MarkD Loc: NYC

I think the best advice is to handle both cameras and see if the weight difference is significant. Personally, I wouldn't get either. At my age (71) the D610 and its lenses are too heavy, and the Sony's choice of lenses and doodads is too limited. My choice would be a Nikon D5300 or D5500. It's lighter than the D610, it gets you into the Nikon system, the image quality is outstanding, and it's far less expensive. IMO unless you need the better high iso performance or you are a pixel peeper, full frame is a waste of money.

BigWahoo Loc: Kentucky

How many lenses do you need?

Will a camera with a mirror suit your use better?

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

I'd choose Nikon.

:oops: Oh wait.... I already did. :-P

I've owned Sony stuff in the past, Good Stuff!
But I wanted to wear "Big Boy" pants. And I haven't regretted a moment.
You already are aware that Nikon has a far wider selection of lenses.
Now look at all the other stuff available. That's because Nikon has never abandoned their loyal customers from some "new and improved" scheme to re-gear their loyalists. ;)

Choose well, Grasshopper. ;)

RedIris Loc: MN, USA

I just made that comparison... went to a camera store and held the two cameras of my research in my hands and I was completely sold on the camera I bought. I went with the smaller, mirrorless one. ;)

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

Good choice....Sony will be bringing out more lenses for the newer SLT,s. Buy an adapter so that you can use the older M lenses. Then you broaden out your choice to Sigma and Tamron glass.

have fun

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Oh, the name bothered you. Then just don't try to figure out the PROPER pronunciation of Nikon. I hear it is not a straight forward answer. Depending somewhat on where you live. Or Nikkor or Nikkormat?

If Sony only makes you think of music electronics, remember Sony also owns Columbia Pictures and Columbia Music these days.

I'm not knocking Nikon, I own Nikon View Camera and Enlarging lenses.

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

Well I have read all the answers you have got so far and I am at a complete loss to understand what the f--- you have learnt?
You do however get the dumb question of the day prize!!!
Im buying some canvas shoes tomorrow and I have no idea whether to buy the blue ones or the brown ones? I shall endeavour to make a decision without invilving others.
Life can be so difficult at times.

Chrisd107

I have both, for fun and travel I use the Sony even though it's slow focusing. The Nikon is a better camera in my view and it does have more lens choices.

jsmangis Loc: Peoria, IL

Perhaps I'm biased, having owned Nikons for the last three decades, but I own a D610. It is one of the most versatile, powerful, and user frendly cameras I have ever owned. I tried out the A7 as well before I bought my FF Nikon last August, but owning a lot of Nikkor glass is what helped me make my decision. I think it has to be a personal choice for you. Borrow or rent them both and see which one you feel more comfortable with.

Jcmarino

I have both and I will tell you, I'm lov'in the Sony more and more each day. Great shots and much lighter, easy to travel with, works with all the lighting I already had. Can adapt my Nikon lenses, if I buy the adapter. I have been a Nikon lover since 1970, I cant give up my love affair with Nikon. I keep looking for excuses to not to use the Sony but I cant find any! I feel like I'm cheating on my best friend!!!!

ralphc4176 Loc: Conyers, GA

I have the Sony a7R and am very pleased with it. I wish the lenses weren't so darn expensive, but Sony's full-frame lenses are well-made. I have no experience with Nikon, but I know it is a very popular brand.

paulrph1 Loc: Washington, Utah

paulrph1 Loc: Washington, Utah

Would you give all of the other benefits for the one of being lighter?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

What *I* would choose wouldn't be either of these, but then, I'm not you! I recommend you study the complete systems that both Sony and Nikon make, and then decide. Both companies produce some excellent gear. So do several other manufacturers. If you stick with the classic name brands, it's hard to find inferior gear these days.

Camera choices are incredibly personal. I remember choosing my first SLR when I was 14, back in 1969. I had been using a friend's Canon FX for about nine months. I went to a camera store and tried a Pentax Spotmatic, a Minolta SRT-101, a Nikkormat FTn, and a Canon FT-QL. I liked each for something. I wound up with the Nikkormat, and added a Nikon FTn a few years later.

I don't regret choosing Nikon — They built very durable, reliable gear that produced beautiful images. But I have never liked their ergonomics! Oh, they've improved, but not as much as I would like.

I used various Nikons until I tried the D100 and D70, then tried a Canon EOS 20D, and switched entirely to Canon in 2005, for the handling ergonomics, and the free software support for tethered shooting.

So most of my working life, I've used Nikons and Canons. But that has changed recently... I no longer make many prints, and I don't photograph a lot of sports or wildlife.

Since I generally put most of my content in electronic format (online corporate documents and videos), I no longer consider super high resolution files to be important. 16MP is fine for most of my work, and really, 8MP is enough for most photo-illustration work I do.

Since I'm a Training Project Manager — functionally, one who develops training content — I need a great blend of stills and video with live audio capture. So for me, it's going to be the Panasonic Lumix GH4 with a few Lumix pro zooms and Leica prime lenses. The GH4 is a very good still camera, on par with the best of APS-C cameras, and it's the best video camera you can buy at the price. It's so good, many independent filmmakers and documentary filmmakers use it.

Micro-Four-Thirds comes with a HUGE benefit: bulk and weight savings! The Nikon "holy trinity" of zooms weighs 7.5 pounds, while the Panasonic equivalent weighs 2.13 pounds. The GH4 is over a half pound (290g) lighter than a D610, too. Lugging a Lumix kit through airports and up trails is a lot easier than an equivalent Nikon or Canon or Sony kit would be...

Someone here equates lens weight with quality. Do you know why it has to be so heavy? Because the lens barrels have to be heavy to support that set of big glass elements and maintain alignment precision! Go hand-hold a 70-200 zoom all day and see how your wrist feels the next morning...

When you have a smaller format and no mirror box, equivalent lenses are shorter, smaller, lighter, and can maintain their precise tolerances much easier. The pro optics certainly aren't cheap, and in the case of the Leica Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2 (85mm FF equivalent) or the Lumix 35-100mm f/2.8 (70-200mm FF eq.), they're at least as good as Canikon equivalents.

So that's *my* take on it. It's probably irrelevant for those who want to photograph the Grand Canyon and make a 40 x 60 inch print, or for those whose work includes live sporting events and African safaris. But if you create content for corporate training and events, photojournalism, catalog photography, talking portraiture, hybrid photography, wedding videos, or just travel a lot, my approach might be similar to yours.

elandel Loc: Milan, Italy

Thanks for your answers. I'm leaning towards less weight even if my heart is with Nikon. I can just wait another bit and try to make the best choice for me but it's just like my heart says Nikon and my head says Sony because I'm getting too old to lug around heavy gear.

Life can be difficult at times... :roll: