Getting back into it: camera advice

[Gert Agripassion]

Situation sketch:

 

Back in the day my dad used to have a Minolta 9000. On a day it broke and wasn’t fixed because of the upcoming digital cameras. It was put away and kind of forgotten about. Now after all these years we would like to buy a new descent body  and be able to reuse all these lenses.

What are we looking for:

-Camera need to be able to accept the lenses(coming for minolta 9000) we already have (so it will probably only be sony).

-What will it be used for: amateur/hobby photographing and if possible some video capabilities would be nice(used for hobby youtube channel).

-the body need to be aluminium.

-Price isn’t a direct concern.

 

 

I know this is a very wide description, but we you only just starting to get back into this whole market and would like to get some early advice. Because at the moment we are just drowning in information that we don’t know what to do whit. I would like you to give me an advice on a camera or even some different scenarios and what the advantages/disadvantages are of them.

 

 

[19_blackie_73]

How many/which lenses do you already have? you are probably limited to alpha series cams / cams with alpha-bajonett (this is the result of a quick google research). But i doubt that you can use the autofocus in lens if that's the case.

My advice would be: If you don't have too many lenses, try to sell them for a decent amount of cash (though this might take a while, but you may get more money if you take your time instead of rushing to sell them). Then take a look at all the cameras out there: what are you going to do with the camera? what lenses do you really need? then maybe even try to look for used cameras and lenses, this might save you a good amount of cash and photo equipment is most times quite sturdy. My personal pick for good reentrence in the whole thing would be probably the Nikon D5300/D5500/D5600 with the 18-140mm kit lens, it is a very decent and sharp camera and not to pricey. And there are great lenses out there too for them.

I'd also stongly recommend you to read this very detailed "Buying Guide": http://northrup.photo/freepbg/

It gives you a good overview over the whole market and detailed information about everything that relates to cameras.

 

EDIT: the nikons have not the best autofocus for video, but you most times get better focus in videos with manual control anyways. If you want a silent autofocus, you need to take a look at canons stm lenses, you can't hear the AF on these. Though you sacrifice on sharpness compared to nikon and sony (nikon uses sony sensors), and the pick for canon bodies would be 750d/760d/70d/80d

[cc143]

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/90658/Show.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=PLA&utm_term=LA-EA3 Mount Adapter For A7&gclid=CjwKEAiAlNbEBRCv9uy4j4SWrgwSJAB5MqJFmE5-PqYXgzCTZ8xWRcEKnGDChOVALiflXBkmoDY_1BoCaRXw_wcB#descriptionTab

 

This adapter allows you to convert A mount to Sony E mount if you would like to go for a mirrorless camera such as the a7mk2, which I have tried and find quite good for the price. Now it is obviously not as durable or waterproof as a DSLR, but the fact that you can get a full frame camera at ~£1200 never ceases to amaze me, (Canon and Nikon also have offerings, but they are older, 6D is ~6 years old!) 

 

Any other camera from Sony in the a6x00 series can do the same as well. Also, the original a7 should be available for under $1,000, although I find the mk2 a much better overall camera for simple reasons like ergonomics, In body image stabilisation, which given you will be using ~20 year old glass will come handy and the usb charging. 

 

Additionally, this allows you to adapt manual older lenses like canon FD, with inexpensive adapters, which is an interesting way to have some inexpensive fun. 

Battery life is also poor, but it comes with 2 batteries and supports charging over usb, allowing you to use a battery bank to charge it while you are using it. There are also size and weight advantages. 

 

Sony have also released the a99ii recently, kai from DRTV reviewed it here: 

I can find it at 2,999.99 in the UK, I suppose it will be ~$3,200 in the US. That however is VERY overkill in my opinion, especially since A mount glass is quite cheap at this point and its not certain wether the system has any future. 

[xQubeZx]

If you are very fond of the old lenses and don't want to sell them off the Sony Alpha range is the way to go I think. The A6300 or the A7ii is two very well priced cameras. The A6000 does of course exist and costs a lot less but I find the advantages in the A6300 to be worth it, a lot better AF, better build quality (magnesium body), higher res EVF and a better sensor overall. The same thing goes with the A7 vs the A7ii, small improvements that make it a much more refined camera. And the in body stabilization is amazing for old lenses. 

 

A6300 vs A7ii is basically APS-C vs Full Frame sensor. A6300 is more suited for sports and wildlife considering the very capable AF. The A7ii is very alround though with great IQ and a better feel in the hand imo. 

[xQubeZx]

1 hour ago, cc143 said:

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/90658/Show.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=PLA&utm_term=LA-EA3 Mount Adapter For A7&gclid=CjwKEAiAlNbEBRCv9uy4j4SWrgwSJAB5MqJFmE5-PqYXgzCTZ8xWRcEKnGDChOVALiflXBkmoDY_1BoCaRXw_wcB#descriptionTab

 

This adapter allows you to convert A mount to Sony E mount if you would like to go for a mirrorless camera such as the a7mk2, which I have tried and find quite good for the price. Now it is obviously not as durable or waterproof as a DSLR, but the fact that you can get a full frame camera at ~£1200 never ceases to amaze me, (Canon and Nikon also have offerings, but they are older, 6D is ~6 years old!) 

 

Any other camera from Sony in the a6x00 series can do the same as well. Also, the original a7 should be available for under $1,000, although I find the mk2 a much better overall camera for simple reasons like ergonomics, In body image stabilisation, which given you will be using ~20 year old glass will come handy and the usb charging. 

 

Additionally, this allows you to adapt manual older lenses like canon FD, with inexpensive adapters, which is an interesting way to have some inexpensive fun. 

Battery life is also poor, but it comes with 2 batteries and supports charging over usb, allowing you to use a battery bank to charge it while you are using it. There are also size and weight advantages. 

 

Sony have also released the a99ii recently, kai from DRTV reviewed it here: 

I can find it at 2,999.99 in the UK, I suppose it will be ~$3,200 in the US. That however is VERY overkill in my opinion, especially since A mount glass is quite cheap at this point and its not certain wether the system has any future. 

He will need the LA-E4 if the lenses doesn't have internal AF motors. If they are manual it shouldn't matter however. 

[cc143]

2 hours ago, xQubeZx said:

He will need the LA-E4 if the lenses doesn't have internal AF motors. If they are manual it shouldn't matter however. 

Yes I later noticed that there was another one, I remembered the E4 as well, (thought what I linked was cheaper too). 

 

In regard to your previous post, I agree, but the most important thing the a6000 lacks in my experience with it is the ability to charge over usb while using it. Poor battery life is the main reason my 50D saw even more use after I got the a6000, which I got to have a camera with me that was light and less conspicuous (well that and the non-existent AF on adapted EF lenses).

 

Another thing the a6000 is useless at, which I read the a6300 and a7ii improved upon is the burst writing capability. The a6000 sometimes felt like running photoshop on a calculator, you couldn't do anything after taking 15-20 pictures for a while and that also contributed to the time it needed to turn on.

 

I can go on about why the a6000 is not that good a camera, and may I say it, some of its shortcomings it shares with the a6300 and a6500. Given the price of the a6300 though, I would rather go for the a7ii, after trying it out, its miles ahead of the a6000. There are shortcomings there as well, but I could be able to live with it as an amateur or casual shooter. 

 

 

[xQubeZx]

14 minutes ago, cc143 said:

Yes I later noticed that there was another one, I remembered the E4 as well, (thought what I linked was cheaper too). 

 

In regard to your previous post, I agree, but the most important thing the a6000 lacks in my experience with it is the ability to charge over usb while using it. Poor battery life is the main reason my 50D saw even more use after I got the a6000, which I got to have a camera with me that was light and less conspicuous (well that and the non-existent AF on adapted EF lenses).

 

Another thing the a6000 is useless at, which I read the a6300 and a7ii improved upon is the burst writing capability. The a6000 sometimes felt like running photoshop on a calculator, you couldn't do anything after taking 15-20 pictures for a while and that also contributed to the time it needed to turn on.

 

I can go on about why the a6000 is not that good a camera, and may I say it, some of its shortcomings it shares with the a6300 and a6500. Given the price of the a6300 though, I would rather go for the a7ii, after trying it out, its miles ahead of the a6000. There are shortcomings there as well, but I could be able to live with it as an amateur or casual shooter. 

 

 

I agree about the A6000 flaws, however I think the A6300 and A7ii are geared to very different people. Or well, sligtly different. The a6300 is more for travel and fast moving action. The A7ii is a better alround because it had the FF sensor. But lacks in AF. I would however say both are great cameras in almost all situations. You just have to get to know how to use them well. And the price differnece are rather large, at least where I live where there is a 500-600€ difference + the more expensive FF glass. 

[cc143]

1 minute ago, xQubeZx said:

I agree about the A6000 flaws, however I think the A6300 and A7ii are geared to very different people. Or well, sligtly different. The a6300 is more for travel and fast moving action. The A7ii is a better alround because it had the FF sensor. But lacks in AF. I would however say both are great cameras in almost all situations. You just have to get to know how to use them well. And the price differnece are rather large, at least where I live where there is a 500-600€ difference + the more expensive FF glass. 

The additional cost for FF glass is unquestionable, although, to be fair, Sony glass is more expensive in general. 

 

The price difference in the bodies is insignificant considering the a6500 is the newer camera in the lineup, although given the age of the a7ii its price can be said to be deflated. In the UK, a body only a7ii is at £1,250, while the a6300 at £1,050 (with that bodycap of a lens , the 16-50mm)

 

I also doubt the relationship is similar to the 5d vs 7d. The a6300 is faster, but there is going to be a bottleneck with writing anyway, the 7d/1dx/d5 have dual image processors, and dual faster cards, the latter 2 even use CFast cards instead of sd, where the speed difference is very significant. I can see the a7ii to be more useful for amateurs who travel than the a6300.