p.2 #1 · Considering a move to Sony, would appreciate advice
gdanmitchell wrote:
That issue is relevant to me, as another person who is (slowly) contemplating a potential move to Sony. I’m interested in hearing more about the boundary between the A1 II and the A7rV for someone who shoots a lot of landscape subjects… and who does also do serious wildlife (mostly birds) photography.
I think I get the potential downsides of the A7rV for wildlife photography, though I’m actually OK with a camera that isn’t a burst mode monster. (I’m not convinced that I need more than, say, 10 fps.).
I’m less clear on the downsides of the A1 II as a landscape camera, aside from the slightly lower pixel density.
Yes, slightly lower pixel density and slightly less DR due to the stacked sensor although the difference of both is not readily visible under real life shooting conditions. At least, I couldn't tell the difference but the most obvious difference between the A7r V and A1 II is in the price... 😜.
p.2 #2 · Considering a move to Sony, would appreciate advice
AGeoJO wrote:
…but the most obvious difference between the A7r V and A1 II is in the price... 😜.
I’ve noticed. ;-)
I could deal with the price (which seems less significant when you consider the cost of the full system with lenses that I’d end up acquiring), but I’m trying to get a handle on the magnitude of the trade-offs.
p.2 #3 · Considering a move to Sony, would appreciate advice
gdanmitchell wrote:
I’ve noticed. ;-)
I could deal with the price (which seems less significant when you consider the cost of the full system with lenses that I’d end up acquiring), but I’m trying to get a handle on the magnitude of the trade-offs.
Then by all means, get the A1 II in your case. The black-out free shooting experience for wildlife or any fast-action photography weighs itself in gold, IMHO. And, of course, you also get the pre-capture feature to boot. Maybe you will end up doing more fast action shooting after you have acquired that camera. And, I am not joking here...
p.2 #4 · Considering a move to Sony, would appreciate advice
AGeoJO wrote:
Talking about pre-capture - are you aware that the pre-capture format of the current Nikon cameras is ony in JPG and not in RAW?
The a7RV doesn't offer pre-capture as and option I can't see why having jpg's is a bad thing. When exposed properly the jpg's captured on the Z8 & Z9 are very good and I'm quite pleased with the images I can grab at the precise moment by using pre-capture.
To the OP - RAW would be nice for certain instances but unless you really need it for post processing I find it will only fill up the memory card at a fast rate. You can get the RAW pre-capture with the A1 II that you mentioned but it will cost you $$$. Being that you plan on using the camera for occasional bird and wildlife pre-capture shouldn't pose a problem.
If you are starting a kit the Nikon Z8 would be an excellent option and the Z S line lenses are an incredible. Not bashing Sony as I do own a couple of them but rarely use them since switching to Nikon.
p.2 #5 · Considering a move to Sony, would appreciate advice
gdanmitchell wrote:
That issue is relevant to me, as another person who is (slowly) contemplating a potential move to Sony. I’m interested in hearing more about the boundary between the A1 II and the A7rV for someone who shoots a lot of landscape subjects… and who does also do serious wildlife (mostly birds) photography.
I think I get the potential downsides of the A7rV for wildlife photography, though I’m actually OK with a camera that isn’t a burst mode monster. (I’m not convinced that I need more than, say, 10 fps.).
I’m less clear on the downsides of the A1 II as a landscape camera, aside from the slightly lower pixel density.
As I noted above, the A1 II's only real disadvantage compared to the A7RV, apart from a minimal difference in mpix, is that the PDR of the A7RV is about a stop better, per Bill Claff, up until 503 ISO. After 503 ISO, they are the same in PDR. This may well be relevant if your primary application is landscape and if you have little use for the electronic shutter's use with a stacked sensor.
For me the A1 II is vastly preferable because of what I shoot, but that is of course the very essence of YMMV.
p.2 #6 · Considering a move to Sony, would appreciate advice
Thanks again to all for the additional responses!
I had Nikon Z7/7ii and Z9. Liked the system a lot, but much prefer the smaller Fujis for travel, hence I’m interested in keeping my system decently small, and why my lean to Sony over C or N.
The Viltrox 50 looks like a no-brainer, thanks! I’m still noodling the main zooms.
p.2 #7 · Considering a move to Sony, would appreciate advice
The Z8 is to me the default recommendation to someone kit switching, mostly because you get access to the 24-120 which is the most versatile landscape lens available on a mirrorless camera, and a lens that beats the pants off of the aging Sony 24-105. You also get an extremely capable stacked sensor at a steep discount compared to Sony.
Nikon has the more versatile and interesting lens lineup for birding right now and has for a while.
The DR of the A7R4 and A7R5 wound up being disappointing to me in practice. The 61mp (and smaller pixels) of the A7R5 are in a weird no-man's land between the excellent 45mp sensors and 102mp medium format sensors. I certainly wouldn't base a landscape kit off it if starting over.
If one MUST go with Sony, it's the A1/A1 II or why bother, IMO.
p.2 #8 · Considering a move to Sony, would appreciate advice
When I switched to Sony from Canon EF system in 2018, Sony seemed the best option. It has taken Nikon time to catch up. Canon's proprietary lens mount is a turn off for me. A 24-120 in E-Mount would be a great upgrade for Sony.
I like that there are a lot of E-Mount adapters available for using vintage lenses on the sony. The sony steady shot (ibis) has the ability to set the focal length for manual lenses.
Voigtlander lenses with E-mount contacts are some of my favorite lenses, if you don't mind MF.
p.2 #10 · Considering a move to Sony, would appreciate advice
I shoot the A1 and am very happy with it. 24 f1.4 for Astro. 24-105 is a good, flexible landscape lens. I shoot the 200-600 for BIF, but I prefer the 70-200 f2.8 ii with o without the 1.4 tc if reach is not an issue. I recently got the SONY 100 macro, and this lens looks like a real winner.
p.2 #11 · Considering a move to Sony, would appreciate advice
Not only is the z8 a huge qnd heavy camera, but it is only 20 fps raw... That...is not impressive. It is a closed mount and the unique irding lenses are a few slow primes. There is nothing that could touch the sony 300 for weight and beauty. 300 is amazing for wildlife, and decent for birding, as is the 400-800.
The overall lens options make sony the nunber one by an absolutely massive amount. Additionally, it is the only mount that has a small camera as its flagship and prioritizes small lenses.
And there is nothing that touches the 50-150. What a killer lens. Add in the 28-70 f2 and the 12-24 that nikon has no equivalent of(well, it is a closed mount with many no equivalents).
RoamingScott wrote:
The Z8 is to me the default recommendation to someone kit switching, mostly because you get access to the 24-120 which is the most versatile landscape lens available on a mirrorless camera, and a lens that beats the pants off of the aging Sony 24-105. You also get an extremely capable stacked sensor at a steep discount compared to Sony.
Nikon has the more versatile and interesting lens lineup for birding right now and has for a while.
The DR of the A7R4 and A7R5 wound up being disappointing to me in practice. The 61mp (and smaller pixels) of the A7R5 are in a weird no-man's land between the excellent 45mp sensors and 102mp medium format sensors. I certainly wouldn't base a landscape kit off it if starting over.
If one MUST go with Sony, it's the A1/A1 II or why bother, IMO....Show more →
p.2 #12 · Considering a move to Sony, would appreciate advice
Yes the Z8 is a bit bigger but calling it huge is a quite an embellishment in your description. Z9 yes Z8 no. I believe Scott was comparing the Z8 to the A7RV which renders 10.0 fps, if you like to talk about not being impressive.
As for your claim of being a closed mount, it's simply not true. Tamron, Sigma, Viltrox, Voigtlander, Sirui just to name a few make lenses for the Z mount. And yes there are 3rd party lenses made for Sony but with restrictions place on many of them to the point of lower performance capabilities.
Nikon does not have a 300mm f/2.8 z mount as of yet but the light weight 300mm pf lens with FTZ II adapter weighs in at 875 grams vs 1470 grams of the Sony 300mm. Although the 300mm PF is a f/4 vs. f/2.8 it's still an incredible lens to use and cost $2300 with FTZ II vs $6800 for the Sony version.
Nikon, lighter, smaller and less expensive. With the $4500 saving over the Sony offering I can apply it towards the price of the Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S or the Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S. Or possibly the 800mm f/6.3 VR S.
With the FTZ adapter most of the F glass nikon has produced in the past can be used making a vast array of choices for ones needs.
Also I can adapt Sony lens on my Z mount cameras, can you use Z lens on a Sony?
shadow9d9 wrote:
Not only is the z8 a huge qnd heavy camera, but it is only 20 fps raw... That...is not impressive. It is a closed mount and the unique irding lenses are a few slow primes. There is nothing that could touch the sony 300 for weight and beauty. 300 is amazing for wildlife, and decent for birding, as is the 400-800.
The overall lens options make sony the nunber one by an absolutely massive amount. Additionally, it is the only mount that has a small camera as its flagship and prioritizes small lenses.
And there is nothing that touches the 50-150. What a killer lens. Add in the 28-70 f2 and the 12-24 that nikon has no equivalent of(well, it is a closed mount with many no equivalents).
p.2 #13 · Considering a move to Sony, would appreciate advice
Camerabag wrote:
Yes the Z8 is a bit bigger but calling it huge is a quite an embellishment in your description. Z9 yes Z8 no. I believe Scott was comparing the Z8 to the A7RV which renders 10.0 fps, if you like to talk about not being impressive.
As for your claim of being a closed mount, it's simply not true. Tamron, Sigma, Viltrox, Voigtlander, Sirui just to name a few make lenses for the Z mount. And yes there are 3rd party lenses made for Sony but with restrictions place on many of them to the point of lower performance capabilities.
Nikon does not have a 300mm f/2.8 z mount as of yet but the light weight 300mm pf lens with FTZ II adapter weighs in at 875 grams vs 1470 grams of the Sony 300mm. Although the 300mm PF is a f/4 vs. f/2.8 it's still an incredible lens to use and cost $2300 with FTZ II vs $6800 for the Sony version.
Nikon, lighter, smaller and less expensive. With the $4500 saving over the Sony offering I can apply it towards the price of the Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S or the Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S. Or possibly the 800mm f/6.3 VR S.
With the FTZ adapter most of the F glass nikon has produced in the past can be used making a vast array of choices for ones needs.
Also I can adapt Sony lens on my Z mount cameras, can you use Z lens on a Sony?
Not all E mount UWA lenses (the 20 G for example) perform as well when adapted to the Z mount, as Nikon's cover glass thickness is notably thinner. Not saying this is a huge deal, but figured it should be mentioned.
p.2 #15 · Considering a move to Sony, would appreciate advice
shadow9d9 wrote:
…but it is only 20 fps raw... That...is not impressive.
I’m not going to go with Nikon. I’m sure it is a find system, but each system option has its pluses and minuses.
However, a comment on burst rate. I photograph birds, mostly large migratory birds, and often in flight. While burst mode is a powerful tool, these super high burst rates are often not quite the advantage that they might seem to be. For example, it is hard to think of many situations where a stills photographer would actually benefit much from a frame rate higher than 20 fps…
OK, one more…
As to lens options, the real issue is whether the line includes a set of lenses that will work for what and how you shoot. It might be useful to some photographers to have the mid-range zoom with the largest focal length range, but that might be meaningless to another photographer, for example. The bottom line is that that any system that has a set of lenses that meets your needs is one to consider.
While Nikon and Canon both certainly have a large collection of fine lenses and a photographer could obviously choose to go with Nikon or Canon, this is the Sony forum and a thread about advice to and options for photographers who are planning a move to Sony. That being said, I’m grateful for all of those who have shared useful advice here already on that subject. I’m learning a lot!
(FWIW, I’m generally turned off by hyperbolic posters who describe their brand as “massively” — or similar adjectives — better than the competition in every way. I am impressed by those who stick to the facts and acknowledge the pluses and minuses of all systems. :-)
p.2 #16 · Considering a move to Sony, would appreciate advice
Looking specifically at DR between the a1ii and a7Rv, the deference throughout the range is very small (maybe a tenth of a stop?) for the entire ISO range except for the few ISO values where the a7Rv dual gain kicks in earlier than that of the a1ii where the a7Rv's advantage is just under one stop (I believe the a7Rv kicks in at 320 and the a1ii at 500).
For a camera that can do everything well excluding price considerations, the a1ii has no rival in the Sony camp (except the A1). The a7Rv has more resolution, but even here, the differences aren't large.
p.2 #18 · Considering a move to Sony, would appreciate advice
gdanmitchell wrote:
Pardon me for being dense, but I’m unfamiliar with the abbreviation “PDR.” I assume that the DR part is dynamic range, but the “P?”
p.2 #19 · Considering a move to Sony, would appreciate advice
gdanmitchell wrote:
-snipped- this is the Sony forum and a thread about advice to and options for photographers who are planning a move to Sony. -snipped-
Now, that's a statement of the day, or even of the month!
p.2 #20 · Considering a move to Sony, would appreciate advice
Ah yes, the famously closed mount that has access to tons of 3rd party lenses, including every Sony.
What a fascinating block of useless hyperbole.
shadow9d9 wrote:
Not only is the z8 a huge qnd heavy camera, but it is only 20 fps raw... That...is not impressive. It is a closed mount and the unique irding lenses are a few slow primes. There is nothing that could touch the sony 300 for weight and beauty. 300 is amazing for wildlife, and decent for birding, as is the 400-800.
The overall lens options make sony the nunber one by an absolutely massive amount. Additionally, it is the only mount that has a small camera as its flagship and prioritizes small lenses.
And there is nothing that touches the 50-150. What a killer lens. Add in the 28-70 f2 and the 12-24 that nikon has no equivalent of(well, it is a closed mount with many no equivalents).
