Sony A7R II for € 1499

Nabuc

New to TalkEmount
Joined
Nov 25, 2014
Messages
3
Location
Kortrijk, Belgium
Real Name
Toon Vandamme
Same prices in Belgium, and 799 for A7. (Body). I have a little collection of Contax lenses with Novoflex adapter. Tried them on A6000 and was not impressed. Now i hesitate for A7. Would result be much better? Thanks in advance.
 

christilou

TalkEmount All-Pro
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
1,406
Location
Surrey, UK
Real Name
Christina
Same prices in Belgium, and 799 for A7. (Body). I have a little collection of Contax lenses with Novoflex adapter. Tried them on A6000 and was not impressed. Now i hesitate for A7. Would result be much better? Thanks in advance.

What did you not like about them on the A6000? I have a 45mm and 90mm Contax G used with a manual adapter on the A7R series and have found them to be very good.
 

Nabuc

New to TalkEmount
Joined
Nov 25, 2014
Messages
3
Location
Kortrijk, Belgium
Real Name
Toon Vandamme
It has also to do with the crop factor. I own Contax 25 2.8 which was excellent for landscapes on film camera, but becomes 37 mm on apsc. Besides I also have Contax 50 1.8 mm and sel 50 1.8 mm. I do not see any difference on a6000. I see you have both a7 and a6000. Which one do you prefer for Contax lenses?
 

bdbits

TalkEmount Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 10, 2015
Messages
2,195
Real Name
Bob
The conventional wisdom says vintage lenses look better on APS-C because you are only capturing the center portion (i.e. the crop factor as mentioned), which is usually the best part of the lens image circle. The other side of the coin would be that on full-frame you will see the entirety of the image as was intended by the lens maker.

If you like mostly landscapes or gravitate to wide angles, the crop factor obviously does not work in your favor. This also has some effect on aperture and depth of field, which are arguably better on full-frame. Its not at all saying that you cannot get good landscapes out of APS-C, you certainly can, but you may need to alter expectations from the lenses versus how they would be on a different body. For such scenarios, I think you would be more satisfied on full-frame.
 

Nabuc

New to TalkEmount
Joined
Nov 25, 2014
Messages
3
Location
Kortrijk, Belgium
Real Name
Toon Vandamme
Thanks a lot for the clear explantation. I think I will give the A7 a try. It sells at 799 inclusive kitlens in Belgium. Www.artencraft.be. 769 without kitlens. Is the A7R mark II at 1499 worth the extra price to your opinion?
 

bdbits

TalkEmount Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 10, 2015
Messages
2,195
Real Name
Bob
When comparing Sony bodies, always make sure you understand which generation (original, ii, iii) you are looking at. From your prices you are comparing original A7 to a mark ii body, in which case the ii wins to me. If you are using legacy glass, the IBIS is a big benefit, but there were other improvements as well. If you have the budget, I would at least go A7ii for 969 over the A7 original.

The primary differentiator between A7 and A7R bodies is resolution. Landscapes do benefit from increased resolution, and it is also handy for cropped image quality. That's a big jump in price, though, so I think you have to decide if it is worth it (24 vs 42 MP) to you.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
TalkEmount is a fan site and not associated with Sony Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2011-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom