Confused
Feb 18, 2015 19:01:29 #
Nikon would be my choice, Less expensive lens' the extra goodies are less, and available everywhere and I like heavier cameras, I like having that feel of substance in my hand.
I recently used a friends ??????? it was very light and I was getting a lot of camera shake.... and my opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it. GL with your decision.
I recently used a friends ??????? it was very light and I was getting a lot of camera shake.... and my opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it. GL with your decision.
Feb 18, 2015 19:29:17 #
webbo51 wrote:
Having used both, I too would go for the optical viewfinder. I found it particularly frustrating when shooting bursts, e.g., surfing, bicycle races, BIF.
Whilst I like the compactness etc of the DSLR, Olympus epl5 in my case, but also applies to all cameras without an optical viewfinder, I get frustrated by the fact I have to wear my spectacles to see the screen.
This means that I have to struggle to put them on, and once on, you can't see the actual subject very well. Worst of both worlds in a way.
But I guess I have made my decision on the camera I have for other factors, lightness and size. I can carry it in a pocket at a push.
Sorry if this is a drift of the thread...,
Mj
Feb 18, 2015 19:34:10 #
Mark Johnson wrote:
A camera that does not play CD's!!
I thort Sony was a sound gadget!!
Olympus is either a hill or camera. Both been out there a long time............ 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
I thort Sony was a sound gadget!!
Olympus is either a hill or camera. Both been out there a long time............ 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
I miss using my Sony Mavica CD200 bought it 2002 used it until june 2013 took 34,000+ photos I loved not having to download photos, I like the mini CDs Now have a Nikon D5100
Feb 18, 2015 19:46:20 #
I recommend that you look at this comparison of the two cameras and then read the detailed review on each one. If its to be one or he other you will find your answer here.
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=nikon_d610&products=sony_a7
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=nikon_d610&products=sony_a7
Feb 18, 2015 19:46:59 #
azted
Loc: Las Vegas, NV.
Electronic viewfinder is superior to optical because you can see what the photo will look like BEFORE you take it! You see the adjustments you make to aperture, asa, etc as you make it.
Feb 18, 2015 21:31:40 #
paulrph1 wrote:
Would you give all of the other benefits for the one of being lighter?
Yes. To me the only benefit of a full frame is better high iso image quality. I find the IQ of my D5200 to be excellent. The IQ of a full frame may be marginally better, but it's not going to show up in an 8x10 print to a significant amount.
Of course this is all subjective. IQ can be measured objectively, but what's acceptable IQ is subjective.
Feb 19, 2015 01:09:01 #
elandel
Loc: Milan, Italy
tdekany wrote:
I believe I know you from M4/3.com
The 610 is heavy compared to the 7. LENSES: Pretty sure that most of them you will never consider, let alone buy. So if the focal lengths that you use is available in the Sony, go for he A7II - don't you want 5 axis IS?
The 610 is heavy compared to the 7. LENSES: Pretty sure that most of them you will never consider, let alone buy. So if the focal lengths that you use is available in the Sony, go for he A7II - don't you want 5 axis IS?
Yes I am on m4/3. Un' a jpeg and zoom boy so tuo se are importanti to me.
Feb 19, 2015 01:51:45 #
I'd go with the Nikon D610...or wait a bit, save up, and get the D810. Sony gear is good, but limited in scope...fewer lenses, etc. Ten, or twenty, years from now, Sony may make more lenses, and have as many as Nikon, but why wait? Why not have the extra capability now?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.