New member with Sony questions (current Nikon user)

[bgreywolf]

Hello everyone!  I'm Ben, and I've been using Nikons since my grandfather bought his (now my) Nikon F2 a couple years before I was born.  I have a lot of old gear and new(er) gear, and I inherit a lot as my relatives move to new systems (mostly Nikon mirrorless).  Currently I have pared down to F2, D600, and D7100; and a small vault of lenses from the 1960s-current as well as flashes, studio lights, and other gadgets ranging from the 1950s to the present day.

I also have a Fuji X100T which is a great camera.

But...this is a post about my girlfriend.  

She has never owned anything but a point-and-shoot, and she's had a few of those.  She wants to expand her photographic horizons, and she finds the Nikon gear too heavy and complicated.

The best camera is the one you use, so if Nikon is out then I should get her something that interests her.

I asked her what she would like to learn with instead and she showed me a Sony A7C II on her Facebook news feed.

I'm not going to tell her "no, I don't want to invest in a costly second system so you can learn photography"...but I'm also not ready to leap into a $2000+ camera and a new set of lenses on day 1.  I just want to make sure I get something she can grow with (cameras come and go but a good lens is forever!) and that I can help her with--because I am a Nikon guy stepping onto the border of a Sony world.  If I get frustrated with her camera while she's asking me about how to set it up, she's not going to use it, and that might push her out of a fun hobby.  And I want the fun hobby to be fun for me, too, so I don't want to go out with our cameras and spend my day trying to figure out her menu settings.

What I'm asking for, is advice on a good setup she can learn with, get out of if she doesn't like it, and can grow with if she does.  And if I like it, we might both get into it, my Nikon collection is sentiment and inertia, but I'm not anchored to it.  It can sit on a shelf while I shoot with a Sony.

She will probably be mostly taking pictures of the kids playing and various things around her garden and around the house, maybe some of her friends' events--casual use, similar to my photography (in my case, add "pictures for friends' online stores", some urban and industrial scenes, and events like conventions where I'm an unpaid contributor, not a proper event photographer).

Budget isn't the top consideration, but I'd like to start under 1000 "ish" so we can figure out what she wants/needs, instead of starting her with every lens and feature she could ever think of.  I have that with the Nikons, and sometimes I just take the X100T so I can frame and shoot without having to second-guess whether I should have zoomed in or switched lenses, or missing a shot because I'm fiddling with a setting or a menu...she says a D7100 is complicated so I think the A7C II would be just as overwhelming on day 1. 

I don't care about full-frame, and I'm not sure she knows the difference at the moment anyway.  

I'm looking forward to your advice.  

[Olaf W.]

Welcome to our forum! If you want to stay under 1000$ an APS-C camera kit with a lens might be a cheaper alternative. For example, you can still find the Sony A6000 kit at some stores (at least here in Europe). After getting used to the camera your girlfriend could look for better lenses. In my opinion all cameras or manufacturers, respectively tend to have a complicated handling when not using automatic modes - and even then you find a lot of settings in the setup menus. So since you are used to Nikons you should perhaps take the same brand for your girlfriend so you can more easily consult her.

[Cameratose]

Where are you at? The Sony A7II and kit lens are currently on sale for $998. This happens on a regular basis. Check B&H if you're in the US.  

If FF isn't a big deal then look to the A6400 with kit lens for $850. The 6100 can be had with a 50/1.8 for around $900.

Another idea would be to check KEH, MPB, Used Photo Pro, or one of the other resellers for a great price. All provide a 6-month warranty on good used gear, I have used all three mentioned and have had good experiences.

Having said all of that, Sony gear is no less heavy nor complicated than Nikon, Canon, Fuji, or any other brand provided you leave DSLR and go mirrorless. Nor is APS-C any less complicated. 

Edited September 14 by Cameratose

[FunWithCameras]

6 hours ago, bgreywolf said:

Hello everyone!  I'm Ben, and I've been using Nikons since my grandfather bought his (now my) Nikon F2 a couple years before I was born.  I have a lot of old gear and new(er) gear, and I inherit a lot as my relatives move to new systems (mostly Nikon mirrorless).  Currently I have pared down to F2, D600, and D7100; and a small vault of lenses from the 1960s-current as well as flashes, studio lights, and other gadgets ranging from the 1950s to the present day.

<snip/>

I doubt you were using Nikons a few years before you were born 🙂 but I get the idea.

The idea of starting with an APS-C setup is sound, especially if you want to start with a fairly small investment, but the problem is that a lot of the cheaper options are fairly old kit (Sony keeps a lot of the older gear in their line up and just reduces the price). Even the A7C that your girlfriend pointed to has already been replaced by the A7C II.

At the moment, I think a sensible option might be to go with one of Sony's ZV series cameras. They are marketed as "vlogger" cameras, so they offer video options, but they shoot stills as well. Something like a ZV-E10 might be a decent choice - B&H has a kit with the 16-50mm lens for US$700. The ZV-E10 II was only just announced, which may have pushed the price of the original camera down.

[bgreywolf]

All good thoughts so far!  And thank you for the warm welcome.

Olaf--If it were up to me, I'd get her a used Nikon D3400 to learn on (it's similar in size and weight to the A7C II, and has access to my many lenses), and then let her decide what features are most important to her when she moves to a mirrorless system.  I would know the technical specs and menu options and settings.  As an engineer, it's a great solution.  As a boyfriend, I can tell you it's not gonna work, lol.  The A6000 (or a used a6000-a6400) is probably a good move as long as I can keep learning it a bit faster than she does...

Cameratose--currently, I'm on a ship in the mid-Atlantic.  Home (and girlfriend) are in Maine, USA (which is what you probably meant when you asked, lol).  I've also shopped at KEH, Adorama, B&H, and local used shops with good success.  I think a used a6x00 with a couple lenses is the direction I'm going to steer her toward, and probably a good Sony guide from Amazon (as well as trying to get a good head start on YouTube).

FunWithCameras--Old kit is old kit.  My "new" cameras are a 2012-ish D600 and a 2013-ish D7100.  My lenses date back to the 1960s; I regularly use my AI-converted metal-focus-ring 50mm F/1.4 and 105mm F/2.5 (although I do have modern lenses too).  I don't mind buying her an a6000 or other "old" camera to learn on; we're going to spend more on lenses and accessories that will follow her from camera to camera.  There's a lot of 1980s 105mm F/2.8 AI-S Micro-Nikkors on eBay for $100 still, even though they're old kit.  My 2006-ish $2000 D200 was barely worth $100 in trade when I bought my Fujifilm X100T in 2014.  Lenses are an investment, but cameras are old kit shortly after you read the press release.   The ZV-E10 might be a good compromise for a simpler camera, though, I'll see if it appeals to her more than the a6x00 series.  

 

 

 

[Cameratose]

The A6000 doesn't have IBIS. I would definitely get her one with stabilization.

One other point, Sony E mount will take both their APS-C and FF lenses. If she decided to stick with it and add lenses, she can use FF if she likes, then if she ever decided to go with a FF camera she'd have some lenses to get started. 

[bgreywolf]

54 minutes ago, Cameratose said:

The A6000 doesn't have IBIS. I would definitely get her one with stabilization.

One other point, Sony E mount will take both their APS-C and FF lenses. If she decided to stick with it and add lenses, she can use FF if she likes, then if she ever decided to go with a FF camera she'd have some lenses to get started. 

We seem to have similar ideas here.

I'm not buying until I get ashore (or until I know anything I buy will show up at the house after I do); right now I'm looking at how much camera I can get, then balancing lens options.

When I pack, I usually have a combination:

Fast prime (either wide or tele, depending on the nature of the trip).

If it's a wide prime, I bring a long zoom.

If it's a tele, I bring a wide zoom.

I only use a super zoom (18-300DX or 28-300FX) if I can't swap lenses. They're (comparatively) slow and heavy, so they are only worth hauling around if it means I don't have to carry a bag.

For her, I'm thinking a wide zoom (16-50 OSS seems to be popular?) and a tele (no idea but thinking 80 or 100mm is a good first tele).  Lighter lenses.

If she wants a heavy lens she can use one of my Nikkors.  On the best kind of lens adapter: the original camera.  If she likes the lens, I'll put it on her birthday list.

The first couple lenses for her are going to be APS-C, size and weight were two of the things she didn't like about the Nikons. 

Is there even a reason to move to full frame?  We're not shooting billboard ads.  And I do have the D600 if someone asks me to...

[Pieter]

5 hours ago, Cameratose said:

The A6000 doesn't have IBIS. I would definitely get her one with stabilization.

If your budget is sub $1000, the omission of IBIS is the first thing to compromise on. It's not a neccessity at all and many of the cheaper lenses are stabilized anyway. I would also not consider a ZV camera for stills as it lacks a viewfinder, which to me is a neccessity in many shooting conditions.

Looking at my own situation: my brother has been shooting Nikon (APS-C) DSLRs for decades and when I wanted to get into photography, I found his cameras way too bulky. This is what led me to Sony: I bought an A6000 dual lens kit (16-50 and 55-210) some 10 years ago. I was really happy with the results I got with a camera half the size as my brothers'. The kit lenses are totally fine for anyone new to photography, wanting to learn the basics. And by the time you want to upgrade, you can sell them for about the same as you payed for them in the kit combo. The A6000 served me for about 5 years until I upgraded to one with better AF and IBIS (A6500) but I still have it as a B cam when shooting the occasional event. 10 years later I'd still recommend the A6000 (or A6100) for anyone on a budget who's just starting in photography: it has all the basics and features needed to learn the important stuff, and the image quality is just about the same as a current gen $1500 A6700.

[Cameratose]

8 hours ago, bgreywolf said:

 

Is there even a reason to move to full frame?  We're not shooting billboard ads.  And I do have the D600 if someone asks me to...

Sensor size amongst ILCs is pretty much irrelevant to IQ these days. I have a friend who does in fact shoot billboards and wall size murals for colleges professionally. He uses M-4/3: a Panny G9 and one of the newer OMs. Larger sensors come into play for different reasons, the most popular cited is low light performance. I sometimes need to shoot under poor lighting and still freeze action, which can drive ISO to 16000 or even higher. It's the main reason I switched from M-4/3 to FF with a brief stop at APS-C (A6000) along the way. I still have the A6000. I don't like the camera, but that's due more to form factor than IQ, I've never cared for the rangefinder style body. As long as you purchase lenses that have OSS or make sure she observes the reciprocal rule it'll be fine.   

[bgreywolf]

1 hour ago, Cameratose said:

Sensor size amongst ILCs is pretty much irrelevant to IQ these days. I have a friend who does in fact shoot billboards and wall size murals for colleges professionally. He uses M-4/3: a Panny G9 and one of the newer OMs. Larger sensors come into play for different reasons, the most popular cited is low light performance. I sometimes need to shoot under poor lighting and still freeze action, which can drive ISO to 16000 or even higher. It's the main reason I switched from M-4/3 to FF with a brief stop at APS-C (A6000) along the way. I still have the A6000. I don't like the camera, but that's due more to form factor than IQ, I've never cared for the rangefinder style body. As long as you purchase lenses that have OSS or make sure she observes the reciprocal rule it'll be fine.   

Cameratose, we're definitely thinking alike (the question was rhetorical).  I like that, it means I'm taking a good approach to entering a new system, or at least someone is willing to cheer me on in my madness.

I've been spoiled by the accumulation of the best parts of 50+ years of a long-lived system.  I can reach for my favorite piece of kit in any genre and it may be ancient, but I'm still the weakest link in the system, lol.  It's been a constant battle in my head with, "but what if she wants a...".  I need to remind myself "if she wants a... she can try it out with my Nikon, and we'll get one for her later".  I'll be broke and have useless junk if I try to match 50 years of hoarding between now and Thanksgiving.

Right now I'm seeing a few A6x00 and NEX-x cameras with the 16-50 OSS and 50-210 OSS lenses.  It seems like a popular combination, and OSS in the lens should help if I get a body without IBIS.

If I skip buying her a prime lens for the moment (which is probably my "old gear brain" playing with depth of field and low light--I still mentally use the zone system even though my newer cameras can figure out exposures much faster and better than I can--so it's the sort of thinking I need to be saving for my own photography only), would those two lenses be a good starter?  

Used, those two lenses and some flavor of A6x00 could be around 1000, giving her a gear bag/filters/etc out of my hoard and worrying about other stuff when she decides she needs it.  I'd pick something newer than the A6000 itself, less for IBIS than for the ISO and memory options (the A6300 seems like the sweet spot for those things, though it doesn't have IBIS either).  

 

[Cameratose]

They'd be a good combination for everyday stuff, but I'd still look at a fast prime for indoor use. You don't have to stick with Sony, in fact my only E-Mount primes are Samyang, the 24/1.8, 35/1.4, and 135/1.8. Meike, Viltrox, and a zillion others make lenses for Sony. A little research into the right ones and you can end up with a very nice lens for not much money.

I have gotten away from 50's, I never use them. I prefer 35 for family shots in a living room. Keep in mind the 35mm equivalence with respect to FOV.

[XKAES]

We tend to be interchangeable-lens camera people here, and since you own a Fuji X100T, perhaps you can appreciate my question.  Not everyone needs an interchangeable lens camera.  There are lots of cameras like the X100T with a great FIXED zoom lens -- but with just about all the other bells & whistles built-in -- at substantial savings.  

My take everywhere, do everything digital camera has a FIXED 28-200mm macro zoom with a built-in flash and does 95% of everything my DSLR cameras do -- in a package half the size and weight.

Edited September 15 by XKAES

[bgreywolf]

48 minutes ago, XKAES said:

We tend to be interchangeable-lens camera people here, and since you own a Fuji X100T, perhaps you can appreciate my question.  Not everyone needs an interchangeable lens camera.  There are lots of cameras like the X100T with a great FIXED zoom lens -- but with just about all the other bells & whistles built-in -- at substantial savings.  

My take everywhere, do everything digital camera has a FIXED 28-200mm macro zoom with a built-in flash and does 95% of everything my DSLR cameras do -- in a package half the size and weight.

XKAES, I definitely do appreciate the question.  I had suggested an RX100-series camera for her as a starting point.  

Her brand interest is a loyalty based on non-camera products.  I'm not going to knock that; I've got a number of my own brand-biases of my own.  Nikon is out for her because it's not Sony (though, to be fair, it's also because my representation of the Nikon brand is filled with antiquities and ponderously heavy dSLRs).  If I already had mirrorless gear from Fuji or Nikon, the argument might be different.

In the end, she wants a system, so she can use it and share use of it with her kids (who are big enough to handle a camera with care, but small enough to be burdened by the bulk of a full dSLR -- for now I've gotten them a pair of waterproof Kodak point and shoots).  I should point out that she is also fairly small; even a small dSLR is probably more than she would want to carry regularly.

Since I have nothing to fit her interest, we're going to build a system.  Left to my own devices, I'd be looking at several brands; but Sony is her desire and I've no reason to steer differently.  It's ostensibly for her, but if we're building a system (and I'm learning it to help her learn it) then I have every expectation I'll be using it regularly as well.  It wouldn't make any sense to, say, go on vacation and she's carrying Sony, I'm carrying Nikon, and the eldest daughter is carrying something else entirely...

 

 

[XKAES]

She can have a Sony.  Sony made/makes a ton of small digital cameras with everything packed into small packages.  The main question is does she need / insist on a camera with interchangeable lenses?  That would seem an odd request for anyone who wants to keep things small.  If she can stick with one DO-EVERYTHING lens, Sony has plenty of options -- and well within budget.

Just sayin'.

[bgreywolf]

1 hour ago, XKAES said:

She can have a Sony.  Sony made/makes a ton of small digital cameras with everything packed into small packages.  The main question is does she need / insist on a camera with interchangeable lenses?  That would seem an odd request for anyone who wants to keep things small.  If she can stick with one DO-EVERYTHING lens, Sony has plenty of options -- and well within budget.

Just sayin'.

Unfortunately, "why do you need so much camera stuff" turned into "why she needs so much camera stuff".  I might have won that argument a little too well, lol.  

A friend of mine has offered to loan us a Nikon D5300 (similar to the A7C II in size and has the flippy LCD and live view features she wants).  I've told her we're going to learn the basics of photography and photography systems.  In the meantime, we're putting aside some money and we'll get exactly what she wants, when she knows what that really is.  

Hopefully a friend will surface with a Sony mirrorless of some flavor, to give her an idea of what the Sony offers (and give me a chance to read up on operating the Sony system cameras).

We'll be revisiting this at Christmas; she should have a better understanding of what she likes and a bigger budget to direct at it.

Thanks for the suggestions; I'm sure I'll have more questions in the coming months.

 

[bgreywolf]

On 9/15/2024 at 4:17 PM, Cameratose said:

They'd be a good combination for everyday stuff, but I'd still look at a fast prime for indoor use. You don't have to stick with Sony, in fact my only E-Mount primes are Samyang, the 24/1.8, 35/1.4, and 135/1.8. Meike, Viltrox, and a zillion others make lenses for Sony. A little research into the right ones and you can end up with a very nice lens for not much money.

I have gotten away from 50's, I never use them. I prefer 35 for family shots in a living room. Keep in mind the 35mm equivalence with respect to FOV.

The 50s are a bit long on a compact sensor; but not long enough for the framing of a good 105 or 135 on a FF sensor.  Or maybe I'm just spoiled by the 105 F/2.5.

If I were going to leap into picking lenses for her (aside from the kit lenses) I'd probably look at something in the 28 through 35mm equivalent FOV (18 to 25mm lenses).  I was mostly looking at Sony lenses, now we'll have time to read some reviews instead of trying to rush a purchase.

 

[Pieter]

3 hours ago, bgreywolf said:

A friend of mine has offered to loan us a Nikon D5300 (similar to the A7C II in size and has the flippy LCD and live view features she wants).

We have quite a different definition of 'size' 😅

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Anyhow, if the opportunity is there, it's great she can borrow a camera and see for herself what she wants/needs. I've occasionally lent out my old A6000 to people looking for camera advise: try it and see for yourself what you like/dislike about it. Noone can tell you what you want, you should experience it for yourself. Like this case: while I personally really like the minimalistic rangefinder style bodies, other people are like

On 9/15/2024 at 1:38 PM, Cameratose said:

I still have the A6000. I don't like the camera, but that's due more to form factor than IQ, I've never cared for the rangefinder style body.

[bgreywolf]

Ooops.  I was comparing the A7S II for size.  I need to learn the Sony models and nomenclature--that's why I'm here, right?

I'm going to have to do some scrolling, I can't remember if she said she was interested in an A7C II or an A7S II now.  

Either way, a few weeks with the Nikon and the opportunity to use heaps of different lenses will give her a chance to figure out what interests her (and me a chance to learn which Sony is which!).

1 hour ago, Pieter said:

We have quite a different definition of 'size' 😅

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Anyhow, if the opportunity is there, it's great she can borrow a camera and see for herself what she wants/needs. I've occasionally lent out my old A6000 to people looking for camera advise: try it and see for yourself what you like/dislike about it. Noone can tell you what you want, you should experience it for yourself. Like this case: while I personally really like the minimalistic rangefinder style bodies, other people are like

 

[Pieter]

If she wants a small camera, I'd immagine she's interested in de A7C-line (C for Compact). The A7S-line is very much focussed on nighttime photography (apparently S for Sensitivity), which is a specialized version of the general A7-line and contrary to the A7R-line which focusses on high (R)esolution.

If you want to take benefit of the larger sensor compared to APS-C, inherently you also need to carry larger and more expensive lenses. I expect the APS-C format will therefore be more interesting to her, which in Sony-land brings you to the A6X00-line. You can have similar size and performance with an A7C and smaller aperture lens, but then you'll end up with a more expensive setup.

[bgreywolf]

Pieter, you're right, it was the A7C II that she initially said interested her. But she did also mention the A7S cameras when we were talking about camera systems, so it's not entirely my mistake alone.  Or that's the story I'll go with.

We also agree that APS-C is more appropriate for her actual needs. And mine, mostly. I only have an FF Nikon to let me use my heap of ancient lenses with the composition and framing I've been using for the better part of 50 years. 

Yes, I know that using a dSLR like a film camera is holding me back in many ways; that's also part of the reason I'm willing to buy into a modern system.  I'm not going to dump my old gear, but I'd like to dump my old habits. 

I think an a6300 would be a good starting point for her; I'm hoping to find some a6x00 and a7x cameras in local shops so she can actually hold them before deciding. 

[Cameratose]

15 hours ago, bgreywolf said:

 I need to learn the Sony models and nomenclature--that's why I'm here, right?

It was one of the worst parts of switching over to Sony when I was starting my research. And to make it worse Sony tends to squeeze every drop out of their R&D budgets by leaving older cameras on the market for way too long, at least IMO. Anyway, let me help you along by putting it all in one place:

A7 models with no suffix: Base FF cameras.  

A7 with S suffix: S is for sensitivity. Low (12) MP models for video

A7 with R suffix: R is for resolution. 61MP monsters. 

A7 with c suffix: c is for compact. They have a base and an R model

Any camera model followed by a II, III, IV, etc. denotes iteration. Current models are A7 IV, A7S III, A7R V, A7c II and A7cR.

APS-C are all 6000 series, all rangefinder. There have been past rumors of Sony introducing a 7000 series APS-C that would be a full-feature full-sized body. 

A9: 24MP Speed demon. The original A9 was Sony's flagship until they introduced the:

A1. Still considered the best overall camera on the market. An A1 II has been anticipated for a couple of years.

I won't get into the Z models, there's enough here!

[XKAES]

Maybe it's been mentioned, but going with an e-mount Sony would allow all of your Nikon lenses to be used -- with an adapter, of course, and with some loss of features too.

[bgreywolf]

Cameratose-- Thank you! I wish I'd found that a couple weeks ago. 

 

XKAES-- I've seen the adapters in use on my dad's Nikon Z7, various Fujis, and on YouTube. They're great if you don't have the native lens for your mirrorless, or the camera the lens is native to.  

There's not really a compelling reason for me to be rid of my Nikon bodies and keep the lenses. I got rid of my darkroom gear and freed up a lot of closet space.  Sticking an adapter and a klunky 50+ year old lens on a brand new camera seems like something that will frustrate me because I didn't need to adapt it, and her because she wants a new system to avoid the extra thought that goes into "with this lens, the camera will do everything, but with that lens you have to stop down to meter, and that other lens won't mount correctly because it doesn't have the AI notch, and..."

For me, it's something I grew up with, like mounting a pre-AI lens and aligning the coupling at F/5.6 and turning the aperture ring end to end.  But now I'm just rambling, so I'll Nikon shuffle off to work. 

30 minutes ago, XKAES said:

Maybe it's been mentioned, but going with an e-mount Sony would allow all of your Nikon lenses to be used -- with an adapter, of course, and with some loss of features too.

 

[Cameratose]

1 hour ago, bgreywolf said:

Cameratose-- Thank you! I wish I'd found that a couple weeks ago. 

 

XKAES-- I've seen the adapters in use on my dad's Nikon Z7, various Fujis, and on YouTube. They're great if you don't have the native lens for your mirrorless, or the camera the lens is native to.  

There's not really a compelling reason for me to be rid of my Nikon bodies and keep the lenses. I got rid of my darkroom gear and freed up a lot of closet space.  Sticking an adapter and a klunky 50+ year old lens on a brand new camera seems like something that will frustrate me because I didn't need to adapt it, and her because she wants a new system to avoid the extra thought that goes into "with this lens, the camera will do everything, but with that lens you have to stop down to meter, and that other lens won't mount correctly because it doesn't have the AI notch, and..."

For me, it's something I grew up with, like mounting a pre-AI lens and aligning the coupling at F/5.6 and turning the aperture ring end to end.  But now I'm just rambling, so I'll Nikon shuffle off to work. 

 

You're welcome.

Re legacy glass: Many of us like to shoot our old lenses just because. I have a ton of legacy glass, from old M-42 mount through Minolta MC/MD, Pentax, etc. I have my dad's Minolta MC 58/1.2, a lens that still commands $500 on the used market. Manual adapters can be had for $25-30 and most, like Fotodiox, work perfectly well with manual lenses. For the money, it can be a fun exercise. Or maybe you have a macro lens for your Nikon, but you don't shoot enough macro to warrant heading to the store with a $1,000 bill to get an E-Mount. Problem solved. I know guys who shoot only legacy glass on mirrorless.  

[bgreywolf]

30 minutes ago, Cameratose said:

You're welcome.

Re legacy glass: Many of us like to shoot our old lenses just because. I have a ton of legacy glass, from old M-42 mount through Minolta MC/MD, Pentax, etc. I have my dad's Minolta MC 58/1.2, a lens that still commands $500 on the used market. Manual adapters can be had for $25-30 and most, like Fotodiox, work perfectly well with manual lenses. For the money, it can be a fun exercise. Or maybe you have a macro lens for your Nikon, but you don't shoot enough macro to warrant heading to the store with a $1,000 bill to get an E-Mount. Problem solved. I know guys who shoot only legacy glass on mirrorless.  

I'm not saying adapters are bad, per se.  I'm just saying, in my specific case, I'm in the lucky position of being able to keep a complete system for the old gear (two systems, if you count film and digital separately), and buy into a new system without needing to pinch too many pennies or free up any space.  

I got a lot of Nikon lenses from relatives who bought Z-series Nikon mirrorless, used the adapters, and then decided the native lens made more sense to them.  Maybe if the D610 dies I'd replace it with an adapter, but there's no reason to expect that.

I did just chuckle at the thought of adapting a reversed 55mm F/3.5 Micro-Nikkor and extension bellows to a mirrorless camera.