Jump to content

A7S ii or Canon 7D for Photography.


Recommended Posts

So I recently picked up my new A7s II after using a Canon 7D for the past few years. I mostly shoot video (Ads, Music Vids and everything else) but I also do photography from time to time, mainly wedding and event photography. I have also purchased a Ef to E mount adapter to use a couple of canon ef mounted lenses I've bought in the past few years. The problem with using a cheap adapter is mainly that the auto focus sucks. So my question is, should I use my A7S II for both photo and video work and start buying more E mount lenses (for the auto focus) or should I just stick to my Canon 7D for my Photography work?

 

I personally like the 7D's ease of use when it comes to photography as I'm so used to it by now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jaf-Photo

In all fairness, the 7D is past its retirement age from a technical view point. It was a worthy camera at its time but digital photography has progressed by two or three generations since.

 

Switching camera brands is never seamless. It involves learning new ways of doing things. The A7SII has a lot more potential but you have to unlock it by adapting your shooting habits to its features.

 

Shooting with adapted Canon lensed will forever cripple the potential of your Sony camera. So you should consider getting native lenses for the shots where camera and lens performance matter the most.

 

Alternatively, you could stay with Canon and choose to upgrade the camera body instead. It all depends on how much time and money you are willing to invest.

 

I would advice against using two brands at the same time as it will mess up your workflow. It certainly did for me when I was a dual Canon/Sony user. For that same reason, I've been resisting buying into Fuji. I like what Fuji are doing but their system is like chalk to Sony's cheese.

 

As you know, having an efficient workflow is very important in event and wedding photography.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Posts

    • Hello ! A friend gave me an old Sony SLT A65 that was locked in a suitcase for some years and guess what... It was pretty dirty. The translucent mirror looks strange. I know it's a pellicle mirror, but something is really weird , at least to me who never saw this entity before. It shows a rainbow pattern when lit, like a diffraction grid. And when I point the camera to a strong light source, let´s say streets lights or car lights, a huge halo and a diffuse pattern appears, almost like one of that photographic filters from the '70s. I guess the mirror is damaged. Does enyone have any experience with this ? I managed to remove the mirror and carefully rinse it with water and detergent solution , rinse again and dry, but the rainbow patter persists. My question is basically about the translucent mirror behavior with strong highlights and if the rainbow pattern on its surface is normal.   Thanks!  
    • Sounds like you need a manual, and you are correct different settings can affect what you can do in the drive more.  Did you simple press the DRIVE button and select the THREE rectangles? There are several "burst" modes -- that you set with the Fn button or DRIVE button.  One takes several photos, when you press the button once (CONTINUOUS).  Another requires you to press the shutter button each time (SINGLE).  When you press the DRIVE button, what icon shows up -- a single rectangle or three?
    • If the 18-105 is too bulky, then so is the Tamron 17-70. Quality wise however, definately pick the Tamron over the Sony Zeiss 16-70, which is a compromised and dated design and similar in quality to the 18-105. I was in the same boat as you for a while (also had the 16-50 kit lens and 18-105 f/4), and went with the Sony 16-55 F/2.8 G. Happy with the choice as it's more compact than the Tamron 17-70 and vastly better quality than the Zony 16-70. In your case however, the omission of stabilized optics might be a dealbreaker. Did you consider the tiny but decent Sigma 18-50 f/2.8?
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...