Why I picked the a7

[cosmonaut]

At first glance I thought I would pass the new full frame camera from Sony. Then I read that Sony would wait until 2015 to upgrade the a99. As they want more R&D time to really put up some competition against Nikon and Canon.
So after reading reviews and watching videos I chose the a7 based on that. But here's my take. The a7 focuses slightly better than the a7R due to dual focus technology also being lower res the high ISO is just ever so slightly better. Slightly better FPS. Plus from using the D800 I can say first hand resolution will suffer unless you really put some nice glass in front of it. My guess Legacy lenses are going to suffer more on the a7R. Plus if you get the a7R you best get a Zeiss lens. I suspect this may be why the a7R is not being sold with the kit lens.
My problem has been my hiking trips. Hiking where I want to go is not walking friendly and the a99 and two lenses in a backpack can get quite heavy after an hour or two. Hopefully in time I will have a nice travel, hiking system.
Last files from the D800 will slow my computer to a crawl since I shoot lots of panos. I think 36mpix is overkill for most stuff I do.
My advise if you have ordered an a7R buy Zeiss and get on heck of a good computer.
I am going to Dallas in two weeks. I only wish there was a way it would get here quicker.

 

[Dirk]

Interesting thoughts here. I am thinking of ditching my Canon 6D as soon as the A7R comes out. But maybe the A7 would be a better option. I am a relative newbie to digital, so can't wait to see others' input.

 

[Dirk]

What important specs for a new computer are we talking about? And how much would such a A7R-ready computer cost?

 

[thompsonks]

The larger sensor doesn't require a new computer – you can speed things up considerably just by changing to a solid-state drive. My scans are all 250MB before I add any layers, and I don't anticipate FF sensors getting quite that large!

 

[redisburning]

1000 dollars buys you a computer that can easily handle 36mp files

I mean then you are going to want to spend money on a proper monitor and tablet so IMO you should budget around 2000 for everything also including mouse, keyboard, audio, etc.

 

[Addy101]

Bigger files just means you need more internal memory, so, that won't be too expensive. Also, people said the same about the 24mpx cameras we had before the D800, however I never had a problem with my A900.

Back on topic. I agree with your reasoning, to me, the A7 probably is more useful then the A7R.

 

[f16sunshine]

Cosmo

If you are a landscaper and into Panos I would reconsider and choose a7r.
The camera is made for such work. Little tiny details will be much better rendered.
I stitch panos as well. I went through this same choice process shooting large Panos in Montana last summer for work. With more resolving power the shorter lens FL you can use for a particular scene and the fewer images required to stitch.
The overall package becomes much more compact even if the individual files are larger.

The equation is like this imo:

Individual File size vs Multiple files to make up the final image.

If you shoot a pano scene with 6 shots across using a 90mm to get better detail on a 24mp camera.
or 3 or 4 shots using a 50mm lens for the same scene with a 36mp camera with no AA filter.

The file management will be easier with the 36mp images plus the lack of AA will give sharper pixel level rendering.

Just upgrade your ram a bit in your computer to handle batch editing. An SSD will also help.
Soon enough we will all need to upgrade computers anyway. I suggest go for the best rendering sensor you can get your wallet around for landscapes 🙂

Cheers!

 

[thompsonks]

Leaving computer issues aside, IMO A7/A7r advantages/disadvantages will depend heavily on their different autofocus systems and speeds, and we just don't know about this. So far, mirrorless cameras haven't been 'good at' street/action photography, except when zone-focused. Will the A7's dual autofocus system overcome this? Will it be much faster or more accurate than the A7r?

I think I'll go take some pictures, instead of waiting breathlessly to find out.

 

[lam]

I'm choosing (haven't purchased it yet 😛 ) the A7/R because I liked the NEX-7 when it initially came out, I bought the 24/1.8 Sonnar and fell in love with it's absolute sharpness and compact size. Only downside was the cost and it was crop sensor, and the EVF wasn't to my liking. I then owned an RX100 and found the IQ again amazing and ergo just right, compact, I actually didn't *Hate* the menu systems and buttons which seems to be the normal for everyone.

After handling the A99 in use and RX1 (currently own) I think the A7/R is exactly what i've been wanting. A full frame interchangeable camera about the approx. size of a classic film SLR with no compromise of full-frame. Sounds like a winner to me, i've already slated all my digital gear and most of my non-use film gear for this camera.

BTW i'm using Macbook Air 2011 and have yet to run any issues with 'file size' and blah blah, Even with D800 files. I regularly use it to batch images from full size 24mp RAW files. I love solid state drives!

 

[doolittle]

For legacy lenses the A7 lack of micro lenses might be a disadvantage compared to the A7r. I am not in the market for either, but if I was I would wait and see how well they both cope in real life.

 

[noimmunity]

Sheesh, I'm running a 2009 15" MB Pro using the 'ginormous' output from the Sigma DP Merrill cameras, and I don't have a problem.

If landscape is your big thing, have a look (again?) at the Sigma DP Merrills. With the DP2M alone stitching is no problem. To my eyes the Foveon Merrills with well-matched lens (such as we find on the DPM series) have a rendering that is better suited (sorry, more "delicious") to landscape than most combos I've seen using the D800E. The only thing that really gives the DP Merrills trouble are cloudscapes, rather than landscapes.

Anyway, I don't know why I'm trying to post this here. I think the A7 will do you really fine, perhaps ultimately better in a lot of ways than what I've suggested.

 

[cosmonaut]

Thanks everyone. I have used the RX1 and find it to have amazing dynamic range and detail. I assume the a7 will have the same sensor or one slightly better. So the image quality should be amazing I would think. I still want to try the a7 before I think about the 7R. God bless Nikon shooters if someone else tops the DXO charts. It might start a Civil War or something, they are a proud bunch.
As far as the computer it isn't a storage issue I am sure it's ram+ processor speed. My computer isn't cheap. Still not the best. Uploading pictures from the D800 can be painfully slow and after a few minutes of processing files I almost have to reboot. If I was a fashion or sports shooter the D800 wouldn't be my camera of choice.
I also realize that in five years a 36 mpix file might be more the norm than not and computers are only going to get faster and I may be laughing about a 36mpix file in five years.

 

[rbelyell]

Leaving computer issues aside, IMO A7/A7r advantages/disadvantages will depend heavily on their different autofocus systems and speeds, and we just don't know about this. So far, mirrorless cameras haven't been 'good at' street/action photography, except when zone-focused. Will the A7's dual autofocus system overcome this? Will it be much faster or more accurate than the A7r?

I think I'll go take some pictures, instead of waiting breathlessly to find out.

actually, beyond a few very basic facts, we dont know anything about how these two cameras will operate independently or comparatively. we know only the R has more mp, different AF, no AA, and is supposedly optimized for legacy glass. making any multithousand $ determination, or drawing any significant conclusions based on those facts seems way premature. it is just as likely as not that conclusions drawn today will as likely be 100% wrong as right.

 

[GaryLH]

Bigger files just means you need more internal memory, so, that won't be too expensive. Also, people said the same about the 24mpx cameras we had before the D800, however I never had a problem with my A900.

Back on topic. I agree with your reasoning, to me, the A7 probably is more useful then the A7R.

Yep. Get the most memory u can afford. I use 16gb on my iMac (3.6ghz dual core i5) and I am processing 45-48mb files from the sigma foveon based cameras w/o problems. Raw to tiff16 conversted files are over 80mb on average. The files from the a7r should e smaller than that.

Next biggest bang for the buck is solid state drive.

Gary

 

[YYV_146]

"Usable" is a flexible term...are you talking about single-file light editing, or HDR/panorama creation and various third-party filter options? Most middle-end laptops these days can do light work on 36mp files without much lag. But if you want to run through files on Color EFEX without compromising workflow speed, you're looking at entry-level workstations.

I'm skipping these bodies and waiting for what Sony has to offer next. Either a speed machine with D4-level high iso performance or something with IBIS would be very interesting, maybe that'll have the A9 name 😀

 

[Range-rover]

I saw the 7 today at Photoexpo in New York, seems to be a great camera, they even had
a M adapter and a guy was trying his M lens on it looks promising.

Range

 

[GaryLH]

"Usable" is a flexible term...are you talking about single-file light editing, or HDR/panorama creation and various third-party filter options? Most middle-end laptops these days can do light work on 36mp files without much lag. But if you want to run through files on Color EFEX without compromising workflow speed, you're looking at entry-level workstations.

I'm skipping these bodies and waiting for what Sony has to offer next. Either a speed machine with D4-level high iso performance or something with IBIS would be very interesting, maybe that'll have the A9 name 😀

If u are a photoshop user.. It is the number of layers that is going to eat u alive. I think the pano photo merge uses multiple layers somewhere along the way for example. In the past, the more RAM u have the better, it will prevent the program from using your HD drive as temp paging area. This is why if u do nothing about RAM and switch to solid state HD, u still get a performance increase.. This can attributed to that temp storage requirement and the size of the write to disk operation.

SSD will give u better per file read and write speed that far exceeds your normal HD. Having both (ssd and more RAM) will give u a speed demon 😀

Gary