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
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.