Sony a7r vs nikon d800e

woof woof said:
Re Manualfocusg - We've done this argument to death and our experiences are so far apart it's impossible to believe that we're talking about the same kit which at least shows that trying the kit for yourself is very important.
Click to expand...

Spot on, but my constant whinging adds balance :D

Brazo - take a look at the RAW comparison here - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-a7r/17 I think Imaging Resource has direct comparisons too. The Sony models show plenty more chroma noise (despite having the pick of the sensors :D :D :D). My experience of the standard a7 compared to the EOS 6D was that the Sony had a more intrusive noise profile because of the chroma noise. DXO's figures may not correlate as the score is based on not just SNR but also DR, or something like that.
 
manualfocus-g said:
Wide rf lenses generally don't perform well on the Sonys. The evf is hopeless in bright light and high iso isn't as good as the Nikons, despite sharing the same sensor. Auto iso doesn't allow you to select a minimum shutter speed (need to use shutter priority) and the shutter sound is awful. Raw files use lossy compression.

But...the native lenses appear excellent and the camera is tiny :)
Click to expand...

Not too sure what EVF you're using BUT I have not found any problem with the A7R's EVF in bright light (assuming you're talking about daylight, i.e.: normal outdoor shooting?).

Most reports show the Nikon and A7R image quality quite comparable. Shutter noise is (maybe) loud but I've got at least one Canon DSLR where the shutter is louder; not a problem. All cameras use some degree of compression on their raw files.
 
manualfocus-g said:
Spot on, but my constant whinging adds balance :D

Brazo - take a look at the RAW comparison here - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-a7r/17 I think Imaging Resource has direct comparisons too. The Sony models show plenty more chroma noise (despite having the pick of the sensors :D :D :D). My experience of the standard a7 compared to the EOS 6D was that the Sony had a more intrusive noise profile because of the chroma noise. DXO's figures may not correlate as the score is based on not just SNR but also DR, or something like that.
Click to expand...
I did just do a quick comparison and chroma (colour noise) is the easiest to manage in lightroom. The Nikon file at max ISO has less chroma noise in the raw file but if you switch to JPEG tell me which one is best at high ISO? Whilst we all shoot raw we all output to JPEG or tiff and chroma noise just won't be seen.

I don't want to get into a pixel peeping war but my I would suggest my point stands they are as good as each other.
 
If the smaller, lighter A7r is easier to travel with than the bigger, heavier D800E, then get the Sony. They're as good as each other in terms of image quality. You buy the one that best allows you to get the images you want. Anything else is not really photography, and is becoming pointless gear snobbery.

Post images from either at full res and remove the metadata, no one will be able to tell them apart. If they reckon they can, they're talking [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER].

The end.
 
Hang on, the original poster asked which was best! Clearly removing chroma noise affects image quality as you are left with black marks instead, which may well be noticeable if the OP is blowing images up to large sizes (as stated) :) I found it pretty annoying with the a7.

Anyway, standard advice as ever to the OP - try both and see what you think. Consider both systems in terms of weight, usability and lens choice.
 
manualfocus-g said:
Hang on, the original poster asked which was best! Clearly removing chroma noise affects image quality as you are left with black marks instead, which may well be noticeable if the OP is blowing images up to large sizes (as stated) :) I found it pretty annoying with the a7.

Anyway, standard advice as ever to the OP - try both and see what you think. Consider both systems in terms of weight, usability and lens choice.
Click to expand...
Your talking about two identical sony made sensors, check them both out at high ISO and JPEG and you might give the edge to the sony or the Nikon. The point is as Pookyhead nicely puts above you'd be talking [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER] either way.

The Sony simply isn't inferior to the Nikon at high ISO. Period. However if your talking the overall camera package then size aside the Nikon wins every time.
 
Brazo said:
Your talking about two identical sony made sensors, check them both out at high ISO and JPEG and you might give the edge to the sony or the Nikon. The point is as Pookyhead nicely puts above you'd be talking [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER] either way.

The Sony simply isn't inferior to the Nikon at high ISO. Period. However if your talking the overall camera package then size aside the Nikon wins every time.
Click to expand...

One advantage other than size for the Sony is easy use of manual lenses. This was a big part of why I bought an A7. If you aren't interested in reducing the size of your package... :exit:or in using manual lenses then a DSLR is possibly a very good choice. :D
 
Getting the Sony a7r tomorrow. I tried my mates Sony with my noctilux and 21mm lux and was blowen away will get the Sony 24/70 as well
 
Good choice i'm sure you will love it, since changing my 40D to a A7R i have never taken so many photos.
 
ndwgolf said:
Getting the Sony a7r tomorrow. I tried my mates Sony with my noctilux and 21mm lux and was blowen away will get the Sony 24/70 as well
Click to expand...

I am trying a mate's A7r at the moment (while he is trying my XT1), and so far very pleased using a Samyang manual focus 35mm and a manual focus Nikon 85mm f1.4.

If we do a trade (very likely, I think), then I will probably get the Sony/Zeiss 24-70 as a general purpose lens, so would be very interested in your opinion of the lens, please, Neil.

BTW, with my work hat on, we have just exported (yesterday) a container load of Sausages, Bacon, Sticky Toffee Puddings, and Pork Pies to KL, so there's some quality British Food on the way to Malaysia!
 
ndwgolf said:
Rob are you using Sony lenses or something else??
Click to expand...

I have the FE 35 f2.8, FE 24-70 f4, love both of those the 35 is great when i want it ultra compact and the 24-70 for general use.
Also have an old MD mount 200mm lens that i use now and again. Going to invest in the FE 70-200 f4 as soon as funds allow though and maybe a Samyang 14mm f2.8
 
I have the 35 f2.8, 55 f1.8 and the 24-70 f4. Love them all.
Initially I wasn't sure about the 24-70 and the web reviews were not good. Despite this I had a play then bought it. The versatility is great and it takes nice pictures. If I want absolute sharpness across the frame for a landscape I turn on the crop feature on the A7r. I still have 24MP to play with and a longer reach if required.
 
PCPhil said:
I have the 35 f2.8, 55 f1.8 and the 24-70 f4. Love them all.
Initially I wasn't sure about the 24-70 and the web reviews were not good. Despite this I had a play then bought it. The versatility is great and it takes nice pictures. If I want absolute sharpness across the frame for a landscape I turn on the crop feature on the A7r. I still have 24MP to play with and a longer reach if required.
Click to expand...

There was an interesting piece on The Online Photographer recently...

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2014/06/a-little-lens-tale.html

The gist is that we're obsessed with bench tests these days and some lenses that don't look too good in bench tests were designed with different ends in mind and actually produce lovely pictures. As the 24-70mm has received less than glowing reviews from some but others find that it's a nice lens for taking real pictures with I think it's probably worth a look.
 
I have the FE 24-70mm f4 Zeiss soley on my Sony A7 and I would say its as good if not better than my Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8, which from a image quality and build standpoint was more than enough for me.
I feel the 24-70mm has had a lot of negative reviews as most seem to compare it to primes and f2.8 glass.
You have to take into consideration the relatively small size and weight of this all rounder zoom lens.

I am looking to get the Sony FE 70-200mm f4 and maybe a prime in the future....
Also hoping to try out manual older lenses but need to do some research as I am not to clued up on which is best vs £££.

If I had to picked between the Nikon D800/e or Sony A7/R, I would pick the A7/R as the size and weight is not in a DSLR's favour.
 
Rizvan said:
I have the FE 24-70mm f4 Zeiss soley on my Sony A7 and I would say its as good if not better than my Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8, which from a image quality and build standpoint was more than enough for me.
I feel the 24-70mm has had a lot of negative reviews as most seem to compare it to primes and f2.8 glass.
.
Click to expand...

That is what I want to hear about the lens - I need a zoom lens that takes great pictures of real things, and renders them nicely. I am unlikely to be printing 40 x 30 images of brick walls and test charts.
If I decide I want to keep the camera, I will probably put a wanted ad on here, in the hope that a test-chart photographer may be selling his or hers! :rolleyes:
 
Rizvan said:
I have the FE 24-70mm f4 Zeiss soley on my Sony A7 and I would say its as good if not better than my Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8, which from a image quality and build standpoint was more than enough for me.
I feel the 24-70mm has had a lot of negative reviews as most seem to compare it to primes and f2.8 glass.
You have to take into consideration the relatively small size and weight of this all rounder zoom lens.

I am looking to get the Sony FE 70-200mm f4 and maybe a prime in the future....
Also hoping to try out manual older lenses but need to do some research as I am not to clued up on which is best vs £££.

If I had to picked between the Nikon D800/e or Sony A7/R, I would pick the A7/R as the size and weight is not in a DSLR's favour.
Click to expand...

I think its the new age were going thought where a lot of people are very much into primes,i have a few myself but most of the time its an zoom stuck on the front of my camera :)
 
I wouldn't mind buying some legacy glass to try with my A7 but not sure what to look for. There's so many lenses out there.
I was just going to see how the native FE lenses pan out. :)

Next on the list is the Sony FE 70-200 :)
 
I hav
ndwgolf said:
Anyone tried the 55mm 1.8 Sony lens would like to get that one next
Click to expand...
I haven't but I think its compares very well to the zeiss Otus, check dxo its in the top 5 lenses.
 
Rizvan said:
I wouldn't mind buying some legacy glass to try with my A7 but not sure what to look for. There's so many lenses out there.
I was just going to see how the native FE lenses pan out. :)

Next on the list is the Sony FE 70-200 :)
Click to expand...

I don't think that you can go too far wrong if you go for any of the common mounts such as Minolta, Olympus or Canon FD. I have Minolta and Olympus. The Minolta are better but the Olympus are compact and lovely.
 
woof woof said:
I don't think that you can go too far wrong if you go for any of the common mounts such as Minolta, Olympus or Canon FD. I have Minolta and Olympus. The Minolta are better but the Olympus are compact and lovely.
Click to expand...

Are there DX or FX versions?
 
Rizvan said:
Are there DX or FX versions?
Click to expand...

The old manual focus Minolta MD, Olympus Zuiko and Canon FD lenses are all from the film days and are all full frame lenses.

I have a set of Minolta MD's and also Olympus Zuiko's and IMVHO all are perfectly useable on digital FF or crop cameras. I use mine on my FF Sony A7 and my MFT Panasonic G1 (x2 crop.) I have cheap MFT adapters bought off ebay and they seem fine on the Panasonic G1 and I have a cheap Minolta to Nex adapter and it works fine on my A7 down to 28mm but my 24mm vignettes. I also have rather expensive Novoflex adapters for Minolta and Zuiko and both work to 24mm on my A7, I haven't got anything wider than 24mm.

As I said, the Minolta's seem better than the Zuiko's in that they're a tad sharper and have less CA, they also have intermediate aperture settings that the Zuiko's don't have. The Zuiko's are however smaller and have more positive aperture rings. I haven't tried FD's but from what I've read there are many happy users. At this cheaper end of the market between MD, Zuiko and FD I may be wrong but the Minolta's look about the best from my own experience of comparing them to the Zuiko's and reading on line reviews against the FD's. You can also get other makes in all fittings and they're sometimes cheaper than the camera makers lenses.

If you do go down this route and Minolta's are on your radar you may want to go for the later MD's rather than the earlier ones as the later ones seem to have better coatings and my own experience comparing the earlier and later lenses tells me that the later ones are a bit better. Stars of the show for me are the 24mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f2. I've also had the IMVHO excellent 35mm f2.8 but swapped it for the f1.8 and I also have the 28mm f2.8 and 135mm f3.5. The Minolta 50mm f1.7 and 28mm f2.8 are fantastic bargains as are the Zuiko 50mm f1.8 and 28mm f2.8. I'd imagine that the FD versions are great value too as these focal lengths seem to have been very popular and are easy to find in all mounts.
 
Last edited:
pick a focal length then do research, or find random ones

old lenses have size, feel, look and personality, and cost advantAges
pentax stuff is good too :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top