D610 D750 or Sony a7II?

[rocknblogger]

Get the D800 you won't be sorry. When you shoot at that many pixels you can crop in to images and find all kinds of magical treats you didn't know was there.

The D800 might be off the table. I think my friend low balled the price and is now having second thoughts. I don't blame him as I certainly wouldn't sell mine for $1200 if I had one. Still up in the air but I'm now looking more closely at the D610 and a7ii.

Just avoid the Sony, it's a great device but still far from catching up to DSLR flagships like d750/d800

There are professional photographers that would disagree with you. Check Trey Ratcliff at http://stuckincustoms.com

@OP Ah Ha The reason I said don't rush was more figuratively. I know you're not rushing because you said the word "soon". My first DSLR I chose because of the price eventhough the salesman tried to get me into a body with higher price (so I thought). All I saw was the price, and not function. Now I see that these cameras are very similar, I try to look my style of shooting. How I'm going to use it. What features I really want to use in a camera. You already know about Nikon environment. So put all that in the pot and go with the one that fits you best. I would kick out the D610 and put on your list either the D750 or D800.


I've played with the D610 and D750 in the store and I really love the feel of the D750. The LCD screen moves nicely too. I thought it would be all clunky like some of the camcorder styles LCD screen but it not. Everything else feels like a D610 but lighter. I know when I use the 24-70mm lens on my camera it can get heavy after an hour of using. The lighter body might be helpful.

D800 is great. That would be awesome if you can find one within your budget. Good luck.

As much as I would love a D750 its out of my price range. No point in buying it if I'm not going to have a lens good enough to take advantage of the camera.

At this point I'm leaning towards the Sony. Dollar for dollar I think it's a better value than the D610. I'm still not going to make a final decision until I visit B&H and hold it in my hand. Besides no one has it in stock anyway.

 

[Meister]

At this point I'm leaning towards the Sony. Dollar for dollar I think it's a better value than the D610. I'm still not going to make a final decision until I visit B&H and hold it in my hand. Besides no one has it in stock anyway.

Good idea! Hold it in your hands and then decide.
You have to love the camera you buy and no spec sheet is going to show that.

That said the D750, while an improvment over the D610 in a lot of regards, doesn't really make any difference for landscapes and architecture at all. The D610 is the better choice for those types of photography.

Same goes for the a7 and a7ii.
Sensor performance is the same and the in body IS is pretty useless for your types of photography.

I recommend taking a look at the a7r, too!

 

[rocknblogger]

Good idea! Hold it in your hands and then decide.
You have to love the camera you buy and no spec sheet is going to show that.

That said the D750, while an improvment over the D610 in a lot of regards, doesn't really make any difference for landscapes and architecture at all. The D610 is the better choice for those types of photography.

Same goes for the a7 and a7ii.
Sensor performance is the same and the in body IS is pretty useless for your types of photography.

I recommend taking a look at the a7r, too!

I think the IS is important for me. I like going out at dusk and dawn and while I'll be using a tripod for static scenes I want to have the ability to shoot by hand.

As for the a7r, out of my price range. At ~2000 plus lense brings me well over $3000. I can't do that. I've crunched the numbers again and $3000 is my topmost limit. This year I want a lens that'll give some versatility. That's why I'm looking at the 24-70. Next year I'll look to buy one or two prime lenses.

From what I've seen good F2.8 or better Nikon lens will cost me in $1800 and up. I read that the 24-120 while a good lens is not too good at low light photography. An 85mm prime will cost me around $1500.

A lot of this will depend on what used lenses B&H has in stock when I'm ready to buy. While I wouldn't buy a used body I don't have a problem with a used lens as long as it's in good to mint condition.

 

[mofunk]

I would think that you can still get some great shots with any lens that shoots f/4 and below. Remember you can always bump up the ISO. Unless you're like me and prefer shooting with lenses that shoot f/2.8 or lower. I was thinking about the 24-120mm kit but remembered how much I love the 24-70mm lens. I rent it a few times a year from lensrental.com and love it. This lens really focuses fast in low light, faster than my 50mm lens. The 28-70mm is not that far behind it.

Don't forget the D-type lenses are another option. If you are looking to save money then a used lens might be the way to go. Prime lenses are another option. Good luck. lol I've been looking for awhile too. I like renting but at some point I want to own my own lens.

 

[JDDavis]

I think the IS is important for me. I like going out at dusk and dawn and while I'll be using a tripod for static scenes I want to have the ability to shoot by hand.

As for the a7r, out of my price range. At ~2000 plus lense brings me well over $3000. I can't do that. I've crunched the numbers again and $3000 is my topmost limit. This year I want a lens that'll give some versatility. That's why I'm looking at the 24-70. Next year I'll look to buy one or two prime lenses.

From what I've seen good F2.8 or better Nikon lens will cost me in $1800 and up. I read that the 24-120 while a good lens is not too good at low light photography. An 85mm prime will cost me around $1500.

A lot of this will depend on what used lenses B&H has in stock when I'm ready to buy. While I wouldn't buy a used body I don't have a problem with a used lens as long as it's in good to mint condition.

On the Nikon side of the house you could get a 85mm f/1.8 for under $500 new. You can also get 24-85 f/2.8-4 for less than $700. For dusk and dawn landscape type work you could also consider the older MF primes that are out there since AF would'nt be as important. You can find super sharp older AIS primes out there for very litte.

I mention those in the light that even in low light landscape it may be better to stop down and increase how long the shutter is open instead of using the larger aperture (1.4, 1.8, 2, etc...). The rule of thumb that I learned was that a lens is often at it's sharpest (or best IQ) at 2x the largest aperture. So on my 24-85 f/2.8 I'll often shoot low light shots at f5.6 and use a longer shutter if I can.

I'm probably telling you something you already know and clearly the 24-70 f2.8 is a better lens than the 24-85 I just didn't want you to discount the Nikon f1.8 primes or the other Nikon/3rd party alternatives to the trinity lenses from fiscal standpoint. Expecially with landscape where you might not always need max performance at wide open aperture.

 

[leighonigar]

An 85mm prime will cost me around $1500.

?!

The Nikon 85mm f/1.8 G is an utterly superb lens and not $1500... it's the one I'd buy if I didn't already have an 85mm f/1.8 AF-D which is also a great lens (and amazingly cheap).

I see JDDavis has just pointed this out - but I'll say it again.

Review: http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/717-nikkorafs8518ff

If you need f/1.4 for some reason the older pro AF-D version can be had quite cheaply too.

This lens: http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/789-tamron2470f28fx is regarded as a good alternative to the nikon 24-70 f/2.8 and it has image stabilisation too.

 

[mofunk]

I like most of the D-type prime lenses. The 105mm is pretty good and the 85mm. Those would be on my list of optional lenses.

 

[Mr.Noisy]

Hang fire rocknblogger,Save a bit longer, you seem to like the idea of a Sony A7, it is worth it, plus the A9 comes out soon, get the metabones adapter and some quality glass, for landscaping the A7R II + 24mm 1.4 L II is proving to be incredible, expensive but worth every penny (my wife will understand one day) plus Canon are releasing some big mp sensor camera's this year or so Canon inform us, so if I were you, keep saving, the big mp full frame bodies need quality glass to get the best from them, that said I still have a 15 year old 35mm L lens thats seen the wars and stuff ive photographed over the years, its been knocked about, but the glass is clean and its sick on my 5D's and A7R II, keep saving and get what you really want.

 

[rocknblogger]

Hang fire rocknblogger,Save a bit longer, you seem to like the idea of a Sony A7, it is worth it, plus the A9 comes out soon, get the metabones adapter and some quality glass, for landscaping the A7R II + 24mm 1.4 L II is proving to be incredible, expensive but worth every penny (my wife will understand one day) plus Canon are releasing some big mp sensor camera's this year or so Canon inform us, so if I were you, keep saving, the big mp full frame bodies need quality glass to get the best from them, that said I still have a 15 year old 35mm L lens thats seen the wars and stuff ive photographed over the years, its been knocked about, but the glass is clean and its sick on my 5D's and A7R II, keep saving and get what you really want.

Thanks Noisy I appreciate the advice but I fear that a a7rII will definitely be out of my price range plus I don't want to wait any longer than March.

There are a few things I like about the D750 more than the a7II. Faster AF, button/control layout, battery life, access to ports (hard plastic vs rubber), built-in flash (for fill and when absolutely necessary times).

On the Sony I like IBIS, weight/size, construction (with the exception of the port covers), video capabilities, focus peaking. I was a bit disappointed that the thumb and forefinger dials are made out of plastic. Probably minor but it's one of the things I look at when considering overall construction.

I still haven't made it over to B&H and like I said earlier, I won't make up my mind until after I hold the cameras in my hand.

 

[JDDavis]

Thanks Noisy I appreciate the advice but I fear that a a7rII will definitely be out of my price range plus I don't want to wait any longer than March.

There are a few things I like about the D750 more than the a7II. Faster AF, button/control layout, battery life, access to ports (hard plastic vs rubber), built-in flash (for fill and when absolutely necessary times).

On the Sony I like IBIS, weight/size, construction (with the exception of the port covers), video capabilities, focus peaking. I was a bit disappointed that the thumb and forefinger dials are made out of plastic. Probably minor but it's one of the things I look at when considering overall construction.

I still haven't made it over to B&H and like I said earlier, I won't make up my mind until after I hold the cameras in my hand.

Good idea to check them out in person. I haven't used a Sony but I was surprised that I didn't like the "feel" of the D610. Layout was fine I just didn't like how it felt in my hand. The D750 was different. I think the grip is a bit deeper. It fits better even without a battery grip (big hands). At first the lightness of it threw me a bit (compared to my D90 with a grip and the D610) but I have since come to appreciate it.

 

[gnomeisland]

Just avoid the Sony, it's a great device but still far from catching up to DSLR flagships like d750/d800

What's your basis? I own several A7s and I've shot with Nikons. Nikons are pretty good but there are a lot of pluses to the A7—especially the Mark 2.

 

[aerok]

What's your basis? I own several A7s and I've shot with Nikons. Nikons are pretty good but there are a lot of pluses to the A7—especially the Mark 2.

There are professional photographers that would disagree with you. Check Trey Ratcliff at http://stuckincustoms.com

Mostly battery life and focus speed.

And from the OP

If it was you, which would you go with and why? Weight/size is not a consideration. Let's focus on quality, features, functions, flexibility, durability etc...

The best thing about the A7s is the size and weight.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to have the A7II, I think it's a wonderful device but it's still far from beating the reliability of a DSLR with a much better battery life, faster focus, faster zoom lenses and OVF (Subjective).

 

[mofunk]

Well if you decided on the D750 right now it might be a wait. I noticed today that Amazon doesn't show the D750. Also BH Photo Adorama and Best Buy the D750 is out of stock. Best Buy even had the D750 in their weekly ad.

I guess this is a good sign that Nikon is taking action and fixing the problem. Maybe they will do like what they did when the D70 came out and release a D750s

 

[rocknblogger]

Mostly battery life and focus speed.

And from the OP



The best thing about the A7s is the size and weight.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to have the A7II, I think it's a wonderful device but it's still far from beating the reliability of a DSLR with a much better battery life, faster focus, faster zoom lenses and OVF (Subjective).

Honestly I think the weight is a wash between the a7II and the D750. Once you start adding lenses it's not that big a difference. For example; if I use the 24-70 on the a7II and a 50 or 58 prime on the D750, the weight difference is negligible. I know I'm comparing two different lenses but that's how I'm considering buying into both cameras.

Well if you decided on the D750 right now it might be a wait. I noticed today that Amazon doesn't show the D750. Also BH Photo Adorama and Best Buy the D750 is out of stock. Best Buy even had the D750 in their weekly ad.

I guess this is a good sign that Nikon is taking action and fixing the problem. Maybe they will do like what they did when the D70 came out and release a D750s

I'm pretty sure that by the time I'm ready the D750 will be back in stock.

 

[JDDavis]

I haven't use a Sony so I can't comment but I'm really enjoying the D750 so far. I have to qualify that with the fact that I've only shot with Nikon DSLRs but the D750 is my favorite by far (so far).

On the matter of the flare issue, here's a link for more info on what Nikon is doing. http://nikonrumors.com/2015/01/20/nikon-issued-d750-service-advisory-for-the-reflectionflare-issue.aspx/ I can tell you that I have a "non black dot" version and I have not seen the problem. I shoot mostly outdoors in natural light and I've tried to replicate it by shooting into the sun but I haven't seen the problem yet. I probably won't send mine in unless it becomes an issue.

Also there is this if you are a brave soul...http://nikonrumors.com/2015/01/23/new-low-price-grey-market-nikon-d750-camera-for-1600.aspx/

 

[gnomeisland]

Honestly I think the weight is a wash between the a7II and the D750. Once you start adding lenses it's not that big a difference. For example; if I use the 24-70 on the a7II and a 50 or 58 prime on the D750, the weight difference is negligible. I know I'm comparing two different lenses but that's how I'm considering buying into both cameras.

I'm pretty sure that by the time I'm ready the D750 will be back in stock.

Then, if I may be so blunt, maybe you need to reconsider what you're planning on using the camera for? A 24-70 zoom and a fast 50 prime are very different combinations.

If you are weighing them as equals that I think you're getting a bit seduced by gadgetry instead of use picture making.

If you think you'd be happy with just a fast 50 then I'd strongly suggest considering the FE55mm which is an excellent lens and very light weight. It will also save you even more money over the D750 combo. The size can be deceiving because it is based on a classic sonnar design and is long but the IQ is excellent and it is very light weight.

----------

Mostly battery life and focus speed.

And from the OP



The best thing about the A7s is the size and weight.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to have the A7II, I think it's a wonderful device but it's still far from beating the reliability of a DSLR with a much better battery life, faster focus, faster zoom lenses and OVF (Subjective).

The OP hasn't really address what he takes pictures of. I agree that AF is better on top Nikon SLRs that the current A7 series but for many subjects that A7 has reached sufficiency. Sports, small kids, and wildlife I give the edge to Nikon. Street, portrait, still life, landscapes, etc. I think it is largely a wash. I'd actually prefer Sony for portraits. I was very skeptical of face & eye detection at first but they actually are awesome once you learn how to use them effectively. Can't do that on a D750.

Regarding battery life, I guess I've been using mirrorless so long I don't notice. I carry a couple of small spares (never need more than one unless I'm shooting LOTS of video) and turn off the wireless functions when I don't need them. I can't remember ever getting only the CIPA rated number of shots. I always seem to get more. Maybe it helps that I don't have to chimp anymore. With the current EVFs I consider an OVF to be a liability (but I acknowledge this is personal preference).

 

[aerok]

The OP hasn't really address what he takes pictures of. I agree that AF is better on top Nikon SLRs that the current A7 series but for many subjects that A7 has reached sufficiency. Sports, small kids, and wildlife I give the edge to Nikon. Street, portrait, still life, landscapes, etc. I think it is largely a wash. I'd actually prefer Sony for portraits. I was very skeptical of face & eye detection at first but they actually are awesome once you learn how to use them effectively. Can't do that on a D750.

Regarding battery life, I guess I've been using mirrorless so long I don't notice. I carry a couple of small spares (never need more than one unless I'm shooting LOTS of video) and turn off the wireless functions when I don't need them. I can't remember ever getting only the CIPA rated number of shots. I always seem to get more. Maybe it helps that I don't have to chimp anymore. With the current EVFs I consider an OVF to be a liability (but I acknowledge this is personal preference).

Yup that is why I assume it's for all purposes. If he had specified landscapes or just portrait then yes, the A7 works fine.

As for battery life, as per CIPA, does not compare at all. The DSLR is just unbeatable for now. I already carry 6 batteries for my 6D, I can't imagine how many I would have to carry if I used the A7 lol.

And yes, we can agree that OVF vs EVF is a matter of preference.

 

[rocknblogger]

Then, if I may be so blunt, maybe you need to reconsider what you're planning on using the camera for? A 24-70 zoom and a fast 50 prime are very different combinations.

If you are weighing them as equals that I think you're getting a bit seduced by gadgetry instead of use picture making.

If you think you'd be happy with just a fast 50 then I'd strongly suggest considering the FE55mm which is an excellent lens and very light weight. It will also save you even more money over the D750 combo. The size can be deceiving because it is based on a classic sonnar design and is long but the IQ is excellent and it is very light weight.

----------



The OP hasn't really address what he takes pictures of. I agree that AF is better on top Nikon SLRs that the current A7 series but for many subjects that A7 has reached sufficiency. Sports, small kids, and wildlife I give the edge to Nikon. Street, portrait, still life, landscapes, etc. I think it is largely a wash. I'd actually prefer Sony for portraits. I was very skeptical of face & eye detection at first but they actually are awesome once you learn how to use them effectively. Can't do that on a D750.

Regarding battery life, I guess I've been using mirrorless so long I don't notice. I carry a couple of small spares (never need more than one unless I'm shooting LOTS of video) and turn off the wireless functions when I don't need them. I can't remember ever getting only the CIPA rated number of shots. I always seem to get more. Maybe it helps that I don't have to chimp anymore. With the current EVFs I consider an OVF to be a liability (but I acknowledge this is personal preference).

The photos I take are:

• Landscape
• Street
• Cityscapes
• Wildlife/some birds in flight
• Still life
• Portrature
• Occasionaly wedding or Bar Mitzva

So for the most part the a7II will suffice but in some situations the D750 will excel. Also the reason I sain 50-58mm for the Nikon is because I have a couple zooms for it. With the Sony I don't so I would have to buy one decent all rounder for now. But in all honestly I'd like to shoot with a prime like a 55mm to up my game with a fixed focal length. Especially for street.

EDIT: I forgot to mention I like shooting in available light (low light) around the city as well as family gatherings. So the low light performance is important. Another reason I'll probably go with a 50mm-58mm prime.

 

[aerok]

The photos I take are:

• Landscape
• Street
• Cityscapes
• Wildlife/some birds in flight
• Still life
• Portrature
• Occasionaly wedding or Bar Mitzva

So for the most part the a7II will suffice but in some situations the D750 will excel. Also the reason I sain 50-58mm for the Nikon is because I have a couple zooms for it. With the Sony I don't so I would have to buy one decent all rounder for now. But in all honestly I'd like to shoot with a prime like a 55mm to up my game with a fixed focal length. Especially for street.

EDIT: I forgot to mention I like shooting in available light (low light) around the city as well as family gatherings. So the low light performance is important. Another reason I'll probably go with a 50mm-58mm prime.

Weddings and Bar Mitzvas alone should be a good reason for you to go with d750.

And birds in flight obviously. A7 would be better for street as it is more discreet.

AFAIK, they both have great low light performance.

 

[gnomeisland]

Weddings and Bar Mitzvas alone should be a good reason for you to go with d750.

And birds in flight obviously. A7 would be better for street as it is more discreet.

AFAIK, they both have great low light performance.

Birds in flight, yes. Weddings and Bar Mitzvas I think its a wash.

EDIT: In that case if you go with the A7, you might consider the FE55 and a used kit lens. The kit lens isn't great but it really isn't as bad as some people make it out to be. Certainly not 5X worse than the Zeiss. That way you've got a good all around option and a topflight 55mm (which it sounds like you've probably use most of the time anyway).

 

[aerok]

Weddings and Bar Mitzvas I think its a wash.

Well I think focus speed is extremely important and not having to switch batteries often is another big plus.

 

[Meister]

The photos I take are:

• Landscape
• Street
• Cityscapes
• Wildlife/some birds in flight
• Still life
• Portrature
• Occasionaly wedding or Bar Mitzva

So for the most part the a7II will suffice but in some situations the D750 will excel. Also the reason I sain 50-58mm for the Nikon is because I have a couple zooms for it. With the Sony I don't so I would have to buy one decent all rounder for now. But in all honestly I'd like to shoot with a prime like a 55mm to up my game with a fixed focal length. Especially for street.

EDIT: I forgot to mention I like shooting in available light (low light) around the city as well as family gatherings. So the low light performance is important. Another reason I'll probably go with a 50mm-58mm prime.

I very strongly suggest investing in good glass. And don't blow your budget on the 58mm 1.4.
Save money on the body!
I recommend the a7 or d610 instead of the a7II or d750, unless the extra cost doesn't hurt you and still leaves room for a set of lenses.

If you go nikon, get the 85mm, 50mm and 28mm 1.8!

 

[gnomeisland]

Well I think focus speed is extremely important and not having to switch batteries often is another big plus.

I haven't shot with the D750 & A7mk2 specifically (just used the D800 and D300 and own an A7 & A7S) but the difference for AF-S isn't night and day. The A7 will be fast enough and has the advantage of face/eye detection which actually can make a real difference in group/event photography. So yeah, I don't think it matters that much in that setting.

EDIT: clarity

 

[Ray2]

I just went through the same decision, from a Fuji XT1 to an A7 II. I decided to stick with Fuji for the following reasons.

A7 AF speed is slow, PDAF pixels are closely center oriented, subject to hunting with most/all native lenses in indoor (not low) light.

Surprisingly noisy files when pushing iso and not that pleasant grain. Was worst than the XT1 in low light (raw). I go to 3200 with the Fuji, I'd stick to 1600 with the Sony.

With Sony's current road-map, a lens offering that covers my needs as I tend to shoot wide. However, Fuji's is better and Nikon's crushes both. Not to mention there's an ocean of used Nikon lenses available, a decent supply of Fuji's and essentially no Sony FE's.

A really nice concept - small, FF, excellent lenses. But I suspect the II will soon be the III knowing Sony.

My criteria is centered around small and light as my wife and I travel 3 to 5 months every year. In body stabilization at lower and lower focal lengths is also desirable with my aging hands.

Any comparisons I drew above will only be worst against a dslr. I went from a D800 to Fuji. You give up a lot of performance if small and light is your objective. Unless you need it, think twice.

 

[Meister]

Surprisingly noisy files when pushing iso and not that pleasant grain. Was worst than the XT1 in low light (raw). I go to 3200 with the Fuji, I'd stick to 1600 with the Sony.

I hate to bring this to you, but Fuji iso is not the same as sony iso.
I think sony iso160 is about the same brightness as fuji iso100.
You might want to check out a conversion chart.
Fuji also applies extreme processing to their in camera jpegs. There is some slang word for it that i can't recall atm.