« Quote o' the Day: Orhan Pamuk | Main | Blog Note »

Sunday, 04 November 2018

Comments

“been in this game long enough to recall the excitement when a full-frame camera dipped below $2,000 for the first time!“ Full-frame? I was excited when a dslr (though that term really didn’t exist at that point) of any type dropped below $2,000.

PS. Turn your so called music down.

Thanks for the info, but, respectfully, Mike, I'll pass. If I want to dip my hand into the 24x36mm sensor format, I would snag a nice clean Canon 5DIII from mpb.com for a mere $40 more. I'll have a camera whose control system and menus actually make logical sense, and will literally not hurt my hand or pinch my fingers in use. The lenses are same size for both anyway, so I'll take a camera I would actually enjoy the experience of using, and whose "color science" I vastly prefer to Sony's. And have the best service & repair infrastructure in the business, CPS. People tend to forget about the repair & service bit, but that is a key decision factor for me. Cheers.

Mike,

Typo: 28-70, not 24-70.

Or,
A Nikon D700 from eBay, under $300 if you're a reasonably savvy shopper, and about the same or less for a good enough zoom lens.

That FE 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 must have the best price / performance ratio ever. They are paying you $400 to take the lens.

Perfect timing - just ordered one as a birthday present for my daughter. We have a lot of Pentax lenses between us so will pick up an adapter down the line. Thanks for pointing this out.

I once paid that much for a Sony that used a floppy disk for storage.

I couldn't resist buying this (through your link of course!). You should maybe also link to the perfect lenses for this and other Sony full frame cameras:-)
https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2018/10/zeiss-batis-40mm-ƒ2.html

I think a person would be better off with something like a Fuji X-T20 - or a lightly used X-T2 - with the 18-55 lens. The A7II is full frame, but the image quality is really not that great and it’s the least likeable camera I’ve ever owned. Awful battery life, wonky color, fidgety controls.. plus that kit lens is really not good. I hear the A7III is much better and now the Tamron 28-75mm lens is available at a reasonable price. The 55mm prime is really great, too!

Can't do it. Just committed to One Camera/One Lens/One Year with the X-Pro2 and a 35mm Fujicron. I have opened up the B&H web site about a dozen times today, but I resisted every time.

CRM

Lately I've been switching between my Nikon D500 and the 16-80mm zoom and the Sony A6300 with a 16-70mm zoom. They both fit my style of street photography and the quality of the images from both are very good and actually look quite similar after some quick Lightroom adjustments. The Nikon is larger/heavier, while the Sony is not the most ergonomic and feels a little too tiny in my hands and hard to get a good touch/feel with. When I saw the Sony A7ii with kit lens for under a grand, it was hard to resist. It's on the truck and out for delivery today. So, it will be interesting to see if it's going to be the "hybrid" camera I've been looking for...

The K-1 'Classic' is a few hundred more and includes a battery grip at some locations. How many batteries would the Sony need to match that amount of shooting, and would they then be the same size?

Honestly: I like my Lumix m4:3 gear but if I had $1500 discretionary/windfall cash Rico/ntax would be taking it.

The A7II, a zoom and a couple of primes have been my full frame kit for the past eighteen months. It’s by no means perfect, but delivers nicely in the imaging department. It’s quite the lens nerds’ camera, so I’ve tried some adapted lenses. My favourite images from this camera actually come with the help of a borrowed Canon 24-70 f4L and Sigma adapter (and AF was mostly very good).

The comments to this entry are closed.