Finally went to the Sony A7 Side

[clark_roberts]

Hi all,

Well I finally did it, I was looking through the listings on ebay and found a great deal on a A7. I know

that Sony still sells these new, so the question is how are these camera? anything that stands out I should

watch out for?. I know they are great picture takers, I should get it by Monday and pick up one of those

Samyang 35mm f2.8 lenses I heard great things about.

[John Crowe]

Do you have some lenses that you can mount on it with adapters? Have fun with the electronic viewfinder, get it set up the way you want, and then in use you will get used to it. I love my A6000 for sports and that is why I got it, but still getting used to it for the odd landscape that I will use it for. The A7 is of course much newer so hopefully the colour it generates will require less tweaking than the A6000.

[orsetto]

Tweaking the colors to match what you may be long accustomed to from Canon or Nikon can be... lets just say not exactly fun (those used to Canon skin tones in particular find the Sony jarring at first). The original A7 can exhibit unnerving play and flex in the lens mount area with heavy adapted lenses: doesn't normally affect function, but feels kinda cheap. Original A7 was reported to have sensor reflection issues with some lenses: I would guess not a widespread problem (allegedly fixed in all other A7 variants). And it uses a non-defeatable compressed raw algorithm, so not a good choice for astrophotography.

 

Aside from those caveats, a used A7 is the best bang for the buck option to play with random lens adaptations: the always-active live view thru EVF makes manual focusing a breeze compared to imprecise OVF manual focusing with a DSLR . But esp in this first iteration, the A7 isn't so much a traditional camera as a digital back for your chosen lenses. Like a digital back for a Hasselblad 500cm, the Sony isn't the most intuitive thing to operate: the typical cliche reaction is "its more computer than camera". Once you get a feel for its DNA, you can exploit the heck out of it, but it takes a little time to bond with it. There are several non-obvious setup functions you'll want to make that optimize the camera for MF lens use, viewfinder preferences, exposure, etc.

 

Check out dedicated Sony pages and sites like MFlenses for many setup and usage tips.

[clark_roberts]

I'm sure there's a color difference, I've been using a Fuji X-pro1 with a Nikon D700 and they both have color difference. it will be

interesting to see what I get out of this camera.

[orsetto]

You're way ahead of the game, then, since you're already successfully juggling Fuji X-trans and Nikon D700 color differences. The challenge of X-trans vs D700 color are about the same (or less) than Nikon vs Sony A7. Most Sony converts use the system for landscapes, street, architecture: non-people-centric work where "off" skin tones aren't that critical. While a wedding pro juggling Sony and Canon bodies might pull their eyebrow hairs out before eventually mastering the color differences.

 

Its all relative, even within the same brand: most Nikon enthusiasts absolutely hated the colors of the first full-frame D3 and D700 bodies, compared to the earlier D2x type sensor. Now, the D3/D700 are considered to have better tones in some respects than newer sensors. Everything depends on the usage case, post-processing software, and how / if you use in-camera jpegs. And of course with the Sony mix-n-match lens brand capability, you sometimes contend with adapted lens color variations as well.

Edited February 9, 2019 by orsetto

[John Crowe]

When I shot race cars last summer with the A6000 I did not notice the colour differences compared to the Nikon and Canon bodies that I have used. This past fall I used it alongside my Canon 5D II for the odd landscape and it was then that I found out how bad the colour on the Sony is. In most cases with a lot of work I could adjust the colour of the Sony to get close to the Canon but in some instances it was impossible. I immediately googled the problem with no reference on the internet. This is the first I have heard of other users problems. I just replaced the 5D II with a used 5DS R and I am so glad I chose not to go with one of the A7R models that I had seriously considered. Perhaps Sony has changed it would be nice to know. Very surprising considering that Sony makes Nikon sensors, you would think Sony would develop their own software to give colours acceptable to Canon and Nikon users that they are trying to win over.

 

 

I have used Canon and Nikon lenses on opposite Canon and Nikon bodies and am used to the small changes in colour from body to body and lens to lens but nothing as far out as the Sony A6000.

[orsetto]

Color differences between camera systems is a contentious issue that nearly always devolves into a fruitless flame war instead of productive discussion on how to deal with it. It exploded more than ever when waves of Canon users jumped on Sony with adapters to get the dynamic range Canon refuses to (or cannot) supply. Many were disappointed to discover the boon of Sony dynamic range came with the bane of color management they never had to deal with before. People argue the details incessantly, but the annoying truth is Sony is oddly clueless at implementing their own excellent sensors. They produce more immediately useful out-of-the-box results when other mfrs put their individual gloss on them (i.e. Nikon D850 or Fuji GFX vs any A7 variant). Not that other brands are always perfect, either: it was a long road from D800>D810>D850.

 

If "dynamic range" or "noise" determined everything, Canon would be dead by now. The fact that they remain the most popular system with many pros and enthusiasts is testament that other usability factors come into play when rubber meets the road. Quite a large number of fashion/wedding pros have cited speed / ease of color post with Canon sensor output as their key reason for staying loyal. Shadow noise and banding have been on again/off again issues for Canon, but most users are very happy with the color. Somewhere in the middle you have Fuji's X-trans fiasco: adoption rate would have been a lot faster had people not crashed into a wall with software glitches handling early X-trans output. Things in Fuji X world are much better now, but there was a long rough patch, and some people are still leery of X-trans files.

 

The wide choice of tools today is incredible, but mixing them together can be more tricky than we expect. (In some ways, Ektachrome was easier: you got similar predictable results no matter what camera was around your neck.) Massaging the Sony until you hit on a workflow that suits you is worth the effort, if you need a versatile body that takes any imaginable lens. And there are plenty of happy Sony users who shake their heads and have no idea what others are talking about when they grouse about the color: they experience no issues at all in their work. People with issues post about them, people without them don't: so there's more coverage of the former.

Edited February 9, 2019 by orsetto

[clark_roberts]

Camera differences are like film differences back in the day, you have a camera and you just pop in

a different film to change the look of your results, today it's a bit different you really have to stick to

the one brand you like and the colors they process. I've been through a lot of camera's (digital) now,

I've been happy with the Fuji and Nikons color but I don't expect either of the them to look the same

I don't want that, I want to see the color difference and start from there.

[clark_roberts]

I received the camera yesterday, in it's original box, great shape. The size is nice with a good grip, still have to

get a lens for it but looks promising.

[andylynn]

I picked one up when they started selling them for $800. It's good as a platform for my old glass, and now my Rokkors aren't going to waste.

[Ed_Ingold]

The "one" lens to get for an A7 is probably the new 24-105/4 zoom. There is an older version, Zeiss 24-70/4 for half the price, but I'm not sure I could recommend it. The new lens has less distortion throughout, and is sharper. It also has OSS and a focus hold button (which can be re-programmed). If I didn't have the 24-70/2.8 GM version, I would probably get the 24-105.