Anyone using Sony A74?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

jeffnles1

jeffnles1

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I saw a thread shortly after the camera came out but now that it has been out for a while, is anyone using it? What are your thoughts on it as wildlife and nature? For example, birds in flight are not a big thing for me so if it is a little off there not a big deal. Most of my bird in flight shots are raptors, ducks, geese, herons/egrets etc. I'm not really going after swallows or warblers in flight.

How does the camera work out under other conditions. My main shooting is mammals like deer, squirrels, mink, beaver, foxes/coyotes, etc. Also, macro and close focus wildflowers, butterflies, bees on flowers and some landscapes. My main landscapes are what I would classify as "intimate landscapes" meaning not the big grand mountains but more forest streams, rock formations alongside trails, trees and bark, reflections in lakes, etc.

My current kit is a D500, Nikon 24-70 F2.8, Nikon 200-500, Nikkor Micro 105mm F2.8. Additionally I use a Sigma 100-400 for some shots and a Tokina 11-20 as well.

The current kit is meeting my needs quite well and has for a number of years. My main interests in mirrorless are:
Ease of switching back and forth between stills and video. I'm getting more into video and currently carry a separate camera set up for video (Sony RX10-iv). I'd like to get to one camera.
I like the idea of "what you see is what you get (WYSIWYG) in the viewfinder and some of the more advanced tracking and "eye" af stuff.

Perhaps I'd be better off with a Z7ii with my Nikon lenses. But if I'm going to buy new lenses then brand matters not.

Also thoughts on the Olympus Micro 4/3? Something about the lighter weight overall kit is appealing to my aging back and shoulders.

Just some thoughts and seeing what you all think and your experiences with this particular Sony camera.

Thanks,
Jeff
 
Member's gallery
jeffnles1 said:
I saw a thread shortly after the camera came out but now that it has been out for a while, is anyone using it? What are your thoughts on it as wildlife and nature? For example, birds in flight are not a big thing for me so if it is a little off there not a big deal. Most of my bird in flight shots are raptors, ducks, geese, herons/egrets etc. I'm not really going after swallows or warblers in flight.

How does the camera work out under other conditions. My main shooting is mammals like deer, squirrels, mink, beaver, foxes/coyotes, etc. Also, macro and close focus wildflowers, butterflies, bees on flowers and some landscapes. My main landscapes are what I would classify as "intimate landscapes" meaning not the big grand mountains but more forest streams, rock formations alongside trails, trees and bark, reflections in lakes, etc.

My current kit is a D500, Nikon 24-70 F2.8, Nikon 200-500, Nikkor Micro 105mm F2.8. Additionally I use a Sigma 100-400 for some shots and a Tokina 11-20 as well.

The current kit is meeting my needs quite well and has for a number of years. My main interests in mirrorless are:
Ease of switching back and forth between stills and video. I'm getting more into video and currently carry a separate camera set up for video (Sony RX10-iv). I'd like to get to one camera.
I like the idea of "what you see is what you get (WYSIWYG) in the viewfinder and some of the more advanced tracking and "eye" af stuff.

Perhaps I'd be better off with a Z7ii with my Nikon lenses. But if I'm going to buy new lenses then brand matters not.

Also thoughts on the Olympus Micro 4/3? Something about the lighter weight overall kit is appealing to my aging back and shoulders.

Just some thoughts and seeing what you all think and your experiences with this particular Sony camera.

Thanks,
Jeff
Click to expand...

Consider Fujifilm XT4 or wait for the XH2.
 
Member's gallery
jeffnles1 said:
I saw a thread shortly after the camera came out but now that it has been out for a while, is anyone using it? What are your thoughts on it as wildlife and nature? For example, birds in flight are not a big thing for me so if it is a little off there not a big deal. Most of my bird in flight shots are raptors, ducks, geese, herons/egrets etc. I'm not really going after swallows or warblers in flight.

How does the camera work out under other conditions. My main shooting is mammals like deer, squirrels, mink, beaver, foxes/coyotes, etc. Also, macro and close focus wildflowers, butterflies, bees on flowers and some landscapes. My main landscapes are what I would classify as "intimate landscapes" meaning not the big grand mountains but more forest streams, rock formations alongside trails, trees and bark, reflections in lakes, etc.

My current kit is a D500, Nikon 24-70 F2.8, Nikon 200-500, Nikkor Micro 105mm F2.8. Additionally I use a Sigma 100-400 for some shots and a Tokina 11-20 as well.

The current kit is meeting my needs quite well and has for a number of years. My main interests in mirrorless are:
Ease of switching back and forth between stills and video. I'm getting more into video and currently carry a separate camera set up for video (Sony RX10-iv). I'd like to get to one camera.
I like the idea of "what you see is what you get (WYSIWYG) in the viewfinder and some of the more advanced tracking and "eye" af stuff.

Perhaps I'd be better off with a Z7ii with my Nikon lenses. But if I'm going to buy new lenses then brand matters not.

Also thoughts on the Olympus Micro 4/3? Something about the lighter weight overall kit is appealing to my aging back and shoulders.

Just some thoughts and seeing what you all think and your experiences with this particular Sony camera.

Thanks,
Jeff
Click to expand...

Based on what you shoot the z7ii seems like a great match. You have great glass and honestly, unless you shoot challenging action, the z7ii is a stellar camera. The A7iv for me is only a step up if you need top notch face / eye detect, like weddings and street photography, for everything else, the z7ii or even z6ii are actually more appealing and you have the lenses already. Sony decided to pick a sensor for the A7ivthat is as slow if not slower reading than the one in the z7ii so it’s not really outshining the z7ii but it’s missing the awesome iso 64 and image quality of the Nikon.

‘’If you shot a lot of challenging action then I’d be more nuanced, and challenging means actually what distractions are in the frame to fool the AF, but if you shoot large birds against clean skies, the z6/7ii aren’t shabby. It gets tricky if you want super fast warblers in the brush, or overactive shore birds in front of shiny waves, then you need the better beasts like the R3/R5, A1/A9ii and Z9.
 
Member's gallery
FB101 said:
Based on what you shoot the z7ii seems like a great match. You have great glass and honestly, unless you shoot challenging action, the z7ii is a stellar camera. The A7iv for me is only a step up if you need top notch face / eye detect, like weddings and street photography, for everything else, the z7ii or even z6ii are actually more appealing and you have the lenses already. Sony decided to pick a sensor for the A7ivthat is as slow if not slower reading than the one in the z7ii so it’s not really outshining the z7ii but it’s missing the awesome iso 64 and image quality of the Nikon.

‘’If you shot a lot of challenging action then I’d be more nuanced, and challenging means actually what distractions are in the frame to fool the AF, but if you shoot large birds against clean skies, the z6/7ii aren’t shabby. It gets tricky if you want super fast warblers in the brush, or overactive shore birds in front of shiny waves, then you need the better beasts like the R3/R5, A1/A9ii and Z9.
Click to expand...
Thanks.
Yes, I keep coming back to the same evaluation. 10fps seems to be a good place. It is what I have with my D500 and I can't honestly sit here and say I've missed shots that I would have nailed with 20 or 30 fps. Fact is I'm not sure I'd want to slog through 3X as many photos at the end of the day. With that said, if I had it I would probably use it.

The nagging question to me is if the AF on the Z6ii and Z7ii is adequate for my needs/wants or is the internet hype about how bad it is really just hype and trolls?.

The great news here is 1) I don't "need" a new camera right now and 2) if this is the biggest decision one has to make, he/she has lead a wonderful life. :)

Thanks again,
Jeff
 
Member's gallery
jeffnles1 said:
Also thoughts on the Olympus Micro 4/3? Something about the lighter weight overall kit is appealing to my aging back and shoulders.
Click to expand...

I'm 80 with a bad back and leg and shoot Olympus, in part because of the light weight but I'd use the system in any case for a number of other reasons. The new OM 1 looks like it will be a tremendous camera and the M1 iii is a great camera as well. Neither body is particularly light, but the lenses are much much lighter than FF lenses of equivalent length, roughly half the price -- and optically superb. In addition Olympus bodies will use any MFT lens, Panasonic or third party, so there's a tremendous selection available. The Olympus M5 iii body is smaller and lighter than the other two. I my opinion Olympus has the best stabilization and weather sealing in the business.
 
Member's gallery
jeffnles1 said:
Thanks.
Yes, I keep coming back to the same evaluation. 10fps seems to be a good place. It is what I have with my D500 and I can't honestly sit here and say I've missed shots that I would have nailed with 20 or 30 fps. Fact is I'm not sure I'd want to slog through 3X as many photos at the end of the day. With that said, if I had it I would probably use it.

The nagging question to me is if the AF on the Z6ii and Z7ii is adequate for my needs/wants or is the internet hype about how bad it is really just hype and trolls?.

The great news here is 1) I don't "need" a new camera right now and 2) if this is the biggest decision one has to make, he/she has lead a wonderful life. :)

Thanks again,
Jeff
Click to expand...
It's a great system. Third in MILC market share (after Canon and Sony) and growing. They'll be announcing a 40mp backside illuminated APS-C sensor in May and building up to it introduced a slew of new (mk2) lenses. If you need it now, an XT4, but if you can wait a few months, the XH2 might be quite the camera.
 
Member's gallery
Woody Meristem said:
I'm 80 with a bad back and leg and shoot Olympus, in part because of the light weight but I'd use the system in any case for a number of other reasons. The new OM 1 looks like it will be a tremendous camera and the M1 iii is a great camera as well. Neither body is particularly light, but the lenses are much much lighter than FF lenses of equivalent length, roughly half the price -- and optically superb. In addition Olympus bodies will use any MFT lens, Panasonic or third party, so there's a tremendous selection available. The Olympus M5 iii body is smaller and lighter than the other two. I my opinion Olympus has the best stabilization and weather sealing in the business.
Click to expand...
I'm 61 but with a bad shoulder I can say that 200-500 lens isn't getting any lighter with the passing years. I just don't know enough about the M4/3 market to have any kind of feel for the pros and cons outside of weight savings on the lenses. I don't really care how heavy/light the camera body is, on an APS-C or FF body, it is the telephoto lenses that add weight. A 300f4 that will have similar performance to a 600f8 would be quite interesting indeed. I understand the physics behind "crop factor" since I've been shooting APS-c for years now. I also know there is a difference between theory and reality. Looking across the internet at photos shot with M4/3 cameras they seem to be pretty good.

Oh the decisions.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Nimi said:
It's a great system. Third in MILC market share (after Canon and Sony) and growing. They'll be announcing a 40mp backside illuminated APS-C sensor in May and building up to it introduced a slew of new (mk2) lenses. If you need it now, an XT4, but if you can wait a few months, the XH2 might be quite the camera.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I'm in the research phase now. I will probably not be making a decision on this for at least 6 to 8 months. My son is getting married in June and with all the wedding plans etc. we're not making any major decisions before. I'm retired which means limited influx of money so outflows have to be monitored a lot more closely then when I was working.
 
Member's gallery
jeffnles1 said:
Thanks.
Yes, I keep coming back to the same evaluation. 10fps seems to be a good place. It is what I have with my D500 and I can't honestly sit here and say I've missed shots that I would have nailed with 20 or 30 fps. Fact is I'm not sure I'd want to slog through 3X as many photos at the end of the day. With that said, if I had it I would probably use it.

The nagging question to me is if the AF on the Z6ii and Z7ii is adequate for my needs/wants or is the internet hype about how bad it is really just hype and trolls?.

The great news here is 1) I don't "need" a new camera right now and 2) if this is the biggest decision one has to make, he/she has lead a wonderful life. :)

Thanks again,
Jeff
Click to expand...

The AF of the z6/7ii is both worse and better than the one in the d500 and that’s where all the controversy comes from and you need to understand your needs to know if you will be happy with it or not.

The z7ii is night and day better if you use small aperture lenses - if you put a 1.4x TC on that 200-500 it will struggle on the D500 but will actually work quite well on the z7ii
Also, overall focus accuracy will be better on the Z7ii - if it acquires focus on a static subject it will often be more accurate than with the D500
Where things get complicated is when you have small erratic subjects and complicated backgrounds - then the z7ii isn’t good and you will miss shots. It will be slower to acquire focus and it will often focus where you don’t want - there are workarounds you can use that will make things better but I don’t think the z7ii will ever be very good at it.
‘Finally, you can pretty much forget subject tracking - you’ll have to stick to focus and recompose. No worse than the D500 but it’s lacking one of the big draws of newer mirrorless.

For BIF, bigger, slower birds without tricky backgrounds work well - my first day testing the z7ii I was super happy, but I was doing herons and egrets in flight plus the odd osprey flying by (not diving). Then I tested it shooting sanderlings on the beach and I gave up mid shoot, had to get back to D850 as the z7ii was too slow and when it focused, it focused on the shiny crashing waves in the back. Same thing with warblers in the palm fronds, the z7ii couldn’t catch them fast enough.

i have not shot mammals much with it but they are typically slower than the feathered kamikaze we are after so I’d expect the z7ii to be ok, except maybe for a cheetah chase. Again, tracking won’t work well so you’ll have to shoot it more like a DSLR.

But for your macro work, the focus stacking of the z7ii is great, and image quality is D850 level, so about best in class still to this day.

For my shooting predilection, I wasn’t convinced by the AF, but overall the z7ii is not a bad camera at all; you need to understand its limitations and see if they work for you - rent one for a few days and see for yourself.
 
Member's gallery
jeffnles1 said:
I'm 61 but with a bad shoulder I can say that 200-500 lens isn't getting any lighter with the passing years. I just don't know enough about the M4/3 market to have any kind of feel for the pros and cons outside of weight savings on the lenses. I don't really care how heavy/light the camera body is, on an APS-C or FF body, it is the telephoto lenses that add weight. A 300f4 that will have similar performance to a 600f8 would be quite interesting indeed. I understand the physics behind "crop factor" since I've been shooting APS-c for years now. I also know there is a difference between theory and reality. Looking across the internet at photos shot with M4/3 cameras they seem to be pretty good.

Oh the decisions.
Click to expand...

If you want to go lighter but stay with Nikon look into the 500mm PF lens. It's essentially the same size as the Oly 300mm f4, although it may be cost prohibitive.

Just as a side note, while the Oly will be a 600f8 your 200-500 (or 500pf) is a 750f8 on your D500 so you'll actually lose some of that effective reach. Of course the 500PF is really the only option you have to go smaller/lighter while in M43 there are many options (300f4 and a couple of 100-400 zooms). I shot M43 for a number of years (still have a Gx9 and some smaller lenses) but I decided until I was at a point where size/weight really mattered it wasn't a trade off I wanted to make.
 
Member's gallery
FB101 said:
The AF of the z6/7ii is both worse and better than the one in the d500 and that’s where all the controversy comes from and you need to understand your needs to know if you will be happy with it or not.

The z7ii is night and day better if you use small aperture lenses - if you put a 1.4x TC on that 200-500 it will struggle on the D500 but will actually work quite well on the z7ii
Also, overall focus accuracy will be better on the Z7ii - if it acquires focus on a static subject it will often be more accurate than with the D500
Where things get complicated is when you have small erratic subjects and complicated backgrounds - then the z7ii isn’t good and you will miss shots. It will be slower to acquire focus and it will often focus where you don’t want - there are workarounds you can use that will make things better but I don’t think the z7ii will ever be very good at it.
‘Finally, you can pretty much forget subject tracking - you’ll have to stick to focus and recompose. No worse than the D500 but it’s lacking one of the big draws of newer mirrorless.

For BIF, bigger, slower birds without tricky backgrounds work well - my first day testing the z7ii I was super happy, but I was doing herons and egrets in flight plus the odd osprey flying by (not diving). Then I tested it shooting sanderlings on the beach and I gave up mid shoot, had to get back to D850 as the z7ii was too slow and when it focused, it focused on the shiny crashing waves in the back. Same thing with warblers in the palm fronds, the z7ii couldn’t catch them fast enough.

i have not shot mammals much with it but they are typically slower than the feathered kamikaze we are after so I’d expect the z7ii to be ok, except maybe for a cheetah chase. Again, tracking won’t work well so you’ll have to shoot it more like a DSLR.

But for your macro work, the focus stacking of the z7ii is great, and image quality is D850 level, so about best in class still to this day.

For my shooting predilection, I wasn’t convinced by the AF, but overall the z7ii is not a bad camera at all; you need to understand its limitations and see if they work for you - rent one for a few days and see for yourself.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I'll most likely end up renting a Z7ii for a week or two before making any decision. I'm really waiting on the 200-600 to come out and hopefully it will focus faster than the 200-500 which nobody has ever accused of being lightening fast on the focus.

My nature photography is so varied it's hard to categorize it. Where I live in the midwestern USA, the change of seasons is so dramatic that my photos change with the seasons. I shoot everything from small warblers during their 2-3 week spring migration to macro wildflowers to bees/butterflies, dragonflies, spiders, snakes, frogs, turtles, deer, beaver, river otters, squirrels, raccoons, landscapes, fall color vistas, streams, Osprey and other raptors. Heck, I even have a few dozen photos of turkey and black vultures. Outside of wildflowers, I rarely know what I'm going to shoot when I leave the house in the morning, I kind of let the day show me what is happening and I try to be there to capture it. Some may say I lack discipline but I try to find beauty in everything and I try my best to capture that beauty in my lens.

Thanks for the perspective on the Z6/7 ii cameras.

Jeff
 
Member's gallery
Palmor said:
If you want to go lighter but stay with Nikon look into the 500mm PF lens. It's essentially the same size as the Oly 300mm f4, although it may be cost prohibitive.

Just as a side note, while the Oly will be a 600f8 your 200-500 (or 500pf) is a 750f8 on your D500 so you'll actually lose some of that effective reach. Of course the 500PF is really the only option you have to go smaller/lighter while in M43 there are many options (300f4 and a couple of 100-400 zooms). I shot M43 for a number of years (still have a Gx9 and some smaller lenses) but I decided until I was at a point where size/weight really mattered it wasn't a trade off I wanted to make.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Yes I've came very close to pulling the trigger on a 500pf several times. Cost is part of it but at $3,500USD it's not outrageous and I think a decent value. Where I keep landing though is giving up the zoom capability. I have done searches in my library on photos I've shot with the 200-500 and about 25% or so were shot at focal lengths other than 500. The issue I have is quite a few of that 25% are also flagged as favorites and with a 500pf, most of those shots would not have happened. As a nature photographer and given a lot of my photos are in parks and other public places, the ability to "go off trail" to "zoom with my feet" are limited. Also, as we all know, taking several steps back can scare off the critter or put branches and brush between us and the subject. Zoom is quite handy (and heavy).

I appreciate your perspective on M4/3.

Interestingly, I watched a review on YouTube today. I forget the photographer. He showed 10 photos. Some were taken with a Sony A1 (I believe) and some were with the OM-1X Olympus camera. He didn't say which photo was shot with which camera until the end of the video. Believe it or not, I picked every single one that was shot with the Olympus and it wasn't in a good way. Perhaps he wasn't familiar enough with the system to pull the most out of it but the contrast in and around shadows was "odd" looking and I could see the dynamic range between shadow and highlights starting to fall apart. Was it horrible? No, fact is both cameras were pretty good just I could spot the ones with the Olympus as different.

Jeff
 
Member's gallery
Hut2 said:
This sounds familiar. For me personally it is a hobby and an excuse to get outdoors. Plus, share a few walking around photos and the occasional intentional shot of a landscape or milky way.
That said, I think you should rent a Sony A1 with 200-600mm. This is the best thing since sliced bread in my unprofessional and unsolicited opinion.
Click to expand...
Yep, it is a hobby for me too. I sell a print here and there usually for my cost, we create an annual nature calendar and sell them to family and friends for our cost and gift a few. We printed and sold about 75 of them last year but make zero profit.

I may well rent an A1 although it is out of my price range right now unless I happen to pick up a winning lottery ticket or have a wealthy relative that I don't know about leave me a fortune. The good news is my D500 is working perfectly so there is no rush to get something. I can wait it out for quite some time.

Things were so much more simple back in the film days. Sometimes I miss the simplicity. Well up until I take into account the cost of film and precessing. :)
 
Member's gallery
Hut2 said:
Costs, really have to add it all up, maybe not as bad as first thought.
Click to expand...
yep. that's one of the processes. I could maybe get a couple thousand selling all of my Nikon stuff. My D500 isn't worth a lot now. It has over 100K photos through it and some areas on the corners where the shiny metal is showing through the black finish as well as wear on the rubber parts. My 200-500 Nikon lens has also been in the field a lot. glass is perfect and function is perfect but it does show some external wear. Probably the 2 more valuable lenses I have are a Nikon 24-70 F2.8 VR that is about a year old and in pristine condition and my Nikkor Micro 105 F2.8 VR that has been used a lot but under much better field conditions than the telephoto. I have a couple miscellaneous Sigma lenses (150-600 and 100-400) and a Tokina 11-20. I haven't bothered to get a quote on it yet but I'm guessing a couple thousand to maybe 3 thousand for the entire kit.

If I switch away from Nikon, the lenses I'd absolutely have to have day 1 would be something to replace the 200-500 (i.e.200-600), something to replace the Macro lens (i.e. Sony 90mm macro), something to replace the 24-70F2.8. A lighter weight 100-400 for those days I don't want to lug a heavy 200-600 around is a nice to have but I could live without it.

So, moving to Sony or any other system would involve a body, a 200-600 type lens, a 24-70 lens, and a macro lens of around 100mm.

A1: $6500
24-70 F2.8 $2000
200-600 $2000
90mm Macro $1100
Total: $11600 + tax = $12,300
Minus $2,500 for selling equipment (conservative estimate) = $9,800

Almost 10K is a big chunk of change for a hobby. I'd have to think long and hard about that as an initial "day 1" outlay of money.

Jeff
 
Member's gallery
jeffnles1 said:
So, moving to Sony or any other system would involve a body, a 200-600 type lens, a 24-70 lens, and a macro lens of around 100mm.

A1: $6500
24-70 F2.8 $2000
200-600 $2000
90mm Macro $1100
Total: $11600 + tax = $12,300
Minus $2,500 for selling equipment (conservative estimate) = $9,800

Almost 10K is a big chunk of change for a hobby. I'd have to think long and hard about that as an initial "day 1" outlay of money.

Jeff
Click to expand...

You don't HAVE to get an A1 just because it's their flagship camera. The A9II is a very nice camera and can be had lightly used for under $3000.
 
Member's gallery
If BIF and fast action are'nt a huge issue for you, I can highly recommend Z7II. It's a great camera, but for me wasn't great for BIF. The plus is you already have the glass, all you need is an adapter.
 
Member's gallery
jeffnles1 said:
yep. that's one of the processes. I could maybe get a couple thousand selling all of my Nikon stuff. My D500 isn't worth a lot now. It has over 100K photos through it and some areas on the corners where the shiny metal is showing through the black finish as well as wear on the rubber parts. My 200-500 Nikon lens has also been in the field a lot. glass is perfect and function is perfect but it does show some external wear. Probably the 2 more valuable lenses I have are a Nikon 24-70 F2.8 VR that is about a year old and in pristine condition and my Nikkor Micro 105 F2.8 VR that has been used a lot but under much better field conditions than the telephoto. I have a couple miscellaneous Sigma lenses (150-600 and 100-400) and a Tokina 11-20. I haven't bothered to get a quote on it yet but I'm guessing a couple thousand to maybe 3 thousand for the entire kit.

If I switch away from Nikon, the lenses I'd absolutely have to have day 1 would be something to replace the 200-500 (i.e.200-600), something to replace the Macro lens (i.e. Sony 90mm macro), something to replace the 24-70F2.8. A lighter weight 100-400 for those days I don't want to lug a heavy 200-600 around is a nice to have but I could live without it.

So, moving to Sony or any other system would involve a body, a 200-600 type lens, a 24-70 lens, and a macro lens of around 100mm.

A1: $6500
24-70 F2.8 $2000
200-600 $2000
90mm Macro $1100
Total: $11600 + tax = $12,300
Minus $2,500 for selling equipment (conservative estimate) = $9,800

Almost 10K is a big chunk of change for a hobby. I'd have to think long and hard about that as an initial "day 1" outlay of money.

Jeff
Click to expand...

I wouldn't get the Sony 24/70 it's their least liked GM lens. Go Sigma for half the price or wait for v2 (but it's going to be something like $2800 when it shows up...). Or you can do the Tampon 28-70G2 and add the 20mm f:1.8G - still way less than the Sony and better overall.
The other lenses you listed are top notch but a used A9ii would not be a bad pick if the A1 is too far a bridge.

Used A9ii = $3500
Sigma 24-70 = $1100
200-600 = $2000
90 macro = $1100
Total = $7700 before tax - saved you $4000
 
Member's gallery
FB101 said:
I wouldn't get the Sony 24/70 it's their least liked GM lens. Go Sigma for half the price or wait for v2 (but it's going to be something like $2800 when it shows up...). Or you can do the Tampon 28-70G2 and add the 20mm f:1.8G - still way less than the Sony and better overall.
The other lenses you listed are top notch but a used A9ii would not be a bad pick if the A1 is too far a bridge.

Used A9ii = $3500
Sigma 24-70 = $1100
200-600 = $2000
90 macro = $1100
Total = $7700 before tax - saved you $4000
Click to expand...
Good to know about the Sigma lens for sure. Yes, I sure would consider a used A9ii. I picked up my D500 used several years ago with only about 20K shutter actuations. I'm well north of 100K now.
 
Member's gallery
Icarus said:
If BIF and fast action are'nt a huge issue for you, I can highly recommend Z7II. It's a great camera, but for me wasn't great for BIF. The plus is you already have the glass, all you need is an adapter.
Click to expand...
You are correct, BIF is not a big issue. I do photograph a lot of deer and other critters against noisy backgrounds and a running deer can move pretty fast. Mainly the birds I shoot are either raptors, egrets/herons, etc. or smaller birds hopping around in the trees and brush. Not necessarily flying but moving about in the trees sometimes with some pretty busy backgrounds.
 
Member's gallery
jeffnles1 said:
I saw a thread shortly after the camera came out but now that it has been out for a while, is anyone using it? What are your thoughts on it as wildlife and nature? For example, birds in flight are not a big thing for me so if it is a little off there not a big deal. Most of my bird in flight shots are raptors, ducks, geese, herons/egrets etc. I'm not really going after swallows or warblers in flight.

How does the camera work out under other conditions. My main shooting is mammals like deer, squirrels, mink, beaver, foxes/coyotes, etc. Also, macro and close focus wildflowers, butterflies, bees on flowers and some landscapes. My main landscapes are what I would classify as "intimate landscapes" meaning not the big grand mountains but more forest streams, rock formations alongside trails, trees and bark, reflections in lakes, etc.

My current kit is a D500, Nikon 24-70 F2.8, Nikon 200-500, Nikkor Micro 105mm F2.8. Additionally I use a Sigma 100-400 for some shots and a Tokina 11-20 as well.

The current kit is meeting my needs quite well and has for a number of years. My main interests in mirrorless are:
Ease of switching back and forth between stills and video. I'm getting more into video and currently carry a separate camera set up for video (Sony RX10-iv). I'd like to get to one camera.
I like the idea of "what you see is what you get (WYSIWYG) in the viewfinder and some of the more advanced tracking and "eye" af stuff.

Perhaps I'd be better off with a Z7ii with my Nikon lenses. But if I'm going to buy new lenses then brand matters not.

Also thoughts on the Olympus Micro 4/3? Something about the lighter weight overall kit is appealing to my aging back and shoulders.

Just some thoughts and seeing what you all think and your experiences with this particular Sony camera.

Thanks,
Jeff
Click to expand...
I bought the Sony A7 when it first came out - it may have been a lemon but it was unreliable until just after the warranty run out and it died.
It was a great camera but I found out Sony doesn't repair their cameras themselves and spare parts are almost non-existent.
So the repair shop suggested I bought the newer model - now my A7 is a paperweight...🦘
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top