Sony A77 or Nikon D7000 for travel/safari

M

mproudfoot

Suspended / Banned
Messages
11
Edit My Images
No
Hi all, I wonder if I might be able to get some advice here on a DSLR camera body (and accompanying system) for myself, as someone who travels regularly for both work and leisure.

My current setup is an old Sony A300 with a few fairly inexpensive lenses (18-250mm, 50mm 1.4, Sigma 10-20 and Tamron 70-300mm usd) and a Nex5 if I'm only away for a weekend or short business trip. I'm don;t consider myself invested so in the Sony alpha system that I would hesitate changing to another system.

My gf and I have an upcoming Kenya safari/beach holiday, and I'd like to take something a little more up-to-date with better AF and low-light capability. I've pretty much narrowed it down to either the D7000 or the A77. Ideally, I'd prefer a 3 lens combo for general travel duties (a fast standard zoom, a tele zoom and a fast prime), not so bothered about ultra wide (I rarely use the Sigma 10-20) or macro lenses and I'm looking at something like the following:

1. Nikon D7000
Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS (the Nikon 17-55 is too overpriced IMO and not stabilized)
Nikon 70-300mm VRII
Nikon 35mm f/1.8 AF-S DX

plus rent an 80-400mm for the safari (and buy a cheap second hand D80 body as backup)

2. Sony A77 & 16-50mm f/2.8 (and keep existing lenses)

plus rent a 70-400mm for safari (with the A300 body as backup)

Cost isn't a factor between the two options - camera performance and lens options are - my issue is that I prefer the idea of the D7000 low light performance and battery life but I actually prefer the Sony crop-sensor lens options, particularly for the safari, where I feel the focussing speed of the Nikon 80-400mm might actually annoy me (and I have considered renting the 200-400 but the size and weight just put me right off).

A third option might be the 7D with the Canon 17-55, 70-300mm L and a similar prime but I'm a little wary of the ageing 7D (and whether I have time to learn my way around it before we go in early Oct) - the 100-400mm canon lens seems to be a popular safari choice.

The safari part of our holiday consists of 6 games drives, of which only 2 are early morning drives.

Any opinions on the above setups (or alternative suggestions) would be much appreciated.
 
I know nothing about the nikon 80-400mm focus speed but i was under the impression that slt's focus speeds are slower than a slr equivalent. Then of course the iso performance too.

The 7d will have the best AF of the lot but lacks the iso performance.
 
Last edited:
The 80-400mm is good but it's not amazing. I'd rent a Sigma 120-300mm plus a TC if you can afford it... much better IQ
 
Maybe an OM-D ? There is a 12-35 which reportedly is great but you also have a few very nice primes and the 100-300 for the long stuff?
 
I've read a few online debates about the 80-400 vs the 70-200 with a TC but the general vibe seemed to be that the latter was fine with the 1.4 (albeit with a more restrictive focal range), okay with the 1.7 and not especially sharp (or fast) with the 2x. Many of the threads/posts ended up just suggesting the 200-400. I've not really considered the Sigma 120-300 with a TC but will look into that option, thanks for all the suggestions so far.
 
Phil Young said:
There are better alternatives for IQ though :-)

Do you have a budget or does it have to be a renting thing?
Click to expand...
As I can't imagine travelling or using anything with a longer FL than the 70-300 very often, I'd rather just rent something than buy something sits on a shelf for months. I'm not averse to the £400 rental for the 200-400, it's just the size and weight that puts me off.
 
I would stick with whatever system you have already subscribed to, in the case the Sony, and go with the A77 option.

Granted, Nikon have a greater selection of lenses, but from what you have said it wouldn't matter how many lenses they have given that both systems have suitable alternatives.

You won't have to buy a backup camera and you already have some of the lenses - I suppose you would have to tot up the pros and cons with IQ, ISO, low light shooting etc - but in my view I cannot honestly tell the difference between the most expensive cameras and those that a relatively cheap in terms of the general photographic output, and neither can anyone that I have spoken to.

If your thing is to take a picture and then zoom in to the corners to check the vignetting etc, then go with the Nikon - if you are not likely to do that, then go with the Sony.
 
Given you have an A300, plus a few general lenses, the A77 looks the better option for you.

The 70-400G is a great lens, combine that with the cropping potential the A77 gives and you get a lot of reach.

As a bonus, the lenses and batteries are interchangeable with the A300 - so you can carry the A300 as well with a shorter lens on and avoid the pain of having to change a lens (in possibly dusty conditions) at short notice (or if you find you've become snap happy with the A77, and the battery is looking low, swap with the fresh one from the A300).
 
Some great advice here regarding both of my selections and a few lens options to go off and read up on (should I go with the D7000). On initial searches, the 120-400 doesn't sem too well regarded - the 120-300 does get great write ups, but it looks fairly large too.

I agree regarding the Sony 70-400 Faldrax - i've actually tried one before and it seemed to produce some stunning results. I guess my main concern with the A77 is the poor battery life (granted, I already have two batteries for the A300 but the CIPA ratings seem to suggest they last half as long as the Nikon EN-EL15) and the higher iso performance.. not so much an issue when viewing on a monitor but I guess it could affect crops of images taken in low light.

thanks again for all the suggestions.
 
Last edited:
I have to say the A77 battery life I have found to be perfectly fine, I bought 4 Sony batteries as I expected bad things but I shot well over 800 pics at Knockhill last weekend without depleting one battery.

Spares are only £36 from Amazon, so don't let battery life worry you, its fine.
 
Thanks Chris, that's quite interesting to hear. Fairly decent price on the batteries too - I noticed the Nikon ones are £50 on Amazon. If i do end up with the A77, my sig would probably look a lot like yours including the Sigma 10-20, 50 1.4, gorillapod slr zoom and the redsnapper 283 (with ball head) plus the Slingshot AW100 :D
 
Have you tried handling both the D7000 & the A77?

The 70-400 G SSM is widely acknowledged as best in class - it's certainly better for AF speed than the Nikon 80-400 & better for IQ than the Canon & on an A77 it will be better stabilised than either.
The 16-50/2.8 seems to be highly regarded as well.

& if you are shooting RAW I don't think that you'll find the A77 really that far behind the D7000 in low light - perhaps at most 3/4 stop?
& you'll gain higher fps, better video & imo a sturdier body.
 
heidfirst said:
Have you tried handling both the D7000 & the A77?

The 70-400 G SSM is widely acknowledged as best in class - it's certainly better for AF speed than the Nikon 80-400 & better for IQ than the Canon & on an A77 it will be better stabilised than either.
The 16-50/2.8 seems to be highly regarded as well.

& if you are shooting RAW I don't think that you'll find the A77 really that far behind the D7000 in low light - perhaps at most 3/4 stop?
& you'll gain higher fps, better video & imo a sturdier body.
Click to expand...


In body stabilisation is not ever going to be better than in lens on tele's. The gains in af speed in lens would be counteracted in some way by the slt's slower af, so there would be nothing in it. It's all swings and roundabouts but i would stick with sony too. The a77 is a lovely camera, i've been very impressed with my camera buddies, and that 16-50 is gorgeous. Not to mention you have 24mp, so you could argue you don't need such a large zoom (your tamron 70-300mm should be fine) with its crop potential, if you want to travel a little lighter.
 
Last edited:
rjbell said:
In body stabilisation is not ever going to be better than in lens on tele's.
Click to expand...
of course it can when you are comparing a very recent version with 12 & 14 year old designs.
The 100-400 is rated at up to 2 stops, the 80-400 up to 3 & the A77 up to 4.5 stops.
My personal experience of several years of use of a 70-400 on a 5 year old A700 is that I can reliably average 3 stops@400mm & people that have traded up to an A77 say that the improvement in stabilisation is noticeable.
The gains in af speed in lens would be counteracted in some way by the slt's slower af, so there would be nothing in it.
Click to expand...
I don't know where you have obtained this idea that DSLTs AF slower than comparable DSLRs but it isn't true. Why should they as they are still using phase detect?
& overall AF performance is a 2 part equation comprising both body AF performance & lens AF performance. With regard to the latter 80-400 VR<70-400 G<100-400 L IS.
 
heidfirst said:
of course it can when you are comparing a very recent version with 12 & 14 year old designs.
The 100-400 is rated at up to 2 stops, the 80-400 up to 3 & the A77 up to 4.5 stops.
My personal experience of several years of use of a 70-400 on a 5 year old A700 is that I can reliably average 3 stops@400mm & people that have traded up to an A77 say that the improvement in stabilisation is noticeable.

I don't know where you have obtained this idea that DSLTs AF slower than comparable DSLRs but it isn't true. Why should they as they are still using phase detect?
& overall AF performance is a 2 part equation comprising both body AF performance & lens AF performance. With regard to the latter 80-400 VR<70-400 G<100-400 L IS.
Click to expand...

This is all splitting hairs i was merely trying to balance out your views for the OP a little, i still recommended the a77 didn't I? I'm not sure where you get your ideas as where ever i read explains that in lens is more effective at longer focal distances. As for the AF i should have said accuracy rather than speed, but obviously accuracy slows things down.
This must be a problem as Sony have implemented a dual phase detection system on there new A99.
 
Last edited:
rjbell said:
i was merely trying to balance out your views for the OP a little,
Click to expand...
& I'm merely trying to balance yours ;)
As you said in your 1st post you were under the impression that DSLT focus speeds are slower than an equivalent DSLR. That is incorrect.
Notice that I didn't say anything about your ISO comment because I agree that the A77 will be slightly behind the 7000D & 7D because the translucent mirror loses ~1/2 stop.

rjbell said:
I'm not sure where you get your ideas as where ever i read explains that in lens is more effective at longer focal distances.
Click to expand...
All other things being equal it possibly is (much theorising & postulating) but as far as I know no unbiased person has ever unequivocally proved that.
These days as we appear to be reaching a plateau of possible improvement I suspect that there is relatively little real difference.
However, when you start comparing pretty old systems against new you aren't on an even field. As I said even Canon only rate the 100-400 for 2 stops of stabilisation & an A77 can definitely do that & more with a 70-400mm.

As for the AF i should have said accuracy rather than speed, but obviously accuracy slows things down.
This must be a problem as Sony have implemented a dual phase detection system on there new A99.
Click to expand...
There is no problem with the accuracy of Sony phase detection either & in Live View mode the Sony DSLT system is also noticeably faster than any Canon or Nikon DSLR.
Why must there be a problem for there to be a possible improvement?
On-sensor focus detection is the future & currently phase detect is faster whilst contrast detect can be more accurate which is why Canon, Fuji, Nikon & now Sony have all started implementing early versions of hybrid on-sensor AF.
So by your thinking they all must have a problem ...
 
Last edited:
double post somehow :bonk::bonk:
 
Last edited:
We will have to agree to disagree on that one. I noticed you sneaked in 'in live view' but In real world shooting with viewfinders me with my d5100 and my camera buddy with his a77, the a77 will do a lot more hunting to focus. Look your preaching to the converted I love the evf and also think its the future. There are more pro's than cons over a slr. There is just a few creases to iron out. I'm looking forward to seeing the a99.
 
Last edited:
Just as a wee update, I've taken most of what has been said in the replies to this post onboard and as it has been around 4months since I last handled both the A77 and D7000 (albeit for 20mins whilst in transit at Heathrow), I'm going to take a trip into Glasgow this coming week to play around with both in store (though I'll need to check there are actually any stores with both or either in stock).

I'm actually leaning towards the A77 as the Sony system has all the lens options I'm likely to need for for the forseeable future and, I think I'd miss the in-body stabilisation and flip screen (although I know many regard the latter as a consumer toy). As for the low-light/iso performance, while I realise it's not quite on par with the D7K, it's certainly going to be an improvement over the older ccd sensor in my current body.
 
I visited Kenya with D7000 and I am 100 percent satisfied with the results of this. Specially to make the running videos of the animals are really good with this and you will enjoy for your whole life whenever you will watch this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top