Jump to content


estimating the cost of jumping ship from Nikon to Sony A7ii/iii

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 badtorro



  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 27 February 2017 - 03:55 PM

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)

Guys, I own a Nikon D700 +16-35/4 +50/1.4g +70-200/4 +YN568 and I'm trying to estimate what would it take to jump ship to Sony and if I'd be satisfied with similar Sony lenses.


I'm not a professional, I only take pictures in my spare time as a hobby, during travel, my family etc. I upload my photos to flickr, facebook and include them in my videos. I work with Lightroom CC for stills and Vegas Movie Studio Platinum 13 for videos.


My reason for the change: lighter, smaller body +video w/IBIS.

I'm interested in Sony A7ii (or iii if it comes out some time soon).


After initial check, I find that the most expensive would be to replace the camera and 50mm - I estimate I'd get ~600eur for D700 (20k pics) and ~300eur for 50/1.4 (both in like-new condition).

If I settle for 2nd hand lenses, I could almost trade N16-35/4 for equal Z16-35/4, N70-200/4 for Z70-200/4, as far as 50mm goes I'd go for sigma 50/1.4A or Z35/2.8.


My key question is: those lenses are they corresponding to Nikon lenses in terms of quality and versatility?

Does this setup produce pictures w/ good enough technical quality to replace my Nikon setup?


Eventually: does it make sense to make the jump?

I really love my Nikon setup, I only find it short of a portrait lens ie. 85mm.


I'd hate to sell it, but I find it most annoying that I can't shoot video despite having money put into decent lenses.


What do you think?

#2 tinplater


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 147 posts

Posted 28 February 2017 - 11:46 PM

Can't really specifically advise you (I jumped from Canon to Sony A6000 and A7RII) and tried numerous lens combinations.I bought everything used and haven't had a single issue.The best FE lenses in my experience that provide value at reasonable prices are:


1. Zeiss 35mm 2.8

2.Sony 28mm 2.0

3.Sony 50mm (almost the equal of the other much more expensive 50-55mm primes)

4.70-200mm F4 (wonderful lens and so much lighter than the 2.8)


If price is not a total object I would strongly recommend the 24-70 G master 2.8...it is better than the Canon version that I used with an adapter until I got the Sony.

I also have the spectacular Zeiss 50mm 1.4 and it is just absolutely amazing; best single lens I have ever used.


In my experience the native Sony equaled or bettered my results with corresponding Canon optics. I have not regretted making the switch at any time.

  • Zé De Boni likes this

#3 Username


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 278 posts

Posted 04 March 2017 - 08:37 PM

Guys, I own a Nikon D700 +16-35/4 +50/1.4g +70-200/4 +YN568

and I'm trying to estimate what would it take to jump ship to Sony

and if I'd be satisfied with similar Sony lenses.


.................. ............. .... ............. .... ....... ..........   


I'd hate to sell it, but I find it most annoying that I can't shoot video

despite having money put into decent lenses.


What do you think?  



What I think is that you need a body to shoot video with 

your current lenses. This could be a newer Nikon body 

if you don't need an eyepiece viewer [EVF] when you're

shooting video [SLR video is rear LCD only]. If you need 

an EVF, and you wanna maintain the FoV of your lenses,  

then you can use an adapter to put them on an a7 series

body, or you can use a SpeedBooster to put them on an   

a6XXX Sony, or on a Fuji.  


Using a newer Nikon is the cheapest choice cuz you no 

longer need the Nikon D700 and could cash it out. Altho 

cheaper, you get full compatibility. But, again, no EVF. 


The adapter route affects compatibility to varying degree   

depending upon your choice of camera body and choice

of adapter. I have not found any problem shooting video 

with totally "dumb" adapters. But there are many different 

approaches to "shooting video", so YMMV. Nevertheless 

one reliable generality is that both high level professional 

video and crude rough-n-ready non-pro video have little 

need of sophisticated lens-to-camera compatibility. It's all

the in-between levels that buy all the high tech wonders. 

Wedding shooters have little control over their shoots vs 

actual video production houses. Enthusiasts love all their 

techie chatzkes. Those are examples of the in-between.  




FWIW, comparing the still photo images from the most

basic FF bodies from both Nikon and Sony, with RAW

images both are so very good that IF one i better than

the other, it's pretty meaningless. OTOH, with jpegs the

Nikon D610 just is visibly better than the Sony a7-II. I'm

using both. It's not that the Sony jpegs are awful but the 

Nikon jpegs look better both at a glance and on closer 

inspection. While there's no denying that "better is more

betterer", the Sony jpegs are not inferior enuf that I carry 

the Nikon around with me like I carry the Sony. The size 

and weight of the Nikon means the Sony sees most of 

the routine use.


If I need utmost quality from the Sony that I just happen

to be toting cuz it's smaller and lighter, I can shoot "Raw   

+ Jpeg", and process the Raw only if I can't manipulate

the jpeg to where I want it using only minimal editing. If 

I know for sure that I'm gonna do a lotta photography at 

where I'm going, or in my "home studio" [LOL] then I will 

definitely take the Nikon. It's jpegs are so good that I feel 

no need to record "Raw + Jpeg". Nikon jpegs start out 

looking better, and they'll withstand more than minimal 

editing without looking "overworked". While it's not really

like a raw file, the Nikon's jpegs are much more like tiffs,  

in terms of how much "abuse" they can survive, vs the

Sony jpegs.  


Also, the D610 has a whole bunch of features lacking in

the A7-II. But again, not so amazing that I'll casually grab

the Nikon instead of the Sony. It's just that I own both and

will take advantage of the Nikon when there's reasonable

expectation that I might be well rewarded for suffering it's

ergonomic shortcomings. The D610 and a7-II are both 24 

MP FF bodies of the same generation, selling at the same

price, so it's reasonable and fair to contrast them. Clearly, 

I'm equally fond of both, but for whoever wants to choose

one or the other, I've tried to summarize the differences. 

#4 Jaf-Photo


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts

Posted 05 March 2017 - 10:39 PM

To deceide whether to swap systems is a personal choice. I would certainly never tell anyone to swap systems. The most important thing is that you use equipment that you are comfortable with. As you "love" your Nikon gear, you should probably rent or borrow a A7 camera before you make the switch.


Portability is useful, but there's also the option of getting a small secondary camera. It may be a small system or a fixed lens camera that can do the things you want it to. That will be a whole lot easier than changing the whole system.

#5 IamJF


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:20 AM

You have to decide if you WANT a Sony or not. If you get used to EVF and IBIS I'm sure you don't look back. At least I always have to grin about the "Pros" checking their shots on the backscreen to see how they come out :-)


The combination 1635, 70200 and 55/1,8 is great and I'm sure you will be happy with the results. Spend the extra money for the 55 - you wil do it later anyway :-). If you are used to a 50 the 35/2.8 will not make you happy - but it's a great addition if you want to go VERY small. I often use a 35/85mm Setup, works great for me and fits in a small pocket.

The 90 Macro is also a nice addition, but if you like 50mm you maybe jump to 135mm for portrait (I use a manual lens for that, Contax Zeiss).



For me the big point in Sony over Nikon is the future proof! (Never thought I will write this :-))

You can upgrade to way more Megapixels. Video will always be very good. Lens line is top notch (and a little cheaper as the new Nikons ;-)), you can throw in an A6000 for longer reach etc ... it's a good system, growing very fast.

#6 Jaf-Photo


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts

Posted 22 March 2017 - 07:47 PM

Future proof is a strong word and almost always wrong.

Nikon has a much longer history and much greater consistency.

Sony has changed their technology and formats quite a lot in the ten years of their existence.

Nikon hasn't changed their format, only increased performance.

Sony is going off in uncharted territory, where system concepts change and prices increase a lot. Their market share is steadily shrinking.

Any smart money would wait it out and see where things go from here.

#7 Username


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 278 posts

Posted 23 March 2017 - 02:11 AM



A very reticent corporate approach to tech advances 

most assuredly supports the usual/vernacular meaning

of "future proofing". It means your on-hand hardware

is not rapidly eclipsed by new additions to the system.  




OTOH, I think IamJF uses the opposite meaning of the 

term. From his post I infer that his version term "future

proofing" is about having the option to stay at the front

of technological advances without having to switch to 

an entirely new system. 


Meaning #1 is for those whose top priority is the budget 

while meaning #2 is for those whose top priority is to be 

able to keep their tech maximally updated.   


Those two meanings suggest a polarized body of users.  

Acoarst the nature of internet "dialog" would make such 

polarization seem to be the rule. But there's prolly quite 

a substantial "silent majority" who follow a middle road 

of modest tech updates, funded by sufficient budget but

not tempted to burn cash impulsively. Such middle of the 

road folks tend to be less noisy on the interwebs, so it's 

hard to judge their impact on the market just by reading 

online discussions. 

#8 Jaf-Photo


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts

Posted 01 April 2017 - 09:39 AM

Sure, but I think it's useful to keep a level head when there is so much hype. Sony has been pushing the idea of future-proofing with the GM lenses, saying they will have the resolution to match future sensors. At the same time, the independent testing turned out results which were in line with the competition. Added to that is the fact that two systems that were the focus of Sony's camera business a few years ago have been left by the wayside. They also changed their hotshoe and compact concept for A7.


Nikon, on the other hand, has kept the same mount and system concept for years. What they do is to upgrade the core functions, such as sensor resolution, autofocus performance and lens performance. To a photographer, that is more valuable future proofing. It allows you to keep your system and change parts when there is a real performance improvement.


Obviousy, as I am an exclusiveSony shooter, I am not saying photographers shouldn't use Sony. But if you alredy have a perfectly good system, you should only change if you are fully aware of all the consequences.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


New Members Welcome!

Not yet registered? Really?

Registration is free and takes only a few minutes.

After the free registration you can discuss with members from all over the world, put questions and present your images.

We are looking forward to you!

Admin Andreas und Sony Alpha Forum Team

Register now! X