jamin-b
Well-known
While I have gotten deeper into film photography, I do find myself considering purchasing a new digital camera, Typically i have not spent more than about $800 for a camera body, with the one exception being a Leica M8 a number of years ago, that is still in fine working condition. I also have a Nex 7 I bought second hand which also works fine and that I use exclusively with LTM and Pen F lenses. I also have a nice collection of M42, Pentax K, Pen F, LTM and M mount lenses in different focal lengths. I also have a FM3A, which is a favorite, and a nice set of legacy lenses. All of the lenses are from the manual focus era, and i generally favor compact size over superfast glass.
The reason for buying a new camera would be to benefit from full frame and my frustration using the two digital cameras in low light situations. The M8 is realistically limited to ISO 640 (800) and the Nex7 to 1600. This would be a leap in price for me and part of me thinks that buying into a digital machine at going prices is an investment in obsolescence and will end suddenly with electronic failure.
My head tells me that the Sony A7S is the more verastile choice, but sopmehow I keep finding myself attracted to the Nikon DF - for both color and low light performance and possibly for like-film camera feel (but I've nver used a DSLR).
I can picture myself travelling with the DF and FM3A and a 2-3 lenses and being happy, but by the same token I could do that with the A7S and a Leica M body (and indeed do that already with the Nex7 or M8 and a Leica M body with an LTM-M adaptor).
So what do you folks think? Is it wrong to get locked into a Nikon-only system, or is the extra versatility of the Sony worth it? Or should I just resist the siren song, save my dough and be happy with what I got?!
The reason for buying a new camera would be to benefit from full frame and my frustration using the two digital cameras in low light situations. The M8 is realistically limited to ISO 640 (800) and the Nex7 to 1600. This would be a leap in price for me and part of me thinks that buying into a digital machine at going prices is an investment in obsolescence and will end suddenly with electronic failure.
My head tells me that the Sony A7S is the more verastile choice, but sopmehow I keep finding myself attracted to the Nikon DF - for both color and low light performance and possibly for like-film camera feel (but I've nver used a DSLR).
I can picture myself travelling with the DF and FM3A and a 2-3 lenses and being happy, but by the same token I could do that with the A7S and a Leica M body (and indeed do that already with the Nex7 or M8 and a Leica M body with an LTM-M adaptor).
So what do you folks think? Is it wrong to get locked into a Nikon-only system, or is the extra versatility of the Sony worth it? Or should I just resist the siren song, save my dough and be happy with what I got?!
Larry H-L
Well-known
I went for the Sony, even though I own several Nikon dSLRs.
The A7s is smaller, thinner, accepts just about any lens, and does video really well, sporting both a headphone and microphone jack.
Low light performance is amazing, silent electronic shutter available. The EVF is very good, very little lag.
Operation involves more buttons and menus than the DF's many knobs and dials, but once set up, it is fine.
The DF has more megapixels if you print large, and has a real mirror if that is important to you in veiwing.
The A7s is smaller, thinner, accepts just about any lens, and does video really well, sporting both a headphone and microphone jack.
Low light performance is amazing, silent electronic shutter available. The EVF is very good, very little lag.
Operation involves more buttons and menus than the DF's many knobs and dials, but once set up, it is fine.
The DF has more megapixels if you print large, and has a real mirror if that is important to you in veiwing.
mcfingon
Western Australia
I own an A7S, and also a Nikon D3300. One advantage of the A7 series over the DSLR's is the ability to try just about any lens with an adapter (I have ten adapters). Multiply your fun! This is a 50/1.4 AF Minolta shot at f1.4 on the A7S.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
I have a tendency to fall in love with the way a particular lens renders. And over the last forty some odd years I've had the opportunity to use many different ones. Once I fall in love with a lens, I want to be able to use it with film and digital. If you have a couple/three Nikon lenses who's rendering you love, I'd go with the FM3A and the Df.
While the A7s can arguably use a wider variety of lenses than the Df can, why are you into photography, to make images or to experiment with lenses. I'm in it for the "making images" part.
While the A7s can arguably use a wider variety of lenses than the Df can, why are you into photography, to make images or to experiment with lenses. I'm in it for the "making images" part.
Exactly...
ianstamatic
Well-known
i think the A7S would be much better in low light the DF.
Also the colors from the 12mp sensor are beautiful.
Plus being able to use just about any lens for 35mm is a huge plus.
DF while retro design has a certain plastic quality when you compare it to a real film nikon.
Also the colors from the 12mp sensor are beautiful.
Plus being able to use just about any lens for 35mm is a huge plus.
DF while retro design has a certain plastic quality when you compare it to a real film nikon.
Kent
Finally at home...
Well, the A7s ist not "much" better in low light, but a "bit" better than the Df.
Ask yourself the following questions:
Do you own some nice old Nikkor lenses? -> Go for the Df. It's just a perfect match!
Do you want a camera as small as possible? -> Go for the A7s.
Do you need to shoot at ISO 104000? -> Go for the A7s.
Do you prefer the handling of an SLR over the one of a playstation? -> Go for the Df. (OK, that was a bit nasty, but you can shoot with the Df for a whole day without ever looking into the menu. Try that with a Sony!)
Do you want to adapt as many different old lenses as possible? -> Go for the A7s.
Do you prefer style to ugliness? -> Go for the Df.
You want everything? You need to buy both cams then.
Ask yourself the following questions:
Do you own some nice old Nikkor lenses? -> Go for the Df. It's just a perfect match!
Do you want a camera as small as possible? -> Go for the A7s.
Do you need to shoot at ISO 104000? -> Go for the A7s.
Do you prefer the handling of an SLR over the one of a playstation? -> Go for the Df. (OK, that was a bit nasty, but you can shoot with the Df for a whole day without ever looking into the menu. Try that with a Sony!)
Do you want to adapt as many different old lenses as possible? -> Go for the A7s.
Do you prefer style to ugliness? -> Go for the Df.
You want everything? You need to buy both cams then.
And the Df doesn't have great colors? I've never heard anyone complain about the D4 sensor...
css9450
Veteran
Ask yourself the following questions:
Do you own some nice old Nikkor lenses? -> Go for the Df. It's just a perfect match!
Do you want a camera as small as possible? -> Go for the A7s.
Do you need to shoot at ISO 104000? -> Go for the A7s.
Do you prefer the handling of an SLR over the one of a playstation? -> Go for the Df. (OK, that was a bit nasty, but you can shoot with the Df for a whole day without ever looking into the menu. Try that with a Sony!)
Do you want to adapt as many different old lenses as possible? -> Go for the A7s.
Do you prefer style to ugliness? -> Go for the Df.
Do you desire a closer relationship to your camera's battery charger? Get the A7s.
GaryLH
Veteran
LOL
Nothing beats the Sigma DP Merrill's in that regard --> average of around 80 shots per fully charged battery. Just think of it as a double roll of 36 exposure film per battery. Just like the old days
. But I love the results I get for those quirky Sigma cameras.
Gary
GaryLH
Veteran
Well, the A7s ist not "much" better in low light, but a "bit" better than the Df.
Ask yourself the following questions:
Do you own some nice old Nikkor lenses? -> Go for the Df. It's just a perfect match!
Do you want a camera as small as possible? -> Go for the A7s.
Do you need to shoot at ISO 104000? -> Go for the A7s.
Do you prefer the handling of an SLR over the one of a playstation? -> Go for the Df. (OK, that was a bit nasty, but you can shoot with the Df for a whole day without ever looking into the menu. Try that with a Sony!)
Do you want to adapt as many different old lenses as possible? -> Go for the A7s.
Do you prefer style to ugliness? -> Go for the Df.
You want everything? You need to buy both cams then.
Video appears to go to the a7s as well.
Compressed losses raw favors the Nikon unless u go for the Nikon..
Af speed would favor the Nikon.
Gary
Contarama
Well-known
You have to ask yourself if you are going to use Nikkors or something else.