smaller and less expensive than a Leica M digital, or the heavier and bulkier full frame Nikons or Canons, have some compensation for their wait with the Sony A7 bodies. As most consumers of small digital cameras have a good choice at lower prices than an A7 or Fuji X Pro 1, they don't need these higher resolution bodies. </p>

<p> </p>

[keith_b1]

<p>Check out Roger Cicala's look at the Sony and 35/2.8 lens.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I already bought and sold the A7. I was using some manual Voigtlander lenses and was happy with the quality. I have the <a href=" <a href=" and <a href=" <br>

It's an amazing little camera. The files are really nice. Using focus peaking I was able to nail focus wide open most of the time. In the end it didn't suit my workflow, so I bought an M9 instead. </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Ian, how did you find the quality of the results on the A7 using the 21mm f4? Does it interface as well with the sensor and yield sharp and contrasty images across the full image field, as it apparently does on your M9? The quality of images on the A7 with very wide angle optics is one question that seems to be outstanding. If you didn't get a chance to verify that in the short time you had the A7 please ignore my question. Thanks.</p>

[cliff_henry]

<p>I was in the same boat as you - a pack full of Canon high-end bodies and L glass - 17mm to 300 f2.8 and full range in between - but I finally tired of the weight. I purchased a Fujifilm X Pro1 and I'm loving the quaility of the images and the light weight. Yes, I know it's not a full frame but you might be surprised when you compare its images side-by-side with a full frame. There is already a good range of lenses available - 14 f2.8, 18 f2, 23 f1.4, 27 f2.8, 35 f1.4, 60 Macro f2.4, 18-55 IS f2.8, and 55-200 IS f3.5 and more to come like the 56 f1.2 in Jan. '14 - and they are second to none in quaility. Additionally, Zeiss has a 12mm f2.8 and a 32 1/8 available. If you have an interest there are plenty of reviews to be found on google.</p>

[cc_chang1]

<blockquote>

<p>What's with the lens collection announced so far? I don't get it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not only in this forum, but every where else, people, especially non-SONY shooters have the same complains. I can only say that this is typical of SONY as shown recently in the roll out of the NEX system, which is now discontinued. The pattern is that they can make small and very intriguing camera bodies, and then give you either consumer level slow zooms or very expensive and large Zeiss lenses. It tells you something when they cannot make a $200 native 50mm f1.8 lens to go with the A7. </p>

<p>Look at the size and the price of the Zeiss 55mm f1.8 lens, do you really need them to make a f1.4 version? By contrast the Leica and Panasonic collaboration has resulted in many small and highly regarded lenses for the m4/3 system that are not too expensive.</p>