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

[badtorro]

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?

[tinplater]

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.

[Username]

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. 

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

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.

[IamJF]

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.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

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.

[Username]

+1.    

   

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. 

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

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.

[Lefty]

You're selling FUD. That is fear, uncertainty, and doubt. If that's the game, then the risk is whether Nikon will be around to support their products. They are losing sales and money, have been through two financial reorganizations recently and have been surpassed in ff US sales by Sony. Sony meanwhile is profitable and increasing market share. They are doing that by developing better and less expensive products.

 

Sony is inventing the future of photography. The improvements Sony has made, and is continuing to make in camera technology, are the essence of "future proofing". Mirror boxes and mechanical shutters are the photographic equivalents of buggy whips. Remember too that Nikon "improves" its sensor resolution by buying sensors from Sony, those technological changes that you worry about.

 

FUD did not work for IBM as it lost control of the computer market several decades ago, it will not save Nikon today.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

You are getting carried away. First. Sony has also been in financial trouble and undergone a restructurung in the past few years. They recently took a USD 1 bn hit to their movie business. Apart from that several camera manufacturers have been in dire straits, with Olympus being the worst affected. They've all pulled through, which I guess is as much a cultural thing as a financial.

 

When it comes to Sony and mirrorless its a fact that so far, mirrorless hasn't been able to replace DSLRs. They have one product, the A9, which promises to equal the performance of a professional DSLR. But it isn't out yet, hasn't been subjected to extensive independent tests or field use. It lacks the eco system to make it a conprehensive choice for professionals. The fact is, many pros would need to hold on to a non-Sony DSLR to be able to shoot everything.

 

Even if the A9 delivers all it promises, that level of performance is still several generations, maybe a decade, away from affordable products for hobbyiists or entry level users, if they ever make it available in that segment. Sony may also lose interest in any of their systems, no matter how promising and accomplished they are, A Mount and APS-C E mount are the evidence of that.

 

Yesterday, I shot an event with A77II. Very fast very good tracking very sharp images very quiet shutter. Want to do it full frame, just get the A99II. To some extent, Sony is just reinventing the wheel at huge expense to themselves and the users. Who knows how long they and the market can keep up the interest.

[jccash]

 

 

I own the Nikon D500 a number of lenses (some expensive like my 80-400mm) and use the D500 to shoot GT racing and wildlife in Florida.  Great camera for shooting birds.  I also have the Sony A6000 with the two kit lenses.  I did not need 4K video due to the D500 shoots in 4K and has good features but... I professionally sell Sony, Panasonic, Ikegami and lots of other video cameras and gear so I could care less about personally shooting video and editing video.  Pictures is another story.  I use LR and learning to use PS.  What I like about the Sony A6000 is the size and frankly the quality.  So for me I use it to take shots of integration studio or large church projects we design and install.  A6000 travels well.  I also use it as a 2nd camera when my wife or daughter comes with me to hike and take wild life pictures.  Video I only do short clips like a waterfall or a group of dear.  Gators as well and I catch them sleeping then when they notice me they jump in the water.  Fun to have videos of that.  My wife and daughter prefer the Sony A6000 due to the automatic settings and ease of use.  I almost bought them a refurbished D5300 for less than the a6000 but they did not want a "baby" D500 so I bought the Nikon to Sony adapter cheap but I'm the only one that uses it.  I also look out for deals on older good lenses to use in manual mode.  The A6000 works for me.  My son is more into video so he bought the A6300 and gave his old Nikon D60 away that I gave him a few years ago.  The quality of the A6000 pictures is very good and frankly competes wtih the quality of the D500.  So I said all this to say that.  Keep your Nikon and buy the Sony and use an adapter so you can use your Nikon lenses.   You have a full frame Nikon which is a very good camera.  Just my opinion...

[Username]

 

 

 

I own the Nikon D500 a number of lenses (some expensive like my 80-400mm) and use the D500 to shoot GT racing and wildlife in Florida.  Great camera for shooting birds.  I also have the Sony A6000 with the two kit lenses.  I did not need 4K video due to the D500 shoots in 4K and has good features but... I professionally sell Sony, Panasonic, Ikegami and lots of other video cameras and gear so I could care less about personally shooting video and editing video.  Pictures is another story.  I use LR and learning to use PS.  What I like about the Sony A6000 is the size and frankly the quality.  So for me I use it to take shots of integration studio or large church projects we design and install.  A6000 travels well.  I also use it as a 2nd camera when my wife or daughter comes with me to hike and take wild life pictures.  Video I only do short clips like a waterfall or a group of dear.  Gators as well and I catch them sleeping then when they notice me they jump in the water.  Fun to have videos of that.  My wife and daughter prefer the Sony A6000 due to the automatic settings and ease of use.  I almost bought them a refurbished D5300 for less than the a6000 but they did not want a "baby" D500 so I bought the Nikon to Sony adapter cheap but I'm the only one that uses it.  I also look out for deals on older good lenses to use in manual mode.  The A6000 works for me.  My son is more into video so he bought the A6300 and gave his old Nikon D60 away that I gave him a few years ago.  The quality of the A6000 pictures is very good and frankly competes wtih the quality of the D500.  So I said all this to say that.  Keep your Nikon and buy the Sony and use an adapter so you can use your Nikon lenses.   You have a full frame Nikon which is a very good camera.  Just my opinion...

 

     

Whoever said all that is NOT me .... 

[jccash]

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?

Not sure I would jump ship but add to your fleet.  I own and really like my Nikon D500 with my 80-400mm lens. Great camera for wildlife and birding as well as GT car racing.  Focus and tracking is fantastic and image quality is sharp.  But for my wife I picked up at a great price (Sony employee discount) the older a6000 with both kit lenses.  I was amazed at how nice this older and smaller camera is.  

 

For now I feel comfertable with what I have.  If I want to shoot 4K I can use the D500 but video is not my thing even though I'm a Sony broadcast camera dealer.  My son on the other hand loves to shoot video and edit but does not want one of the camcorders I sell so he is looking at the a6300 or (don't tell him) I might help him get the a6500 or even a step up from that.  He liked Canon due to stronger video than Nikon but now is interested in Sony.  So many good cameras and lots of choices.  I tell my customers: "when you buy the best it only hurts once"

[jccash]

Can't figure out how to delete repeated posts.  Sorry about that...

[jstevensphoto]

I have a Nikon D700, D800 and recently sold a D60.   I currently own a Nikon 16-35 f4, Nikon 24-120 f4, Nikon 70-200 f2.8, Sigma 12-24 f3.5-5-6.    I went to a Sony A7R, which my wife still uses, I use a Sony A7Rii with a 24-70 G Master 2.8, a 70-300 G, a 16-35 f4, and a 28-20 kit lens.   What I can tell you is in terms of overall sharpness, quality and weight, i love the Sonys.    However, when you put a 24-70 f2.8 on the Sonys, forget the weight advantage.   If I had it all to do over.   I would have stayed with Nikon.    The cost for switching is steep.   When I try to sell photo equipment, it is hard to get any where near a good value.  I was hoping for adapters for my Nikon glass, but it has yet to be developed.   I have tried several, but they cannot transfer the auto-focus.   I'm a semi-pro, and I still use my Nikon for pro work.   The shutter on the Sonys is just too slow.   

[kenneth]

I recently took the plunge and bought a a7R ll and I am just blown away with it. I have retained my Leica M film camera and have bought a Novaflex adaptor so as I can use my Summicron M Leica lenses. I have also kept my Rollieflex 3.5f 6X6 TLR, as I find film so much more pleasing that digital images?. I don't know what pro work you do but a couple of friends use Sony Alpa cameras for pro purposes and they find them hard to fault?

[jstevensphoto]

I recently took the plunge and bought a a7R ll and I am just blown away with it. I have retained my Leica M film camera and have bought a Novaflex adaptor so as I can use my Summicron M Leica lenses. I have also kept my Rollieflex 3.5f 6X6 TLR, as I find film so much more pleasing that digital images?. I don't know what pro work you do but a couple of friends use Sony Alpa cameras for pro purposes and they find them hard to fault?

 

I have actually started using my Sony A7Rii for portrait and headshot pro work.   The color and sharpness is great.   Still have to keep the Nikon handy for moving dancers.    The Sony shutter is slow and I have used the Nikons so long, I can time jumps with the Nikon shutter.   Maybe over time I will develop enough skill to do the same with my Sonys.   

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

I have actually started using my Sony A7Rii for portrait and headshot pro work.   The color and sharpness is great.   Still have to keep the Nikon handy for moving dancers.    The Sony shutter is slow and I have used the Nikons so long, I can time jumps with the Nikon shutter.   Maybe over time I will develop enough skill to do the same with my Sonys.   

 

The shutter lag you're experiencing is probably variances in the time it takes for the A7RII to focus with different lenses and settings. That makes it difficult to predict shots because you're never quite sure when the shutter will trip.

[CourtingHome]

Hi, I wasn't swapping from one kit to another, but two facts made me choose the Sony A7 II over anything comparable: 5 point image stabilization, and the fact that Nikon actually uses Sony sensors. (so do the newer iPhones and even Samsung phones.) While I agree nobody has a crystal ball, I believe that Sony will be putting their newest and best technology into their own product line first. Still new to the camera, but so far, I'm happy. There's a good 2017 DP review article that compares all these cameras nicely, it reviews full frame DSLR's and mirrorless cameras. Also, the suggestion that you rent first makes a lot of sense. 

[jstevensphoto]

I have been shooting Nikon and Sony for several years, now, and have fallen into a pattern for my own photo life.   I love being able to fit my A7Rii into a small, not-too-heavy bag and roam cities where we travel.   I also love shooting with no shutter noise; no-one turns to look at the obnoxious photo guy.   But I have always used my Nikon D800 for pro work, usually dance groups and headshots, portraits, etc.    I recently ordered the new Nikon D850, having read and believing all the hype around that camera.    Then my wife, who is not really into photo, that much, said something that makes sense.    She said, "Do you think people are more likely to buy your photos off your Zenfolio site after you switch to the D850?"    "And do you think it's really worth the almost $4,000 investment."  (D850, new memory card system, reader, batteries, etc.)    She makes a good point.    My pro clients are really not that interested in facials where you can almost see the skin cells.    They usually want me to do some skin smoothing, anyway.  I am thinking of cancelling my B&H order and stick to the pattern I have now.   Not convinced I would ever take the new Nikon traveling with all that weight.   Anyone else in this situation?

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

The objective truth is you don't need the D850. If the subjective truth says you prefer using A7R2 that probably seals it. If there is a particular lens you're missing that will probably show more in you images, than a new body.

[Username]

.......   Anyone else in this situation?

     

Me.   

   

I can spend whatever I want, with no need

to justify anything. If it's worth it, I'll do it. 

Acoarst, making my own judgements as to 

what's "worth it" is a much more stringent 

test than just convincing someone else, a 

wife or supervisor or whoever, cuz I'm the 

toughest nut to crack ! 

 

---------------------------------------------------   

     

  

Not hanging with any geeks, money won't 

buy envy. Not having a Fine Arts collector/

patron, I don't print larger than life portraits. 

Not being a steroid pumped gym freak, I'm 

not into huge heavy gear. Not knowing just 

what live-view post-SLR wonder Nikon and 

Canon are about to announce so I can kiss 

Sony g'bye and etc etc, I just apply the "IF" 

part of "if it's worth it, I'll do it". Whenever I 

apply that simple principle, stuff like the a9 

or D850 just generates laffs. 

 

Prolly the greatest accomplishment one can 

accomplish with an a9, or D850 or suchlike,   

is sneaking it in past the wife. So not having

that problem, there's nothing in it for me :-(   

It's not the the ONLY accomplishment an a9 

or D850 would enable. But it's the only one

unique to such mega-cameras. All the rest I 

can accomplish with with more basic gear. If 

I should ever get married, maybe then I'll go

for a mega-camera :-) 

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

@User: People who take photos for a living are often justified for buying high spec gear. It makes shooting faster, easier and the photos generally look better. But I think pros should avoid the arms race. That means buying the most recent camera not to fall behind the competitors. For instance, if you do portraits and already have a perfectly good portrait camera, there's no immediate need to upgrade.

 

For casual photographers, I think it's a good idea to avoid buying gear that is above your ability. For instance, if someone is a relative beginner but still buys a $10K pro kit, that kinda signals a misunderstand of what they need to do to develop and progress as a photographer. It's better to develop one's skill until a reasonably priced camera actually becomes the limiting factor. That may never even happen.

 

As for the wife, a friend taught me a cool trick. Always get rid of the old camera when you buy a new one. That way the gear count doesn't increase and you're more likely to get away with it.

[jstevensphoto]

@User: People who take photos for a living are often justified for buying high spec gear. It makes shooting faster, easier and the photos generally look better. But I think pros should avoid the arms race. That means buying the most recent camera not to fall behind the competitors. For instance, if you do portraits and already have a perfectly good portrait camera, there's no immediate need to upgrade.

 

For casual photographers, I think it's a good idea to avoid buying gear that is above your ability. For instance, if someone is a relative beginner but still buys a $10K pro kit, that kinda signals a misunderstand of what they need to do to develop and progress as a photographer. It's better to develop one's skill until a reasonably priced camera actually becomes the limiting factor. That may never even happen.

 

As for the wife, a friend taught me a cool trick. Always get rid of the old camera when you buy a new one. That way the gear count doesn't increase and you're more likely to get away with it.

 

Exactly!!   I love my little Sony, but the D850 would solve some issues I often encounter when shooting pro.    Also, I just sold my backup, my old D700, and I am now using the Sony as backup.    Besides, I need to write off some of my equipment before Dec. 31.    I did cancel my B&H order for the D850, and will certainly buy it again when the hysteria over this camera dies down and there are actually some available to purchase.