Is the original A7 a smart buy?

[nebulight]

I'm interested in Landscape photography and currently use an A6000. I've come across a pretty decent deal for an A7 body and I'm thinking about picking it up as I don't really need a IBIS since I shoot on a tripod all of the time so obviously speedy AF isn't a big deal. Only negative I've found online is the sensor reflection issue? Is that a major concern or was that a manufacturing defect on only a handful of bodies? Thanks.

[Gilgenberg]

i had the A7 and if you work with tripod it is a big step forward from APS-C IMOH, sensor is more crisp and sharp

 

but you need FF lenses, sometimes FF lenses on APS-C Body brings better results for landscape photography because you use only the best part from the lens or you go with Zeiss lenses 

 

so using FF lenses on your APS-C Body will bring also better results, if you reduce the reflections in the light pass with a baffle or velour foil or anti refection color in the adapter

 

sensor reflection issue on A7 has to do with reflections from lens and adapter in the light pass,

i could reduce reflections in the light pass with velour foil or better with color for blackboard very successfully 

 

i use Medium Format manual focus lenses (Mamiya 645)  on FF Body for landscape but also reflections has to be treated !

otherwise the reflections destroy the lens and sensor advantage

 

so the refection don´t come from the sensor itself, they come from the side walls in the light pass from adapter/lens and radiate to the sensor 

 

using native FF lenses on A7 or native APS-C lenses on 6000 are the best options because they are optimized in this regard

 

so with A7 body the FE35mm 2.8 or FE28mm  2.0 is a good option for landscape photography if you need wider the best lens is the awesome Zeiss Loxia 21mm   

 

also Olympus OM 24mm 2.8 is very good on FF Body and much cheaper than the native lenses but as the loxia, manual focus only

 

again the sony A7 sensor is very good and with a optimized lens/adapter it will bring better result as the APS-C sensor

[Username]

I'm interested in Landscape photography and currently use an A6000.

I've come across a pretty decent deal for an A7 body and I'm thinking

about picking it up as I don't really need a IBIS since I shoot on a tripod

all of the time so obviously speedy AF isn't a big deal. Only negative

I've found online is the sensor reflection issue? Is that a major concern

or was that a manufacturing defect on only a handful of bodies? Thanks.

    

   

The body will be a good buy when it drops to about $800, and 

even then it's only a good buy if you have a bunch of FF glass  

on hand left over from the Pleistocene. Otherwise, your "good 

buy" on the body will then cost you extra when you acquire FF 

glass instead of APSC glass, IOW total bottom line winds up a 

not-so-good buy even if the body price were cut by half :-(    

    

I'll not delve into whether FF offers truly superior IQ. Enuf has 

already been written and videoed about that. Find the reviews 

that agree with and reinforce your existing opinions. fantasies,

desires, etc etc, and then proceed accordingly ;-)  

[benmao]

I'm interested in Landscape photography and currently use an A6000. I've come across a pretty decent deal for an A7 body and I'm thinking about picking it up as I don't really need a IBIS since I shoot on a tripod all of the time so obviously speedy AF isn't a big deal. Only negative I've found online is the sensor reflection issue? Is that a major concern or was that a manufacturing defect on only a handful of bodies? Thanks.

I would not expect too much quality difference between A6000 and A7. Which Lense are you using on the A6000?

However, I must admit that I use the A7 most time now which I bought one year ago. I have still an A6000.

 

Here are some of my pictures, made with A7, A6000 and NEX3N.

I think that you will not recognize which camera was used.

 

https://500px.com/ernstmurnleitner

[nebulight]

My dilemma with the a6000 is that the good glass for APS-C is pricey and it's still APS-C (not a bad thing). However if I ever want to make the jump to FF, then I'd have to sell and buy all new glass. Going wide is the problem with APS-C as buying FF glass won't get me ultra wide.

[dierk]

My dilemma with the a6000 is that the good glass for APS-C is pricey and it's still APS-C (not a bad thing). However if I ever want to make the jump to FF, then I'd have to sell and buy all new glass. Going wide is the problem with APS-C as buying FF glass won't get me ultra wide.

if you shoot landscapes, do you shoot stitched images?

Most of my landscapes are stitched and go up to 100+ MP of the final image.

You could buy a good prime like 28mm or 35mm and shoot in portrait mode. Old lenses with any mount with adapter will be very good IQ for your $. For landscape you don't need AF and automatic aperture.

[Username]

My dilemma with the a6000 is that the good glass for APS-C is pricey

and it's still APS-C (not a bad thing). However if I ever want to make

the jump to FF, then I'd have to sell and buy all new glass. Going wide 

is the problem with APS-C as buying FF glass won't get me ultra wide.

     

"if I ever want to make the jump to FF, then I'd have to sell and buy all new"  

  

Thaz ridiculous. I don't recall anyone, not ONE, selling their rollfilm gear cuz 

they added a 4x5. Likewise, nobody sold their 35mm gear cuz they bought a 

rollfilm outfit. 

   

Your APSC outfit is not going to suddenly render less IQ just cuz you get a 

FF outfit. If the IQ is already no good, get rid of it. If it renders well, keep it. If 

you have a legitimate need for a larger sensor, then that is a separate issue 

and has nothing to do with your APSC outfit.   

   

OTOH, if you're going to FF for a minor increase in IQ, and can't see keeping 

two outfits that render extremely similar IQ, then it's foolish to consider a FF 

outfit in the first place. The size and cost of FF should not attract you if the IQ 

of both systems is close enuf that keeping both systems is a redundancy in 

terms of IQ. Small differences don't matter. Also, next year's APSC is always 

equal to last year's FF. 

    

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

   

    

Thaz my experience. I use both sizes. The APSC is my Go-To but I have a 

huge collection of ancient FF lenses so I bought one used FF body with IBIS 

cuz the old lenses lack IS. I didn't buy ANY new glass for it. It's just a body to 

use with my old lenses. 

   

Now mebbe you suspect that Olde Glasse is the reason my FF doesn't have 

any great IQ advantage over my APSC. Well, I sometimes put the ancient FF 

glass on the crop bodies. Mebbe the cropping-off of the outer regions of the 

image circle is the what renders such fine IQ from the crop bodies. OK then, 

you need to know that the only modern glass I have for the crop bodies is the 

kit lenses. Etc etc etc. There's plenty of variables if you wanna make your 

head hurt :-) But all it really takes to compare FF to APSC is to shoot a bunch 

of stuff at around f/8.0 cuz all lenses are better than you need them to be at 

about f/8.0. It's the Great Equalizer. 

    

I also happen to have some Canons and have the two verrrry fine pancakes 

for both formats, the 24 and 40mm, both f/2.8. Put each on its respective body 

and you have a near perfect comparison narrowed down to just sensor size. 

The FF body is "more advanced" but the IQ between the formats is extremely 

close. If your pix are inneressing to look at, no one will notice the difference. 

   

If your pix are NOT inneressing, then by all means, skip right over FF and get

a Hasselblad to maximize your format-based IQ advantage. Be sure to print 

40" wide, so your [bored] audience can appreciate the [slightly] superior IQ. 

[Gilgenberg]

aps-c glass is not expensive

 

one of the best lenses i own is the SEL 50mm 1.8 OSS...it is a bargain

 

in the 35mm range the sigma 30mm 1.4 is awesome and cheap also a bargain

 

there are some very nice manual focus wide angle lenses out there (you don´t need AF for ultra wide)

 

to sum it up for my experience with booth systems:

 

if you want shoot manual focus lenses and legacy glass go for FF

 

if you want AF and small high performance equipment go for APS-C

 

yes there is a small and subtile advantage in IQ for FF but the shooting experience is much more important, and if i´m honest you don´t see the difference  in the end 

 

post editing and composing brings much much more IQ than FF or APS-C

 

i think APS-C sensors will also improve in the future so there is no need to change the system later if you decided to one

[foobar]

From the reviews I have read, if you shoot mainly on a tripod, the first generation a7 will provide better image quality than a7II. With IBIS, a7II does not dissipate heat as effectively as a7, resulting in a lower dynamic range and more noise in long exposure.

[dierk]

you will find a series made with the Sony 16-35mm Vario-Tessar T FE f/4 here in my flickr album, some in full resolution with the A7R

and a full comparison with 21mm primes here at 3D-KRAFT

and some architecture and landscapes with the NEX with SEL 10-18mm OSS in this album  this is as wide as you can get with APS-C

[Dollanganger]

It really depends how much you're prepared to spend and what your priorities are.

 

I do a lot of real estate photography, both interior and exterior. My goal was to go as wide as possible so I got an 8-16mm lens for an APSC camera. Like you I use a tripod so I can set the ISO as low as I want and drag out the shutter speed as low as I want. (I'd consider getting a wireless remote a pushing the button with your finger for a long exposure will shake the camera.

 

To go as wide on a full frame I'd have to get a 12mm full frame lens which are VERY expensive!!! Yes it would be higher quality.

 

High quality glass + a full frame lens + wide angle + a full frame SLR will be very expensive.

 

Your a6000 + wide angle lens + tripod should be more than enough to give you amazing pro quality photos.