Thanks for your reply, JS.
I know very little about the 610 or the DF, but I did do a little research after you suggested them. The 610, by all accounts, is a great camera. For my purposes, it is a bit to heavy. And, if I switch to Nikon, I think I would rather have the newer technology and lighter body of the 750. The DF is, as you point out, costly. And, lacks video, which for me is a deal breaker.
Steve

MCC,
Thanks for the video links.

Thanks Ralph. It's hot on the Island this weekend. Probably lots cooler where you are than Glen Cove! The Mark iii is a great camera, but too heavy for me, not to mention too expensive.

I am interested in upgrading to a full frame camera from my canon 60D. See original post (Aug 10): Switching from Canon to Nikon--A Dilemma, outlining my thoughts, and asking if you thought the Nikon D750 would be a good fit. I want to thank all of you who responded for your comments. As I don't want to lug around a heavy camera, many of you suggested a mirrorless camera, such as the Sony.

I know nothing about the Sony models, so I read most of the reviews I could find, and I became quite intrigued. It seems that the Sony A7 ii is relatively comparable to the Nikon D750 in terms of specs and price. It gets great reviews.

Because Sony added an apparently wonderful vibration compensation system directly in the camera, lenses do not need that feature. The problem is the camera gained a lot of weight, and is only about 5 ounces lighter than the Nikon D750. Sony/Ziess lenses get excellent reviews, but are quite expensive. Nikon or Canon (or third party) lenses can be used with an adapter. The adapter adds about $400 (B and H), and probably adds a few ounces, again bringing the weight closer to the Nikon. I also read some reviews indicating that the adapter caused problems with third party lenses (Tamron, Sigma). Others said it worked perfectly. The Sony A7 ii only has a battery life of about 350-400 pictures, meaning that I would have to carry at least one additional battery on a long day of shooting. And the Sony also has only one card slot. Not a deal breaker, but I would prefer two. So, while the Sony appears to be a very good camera, these issues make it a very questionable fit for me.

I am still thinking of the Nikon D750, but I am also hoping that a Canon 6D ii will hit the market within the next 6 months, with specs similar to the Nikon D750.

I would like to hear from anyone who uses the Sony A7 ii, particularly on picture quality, battery life, weight, and the use of lens adapters. I would also like to know if anyone has heard rumors about the 6D ii.

Thanks.
Steve

Before I begin, let me say this is not meant to open any new debates about Canon vs Nikon. I presently use a Canon 60D, which my wife got me for my 65th birthday. As I approach my 70th birthday, both my camera and I are getting a bit worn. The camera is giving me a little trouble (doesn't always function when the shutter is depressed). This is the second issue I had with the camera, and at this point I don't want to spend $250 for a repair. (That is my estimate, based on previous service.) Also, In the five years I have used the camera, I am beginning to outgrow it, and I am looking to upgrade.

I shoot mostly travel photos, which include many landscapes, seascapes, cityscapes, buildings and dimly lit building interiors. I also shoot many portraits of my grandchildren. I do no sport or wildlife photography. I do my own printing with an Epson 3880.

I would like to upgrade to a full frame camera. I was looking at the Canon 7D Mark II, which I know is a crop sensor, but which by all reports an awesome camera. However, the 10 frames per second is overkill for me, and it is still a crop sensor. I am also looking at the Canon 5D Mark III. Again, an awesome camera by all reports. However, it still sells for $2499 at B and H, although I think it can be purchased for less, or possibly offered with rebates. However, if the Mark IV is ever released (early next year?), I am still purchasing a great camera (in the Mark III), but probably lacking the latest technology. Also, the Mark III weighs 1.89 pounds, without battery. Weight is important to me, as I travel frequently, and don't enjoy lugging around any more than necessary. And, the Mark IV, if it is released, will probably sell for more than $2499.

I also considered the Canon 6D. A very good entry level Full Frame camera for $1399 at B and H. However, the 11 focus points, (1 cross type) is a deal breaker.

This brings me to the Nikon D750. Again, by all accounts, a great camera. In fact, in all comparison reviews I read, it "beats" the Mark III in most specs, and outperforms it in many areas, including better detail in shadow areas, which I consider important for many landscapes. And, it only weighs 1.65 pounds, less than my Canon 60D! and costs $1997 at B and H.

In terms of Canon equipment, I am not very heavily invested. I use a Tamron 18-270, (canon mount, obviously), Canon 50mm f1.8, and the Canon 430EXII speedilte. I realize I would have to bite the bullet on this stuff. (Although I don't know if the speedilte will work on the Nikon.)

So, I am not asking if I should switch from Canon to Nikon. Based on my desire to upgrade, and the type of photos I am interested in, weight, and price, (and I know I will need to purchase new lenses) I am interested in your opinions as to weather or not the Nikon D750 is the best fit for my needs.

Walter,
This is a great set of photos. I really enjoyed them. Should I ever get to China, I hope I can get some nearly as nice. Thanks for sharing! :D
Steve

I have recently seen many postings by hoggers asking what lenses and other equipment to take when traveling to Europe, Iceland, Alaska, and you fill in the blank. It has been my experience when traveling on tour that there is virtually no time to set up a tripod, change lenses, and wait for the perfect shot. In addition I find it is not practical to lug heavy equipment for walks that can last for hours. Nor is there time to change lenses. Most photos are taken "on the fly" while walking with a tour leader through city streets, country villages or a myriad of churches. I find that I need to set up quickly, frame my shot, snap multiple photos and get back to the group. I also don't want to spend so much time with my photography that I miss out on the commentary and the fun. The only equipment I take is my Canon 60D, Tamron 18-270, an extra battery and a sufficient number of cards. I agree that a fast lens would be very helpful in the dimly lit churches. But, I crank up the ISO, shoot at perhaps 1/30 sec, hold the camera as steady as I can, take multiple shots, and fix up, if necessary in post processing. The same could be said for a good wide angle lens for all the beautiful scenery. I would estimate that perhaps 10-15 percent of my photos would benefit if taken with a different lens. On a trip of two weeks I will typically take 2-4 thousand photos and wind up with 4-5 hundred really good shots. I know this may not be the solution for everyone, but it works for me.

I love the Topaz plug ins. I own the entire suite. After I process my photos in Lightroom my go to programs are Topaz(unless) I need to do something in photo shop. Topaz also offers free webinars periodically, and most are then posted on you tube. Only problem is tech support which is mediocre at best. I also own OnOne which is very good, but I am not as familiar with it.

My wife and I have taken a Viking River cruise, and several Insight motor coach cruises. The only lens I took was my Tamron 18-270. I got many great shots and didn't have to worry about carrying and changing lenses. I consider these vacations first and photo shoots second. Enjoy!

This is one of the nicest photos I've seen. I think the composition, color, and clarity are outstanding! Great job. Other than the border did you do any pp? If I had to guess I would say Topaz adjust or clarity?

I have used the Tamron 18-270 since it was first introduced about 4 years ago. I use it almost exclusively on my Canon 60D. It's a wonderful lens, and reasonably light so it is ideal for walking around. It's not perfect at all focal lengths, but what lens is? After post processing photos look great! I have so far printed up to 12x18 which look great. I'm sure 16x20 will look great as well and will try a few as soon as I feel a bit more confident. I am sure you will love the new 16x300!

I have taken several European vacations, including a Viking Cruise. You should have a great time! I think the most important thing to realize is that this is a vacation on which you will be taking many photos, it is not a photo trip on which you will also be traveling. So, you will not have much time to set up shots (no tripod needed), or to change lenses or cameras. You will also be doing a lot of walking, and will want the lightest equipment possible. The travel guides will give some time for photos, but they are on a schedule, and will not wait indefinitely. I did a lot of very quick shooting while my wife and others were always way ahead of me. On viking cruises, there is usually a good deal of free time in the afternoons, and on those occasions you will have more time to shoot at leisure. Again, how much do you want to take? I use a Canon 60D and a Tamron 18-270. That's all. This set up was perfect for me. The only draw back was in dimly lit churches or night time shooting. In those instances I cranked up the ISO. Yes, I did get some noise, but this was addressed in post processing. Under these conditions (the one lens, no tripod, quick shots, some high ISO shots,) I still managed to get many very nice shots which look great at 8x10, and even 12x18. (I do my own printing on an Epson 3880, and will soon try 16x20, which I think will also look good.) So, whatever equipment you decide upon, my best advice is to travel light.
Most importantly, enjoy the trip!

I have been following some of the discussions of fellow UHHers who have made the switch to PS/LR CC, and get the distinct impression that many of us have encountered problems with the change over, while others have not. I presently use LR 5.7 and PSCS6. (I recently switched from Aperture). I am perfectly satisfied with this arrangement, but know I am missing out on the updates, and will continue to do so as long as I don't switch to CC. I am not very good with computers, and if I encounter a problem, I know I will not be able to fix it myself, even with the help of fellow hoggers. And, I dread those long, and often fruitless, discussions with tech support. In addition, I think some of the plug ins I use (Topaz, OnOne, Portrait Professional) may need to be removed and reinstalled to work on CC. I'll have to check this out, but if so, that is another process I dread. So, my question is: Do you think the bugs being encountered will be worked out with the next updates, and is it prudent for someone with my lack of computer skill to wait before updating to the cloud?
Thanks for your opinions.
Steve

This sounds like a reasonable solution. Unfortunately my computer skills are quite lacking. Something that is "not a difficult project" is usually a nightmare for me. Like "some assembly required"! I will ask at Apple, and possibly they can help. Thanks.

Jerry, it's very encouraging that you say I should be able to use Aperture for ever. Do you have any inside info?