Sony Alpha a7R II Mirrorless Digital Camera $1198 at B&H Photo

Quote from tqlla3k : How can the Z lenses be "better for the money", when Canon lenses are typically priced the same or less? Example of Z vs RF prices from BH. Nikon 35mm F1.8 - $850 Canon 35mm F1.8 - $500 Nikon 50mm F1.8 - $600 Canon 50mm F1.8 - $200 Nikon 85mm F1.8 - $800 Canon 85mm F2 - $600 Nikon 24-70mm F4 - $1000 Canon 24-105mm F4 - $1100. This lens goes on sale all the time, and has an extra 35mm. Nikon 24-200mm - $900 Canon 24-240mm - $900 - similar price but longer reach. Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 - $2300 Canon 24-70mm F2.8 - $2300 Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 $2400 Canon 15-35mm F2.8 - $2300

Because the nice canon glass is their 1.2/1.4 line. For most of the zooms, the nikon are a bit better. Pretty close on the 1.8 primes (50mm being the notable exception where canon is bonkers).

Quote from tqlla3k : I dont have to switch any position to stay relevant in this thread, because this is a thread about the A7Rii. Not the Nikon Z6 thats no longer available at that price, or whatever Camera greenpanther is pushing. If you think adapting lenses is so great, why did you buy a Viltrox 85mm lens? Matt Granger "That Nikon guy" says that the Viltrox isnt a great value, and several people reported that the lens died pretty quickly. Does GreenPanther agree with you that Z-mount lenses are superior to anything from Canon?

Matt hasn't been "That Nikon Guy" for many years.... and you need to stay current with firmware updates or you might look like the other folks that quote Tony and Chelsea Z6 review from 3 years ago and look like a fool with outdated information.

Look at most reviews, they praise the Viltrox. The rando's on Amazon who say it failed didn't update their firmware because they are idiots. Pro-tip, don't believe idiots.

As for why I bought the Viltrox if I praise Z glass because, this is Slick Deals and I'm not a pro. 95% performance for half the cost is a slick deal. F glass is still needed or do you have a link a 150-600mm Z-mount lens?

Quote from cyciumx : Matt hasn't been "That Nikon Guy" for many years.... and you need to stay current with firmware updates or you might look like the other folks that quote Tony and Chelsea Z6 review from 3 years ago and look like a fool with outdated information. Look at most reviews, they praise the Viltrox. The rando's on Amazon who say it failed didn't update their firmware because they are idiots. Pro-tip, don't believe idiots. As for why I bought the Viltrox if I praise Z glass because, this is Slick Deals and I'm not a pro. 95% performance for half the cost is a slick deal. F glass is still needed or do you have a link a 150-600mm Z-mount lens?

Oh my god you are giving me anxiety with all that glass hanging off the PD lens clip.

Nikon is dead, they have been losing marketshare. Go Canon if you don't like Sony. I would not touch Nikon no matter the price.

https://nikonrumors.com/2021/07/0...ore-158880

Quote from TimothyS5756 : Nikon is dead, they have been losing marketshare. Go Canon if you don't like Sony. I would not touch Nikon no matter the price. https://nikonrumors.com/2021/07/0...ore-158880

Nikon isn't going anywhere over the lifetime/warranty period of these cameras. What exactly is your concern with their market share?

I've been using this camera for years. Total game changer from an entry level, crop sensor that I previously had. Keep in mind that full frame lenses cost much more than crop. The battery life on this model isn't great, and doubles starting with the A7iii line forward. Image quality, resolution, and dynamic range are insane with camera.

Quote from tqlla3k : What you described (Something that goes on a tripod and requires a hex tool, is nothing like the Grip EXTENSION you linked. 1) The grip extension you linked would not work on any tripod 2) It does not require a hex tool. 3) If taking the camera off the tripod, then removing some grip extension is too much work to do "in the field", you could just.... not use a grip extension.

BTW for the reasons you mentioned, I don't use the sony grip. Was just an example of the blocked battery bay. I use this:

https://www.amazon.com/MK-X1EM-Br...8536123022


And btw you want a hex tool - not a thumb screw - or you will not get enough torque to keep it secure on a tripod, or capture clip etc.

Quote from GreenPanther4395 : How many times have you been out in the field changing batteries? I'm guessing not that much. Sure let me just take it off the tripod, take off my grip with a hex wrench, take out my camera bag (hope its not sandy or muddy or wet with salt spray...), get a new battery and put it in, put everything away, put the grip back on, put it back on the tripod. Oh the joy.

​There is no need for any of that. The camera works quite well from a USB powerbank especially when mounted on a tripod.

Quote from sav : ​There is no need for any of that. The camera works quite well from a USB powerbank especially when mounted on a tripod.

Not a bad solution, might work for some, but not great either. Not only does that mean my tripod won't fold up easily and won't go into it's case, it also means there's no weather sealing at all with the USB compartment open. Plus the added weight and bulk of the power bank, clamp to attach to the tripod, and cord. I'd rather get a battery grip. Then it's not limited to the tripod (not carrying the body with the power bank off the side.).

Or better yet just have a battery that lasts twice as long and be able to swap it normally lol.

Quote from GreenPanther4395 : BTW for the reasons you mentioned, I don't use the sony grip. Was just an example of the blocked battery bay. I use this: And btw you want a hex tool - not a thumb screw - or you will not get enough torque to keep it secure on a tripod, or capture clip etc.

My point is, if removing the thumb grip is such a hassle when on a tripod, you can... just not have a thumb grip.

Quote from GreenPanther4395 : Nikon isn't going anywhere over the lifetime/warranty period of these cameras. What exactly is your concern with their market share?

The concern is investing money into lenses for a mount that will be discontinued. It would suck to spend thousands on lenses, and have that Camera line disappear, like the Samsung NX, Canon M50, or Nikon J1. I do think Nikon will be fine though.

Since we are back on the subject. Earlier, you stated
1) The Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 for E-mount is no good, because of its "Astounding Distortion"
2) That Nikon's Z zoom lenses are better than Canon RF zoom lenses.

Have you looked at the reviews for the Nikon Z 24-70mm F2.8?

Here is a nice excerpt from photographylife.com
The lens certainly has quite a bit of barrel distortion at 24mm, which is unfortunate....the Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S has significantly more distortion at longer focal lengths in comparison. As you zoom in towards 35mm, the lens switches to slight pincushion distortion, and by 70mm it reaches close to 3%, which is a bit high. - Basically distortion at every focal length

Here is KenRockwell, he measured 4.5% distortion
The Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 has a lot of distortion, and it all goes away if you turn Distortion Correction ON in your camera.

Petapixel compared 5 of the top 24-70mm F2.8 mirrorless lenses. Lets see what they had to say.
Current Favorite: Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Art Lens

From what I have read, the Sigma is just as good or better and at half the cost. For $2300 you can buy a 24-70mm F2.8 Z lens without a camera or, you can buy this A7Rii+Sigma 24-70mm F2.8

Quote from TimothyS5756 : Nikon is dead, they have been losing marketshare. Go Canon if you don't like Sony. I would not touch Nikon no matter the price. https://nikonrumors.com/2021/07/0...ore-158880

LOL..spoken like another clueless non photographer here on SD.

Quote from tqlla3k : The concern is investing money into lenses for a mount that will be discontinued. It would suck to spend thousands on lenses, and have that Camera line disappear, like the Samsung NX, Canon M50, or Nikon J1. I do think Nikon will be fine though. Since we are back on the subject. Earlier, you stated 1) The Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 for E-mount is no good, because of its "Astounding Distortion" 2) That Nikon's Z zoom lenses are better than Canon RF zoom lenses. Have you looked at the reviews for the Nikon Z 24-70mm F2.8? Here is a nice excerpt from photographylife.com The lens certainly has quite a bit of barrel distortion at 24mm, which is unfortunate....the Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S has significantly more distortion at longer focal lengths in comparison. As you zoom in towards 35mm, the lens switches to slight pincushion distortion, and by 70mm it reaches close to 3%, which is a bit high. - Basically distortion at every focal length Here is KenRockwell, he measured 4.5% distortion The Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 has a lot of distortion, and it all goes away if you turn Distortion Correction ON in your camera. Petapixel compared 5 of the top 24-70mm F2.8 mirrorless lenses. Lets see what they had to say. Current Favorite: Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Art Lens From what I have read, the Sigma is just as good or better and at half the cost. For $2300 you can buy a 24-70mm F2.8 Z lens without a camera or, you can buy this A7Rii+Sigma 24-70mm F2.8

A few things, first off, I didn't say the sigma was terrible for a zoom lens. It's not. Its just that no 24-70 is going to be very sharp by definition (nor is it terribly capable in low light with 2.8 aperture). So you're going with a 'meh' lens and a 'meh' body so that you can get a sensor with lots of resolution and low light performance cheaply - but you actually aren't getting that much more resolution with that lens versus an a7iii with a prime (and you're getting worse low light performance). You're getting more convenience with the zoom, for sure. But you didn't say that's your reason.

Second, the sigma has 3.8% barrel distortion at 24mm - more than the nikon Z at any level. That isn't a HUGE deal because it can be corrected - but keep in mind you'll lose part of the image when you do that (which brings the 24mm to closer to 26mm), and its softer optically due to the correction as well. Third, the sigma has (what I would call) fairly pronounced Longitudinal chromatic aberration - which cannot be removed in post processing. ( https://www.opticallimits.com/ima...ca_f28.jpg or https://media.the-digital-picture...n/50mm.jpg )

Forth, I think a lot of this stems from your apparent nervousness to buy and sell camera equipment. Lenses hold their value VERY well. You are only out maybe 30% of the cost once you resell the lens (much less if you buy used to begin with). Is the Z mount lens more money? Yeah, it is. But its not that much when you consider you will recoup most of it when reselling. And like I said, you can get GREAT lenses cheaply if you use legacy lenses. For instance, take a look at this GREAT tamron zoom: https://www.amazon.com/Tamron-35-...6581840619 . You can find those used for ~$500. And it will AF just fine with an adapter. If you wanted a cheap zoom to compete with the sigma - there it is (they have a wider version too).

Fifth, even if you want to go with the sigma, I still wouldn't go with the a7rii body. If you want to go with sony, either go for the A7Riii, or wait a few months (maybe less?) for the a7iv to come out, and buy the a7iii on sale or used when everyone goes to dump theirs. I bought my a7riii when rumors of the a7riv started to leak, and it literally sells used today for the same price I purchased it. My lenses have lost maybe another 300-400$ because I bought them used too. In other words, I have ~$3500 of stuff sitting here next to me, but my actual cost if I resold today is only ~$350?

If you treat your stuff nicely, you really don't need to be such a penny pincher. Think of it as a loan.

Edit:
I do find it ironic that the review you quoted literally ends with: "The Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S is alone a good enough of a reason to get into the Nikon Z ecosystem. That's all we have to say about this marvel…"

Quote from jimx200 : LOL..spoken like another clueless non photographer here on SD.

Market share ensures a company is making money and can support its users in the long term. When you are number 2 and slip to number 3 not everything is rosy.

Less marketshare means less revenue and less resources to innovate.

Have a read

https://hbr.org/1975/01/market-sh...fitability

Do you think companies like Pentax and Olympus can pump out bleeding edge tech on a consistent basis that is not gonna cost a liver?

I have a d2x. Do you know how much that camera was at launch. Do you know what tech Nikon was pumping out back then. The stuff they are doing now is non competitive. The last great camera was the D850. Nikon is slipping and the numbers show it.

Quote from TimothyS5756 : Market share ensures a company is making money and can support its users in the long term. When you are number 2 and slip to number 3 not everything is rosy. Less marketshare means less revenue and less resources to innovate. Have a read https://hbr.org/1975/01/market-sh...fitability Do you think companies like Pentax and Olympus can pump out bleeding edge tech on a consistent basis that is not gonna cost a liver? I have a d2x. Do you know how much that camera was at launch. Do you know what tech Nikon was pumping out back then. The stuff they are doing now is non competitive. The last great camera was the D850. Nikon is slipping and the numbers show it.

Been shooting professionally on/off for 25 year and yes, well aware of gear costs. You say "The stuff they are doing now is non competitive" and that's complete nonsense. Apparently you have not attended any recent professional sporting events or wildlife shoots as Nikon has a huge presence and will continue. You appear to be the person who thinks the latest body release is needed to make you a better photographer. Nope, it doesn't work that way. Nikon has a new body D870 set to be released as is their latest Z body.