chuck77 Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
notherenow wrote:
Even if you don't get the Canon, the 40 2.8 is a very nice lens for the price and adapts well to FF E mount cameras (if slow to AF with most adapters).
What lenses are you having trouble getting focus with for the A7?
I have not had the Canon camera and sold my A7 but I found focus was very good with the A7 and Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 for instance. Tracking AF is not the greatest but even that was better than many older DSLRs Maybe not for the fastest moving things but pretty good and ok for people shots at least.
Not trying to get you to not look at that Canon (might be fun to get one if cheap enough) but the A7 has pretty decent image quality and my experience was the AF was a LOT better than most think (and has some advantages too).
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7-versus-Canon-EOS-1Ds-Mark-III___916_436...Show more →
I am not denying that the A7 is a great camera for image quality. Under the right conditions, it works extremely well and produces tack sharp files as good as anything else out there. But, I do find quite a few limitations with it. Mainly, in extreme high contrast situations- for example, studio lighting with very concentrated light, the files start to display banding/posterization and becomes hard to use. That, and the awful colours and rendering are my main problems with it. The AF is decent if a bit slow, but the AF squares themselves are way too big to accurately focus on my subjects, and often the square overlaps over the entirety of my subjects' faces, forcing me to manual focus to confirm a sharp image every single frame almost. And even though the Fuji is probably my most used camera now, it is the same in the focusing department, so I have to rely on manual focus assist for almost every frame as well. A minor setback, I suppose.
I am actually debating on an Fuji X-T2 to replace my X-T1, but other than the increased megapixels, I don't need the host of other features it comes with just yet. Also, the Sony is not sufficient as a workhorse full-frame camera, which I believe the 1Ds III could be, minus its high ISO usability.
Maybe someone can talk me out of this before I spend the money on a 10 year old camera! Or, is it a real gem like my friend suggests? The "look" of the files are important to me, as well as a proper AF system that is quicj and accurate (on a DSLR).
|