The a7RII auto focus is not that great. My 6500 is much better. But, the a7RII image quality is awesome and the dynamic range is excellent too. Maybe next year I’ll jump to the 7RIII for the auto focus. That will be all I will ever need. BTW, I haven’t tried the 7RII for video. I’m not expecting much.
@@johnhambyphotography I've shot a fair bit on the A7Rii video wise (tons of stills too). It's not bad at it at all. HD in full frame is decent but crop mode 4K is better. It has SLog2 (maybe 3 I forget) and of course the headphone jack so it's quite a full package. The video AF isn't brilliant so best stick to MF there. The IBIS is good when not moving too much, just smooths it out. The really useful feature is by powering from a USB battery bank you overcome any overheating issues (well realistic ones). Look for Dead Slow Hoot's Island Keen To Float on here. That was filmed with an A7Rii (softer misty shots) and an A6300 (longer shots with the green double image cos the second shooter was worried about borrowing my gear. Fair enough as it was really busy). Very pleased with how it turned out. Didn't have A7Sii at that point or the A7III but the slight grain adds to it. Normal lighting and there's no real grain.
What does come out of this interesting video is that if you: - want a full frame, - don't care about sports photography, - prefer or want to discover the extensively large family of manual-focus (vintage) lenses, - are fine with carrying two or more extra batteries and - watch your budget, then the A7 turns out as an excellent option.
I workt with this cam for sports photography and the results are good. The skill and the expirience with this cam is the key for good work not only the technology ;D.
@@linkundfieber419 absolutely, everybody is talking about the gear all the time on RUclips as is it was more important than your skills. Companies just want to make us buy the newest gear, though the skill is what really matters!
This video completely misses the point of the A7 for most keen amateur photographers. For me, the big deal was to be able to shoot at full frame with all of my old and expensive Legacy glass. For those of us who come from a purely manual-focus heritage, your greatest gripe about this camera simply isn't a gripe. The fact that I can snap on my pin-sharp 21mm Zeiss piece of glass and snap ultra clean and superbly balanced landscapes at full frame 24 mega-pixels is an absolute joy. And, then, clip on a basis Zeiss 50mm f/1.8 lens and take beautiful portraits with the kind of background bokeh that would make a blind man cry, and all for around $500 used, is little short of stunning. That's what your video presentation ought to have focussed on (pun intended).
This camera is still $500 in 2024, thats not a good deal. Nikon and Canon have full frames for around and under $200 these days, more money for lenses. I also dont use AF that much so AF performance doesn't matter to me either, Battery life is better with Nikon and Canon. I don't get why Sony and Fuji arent depreciating in 2024 when these cameras are over 10 years old. For $500 you can get a newer camera from a different manufacturer. I see an old stock A7 for $525 right now, but used I see them listed for $500-$700..wtf is wrong with the market 😆 😆. Its not like the cameras are getting better with age, they are outdated already 😆
@@socksonfeet8125 I also use my vintage lenses from Zeiss on my Canon 5d classic and 6d. With a cheap adapter with focus chip, you can focus them easily in manual mode. The colours of Canon cameras are way better and they are a lot cheaper. Yes the bodies are bigger, but I like that fact, that the leneses don't protrude on the Canon cameras like on newer system cameras with their adapters, because they need a longer flange distance.
@@socksonfeet8125 I agree with you I use mostly 5D m2, and 6D M1 among others. I don't care about autofocus, and if you use good lenses you're in. Sony I found them very greedy and in a 100 years the prices will still be high, but one day I am sure they'll understand the hard way. I use, Canon, Nikon, Sony are way too expensive for what they are. I prefer Canon's colour science.
I shoot Canon 5D's except mk4. To be honest with you, I have many vintage lenses that I love but are quite unusable for me on the EF mounts because of the flange distance. The Sony A7 has a big advantage, basically every vintage lens can be adapted on it, and it's a full frame body and the jpegs out of the camera with a basic picture profile can be amazing. I love the Canon color science, but sometimes it's annoying when my favourite vintage CZ Sonnar 85mm rips off the mirror in the mirror chamber of my 5D mkII. And the price... when something keeps its price it can suggest a value that stretches over time. Don't know, I love both Sony and Canon, good to have both. :) Have beautiful lights guys! 🎉
@@caldera878 I agree when it comes to aps-c lenses, but Sony's aps-c cameras are some of the most popular on the market, even though there is still no 4k60 10bit or many other things, latest flippy screen models are awesome, the a6600's Z battery is jaw dropping
As a person who owns Sony a9 and Sony a7, I must say that I don't completely agree with the conclusion. I still use a7 on weddings as a second camera (with around 150000 shutter count), and despite the fact that autofocus isn't great, it's still usable if you use a proper lens. I'd say that if a person wants to shoot portraits or landscapes, it's better to buy a7 over a6xxx. Pictures will look more professional because of larger sensor (yes, I love bokeh), and will be more flexible and editible. Colors aren't that great out of the camera (they tend to be more greenish), but you can easily tweak them using Camera Calibration in Lightroom. I personally like using a7 with Rokinon 35 1.4 (Sony 35 1.4 will autofocus just a tiny bit better but it has some major issues for the price) and pancake Rokinon 35 2.8 which makes the whole camera weight like Sony RX1, which is perfect for traveling. The battery life is worse than the one of a9. I use one battery for the whole wedding in a9 and three in a7. Though they are light and cheap if you buy generic ones. The mount IS somewhat loose, though it's noticable with larger lenses like Sony 85mm 1.4 GM and Rokinon 35mm 1.4. I just installed the a7s mount on it. It costed me around $100, but it's more solid worth large lenses now. The grip is fine if again, you're not using something like 85GM (it's still somewhat fine but not as comfortable as a9 with an L-plate). The body is FAR better than any a6xxx camera. So if you're planning to do portrait or wedding photography, you better buy Sony a7 with Rokinon 35 1.4 and Rokinon 85 1.4 than Sony a6100 with Sony 16-50 2.8G. Pictures will look a whole lot better. Just remember, that autofocus in low light is not usable (it's the most frustrating thing in this camera). I really hope this helps if you're on a budget and still want a nice photography setup.
The focus is really great. I use Sony Alpha cameras for 6+ years. I have used the A7 in world dancing competitions with the 24-70 G Master in continuous AF. 95% of the photos were stunning and in focus. You have to really know your camera to take great images and own it for a while.
If you just want the fullframe look the a7 is perfect. Buy a manual lense or use a vintage one. Focus manually and you can take great artistic pictures.
@@mattduncan5500 Get a gimbal with a follow focus and set focus peaking and you are good to go. Always use manual focus , it is a valuable skill to learn, there are also manual follow focuses that you can attach to a cage rig.
I brought 2 of these in 2015. With one of them, I use a canon 24 70 f2.8 lense with a metabones adaptor. I have installed updates on all. Still to this day people are blown away by the quality I produce and they ask what I use. When I tell them a7s mk 1 they are shocked. Hype plays a big part in obsolete.
If you're primarily shooting landscapes and architecture like I do, an old Sony FF camera will still be perfect for the price. I own an a7II, which has IBIS and better ergonomics than the a7 and that thing is awesome. Wide dynamic range, good ISO performance and in combination with some good glass (tried the 16-35 f2.8 GM for a week) the shots will be indistinguishable from e.g. an a7III and you save over 1k. And I also don't have that much trouble with the baterry life, sure it isn't great, but it has always been good enough for me at least
I completely agree. I mainly shoot landscapes and portraits in controlled environments. I shot the a7 for 2 years without any issues. I moved on to an a7rii because of the need for more megapixels for clients needs and 4k video. I never had any issues whatsoever with autofocus, nor with the wobbly mount. Ergonomically, yes, i never really like it. Sensor? It's fantastic for certain kinds of photographs.
It's "indistinguishable" until you have them side by side to see what the A7iii actually is capable of. The color science on the A7ii vs A7iii is pretty drastic, ISO performance is another large difference, and in general QOL with the A7ii is worse. Not to say it's a bad camera, but it's hardly indistinguishable
@@tommynguyen8620 Indeed I own the A7II and recently compared it side by side with the A7III, and boy is there a huge difference! ISO, color science, SPEED! focusing etc...
A low-light comparison between "old" full-frame and "modern" APS-C would be worth looking at in my opinion. I would think the advantage it may have had against the contemporary cameras would have vanished by now. What you did not touch in the video is the better separation from the background in the portrait shots with the tree as background. Yes, the A7 missed the focus on the eye, but with both cameras at f2.8, the image from the A7 had a less distracting background.
APS-C cameras cannot magically become better in low-light just because they are newer. They still fall apart over ISO 3000, whereas even the oldest full-frame can go 10-20 times higher before it becomes as noisy. And in most cases you realistically need up to ISO 30 000. I would be lucky if my A6400 permitted even up to 6000 ISO, but it becomes only a 'watchable' image at much lower. And god forbid zooming in a 100%, it's literally huge white dots everywhere. It's a simple physical downside of having a smaller sensor.
@@omnirhythm That A6100 should perform better in low light compared to A7 mk 1. Camera manufacturers do advance their sensors over time. I have A7iii and trust me... there's no magic, noise is noise, I wouldn't push that camera over iso 8000, but that's latest and greatest a7 series camera. By your logic if you'd pick up a full frame canon 5D mk 1 (from 2005 which had highest iso threshold of iso 3200) it would outperform newest aps-c camera? It just won't...
@@omnirhythm have you actually compared? Your A6400 can easily push 6400 or even 12800 ISO with mild denoising in post. It'll nearly compare with an A7ii and will solidly trounce an A7. Sensor tech definitely affects ISO performance.
I would take your recommendations seriously, but then I saw those samples with the white balance completely bonkers and I realised that maybe for some people photography is more about speed and autofocus than photographs. I bought a used A7 with stock lens a couple of weeks ago and I absolutely love it. A huge upgrade from my beaten up Nikon D7000.
I bought one for $310 a couple of months back. Paired with tiny lenses like the Samyang 24/2.8 or the Zeiss 35/2.8, its a great little kit, specially for a full frame. I think this is the smallest and lightest full frame camera you can buy, as all mirrorless cameras have been getting bigger and heavier. And the reason I moved to mirrorless from DSLRs is the smaller size and weight. So, even though the A7 may not be technically as good as everything that's come later, I bought it as I value the small size and lightweight kit.
I bought an A7 in early 2014. Over time I replaced the mount ring with a fotodiox tough mount and had the AA filter replaced with Shott optical glass. I still use this camera even though I also have an A7Riii.
Don't use the Photodiox Tough Mount. If you use regular one, you'll lose compatibility with some lenses. If you use the newer one (slimmer one), your mount will be still somewhat loose. I bought original Sony a7s mount which is the best possible option for a7. And yes, it's now much more solid and much better than Photodiox. I hope it helps.
Get an A7, pair it with some quality vintage lenses on adapters (OM Zuiko, Takumar etc).... and you have an amazing versatile setup that's very pocket friendly. A camera is only as good as the user. With patience and skill this is a camera that can deliver stellar results.
MILC and vintage lens is a match made in heaven. No autofocus problem, manual focus only. Don't need expensive adapters. $20 ones do nicely. APSC can't use FF vintage lenses without crop factor. :-)
My thoughts exactly! I bought an A7 back in late 2014, and a year ago replaced it with a used A7R (I got a great price for a camera with 24k shutter). Ideal for my always growing collection of old (and cheap) manual lenses. Simply a joy to use.
THIS! I shoot witth a helios and overall enjoy experimenting with vintage because it's way more budget friendly and could also bring great results ESPECIALLY in old cameras that just fall behind. I shoot with a alpa 57 minolta series which is over 10 years old but paired with a helios, nice lighting it looks good and delivers 60p.I just need better light performance and hate the distortion of the focal lenghts/crop factor of aps-c sensors and am heavily considering the original a7
I got the a7s recently, and because a lot of what I do is more related to low-light performance, I think it is far superior, even as a part of the original a7 series. I do a lot of astrophotography, and started on that with the a6000. That was frustrating to work with because of what I had to do to work around the questionable-at-best high ISO performance. Once I switched, the completely silent shutter and the gyroscopic level blew me away as features that I make use of every day. The autofocus isn't great, certainly worse than the a6000, but I've still used it to shoot sports as a student photographer. The slow burst speed is annoying, but the ability to shoot in less-than-perfect light (and even terrible light, I.E. a soccer game from 7 to 9 PM) and still freeze the action is amazing. If you need low-light performance or want the best image quality for landscape/portraiture, I think the original a7 series still has its place as a budget camera. A 12 megapixel full-frame sensor is certainly more forgiving on lens sharpness than a 24 megapixel APSC, so I feel like my photos are sharper on the a7s as well. I think it comes down to your needs more than "the original a7 series has bad autofocus" or "full-frame sensors have better image quality." I don't think either is worse than the other for the price point, just that they're better for different applications.
Love my old A7. Had it, loved it, abused it for years. Without it I’d not have learned photography, pretty much. It can hack motorsport rather nicely! I keep an old Helios on it these days. Big love for ‘em.
How do you miss the shutter sound? I find myself hesitating to take a picture from people when I'm 10 meters away. That's how loud and distinct sounding the shutter is.
@@jimbopaw Haha, I was somewhat mindful of the A7 shutter sound too when I had that camera..the A7rii in comparison is..a little less rounded, a little less piano black and its shutter sound is that of a broken dvd player trying to eject a disc; a distinct electric-mechanical sound. I miss the A7 shutter with its three-beat mechanical sound.
Ibis is make big difference for sharpness? I have a7 but I don't get sharp image without tripods for only portraits still photography is it big difference?
Hi I also have the Sony A7 But with a Sony FE 24-70 OSS lens And the focus is perfectly fine and also no blurring like in the pictures you presented Probably a new Tamron has problems with an old Sony camera didn't check
The blurring looks definitely off. Granted, I only use manual glass with my A7, so no comments on AF performance, but the level of details my Zeiss Planar 50/2 can resolve on full frame sensor is much higher than on anything APS-C sized.
yoram Lebovits I also have the a7 with the Tamron 28-75mm with absolutely no autofocus issues or blurry images at all. I have a high hit rate shooting action shots as well.
We also don't know what kind of AF settings he used - single point should be quite good on the older bodies too, but using something like wide area AF would probably suck in comparison. Important information to cover in a video when talking about AF performance.
Good comparison, though you did miss comparing low light. That's always been the biggest strength of going a bigger sensor, more light, and honestly low light photos are always the most challenging for any camera. Most RAW in focus images can be processed to get the color balance/profile you want, extra specific detail prioritized etc... but full frame has always been about getting more data for light starved scenarios and typically that is simply invaluable and not data that can be processed in after the fact in APS-C. Not necessarily worth the trade off for everyone, but probably a comparison that would be the most valuable showing the greatest strength of this specific comparison.
@@MrHada007 I own the canon FD 28mm 2.8 and two canon FD 50mm 1.4 ( new FD and the old one). Also the minolta MD 50MM 1.7 and the contax zeiss 35-70 3.4. If you are looking for a good 35mm the canon FD 35mm 2.8 is very good. The contax zeiss 35-70 3.4 is a legendary lens with incredible sharpness but it is very expensive. I strongly recommend canon FD 28mm 2.8 and New FD 50mm 1.4 which are fantastic lenses for the price and very sharp ! For portrait the 50mm is good but you can look to 85mm vintage lenses, and you can't go wrong with canon FD serie.
I use an a7s from back then with a 35mm lens (f2,8 Zeiss). Allthough I am not amused by the minor built quality of the plastik Zeiss lens, the AF is very fast and accurate.
the original A7 now is pretty much in practice for adapting SLR lenses. Itself doesn't deliver good colors and white balance, with a not so good autofocus, which is still better than the contrast based AF only models like A7S and A7SII btw, in other words, it can be worse lol. By adapting vintage or just Nikon/Minolta DSLR lenses, the color science from 1st Sony full frame body with Sony lens would not bother you anymore, it's almost all depending on the old lens adapted. and in most cases, no AF for vintage lenses and adatped DSLR ones, except some fancy expensive adapters like the one from TechArt.
I have used the A7 and never had that focus problem and a friend and his wife both still use It with no focus issues or blurry images I have the A7 II and it also works great and my Zeiss 55 1.8 and Sony 85 1.8 Is damn fast and sharp.
@@0ooTheMAXXoo0 Yes It does, I often use AF-C and a flexible spot or lock on so it tracks my subjekt.. Wide also works sometimes on picking up the closest and contrasty things close to camera..
I love my A7 and other than delimitation of the screen and not the greatest battery life, I haven't had the issues you are talking about. Maybe some of the "problems" you are presenting are operator error or nit-picky preferences as opposed to objective reasons not to get the camera? I, too, have larger hands and but I find that the grip is fine.
The A7 is a fine camera, the point of this comparison to see if spending $500 on an A7 was a better idea than spending $500 on an A6100, and in my opinion, it isnt.
@@GeoChild It's not that bad. Viltrox is coming with cheap, high quality full frame lenses. You can also use vintage ones. APS-C Sigma 16mm also covers more than APS-C sensor.
This remind me the time i find a a7 classic for $250 with a minolta af adapter and 2 lenses. I didn't buy it because i dont have that money at that moment. And then i buy a sony a77 for $190 with a kit lens and a 70-300
I have the original A7 and the A6500, still prefer the output from the A7, it maybe slower and have a noisier shutter but for considered stills work it's a genuinely great camera, love it.No blurring in my photos.
I just got one in 2023 lol. I have a ZV-E10 and wanted another camera that I could just keep a 50mm on and take everywhere with me and not really care about too much. I traded for the A7 and really got a good deal. It came with a 50mm Sony lens, battery grip, batteries, and pelican case. The camera only has just over 5k shutter count. It is still an awesome camera for a hobbyist.
I owned the a6000 then bought the A7 used for cheap. The A7 autofocus is not up to the a6000 but my hit rate went up after some practice. It is behind in the color science compared to the a6100 for sure. I ended up selling my a6000 as it didn't make sense to me to lug around 2 cameras. For me it came down to lowlight performance and over all better image quality. I shoot mostly stills and landscapes. The lens cost was a concern but the options are much better now with the release of the Tamron zooms and lots of budget friendly primes.
Same. Sold my A6000 for 200 and bought the A7r for 450. I'm gonna do the same when the 7r 2 is down to the same price as the A7r is now. Obviously I'm in no hurry and the early adaptors are welcome to buy the camera first for retail price. 😁
I use a7 for travel photos & no problem with af. Tamron capability in low light is similar to kit lens. I have prime lenses & overall they are very sharp with a7 for low light moving performace show.
A7 has new firmware updates and the AF is now snappy, trick is to use contrasty picture profile. Even on MC-11 and sigma ART 50mm the EYE AF works nicely. Its not fast af but totally usable. Ofc its not sports camera but for landscapes and portraits, damn. That 14.2 stops DR is still one of the best in any cameras. Shoot RAW and the color science is there, jpg engine is ofc outdated but who shoot jpgs anyway on full frame cameras?
Interesting perspecive. Much like you i thibk im buyest to the a7 over the 6100. I shot this camera alot and own the a7iii. I do think the 6100 is a good camera but I think you touched on all the bad points and not so much of the good in this comperison. 1.More options to be creative with you photography due to physical properties of bigger lenses. 2.Shallow depth of field 3.A bigger camera, that will get you taken more serious when you start taking jobs as a beginner. Thats just how it works. Little camera's arent beeing taken that serious by people who dont that much about photography. Especially when you add the grip. (That solves the battery issue due to two batteries) Most important: 4. When you buy a ton of lenses for this camera you can put them on your next sony fe camera aswell. When you buy alot of apsc lenses and want to switch to full frame you will lose alot of money because you cant you apsc lensen on full frame.
I appreciate your perspective. I had the A7 for years and honestly loved it. Yes, the AF performance was way less than awesome (but it was better than their A-mount cameras at the time like the A99 that only had 25 contrast detect points). I still used the camera to shoot (mostly in manual focus, sometimes AF) weddings, families, seniors, and landscapes. I loved the dynamic range from that sensor. It took beautiful images and I was able to really work the raw files as desired. Used it with a wide angle lens along side my A7iii that had telephoto a year ago at a wedding and I honestly preferred the look it gave me. Sold it last fall as I shifted my focus from photography to video and that original A7 overheats, is limited to 1080, and uses an older AVCHD video codec that I don't enjoy working with. A part of me still regrets selling it. Full frame does have a different look than APS-C so I'd say it really depends on what you shoot as to whether its worth an entry level A6100. Portraits provided you have a little patience for AF/MF. Products and landscapes are often MF anyway making them perfect for the A7. Also, fotodiox released a replacement e-mount bracket called the tough-e that solved the loose mounting on mine. I also used a battery grip that helped with power issues. It had around 50k on the shutter when I sold it. Thanks for letting me ramble on- lol
I bought yesterday a brand new A7 package with kitlens 24-70mm F3.5-5.6 , a bag and sd card for 650 euro in local store. It was the last one in stock. the autofocus is better than expected. I have a6000 to but always wanted a full frame. For filming I have a panasonic GH5S. Only con is maybe the loud shutter sound.
I like your video. In October 2019 bought my first DSLR or mirrorless it is this Sony A7 from the retailer as an 'Open Box' it was used a week and returned to the store and the price dropped by $300 the day I asked for their cheapest Sony full frame and got the body only for $540 Canadian with a full warranty in perfect condition and then bought a $45 lens adapter CY-Emount, so I could use it with my four 39 year old film lenses and 10 old filters. In January 2020 I bought the kit zoom lens 28-70 Sony E-mount for only $175 used on Kijiji instead of new by itself it's $600. I research the lens and it got great reviews and I love it as it has the built in SteadyShot lens stabilization, which really helps out as the camera body doesn't have built in stabilization. Anyways in the 6 months I've had the camera I've taken 10,000 photos and learnt a whole lot from it and love the many built in special effects and picture styles. I'm pulled off photos with it that in a month that wowed my friends whom had DSLRs for years. After 6 months I'm having the best time with the Sony A7 of my 45 years of taking pictures 50,000 photos with 2 film SLRs and 6 compact digital superzooms and then this Sony A7 for me it's way better than my state of the line film camera I bought in 1981 and it's light years better than my superzooms. I did buy a great $100 tripod and wow I'm pulling off amazing shots in the night even when it's so dark I can't see the subject through the lens. It's a joy to take your photography to the next level. If you are going pro then I recommend get a Sony full-frame with in body stabilization as this one doesn't but I can get away with that as I have 45 years experience taking pictures. I am a fan of Sony mirrorless the first DSLR/mirrorless I ever had.
I bought a Sony 24-105 F4 G OSS lens and now using that with me Sony A7 mark 1 and the photos are amazing. After taking 27,000 photos on my A7 mark 1 since Oct 2019 when I switched from a 2011 Sony compact super zoom, well now my photos have skyrocketed up in quality and impressing a lot of people with my Sony A7 mark 1. Yes I wish I had the Sony A7III, however that would cost me $3,000 new or many $2,500 used Canadian. Maybe one day. Tonight 2 people saw me taking photos in the park and want to buy photos off me and get a portrait shoot. Sony my Sony A7 mark 1 was my first DSLR or mirrorless any format, and since it is a full-frame, it was a cheap investment and still loving it.
A great video that I thoroughly enjoyed. However, I think you might have been a little unfair to the A7 in yourcomments. I've owned several sony cams over the years, amongst which are the A6000 and A7 mk1 and mk2. The mk2's AF is quite a lot better than the mk1, but there are a couple of other factors that you don't appear to take into account. Firstly, the AF on the original A7 wasn't as tolerant when focussing non sony lenses as the later models are, so comparing a Tamron on your A7 with a Sony on your 6100 puts the older camera at a disadvantage before you start. Also, you seem to have both lenses in the comarison set to f/2.8. The depth of field on the full frame will be far shallower than on the aps-c, which also ought to be taken into account. I think you would find that repeating your experiment with a native Sony lens mounted on both cameras, and stopping down the full frame one to match the depth of field of the crop sensor camera, might yield far closer results than we see in your video.
Hi, I have an a6000 and saw an a7 going on for around 550$(equivalent currency in my country), on a budget right now. Since you have had both, can you please share your opinion on both, specially regarding the autofocus. I mainly do landscape, architecture and some long exposures. Have 3 vintage manual lenses, so don't really care that much on the autofocus but still wanna know how it is when compared to a6000.
@@LadyFairChildVideo Do you think it's still relevant today? I have the a6400 and was considering getting the a7rii as a stills camera as the a6400 is doing very well for me with videos.
I sold this camera with the 50mm f1.8 lens about 4 months ago. I bought the Fujifilm X-T3. It was a huge upgrade. But there are some points I cannot confirm: 1. AF. The autofocus on my camera was actually pretty decent, missed like 10% of all shots. 2. The Mount: The mount on my A7 was fine. But this might be different for each used camera.
You weren't right about burst mode. It can be quicker when you select third option after clicking left button on D-pad. When you do that camera takes two photos when pressing shutter button once. So the burst mode actually gets 2 times faster. It's great camera for vintage manual lenses. I use it for portrait using manual lenses, landscape and car photography so at the moment I don't use AF.
Imo sony a7rii and a7ii is where it's at. They both have stabilized sensors and can be had for real cheap. a7rii is arguably better than a7iii imo especially in terms of image quality.(depends on your style of shooting)
4 года назад+2
I shoot mostly landscapes. I carry a tripod everywhere and I have no issues with my A7 in this kind of photography. The dynamic range is superb and that is what matters the most to me. Autofocus works perfectly in landscape photography environment. I would say if you want a stills camera for landscape/cityscape/architecture or any kind of photography where you don't need super fast AF or super fast burst shooting go for the A7 it is no different for that photography than the A7III. If you want to do video or sport photography look elsewhere.
I have the A7 too. Agree with everything you said, the only thing that I hate the most of this camera and the reason that I'm evaluating an upgrade to the A7 III, is the greenish tint. Ok, few clicks on lightroom and its gone, but is quite annoying.
@@Black3ternity instead of having a dedicated PASM dial you had a dial that gave you access to shutter speed and aperture. The third dial is the same rotary dial on the back. Thus tri-navi as opposed to the current bi-navi plus PASM on current Sony A6xxx bodies.
one of my all time favourite cameras!! i paired it with the original A7S with adapted old nikkor glasses such an awesome offering for photography !! i replaced it with an a7 iii and R III the difference in image quality is not that different. only differences are in autofocus/battery life/ibis and high iso
I had this camera since i bought it brand new… i never had a problem with autofocus what so ever. In 10k shots i had on this camera i can’t remember any miss focus on this with the sony kit lens on it. Maybe because your using a different brand lens, they don’t work as accurate as the Sony lenses on the a7.
It is logical. I will use it with vintage lens so I don't care about autofocus. I have only used crop sensor by now. I hope I made a good budget choice. I am waiting for the camera to arrive :)
good question, try using cameradecison site to compare specs, these are two different animals, I did a low light test video a7iii vs a6300/a6400 but a7iii is probably better than a7 in low light
I appreciate your budget approach. I'm a retired 'pro' who has spent most of my career in film. The few reasons I had for getting the original a7 was the ability to put back into service my 28/4 Nikon shift lens and to get higher camera resolution for my copy/restoration work. I also appreciate using many 'vintage' lenses to their full image circle.
I used to have an A7 up until about a week ago and I never had issues with my battery running out on me. Maybe it's because I am rather casual about taking pictures, but I don't think I ever really came close to using up the entire battery. Maybe I take less pictures than others or maybe it's because I turn the camera off everytime I am done taking a picture, but I'd say if you aren't really hardcore about it I wouldn't worry about battery life. Get one extra just in case and you have nothing to worry about
Bought a Sony A7 used from a store with 3 years of warranty last month. Only 40 clicks, and with the kit lens it only costed me 600 bucks in Sweden where electronics are pretty expensive. I'm so happy with it!
I guess one of the only reasons to get the A7 or A7ii over the A6100 is access to the much better selection of full frame lenses. Other than the new expensive Sony zooms and Sigma primes, there aren’t many great options for APS-C.
I have an a7Riv and an a7. The a7 still works. No issues. Yeah, it’s not a great autofocus, but we are talking about an old camera over 10 years old… one year before the Fuji X-T1 and same year as the Canon 70D… I still use it and I love it. Since I know the AF is not great, I’ve loved pairing it with old Minolta glass… as I’m going to manual focus anyway. Great quality glass adapted easily and at low prices… what’s not to love… you can use zone focusing. Will it be super sharp? No, but the camera is fun. Not too big… at least smaller than the newer versions. If you can find one in good condition, I would recommend it. I still use it… sometimes more than the a7Riv
around feb of this year i got a a7II with a 32-70mm kit lens from amazon that was new/used in package for only 750$. It had zero use and had all the accessories in the box. Really the box seemed to be unopened. It was directly from amazon and had zero issues. Seriously couldn't be happier with my purchase. Just need to get some better lenses for it. The kit lens it came with is okay. But i really wanna get my hands on the new sigma 85mm 1.4 lens.
The Sony a7 has Speed Priority AF, which is much faster than the setting you showed in the video. You just have to select it in the menu. By the way, I own two of these Sony a7 bodies. I chose this model and bought two bodies used, for low light and astrophotography. Thus far, I've used them with 4 lenses: 2 Sonys, 1 Minolta, 1 Tamron; with Spot/Center focus and metering. I don't have autofocus problems. But with the Tamron ONLY, I often get connection problems. The autofocus will suddenly stop working as if a lens is not connected. That's what the error message tells me. So what I do is I turn the camera off and remount the lens. It's annoying, but it works. This only occurs with my Tamron lens, not with any other lens.
“Primarily, the screen on the back tends to de-laminate and get pretty nasty looking.” Yes. The one I snagged off eBay is like that. However, as soon as I switch on the camera, the rash becomes invisible. It has zero impact on using the camera.
For a little more you could get an A7ii which has IBIS and Phase-detection with better IQ and AF. I like how the images are rendered with a FF camera compared to an APS-C.
I have used the A7 camera for several years in all fields, especially on special occasions. It is very wonderful, and practicing with the camera has given me experience in how to take pictures in an excellent and professional manner, and I have achieved tremendous accuracy. It is not like what you say. You should only practice on any camera if you want, and first see your budget that determines that. Thank you. Your follower from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 🇸🇦 with all my love and respect
I bought mine used towards the end of last year for about $600 with the kit lens Autofocus is okay, but really frustrating at times. Image Quality is nice but I'm pretty sure it's about the same as the A7. The IBIS is nice, but nowhere near as good as something like the M4/3 system's IBIS is. I think the main issue with the A7II is that while it's a full frame camera that is definitely serviceable with the right lenses, it still does not have the autofocus that Sony is known for.
Did they just stop selling these new? There were new ones available for around $600 just a few months ago... Now I only see used... Sad...The entry price for full-frame mirrorless just went up by quite a bit ( around where the A7 used to cost 2 years ago). Also, I just tighten the screws on the mount of the camera once in a while when it gets a bit loose-feeling like you mentioned.
I picked up the A7ii three weeks ago and I have not seen any of those issues. In fact, my lenses fit really snug, especially the APS-C lenses from my a6000. My Sigma MC-11 is supposed to arrive today, so I'm looking forward to that! As always, Thanks for sharing.
as an owner of an A7 I would say the only reason to still buy an A7 today is to use it with old adapted manual focus lenses. As a beginner I loved being able to use a kit of 10 different lenses to experiment with for the price of one modern zoom lens
One of the biggest things I have found on the A7 and A7II when people say their photos are never in focus when using autofocus isn't the focus itself but the photo preview being on not letting people get that that all important second shot right away due to waiting for the 2second preview to end before the second shot
Love the original A7. I've been shooting with it for half a year. Great way the get into full frame mirrorless. Very nice image quality. The main downside is its user interface: it's not that intuitive and it often takes an extra step.
I own the original A7 and a Canon 6D. I do weddings with the 6D but for my personal portolio, i do shoots with the A7. The liveview and tilting display is a big plus for me, plus pulling shadows/highlights. Yes, continuous autofocus is very slow and colors aren't as good as Canon's, but with my presets they turn out to my taste. I'm using almost exclusively the Sigma 50mm Art with the Sigma adapter, and i wouldn't shoot back again with the 6D, i would rather wait for the A7 IV, so i can afford the A7 III, or maybe the EOS R, but it just not there yet though. Also, as a twist, today came my Canon 30D, a 2006 camera, and i started shooting on the window immediately, and i kept taking pictures, because i love the feel, the colors, the basics. So it's all about what camera makes you take pictures, makes you do better pictures and makes you forget about the f*cking specs on a piece of paper. Be like a soldier, and just keep shooting.
FIY the A7 II is still available new, for just under $1,000 including the FE 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS kit lens. Just sayin'... Sony does tend to keep shipping older models for awhile.
I own an a7 mk1 and I bought a Fuji x100f when it came out. The photos coming out of the a7 with the Sony 28mm 2.0 are way sharper than than the x100f. Image quality is not even close. And both are almost the same size. The a7 is still a great value for the money.
I bought an A7 2 years ago, and bought one again recently. To be honest, it's a full frame, and holds up well against any aps-c sensor camera in image quality, esp in low light. Even with the cheapest full frame sony 50mm f1.8 lens, the image is amazingly sharp. Only complains I have is the really slow autofocus, short battery life and the video is kinda useless. If you want a camera for photography like landscapes, with good low light performance, then it's a really good deal. Just use DMF focus or just manual lenses (native or with adapters). Prices are also dropping quickly though. Gotten a a7r2 for about sgd$900 (us$658) recently with lots of accessories.
Comparing Jpegs straight of camera... Do I need to say more? xD Please shoot raw. As for autofocus.... fresh user would need to take some time and learn it because it does not automatically track the eye, but other than that autofocus hits real good with it, you just need to use it properly, and you need good exposure for it to work best too, I know that because I've been using this camera for like 4 years now, it does take time to get used to AF but other than that it's pretty good piece of gear
Used A7 is a budget full frame camera and fully incorrect to compare it with any images from Sony 16-55 2.8, because Tamron 28-75 2.8 is three two cheaper than Sony lens. In Russia you can buy A7 body for price about 430-470 USD. It is pretty cheap in compare with A6100 (745 USD used like new). A7 II costs from 500 USD (25000 clicks). I think in many cases it is a better choice to buy used camera than new one (I bought 1.5 years ago A6500 used for about 850 USD with 4000 clicks and ideal form)
I bought an A7ii last year and it's serving me well! Collecting FE lenses as I go and when I can afford to buy the cutting edge FF body ill have the glass to be able to take advantage of it
I bought my first camera recently I was debating between a Sony A7Rii for full frame and a FujiFilm XT3 for APS-C I ended up going with the Fuji, they are the king of crop sensor
a7 is great camera for photography, lack of functionality is fable told by videobloggers. it's got all enthusiastic photographer needs and even more. yes camera ain't suitable for vloggers but who cares about them. and it cost 300$ used, for mirrorless full-frame. all other points are secondary
Exactly for 300 bucks you can get professionnal results if you pair it with a good old manual lens with a cheap. I don't care about autofocus for landscape photo and I don't care about vlogging and shit. I mean you can beat this combo for this price, also it is a good way to improve your skills by using manual lenses in my opinion.
@@neobluepill6051 even AF is acceptably good until you want to shoot in low light or fast moving subjects. Yes, there's no eye detection but there's face detection and if there's enough light, it never misses. For still or slow moving subjects, it's fine. I have the A7 since its debut, and still serves me well, the only thing that I hate the most is that greenish tint, but that's nothing that few clicks on lightroom can't fix. Other than that, I much prefer the A7 over the A6xxx series.
I had the a7 then upgraded to a6400 af is so much better than the a7 but it feels like a downgrade going from Fullframe to APS-C I was going to purchase the 16-35 f4 for the a7 but I was told the image quality isn’t the best I was given a great deal on a6400 for 500 but now I feel like I should go back to fullframe for photography
I had an A7II & A7 as second cam with a custom PP for nice skins. I used only with MF lenses and i missed it a lot. But i sold it to buy a A6400 that focus much faster and do 4k video.
11:40 min into the clip your right to an extent...you can change the Color Profile in camera whether it be HDR/On or Off or color preference you can match the A6100 just by in Camera settings and oh yea for me a Tripod/Steady hand...But it sure looks Great !!!
Actually - for some reason - here in germany you can easily get an A7 II for that price on the used market. Got myself one from eBay Kleinanzeigen (craigslist pendant here in germany) for 500€ with battery grip and 6 batteries and two chargers. Preferred the A7II over the original one because of slightly better AF and stabilized Sensor.
I own both the original a7r and a7s and love them. You can fix the mount on the original a7 by ordering a “tough e mount” - I did this to my a7r and it’s been rock solid. I recently needed autofocus and found a deal on an original a9.
I can't wait to get the A7 iii 80% off. In ten years...
😂😂😂
The a7RII auto focus is not that great. My 6500 is much better. But, the a7RII image quality is awesome and the dynamic range is excellent too. Maybe next year I’ll jump to the 7RIII for the auto focus. That will be all I will ever need. BTW, I haven’t tried the 7RII for video. I’m not expecting much.
Planned obsolescence is going much faster in the camera race today and Sony gear depreciation is looking like the worst.
@@johnhambyphotography I've shot a fair bit on the A7Rii video wise (tons of stills too). It's not bad at it at all. HD in full frame is decent but crop mode 4K is better. It has SLog2 (maybe 3 I forget) and of course the headphone jack so it's quite a full package. The video AF isn't brilliant so best stick to MF there. The IBIS is good when not moving too much, just smooths it out. The really useful feature is by powering from a USB battery bank you overcome any overheating issues (well realistic ones). Look for Dead Slow Hoot's Island Keen To Float on here. That was filmed with an A7Rii (softer misty shots) and an A6300 (longer shots with the green double image cos the second shooter was worried about borrowing my gear. Fair enough as it was really busy). Very pleased with how it turned out. Didn't have A7Sii at that point or the A7III but the slight grain adds to it. Normal lighting and there's no real grain.
haha，and you can wait then
What does come out of this interesting video is that if you:
- want a full frame,
- don't care about sports photography,
- prefer or want to discover the extensively large family of manual-focus (vintage) lenses,
- are fine with carrying two or more extra batteries and
- watch your budget, then
the A7 turns out as an excellent option.
I workt with this cam for sports photography and the results are good. The skill and the expirience with this cam is the key for good work not only the technology ;D.
For price Canon 5d mk ii Sony A7 looks beautiful
Similar sentiments here! The vintage lenses collection... 😊
@@linkundfieber419 absolutely, everybody is talking about the gear all the time on RUclips as is it was more important than your skills. Companies just want to make us buy the newest gear, though the skill is what really matters!
Totally agree @Xristfer. These ppl actually don't like photo/videography itself. Now im using a first gen 5D, a7 looks good way to step in mirrorless
This video completely misses the point of the A7 for most keen amateur photographers. For me, the big deal was to be able to shoot at full frame with all of my old and expensive Legacy glass. For those of us who come from a purely manual-focus heritage, your greatest gripe about this camera simply isn't a gripe. The fact that I can snap on my pin-sharp 21mm Zeiss piece of glass and snap ultra clean and superbly balanced landscapes at full frame 24 mega-pixels is an absolute joy. And, then, clip on a basis Zeiss 50mm f/1.8 lens and take beautiful portraits with the kind of background bokeh that would make a blind man cry, and all for around $500 used, is little short of stunning. That's what your video presentation ought to have focussed on (pun intended).
This camera is still $500 in 2024, thats not a good deal. Nikon and Canon have full frames for around and under $200 these days, more money for lenses. I also dont use AF that much so AF performance doesn't matter to me either, Battery life is better with Nikon and Canon. I don't get why Sony and Fuji arent depreciating in 2024 when these cameras are over 10 years old. For $500 you can get a newer camera from a different manufacturer. I see an old stock A7 for $525 right now, but used I see them listed for $500-$700..wtf is wrong with the market 😆 😆. Its not like the cameras are getting better with age, they are outdated already 😆
@@socksonfeet8125 I also use my vintage lenses from Zeiss on my Canon 5d classic and 6d. With a cheap adapter with focus chip, you can focus them easily in manual mode. The colours of Canon cameras are way better and they are a lot cheaper. Yes the bodies are bigger, but I like that fact, that the leneses don't protrude on the Canon cameras like on newer system cameras with their adapters, because they need a longer flange distance.
@@socksonfeet8125 I agree with you
I use mostly 5D m2, and 6D M1 among others.
I don't care about autofocus, and if you use good lenses you're in.
Sony I found them very greedy and in a 100 years the prices will still be high, but one day I am sure they'll understand the hard way.
I use, Canon, Nikon, Sony are way too expensive for what they are.
I prefer Canon's colour science.
I shoot Canon 5D's except mk4. To be honest with you, I have many vintage lenses that I love but are quite unusable for me on the EF mounts because of the flange distance. The Sony A7 has a big advantage, basically every vintage lens can be adapted on it, and it's a full frame body and the jpegs out of the camera with a basic picture profile can be amazing. I love the Canon color science, but sometimes it's annoying when my favourite vintage CZ Sonnar 85mm rips off the mirror in the mirror chamber of my 5D mkII. And the price... when something keeps its price it can suggest a value that stretches over time. Don't know, I love both Sony and Canon, good to have both. :) Have beautiful lights guys! 🎉
The A7 is brilliant if you only shoot stills in controlled environment, i only sold it in 2019 after 5 years with me, brilliant camera.
Aiur Productions I used it for studio portraits. IQ was amazing.
agree. if lighting isn't an issue, it's a brilliant camera better than my A7ii.
et m Why do you think it's better? Explain please.
Mine is for infrared and I’m only shooting landscapes but It works great.
True, the A7Riii has the fastest focusing ability. (do not have the A7iv) I still use my A7Rii but do notice the difference.
Let's be honest, the Sony aps-c cameras are the gateway drug to the full-frame cameras.
totally agree, especially a6600 with Z battery
Well to be precise here... The RX100 series is the gateway drug for Sony at all...
Sony treats Aps-c e-mount like a middle child while Full Frame is their first born son.
@@caldera878 I agree when it comes to aps-c lenses, but Sony's aps-c cameras are some of the most popular on the market, even though there is still no 4k60 10bit or many other things, latest flippy screen models are awesome, the a6600's Z battery is jaw dropping
@@caldera878 I was an accurate interpretation
As a person who owns Sony a9 and Sony a7, I must say that I don't completely agree with the conclusion. I still use a7 on weddings as a second camera (with around 150000 shutter count), and despite the fact that autofocus isn't great, it's still usable if you use a proper lens. I'd say that if a person wants to shoot portraits or landscapes, it's better to buy a7 over a6xxx. Pictures will look more professional because of larger sensor (yes, I love bokeh), and will be more flexible and editible. Colors aren't that great out of the camera (they tend to be more greenish), but you can easily tweak them using Camera Calibration in Lightroom. I personally like using a7 with Rokinon 35 1.4 (Sony 35 1.4 will autofocus just a tiny bit better but it has some major issues for the price) and pancake Rokinon 35 2.8 which makes the whole camera weight like Sony RX1, which is perfect for traveling. The battery life is worse than the one of a9. I use one battery for the whole wedding in a9 and three in a7. Though they are light and cheap if you buy generic ones. The mount IS somewhat loose, though it's noticable with larger lenses like Sony 85mm 1.4 GM and Rokinon 35mm 1.4. I just installed the a7s mount on it. It costed me around $100, but it's more solid worth large lenses now. The grip is fine if again, you're not using something like 85GM (it's still somewhat fine but not as comfortable as a9 with an L-plate). The body is FAR better than any a6xxx camera.
So if you're planning to do portrait or wedding photography, you better buy Sony a7 with Rokinon 35 1.4 and Rokinon 85 1.4 than Sony a6100 with Sony 16-50 2.8G. Pictures will look a whole lot better. Just remember, that autofocus in low light is not usable (it's the most frustrating thing in this camera).
I really hope this helps if you're on a budget and still want a nice photography setup.
Thanks for the feedback James
The focus is really great. I use Sony Alpha cameras for 6+ years. I have used the A7 in world dancing competitions with the 24-70 G Master in continuous AF. 95% of the photos were stunning and in focus. You have to really know your camera to take great images and own it for a while.
If you just want the fullframe look the a7 is perfect. Buy a manual lense or use a vintage one. Focus manually and you can take great artistic pictures.
What do you think for film ? Any suggestions welcome around this price mark
@@mattduncan5500 Get a gimbal with a follow focus and set focus peaking and you are good to go. Always use manual focus , it is a valuable skill to learn, there are also manual follow focuses that you can attach to a cage rig.
I brought 2 of these in 2015. With one of them, I use a canon 24 70 f2.8 lense with a metabones adaptor. I have installed updates on all. Still to this day people are blown away by the quality I produce and they ask what I use. When I tell them a7s mk 1 they are shocked. Hype plays a big part in obsolete.
Using an a7 with leica lenses for 5 years. It's a great camera. With focus peaking I have everything I need and won't upgrade to anything else!
If you're primarily shooting landscapes and architecture like I do, an old Sony FF camera will still be perfect for the price. I own an a7II, which has IBIS and better ergonomics than the a7 and that thing is awesome. Wide dynamic range, good ISO performance and in combination with some good glass (tried the 16-35 f2.8 GM for a week) the shots will be indistinguishable from e.g. an a7III and you save over 1k. And I also don't have that much trouble with the baterry life, sure it isn't great, but it has always been good enough for me at least
I completely agree. I mainly shoot landscapes and portraits in controlled environments. I shot the a7 for 2 years without any issues. I moved on to an a7rii because of the need for more megapixels for clients needs and 4k video. I never had any issues whatsoever with autofocus, nor with the wobbly mount. Ergonomically, yes, i never really like it. Sensor? It's fantastic for certain kinds of photographs.
Shooting buildings with regular textures produces moles that can give you a headache.
It's "indistinguishable" until you have them side by side to see what the A7iii actually is capable of. The color science on the A7ii vs A7iii is pretty drastic, ISO performance is another large difference, and in general QOL with the A7ii is worse. Not to say it's a bad camera, but it's hardly indistinguishable
@@tommynguyen8620 Indeed I own the A7II and recently compared it side by side with the A7III, and boy is there a huge difference! ISO, color science, SPEED! focusing etc...
@@tommynguyen8620 what do u mean by color science
Is he the SON of the car reviewer Hoovie's Garage?
i was thinking that
@Prashanth Panicker Indeed!
Obviously , he buys old cameras instead ...
Yo!!!!! You on to something 😂😂😂
Looks like him, too. Maybe they're cousins or something lol
A low-light comparison between "old" full-frame and "modern" APS-C would be worth looking at in my opinion. I would think the advantage it may have had against the contemporary cameras would have vanished by now. What you did not touch in the video is the better separation from the background in the portrait shots with the tree as background. Yes, the A7 missed the focus on the eye, but with both cameras at f2.8, the image from the A7 had a less distracting background.
APS-C cameras cannot magically become better in low-light just because they are newer. They still fall apart over ISO 3000, whereas even the oldest full-frame can go 10-20 times higher before it becomes as noisy. And in most cases you realistically need up to ISO 30 000. I would be lucky if my A6400 permitted even up to 6000 ISO, but it becomes only a 'watchable' image at much lower. And god forbid zooming in a 100%, it's literally huge white dots everywhere. It's a simple physical downside of having a smaller sensor.
@@omnirhythm That A6100 should perform better in low light compared to A7 mk 1. Camera manufacturers do advance their sensors over time. I have A7iii and trust me... there's no magic, noise is noise, I wouldn't push that camera over iso 8000, but that's latest and greatest a7 series camera. By your logic if you'd pick up a full frame canon 5D mk 1 (from 2005 which had highest iso threshold of iso 3200) it would outperform newest aps-c camera? It just won't...
@@omnirhythm have you actually compared? Your A6400 can easily push 6400 or even 12800 ISO with mild denoising in post. It'll nearly compare with an A7ii and will solidly trounce an A7. Sensor tech definitely affects ISO performance.
@Ziggi Mon I do had both A7 and A7ll. Yeah. A7ll is just an A7 with IBIS for me. Almost the same low light performance.
@@omnirhythm then you must not know how to expose your A6400 in low light. im getting great results at 25600 ISO with A6300 no im not kidding:!!
I would take your recommendations seriously, but then I saw those samples with the white balance completely bonkers and I realised that maybe for some people photography is more about speed and autofocus than photographs. I bought a used A7 with stock lens a couple of weeks ago and I absolutely love it. A huge upgrade from my beaten up Nikon D7000.
He wasn't happy that camera didn't compensate for his lack of photography skills....
Everyone loves to hate on Sony… but I have an a7 and an a7Riv and still love it and use it all the time
I bought one for $310 a couple of months back. Paired with tiny lenses like the Samyang 24/2.8 or the Zeiss 35/2.8, its a great little kit, specially for a full frame. I think this is the smallest and lightest full frame camera you can buy, as all mirrorless cameras have been getting bigger and heavier. And the reason I moved to mirrorless from DSLRs is the smaller size and weight. So, even though the A7 may not be technically as good as everything that's come later, I bought it as I value the small size and lightweight kit.
I bought an A7 in early 2014. Over time I replaced the mount ring with a fotodiox tough mount and had the AA filter replaced with Shott optical glass. I still use this camera even though I also have an A7Riii.
Chuck Moser i was thinking about putting the fotodiox mount on my a7. I have the a7rm3 too. Does it feel as solid as that?
Don't use the Photodiox Tough Mount. If you use regular one, you'll lose compatibility with some lenses. If you use the newer one (slimmer one), your mount will be still somewhat loose. I bought original Sony a7s mount which is the best possible option for a7. And yes, it's now much more solid and much better than Photodiox. I hope it helps.
I paired an a7 with a 85mm 1.8 Viltrox lens and it's an amazing full frame experience!! Give it a try!
Same setup and for the price it’s incredible
Get an A7, pair it with some quality vintage lenses on adapters (OM Zuiko, Takumar etc).... and you have an amazing versatile setup that's very pocket friendly. A camera is only as good as the user. With patience and skill this is a camera that can deliver stellar results.
MILC and vintage lens is a match made in heaven. No autofocus problem, manual focus only. Don't need expensive adapters. $20 ones do nicely. APSC can't use FF vintage lenses without crop factor. :-)
My thoughts exactly! I bought an A7 back in late 2014, and a year ago replaced it with a used A7R (I got a great price for a camera with 24k shutter).
Ideal for my always growing collection of old (and cheap) manual lenses. Simply a joy to use.
Too bad about A7 sensor reflection problems, wobbly plastic lens mount issues and dust settling onto the sensor.
Unless you want fast AF or AF-C :P
THIS! I shoot witth a helios and overall enjoy experimenting with vintage because it's way more budget friendly and could also bring great results ESPECIALLY in old cameras that just fall behind. I shoot with a alpa 57 minolta series which is over 10 years old but paired with a helios, nice lighting it looks good and delivers 60p.I just need better light performance and hate the distortion of the focal lenghts/crop factor of aps-c sensors and am heavily considering the original a7
I got the a7s recently, and because a lot of what I do is more related to low-light performance, I think it is far superior, even as a part of the original a7 series.
I do a lot of astrophotography, and started on that with the a6000. That was frustrating to work with because of what I had to do to work around the questionable-at-best high ISO performance. Once I switched, the completely silent shutter and the gyroscopic level blew me away as features that I make use of every day.
The autofocus isn't great, certainly worse than the a6000, but I've still used it to shoot sports as a student photographer. The slow burst speed is annoying, but the ability to shoot in less-than-perfect light (and even terrible light, I.E. a soccer game from 7 to 9 PM) and still freeze the action is amazing.
If you need low-light performance or want the best image quality for landscape/portraiture, I think the original a7 series still has its place as a budget camera. A 12 megapixel full-frame sensor is certainly more forgiving on lens sharpness than a 24 megapixel APSC, so I feel like my photos are sharper on the a7s as well. I think it comes down to your needs more than "the original a7 series has bad autofocus" or "full-frame sensors have better image quality." I don't think either is worse than the other for the price point, just that they're better for different applications.
Love my old A7. Had it, loved it, abused it for years. Without it I’d not have learned photography, pretty much. It can hack motorsport rather nicely! I keep an old Helios on it these days. Big love for ‘em.
For people who like to use manual glass, this is probably the best FF for the money. Beats any and all DSLR's.
I owned the A7 before A7 III, I miss the compact size and the shutter sound.
How do you miss the shutter sound? I find myself hesitating to take a picture from people when I'm 10 meters away. That's how loud and distinct sounding the shutter is.
@@jimbopaw Haha, I was somewhat mindful of the A7 shutter sound too when I had that camera..the A7rii in comparison is..a little less rounded, a little less piano black and its shutter sound is that of a broken dvd player trying to eject a disc; a distinct electric-mechanical sound. I miss the A7 shutter with its three-beat mechanical sound.
Ibis is make big difference for sharpness?
I have a7 but I don't get sharp image without tripods
for only portraits still photography is it big difference?
@@misterpringles2384 , I wonder how people in former times where able to get sharp pictures...
Ismail Gündogan broxf
Hi
I also have the Sony A7
But with a Sony FE 24-70 OSS lens
And the focus is perfectly fine and also no blurring like in the pictures you presented
Probably a new Tamron has problems with an old Sony camera didn't check
yoram Lebovits I have the same god experience. Switchend from a6000 to the A7. No problems at all
The blurring looks definitely off. Granted, I only use manual glass with my A7, so no comments on AF performance, but the level of details my Zeiss Planar 50/2 can resolve on full frame sensor is much higher than on anything APS-C sized.
yoram Lebovits I also have the a7 with the Tamron 28-75mm with absolutely no autofocus issues or blurry images at all. I have a high hit rate shooting action shots as well.
We also don't know what kind of AF settings he used - single point should be quite good on the older bodies too, but using something like wide area AF would probably suck in comparison. Important information to cover in a video when talking about AF performance.
yoram Lebovits I have A7 + Tamron 28-75 2.8 and works perfectly (eye focus too), I sold my FE24-70 because was too soft. :)
Good comparison, though you did miss comparing low light. That's always been the biggest strength of going a bigger sensor, more light, and honestly low light photos are always the most challenging for any camera. Most RAW in focus images can be processed to get the color balance/profile you want, extra specific detail prioritized etc... but full frame has always been about getting more data for light starved scenarios and typically that is simply invaluable and not data that can be processed in after the fact in APS-C. Not necessarily worth the trade off for everyone, but probably a comparison that would be the most valuable showing the greatest strength of this specific comparison.
It's the camera I use along with vintage lenses mostly, lovely for portraiture, landscape and still life.
Josan Leal hey can u suggest me 35mm. Vintage lens for portrait I have sony a7
@@MrHada007 I only own one 35mm its the old konica AR 35mm 2.8, a nice lens.
@@MrHada007 I own the canon FD 28mm 2.8 and two canon FD 50mm 1.4 ( new FD and the old one). Also the minolta MD 50MM 1.7 and the contax zeiss 35-70 3.4. If you are looking for a good 35mm the canon FD 35mm 2.8 is very good. The contax zeiss 35-70 3.4 is a legendary lens with incredible sharpness but it is very expensive. I strongly recommend canon FD 28mm 2.8 and New FD 50mm 1.4 which are fantastic lenses for the price and very sharp ! For portrait the 50mm is good but you can look to 85mm vintage lenses, and you can't go wrong with canon FD serie.
I use an a7s from back then with a 35mm lens (f2,8 Zeiss). Allthough I am not amused by the minor built quality of the plastik Zeiss lens, the AF is very fast and accurate.
the original A7 now is pretty much in practice for adapting SLR lenses. Itself doesn't deliver good colors and white balance, with a not so good autofocus, which is still better than the contrast based AF only models like A7S and A7SII btw, in other words, it can be worse lol. By adapting vintage or just Nikon/Minolta DSLR lenses, the color science from 1st Sony full frame body with Sony lens would not bother you anymore, it's almost all depending on the old lens adapted. and in most cases, no AF for vintage lenses and adatped DSLR ones, except some fancy expensive adapters like the one from TechArt.
I have used the A7 and never had that focus problem and a friend and his wife both still use It with no focus issues or blurry images I have the A7 II and it also works great and my Zeiss 55 1.8 and Sony 85 1.8 Is damn fast and sharp.
Tamron may not be optimized for the older cameras. With lenses like 55 1.8 it's autofocus is fairly good, though still not suitable for sports.
A7m2 does have improved AF over A7.
@@0ooTheMAXXoo0 Yes It does, I often use AF-C and a flexible spot or lock on so it tracks my subjekt.. Wide also works sometimes on picking up the closest and contrasty things close to camera..
I love my A7 and other than delimitation of the screen and not the greatest battery life, I haven't had the issues you are talking about. Maybe some of the "problems" you are presenting are operator error or nit-picky preferences as opposed to objective reasons not to get the camera? I, too, have larger hands and but I find that the grip is fine.
The A7 is a fine camera, the point of this comparison to see if spending $500 on an A7 was a better idea than spending $500 on an A6100, and in my opinion, it isnt.
I recently got an a7ii with 2 actuations and kits lens for $700. Better to spend the extra $200 to get better performance.
Sony will get your $$$ on the full-frame lenses though...
@@GeoChild It's not that bad. Viltrox is coming with cheap, high quality full frame lenses. You can also use vintage ones. APS-C Sigma 16mm also covers more than APS-C sensor.
Brian Whitmore very true if you stay native. I use a viltrox 85mm and I am in love with it.
Haha..did they only shoot video only?
sweet deal, it will probably take a while for a7iii to get to these price levels
This remind me the time i find a a7 classic for $250 with a minolta af adapter and 2 lenses. I didn't buy it because i dont have that money at that moment. And then i buy a sony a77 for $190 with a kit lens and a 70-300
Great thing about it is you can find cheap adaptors for old manual lenses.
I have the original A7 and the A6500, still prefer the output from the A7, it maybe slower and have a noisier shutter but for considered stills work it's a genuinely great camera, love it.No blurring in my photos.
I just got one in 2023 lol. I have a ZV-E10 and wanted another camera that I could just keep a 50mm on and take everywhere with me and not really care about too much. I traded for the A7 and really got a good deal. It came with a 50mm Sony lens, battery grip, batteries, and pelican case. The camera only has just over 5k shutter count. It is still an awesome camera for a hobbyist.
I owned the a6000 then bought the A7 used for cheap. The A7 autofocus is not up to the a6000 but my hit rate went up after some practice. It is behind in the color science compared to the a6100 for sure. I ended up selling my a6000 as it didn't make sense to me to lug around 2 cameras. For me it came down to lowlight performance and over all better image quality. I shoot mostly stills and landscapes. The lens cost was a concern but the options are much better now with the release of the Tamron zooms and lots of budget friendly primes.
Same. Sold my A6000 for 200 and bought the A7r for 450.
I'm gonna do the same when the 7r 2 is down to the same price as the A7r is now.
Obviously I'm in no hurry and the early adaptors are welcome to buy the camera first for retail price. 😁
@@Elvices agreed. I been living high on yesterday's tech, lol
I use a7 for travel photos & no problem with af. Tamron capability in low light is similar to kit lens. I have prime lenses & overall they are very sharp with a7 for low light moving performace show.
A7 has new firmware updates and the AF is now snappy, trick is to use contrasty picture profile. Even on MC-11 and sigma ART 50mm the EYE AF works nicely. Its not fast af but totally usable. Ofc its not sports camera but for landscapes and portraits, damn. That 14.2 stops DR is still one of the best in any cameras. Shoot RAW and the color science is there, jpg engine is ofc outdated but who shoot jpgs anyway on full frame cameras?
It is still my B camera to a7III. Over my a6300 any day for stills.
Interesting perspecive. Much like you i thibk im buyest to the a7 over the 6100. I shot this camera alot and own the a7iii. I do think the 6100 is a good camera but I think you touched on all the bad points and not so much of the good in this comperison.
1.More options to be creative with you photography due to physical properties of bigger lenses.
2.Shallow depth of field
3.A bigger camera, that will get you taken more serious when you start taking jobs as a beginner. Thats just how it works. Little camera's arent beeing taken that serious by people who dont that much about photography. Especially when you add the grip. (That solves the battery issue due to two batteries)
Most important:
4. When you buy a ton of lenses for this camera you can put them on your next sony fe camera aswell. When you buy alot of apsc lenses and want to switch to full frame you will lose alot of money because you cant you apsc lensen on full frame.
I appreciate your perspective. I had the A7 for years and honestly loved it. Yes, the AF performance was way less than awesome (but it was better than their A-mount cameras at the time like the A99 that only had 25 contrast detect points). I still used the camera to shoot (mostly in manual focus, sometimes AF) weddings, families, seniors, and landscapes. I loved the dynamic range from that sensor. It took beautiful images and I was able to really work the raw files as desired. Used it with a wide angle lens along side my A7iii that had telephoto a year ago at a wedding and I honestly preferred the look it gave me. Sold it last fall as I shifted my focus from photography to video and that original A7 overheats, is limited to 1080, and uses an older AVCHD video codec that I don't enjoy working with. A part of me still regrets selling it. Full frame does have a different look than APS-C so I'd say it really depends on what you shoot as to whether its worth an entry level A6100. Portraits provided you have a little patience for AF/MF. Products and landscapes are often MF anyway making them perfect for the A7. Also, fotodiox released a replacement e-mount bracket called the tough-e that solved the loose mounting on mine. I also used a battery grip that helped with power issues. It had around 50k on the shutter when I sold it. Thanks for letting me ramble on- lol
Might be a good candidate for conversion to ultraviolet
I bought one boxed in mint condition to convert to full spectrum for only €400
Full spectrum for astrophotography is the reason why I chose the a7.
would love to know how this compares to the a7 ii, especially now that the ii is $999 new with a lens
I bought yesterday a brand new A7 package with kitlens 24-70mm F3.5-5.6 , a bag and sd card for 650 euro in local store. It was the last one in stock. the autofocus is better than expected. I have a6000 to but always wanted a full frame. For filming I have a panasonic GH5S. Only con is maybe the loud shutter sound.
to really appreciate the difference between FF and Aps-C (at equal mpixel) you should use high Iso in low light condition
I like your video. In October 2019 bought my first DSLR or mirrorless it is this Sony A7 from the retailer as an 'Open Box' it was used a week and returned to the store and the price dropped by $300 the day I asked for their cheapest Sony full frame and got the body only for $540 Canadian with a full warranty in perfect condition and then bought a $45 lens adapter CY-Emount, so I could use it with my four 39 year old film lenses and 10 old filters. In January 2020 I bought the kit zoom lens 28-70 Sony E-mount for only $175 used on Kijiji instead of new by itself it's $600. I research the lens and it got great reviews and I love it as it has the built in SteadyShot lens stabilization, which really helps out as the camera body doesn't have built in stabilization. Anyways in the 6 months I've had the camera I've taken 10,000 photos and learnt a whole lot from it and love the many built in special effects and picture styles. I'm pulled off photos with it that in a month that wowed my friends whom had DSLRs for years. After 6 months I'm having the best time with the Sony A7 of my 45 years of taking pictures 50,000 photos with 2 film SLRs and 6 compact digital superzooms and then this Sony A7 for me it's way better than my state of the line film camera I bought in 1981 and it's light years better than my superzooms. I did buy a great $100 tripod and wow I'm pulling off amazing shots in the night even when it's so dark I can't see the subject through the lens. It's a joy to take your photography to the next level. If you are going pro then I recommend get a Sony full-frame with in body stabilization as this one doesn't but I can get away with that as I have 45 years experience taking pictures. I am a fan of Sony mirrorless the first DSLR/mirrorless I ever had.
I bought a Sony 24-105 F4 G OSS lens and now using that with me Sony A7 mark 1 and the photos are amazing. After taking 27,000 photos on my A7 mark 1 since Oct 2019 when I switched from a 2011 Sony compact super zoom, well now my photos have skyrocketed up in quality and impressing a lot of people with my Sony A7 mark 1. Yes I wish I had the Sony A7III, however that would cost me $3,000 new or many $2,500 used Canadian. Maybe one day. Tonight 2 people saw me taking photos in the park and want to buy photos off me and get a portrait shoot. Sony my Sony A7 mark 1 was my first DSLR or mirrorless any format, and since it is a full-frame, it was a cheap investment and still loving it.
A great video that I thoroughly enjoyed. However, I think you might have been a little unfair to the A7 in yourcomments. I've owned several sony cams over the years, amongst which are the A6000 and A7 mk1 and mk2. The mk2's AF is quite a lot better than the mk1, but there are a couple of other factors that you don't appear to take into account. Firstly, the AF on the original A7 wasn't as tolerant when focussing non sony lenses as the later models are, so comparing a Tamron on your A7 with a Sony on your 6100 puts the older camera at a disadvantage before you start. Also, you seem to have both lenses in the comarison set to f/2.8. The depth of field on the full frame will be far shallower than on the aps-c, which also ought to be taken into account. I think you would find that repeating your experiment with a native Sony lens mounted on both cameras, and stopping down the full frame one to match the depth of field of the crop sensor camera, might yield far closer results than we see in your video.
Hi,
I have an a6000 and saw an a7 going on for around 550$(equivalent currency in my country), on a budget right now.
Since you have had both, can you please share your opinion on both, specially regarding the autofocus.
I mainly do landscape, architecture and some long exposures. Have 3 vintage manual lenses, so don't really care that much on the autofocus but still wanna know how it is when compared to a6000.
I bought an used 7r2 in november 2019. Is awesome.
that's a beat stills camera. and decent in low light :) i used it as my main camera for about 4 years (professional wedding photographer)
@@LadyFairChildVideo Do you think it's still relevant today? I have the a6400 and was considering getting the a7rii as a stills camera as the a6400 is doing very well for me with videos.
something like a6000 + sigma 30mm vs a7 + zeiss 55 would be interresting. anyway, great video
What's the point in using different lenses? You talking about the crop factor?
I sold this camera with the 50mm f1.8 lens about 4 months ago. I bought the Fujifilm X-T3. It was a huge upgrade.
But there are some points I cannot confirm:
1. AF. The autofocus on my camera was actually pretty decent, missed like 10% of all shots.
2. The Mount: The mount on my A7 was fine. But this might be different for each used camera.
It’s quite amazing how far we’ve come since 2013.
Especially comparing this to Canon and Nikons cameras in 2013, it was something quite special!
You weren't right about burst mode. It can be quicker when you select third option after clicking left button on D-pad. When you do that camera takes two photos when pressing shutter button once. So the burst mode actually gets 2 times faster. It's great camera for vintage manual lenses. I use it for portrait using manual lenses, landscape and car photography so at the moment I don't use AF.
It can't keep up with action though
Imo sony a7rii and a7ii is where it's at. They both have stabilized sensors and can be had for real cheap. a7rii is arguably better than a7iii imo especially in terms of image quality.(depends on your style of shooting)
I shoot mostly landscapes. I carry a tripod everywhere and I have no issues with my A7 in this kind of photography. The dynamic range is superb and that is what matters the most to me. Autofocus works perfectly in landscape photography environment. I would say if you want a stills camera for landscape/cityscape/architecture or any kind of photography where you don't need super fast AF or super fast burst shooting go for the A7 it is no different for that photography than the A7III. If you want to do video or sport photography look elsewhere.
I have the A7 too. Agree with everything you said, the only thing that I hate the most of this camera and the reason that I'm evaluating an upgrade to the A7 III, is the greenish tint. Ok, few clicks on lightroom and its gone, but is quite annoying.
OK Arthur, now go buy a Nex 7, still miss the tri navi on my A6500.
Can you explain what the Tri navi is / was?
I can only find some mentions in old reviews.
@@Black3ternity instead of having a dedicated PASM dial you had a dial that gave you access to shutter speed and aperture. The third dial is the same rotary dial on the back. Thus tri-navi as opposed to the current bi-navi plus PASM on current Sony A6xxx bodies.
one of my all time favourite cameras!! i paired it with the original A7S with adapted old nikkor glasses such an awesome offering for photography !! i replaced it with an a7 iii and R III the difference in image quality is not that different. only differences are in autofocus/battery life/ibis and high iso
😄 That's all the reasons you buy the A7r2 for.
I had this camera since i bought it brand new… i never had a problem with autofocus what so ever. In 10k shots i had on this camera i can’t remember any miss focus on this with the sony kit lens on it. Maybe because your using a different brand lens, they don’t work as accurate as the Sony lenses on the a7.
It is logical. I will use it with vintage lens so I don't care about autofocus. I have only used crop sensor by now. I hope I made a good budget choice. I am waiting for the camera to arrive :)
You know what is crazy? Some stores in Mexico sell the Sony A7 at a higher price than the A7SII. The highest price I’ve seen is USD $1,700.
How is the a6100 vs A7 for low light/high ISO?
good question, try using cameradecison site to compare specs, these are two different animals, I did a low light test video a7iii vs a6300/a6400 but a7iii is probably better than a7 in low light
I appreciate your budget approach. I'm a retired 'pro' who has spent most of my career in film. The few reasons I had for getting the original a7 was the ability to put back into service my 28/4 Nikon shift lens and to get higher camera resolution for my copy/restoration work. I also appreciate using many 'vintage' lenses to their full image circle.
Are you related to Tyler Hoover by anychance? You look so much like him!
I used to have an A7 up until about a week ago and I never had issues with my battery running out on me. Maybe it's because I am rather casual about taking pictures, but I don't think I ever really came close to using up the entire battery. Maybe I take less pictures than others or maybe it's because I turn the camera off everytime I am done taking a picture, but I'd say if you aren't really hardcore about it I wouldn't worry about battery life. Get one extra just in case and you have nothing to worry about
Hold up. I have that camera and it shoots faster than that. Put it on speed priority. But you are right about the lens moving. It can get rly annoying
You should test it in low light with high iso. Pretty shure that old A7 will handle it better.
full frame sensor 💪
Bought a Sony A7 used from a store with 3 years of warranty last month. Only 40 clicks, and with the kit lens it only costed me 600 bucks in Sweden where electronics are pretty expensive. I'm so happy with it!
I guess one of the only reasons to get the A7 or A7ii over the A6100 is access to the much better selection of full frame lenses. Other than the new expensive Sony zooms and Sigma primes, there aren’t many great options for APS-C.
Yea but there arent many affordable lens options for Sony full frame
@@ArthurR There are. 35mm f18, 50mm f1.8, 85mm F1.8 etc. Also those Sigma ARTs as used are mostly under 500€ too.
@@Thevikingcam Also Samyang does some very nice AF primes for a really good price. I have the 85mm/1,4 and 24mm/2.8. They really perform!
I have an a7Riv and an a7. The a7 still works. No issues. Yeah, it’s not a great autofocus, but we are talking about an old camera over 10 years old… one year before the Fuji X-T1 and same year as the Canon 70D… I still use it and I love it. Since I know the AF is not great, I’ve loved pairing it with old Minolta glass… as I’m going to manual focus anyway. Great quality glass adapted easily and at low prices… what’s not to love… you can use zone focusing. Will it be super sharp? No, but the camera is fun. Not too big… at least smaller than the newer versions. If you can find one in good condition, I would recommend it. I still use it… sometimes more than the a7Riv
around feb of this year i got a a7II with a 32-70mm kit lens from amazon that was new/used in package for only 750$. It had zero use and had all the accessories in the box. Really the box seemed to be unopened. It was directly from amazon and had zero issues. Seriously couldn't be happier with my purchase. Just need to get some better lenses for it. The kit lens it came with is okay. But i really wanna get my hands on the new sigma 85mm 1.4 lens.
The Sony a7 has Speed Priority AF, which is much faster than the setting you showed in the video. You just have to select it in the menu. By the way, I own two of these Sony a7 bodies. I chose this model and bought two bodies used, for low light and astrophotography. Thus far, I've used them with 4 lenses: 2 Sonys, 1 Minolta, 1 Tamron; with Spot/Center focus and metering. I don't have autofocus problems. But with the Tamron ONLY, I often get connection problems. The autofocus will suddenly stop working as if a lens is not connected. That's what the error message tells me. So what I do is I turn the camera off and remount the lens. It's annoying, but it works. This only occurs with my Tamron lens, not with any other lens.
“Primarily, the screen on the back tends to de-laminate and get pretty nasty looking.” Yes. The one I snagged off eBay is like that. However, as soon as I switch on the camera, the rash becomes invisible. It has zero impact on using the camera.
And if you apply a protective screen glass, it won't be visible at all. I tried it on mine
Very easy to peel that plastic protector off, it’ll look good as new. There’s plenty of videos on how to do it, did it on my A7M2 .
Im still using a7, i have no problem with the autofocus. Yours must been broken or you are not good handling it
I have a7 and is still awsome
His Tamron lens probably won't fully support older model.
He just does not know how to use it properly.. Why not use a fast sony lens.. Such a low quality reviewer that is why i unsubscribed long time ago..
He just does not know how to use it properly.. Why not use a fast sony lens.. Such a low quality reviewer that is why i unsubscribed long time ago..
Have you done this same comparison with a Sony a7R II?
For a little more you could get an A7ii which has IBIS and Phase-detection with better IQ and AF. I like how the images are rendered with a FF camera compared to an APS-C.
Arthur R, kindly use Sony FE 28-70 on A7. Maybe the A7 is not updated to the Tamron lens.
RX1 is the oldest Sony FF non DSLR camera, and I've got mine used this year for only around 440 $ (incl EVF) its super compact, no regrets at all !!!
The first photo of your wife, may look less sharp on the A7 because it has shorter depth of field at the same aperture.
I have used the A7 camera for several years in all fields, especially on special occasions. It is very wonderful, and practicing with the camera has given me experience in how to take pictures in an excellent and professional manner, and I have achieved tremendous accuracy. It is not like what you say. You should only practice on any camera if you want, and first see your budget that determines that. Thank you. Your follower from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 🇸🇦 with all my love and respect
i use manul focus in my a7 with m42 lens for portratit photography, boudoir etc. i don't need af for what i do.
Why nobody ever talks about the Sony a7II? What you think about it in the context of this video?
Foto4Max i got one for 600$
A7ii has 30% better AF than de A7. Image quality isn't very different though.
I bought mine used towards the end of last year for about $600 with the kit lens
Autofocus is okay, but really frustrating at times. Image Quality is nice but I'm pretty sure it's about the same as the A7. The IBIS is nice, but nowhere near as good as something like the M4/3 system's IBIS is.
I think the main issue with the A7II is that while it's a full frame camera that is definitely serviceable with the right lenses, it still does not have the autofocus that Sony is known for.
It's main difference is the addition of the IBIS and it was completely eclipsed by the A7RII (which is now criminally cheap second hand)
I bought one a few months ago and couldn't be happier. Coming from a 500D though, so that shouldn't be very suprising
Did they just stop selling these new? There were new ones available for around $600 just a few months ago... Now I only see used... Sad...The entry price for full-frame mirrorless just went up by quite a bit ( around where the A7 used to cost 2 years ago). Also, I just tighten the screws on the mount of the camera once in a while when it gets a bit loose-feeling like you mentioned.
I believe just this year they may have stopped selling them new.
I picked up the A7ii three weeks ago and I have not seen any of those issues. In fact, my lenses fit really snug, especially the APS-C lenses from my a6000. My Sigma MC-11 is supposed to arrive today, so I'm looking forward to that! As always, Thanks for sharing.
as an owner of an A7 I would say the only reason to still buy an A7 today is to use it with old adapted manual focus lenses. As a beginner I loved being able to use a kit of 10 different lenses to experiment with for the price of one modern zoom lens
One of the biggest things I have found on the A7 and A7II when people say their photos are never in focus when using autofocus isn't the focus itself but the photo preview being on not letting people get that that all important second shot right away due to waiting for the 2second preview to end before the second shot
Love the original A7. I've been shooting with it for half a year. Great way the get into full frame mirrorless. Very nice image quality. The main downside is its user interface: it's not that intuitive and it often takes an extra step.
Hey I need help with lenses
I own the original A7 and a Canon 6D. I do weddings with the 6D but for my personal portolio, i do shoots with the A7. The liveview and tilting display is a big plus for me, plus pulling shadows/highlights. Yes, continuous autofocus is very slow and colors aren't as good as Canon's, but with my presets they turn out to my taste. I'm using almost exclusively the Sigma 50mm Art with the Sigma adapter, and i wouldn't shoot back again with the 6D, i would rather wait for the A7 IV, so i can afford the A7 III, or maybe the EOS R, but it just not there yet though.
Also, as a twist, today came my Canon 30D, a 2006 camera, and i started shooting on the window immediately, and i kept taking pictures, because i love the feel, the colors, the basics. So it's all about what camera makes you take pictures, makes you do better pictures and makes you forget about the f*cking specs on a piece of paper. Be like a soldier, and just keep shooting.
FIY the A7 II is still available new, for just under $1,000 including the FE 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS kit lens. Just sayin'... Sony does tend to keep shipping older models for awhile.
I own an a7 mk1 and I bought a Fuji x100f when it came out. The photos coming out of the a7 with the Sony 28mm 2.0 are way sharper than than the x100f. Image quality is not even close. And both are almost the same size. The a7 is still a great value for the money.
The way this guy handles a camera without a lens or front cap on it is wild, haha.
I bought an A7 2 years ago, and bought one again recently. To be honest, it's a full frame, and holds up well against any aps-c sensor camera in image quality, esp in low light. Even with the cheapest full frame sony 50mm f1.8 lens, the image is amazingly sharp. Only complains I have is the really slow autofocus, short battery life and the video is kinda useless. If you want a camera for photography like landscapes, with good low light performance, then it's a really good deal. Just use DMF focus or just manual lenses (native or with adapters). Prices are also dropping quickly though. Gotten a a7r2 for about sgd$900 (us$658) recently with lots of accessories.
Comparing Jpegs straight of camera... Do I need to say more? xD Please shoot raw. As for autofocus.... fresh user would need to take some time and learn it because it does not automatically track the eye, but other than that autofocus hits real good with it, you just need to use it properly, and you need good exposure for it to work best too, I know that because I've been using this camera for like 4 years now, it does take time to get used to AF but other than that it's pretty good piece of gear
Just read the title and had to comment, ofc you shouldn't buy it for 500$ , it's a scammy price . The camera itself is decent
Used A7 is a budget full frame camera and fully incorrect to compare it with any images from Sony 16-55 2.8, because Tamron 28-75 2.8 is three two cheaper than Sony lens. In Russia you can buy A7 body for price about 430-470 USD. It is pretty cheap in compare with A6100 (745 USD used like new). A7 II costs from 500 USD (25000 clicks). I think in many cases it is a better choice to buy used camera than new one (I bought 1.5 years ago A6500 used for about 850 USD with 4000 clicks and ideal form)
I bought an A7ii last year and it's serving me well! Collecting FE lenses as I go and when I can afford to buy the cutting edge FF body ill have the glass to be able to take advantage of it
I bought my first camera recently I was debating between a Sony A7Rii for full frame and a FujiFilm XT3 for APS-C
I ended up going with the Fuji, they are the king of crop sensor
a7 is great camera for photography, lack of functionality is fable told by videobloggers. it's got all enthusiastic photographer needs and even more. yes camera ain't suitable for vloggers but who cares about them. and it cost 300$ used, for mirrorless full-frame. all other points are secondary
Exactly for 300 bucks you can get professionnal results if you pair it with a good old manual lens with a cheap. I don't care about autofocus for landscape photo and I don't care about vlogging and shit. I mean you can beat this combo for this price, also it is a good way to improve your skills by using manual lenses in my opinion.
@@neobluepill6051 even AF is acceptably good until you want to shoot in low light or fast moving subjects. Yes, there's no eye detection but there's face detection and if there's enough light, it never misses. For still or slow moving subjects, it's fine. I have the A7 since its debut, and still serves me well, the only thing that I hate the most is that greenish tint, but that's nothing that few clicks on lightroom can't fix. Other than that, I much prefer the A7 over the A6xxx series.
I had the a7 then upgraded to a6400 af is so much better than the a7 but it feels like a downgrade going from Fullframe to APS-C I was going to purchase the 16-35 f4 for the a7 but I was told the image quality isn’t the best I was given a great deal on a6400 for 500 but now I feel like I should go back to fullframe for photography
I had an A7II & A7 as second cam with a custom PP for nice skins. I used only with MF lenses and i missed it a lot. But i sold it to buy a A6400 that focus much faster and do 4k video.
11:40 min into the clip your right to an extent...you can change the Color Profile in camera whether it be HDR/On or Off or color preference you can match the A6100 just by in Camera settings and oh yea for me a Tripod/Steady hand...But it sure looks Great !!!
hi
Which lens do you think is better? sony E 18-135mm or sigma 16mm
my camera sony a6400
sigma 16, but you will have no zoom & OSS
I am still using my A7 since 2016
Actually - for some reason - here in germany you can easily get an A7 II for that price on the used market.
Got myself one from eBay Kleinanzeigen (craigslist pendant here in germany) for 500€ with battery grip and 6 batteries and two chargers.
Preferred the A7II over the original one because of slightly better AF and stabilized Sensor.
I own both the original a7r and a7s and love them. You can fix the mount on the original a7 by ordering a “tough e mount” - I did this to my a7r and it’s been rock solid.
I recently needed autofocus and found a deal on an original a9.
Can't beat the A7 mark one. My first mirrorless camera! I shot everything with that, including gig photography.