Going mirrorless (Page 7): I found the same thing when I sold my Sony A7sii and a lens to MPB, after the EBay and PayPal fees it was only 10% difference plus there were several A7sii...

DennisC. Loc: Antelope, CA

Kingman wrote:

If one checks the actual domestic sales (of your items) on eBay, subtract the eBay fee, subtract the PayPal fee, subtract your actual shipping cost, shipping supplies, time to shot photos of your items, and etc., the real price difference between letting KEH buy my equipment was only a nominal difference of only 10-20%. Not even worth it when I had a day job and certainly not worth my “retired” life style doing photography.

I found the same thing when I sold my Sony A7sii and a lens to MPB, after the EBay and PayPal fees it was only 10% difference plus there were several A7sii bodies on EBay and nobody was bidding on them. I too am dumping my Nikon system (about 20 items), didn’t care for the Z6 or Z7 bodies or the over priced kit style lenses they are putting out. I am buying into Fuji and Sony.

DennisC. Loc: Antelope, CA

TTQ225 wrote:

Excellent answer👍

Because for some of us the money is not an issue.

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

TTQ225 wrote:

It's beyond me to understand why someone with a truckload of presumably good Nikon glass would want to sell it at loss and go Sony, starting a new system from scratch, when Nikon has 2 excellent mirrorless bodies - Z6 and Z7 with more models coming next year. Just my $0.02.

I've often wonder'd that myself, maybe their the ones who think the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

Bill_de Loc: US

Ched49 wrote:

I've often wonder'd that myself, maybe their the ones who think the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

At this time Sony does have the most advanced mirrorless system. Could be that the OP at 72 doesn't want to wait for Nikon to catch up. And maybe his granddaughter who is using mirrorless has already chosen Sony.

I shoot Nikon and have a small fortune invested in Nikon glass. Although I mainly use DSLRs, I did buy a Z6 which is a lot of fun. If I had to go lighter today I would probably not go Nikon. When/if that time comes I will base my decision on what's available at that time. At some point in life we have to stop waiting.

---

GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

Bill_de wrote:

At this time Sony does have the most advanced mirr... (show quote)

This answers that question, plus at 70, I am no longer able to use those long heavy focal lengths. My longest lens is a 70-200/4. Perhaps the OP feels the same

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

GrandmaG wrote:

This answers that question, plus at 70, I am no longer able to use those long heavy focal lengths. My longest lens is a 70-200/4. Perhaps the OP feels the same

But going to mirrorless will not address that long, heavy focal length problem - only going to slower lenses or changing to a smaller format will address that issue.

For example, the 70-200 f2.8 Sony Gmaster lens costs $2600 and weighs 3.3 lbs
The Nikon 70-200 f2.8 costs $2146 and weighs 3.1 lbs
The Canon 70-200 f2.8L MKII costs $2099 and weighs 3.3 lbs.

My point is that the weight driver is in the lens, not the camera (and Sony lenses are not inexpensive or lightweight compared to their Nikon and Canon counterparts)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

TriX wrote:

But going to mirrorless will not address that long, heavy focal length problem - only going to slower lenses or changing to a smaller format will address that issue.

Basic physics... It takes a certain amount of glass to project a certain size "cone" of light. The wider the sensor, the wider the lens must be to cover it. Genuine APS-C lenses are roughly 1/2 to 3/4 the weight, bulk, and mass of their full frame field of view equivalents. Genuine Micro 4/3 lenses are roughly 1/4 to 1/3 the weight, bulk, and mass of their full frame field of view equivalents.

Users who want to save some weight from their entire travel kits may consider switching to a smaller format! The trade-off MAY be worth it. Give up a stop or two of low light performance. Gain an equivalent stop or two of depth of field. Lose a lot of the weight, or make room for more lenses and flash gear.

cygone Loc: Boston

Bill_de wrote:

At this time Sony does have the most advanced mirr... (show quote)

At 72, I'm looking ahead, and need to downsize. Moving from a large property to a Texas Del Webb retirement community and I'm just not going to have the room for all my stuff:). The hardest thing is deciding what one needs and doesn't need. I like Sony mirrorless because they seem more advanced than Nikon. And I'm just not impressed with the Z6 & 7. Anyways....I've downsized from a boatload of Nikon to 1 Sony camera body and 4 lenses.

jcboy3

cygone wrote:

I've decided to sell all my Nikon to KEH except fo... (show quote)

Buy a Z7 and avoid all the hassle of selling gear and switching systems.

Of course, Nikon in their total lack of foresight do not have an adapter that has a focus motor. I have a lot of D lenses, so I'm waiting to see if they get their act together.

cygone Loc: Boston

jcboy3 wrote:

Buy a Z7 and avoid all the hassle of selling gear and switching systems.

Of course, Nikon in their total lack of foresight do not have an adapter that has a focus motor. I have a lot of D lenses, so I'm waiting to see if they get their act together.

Exactly

GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

TriX wrote:

But going to mirrorless will not address that long... (show quote)

You are right when comparing the 2.8 version of these lenses; but I have the f/4 version. Yes, the cost and weight is in the lens for all the systems.

However, the Sony SYSTEM has surpassed Nikon IMO. I’m especially drawn to their AF system and I like the ability to see how changes affect a picture BEFORE you depress the shutter button. I also LIKE the EVF.

repleo Loc: Boston

cygone wrote:

.... At 72 I just feel this is the way to go....

At 72, the OP deserves to buy whatever he wants. You can't take it with you - there are no pockets on a shroud. Just make sure to leave your gear to your grand-daughter in your will.

rcarol

repleo wrote:

At 72, the OP deserves to buy whatever he wants. You can't take it with you - there are no pockets on a shroud. Just make sure to leave your gear to your grand-daughter in your will.

And there are no luggage racks on a hearse.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

GrandmaG wrote:

You are right when comparing the 2.8 version of these lenses; but I have the f/4 version. Yes, the cost and weight is in the lens for all the systems.

However, the Sony SYSTEM has surpassed Nikon IMO. I’m especially drawn to their AF system and I like the ability to see how changes affect a picture BEFORE you depress the shutter button. I also LIKE the EVF.

Yep, in my opinion, the two reasons to choose MLC is the silent shutter (shooting weddings in churches) and if you prefer the EVF. Not being a Nikon shooter, I can’t comment on the AF system differences.

MonetDIY

If you were starting fresh, no system in hand, with a $3,000 budget, would you go Nikon, Canon, or Sony a7iii?