[Closed] Cameras- Sony A7i/a7ii or Canon 60D?

The A7 and A7II are in one sense the same (that is their picture output) but in another sense very different (that is their ergonomics and features).

The picture output will be to all intents and purposes indistinguishable so if the ergonomics and other features are unimportant to your wife, save your money on the body and buy the significantly cheaper A7 (used from a reputable dealer) and spend more money on the lens(es).

The biggest functional difference of the A7II is the 'in body image stabilisation' (IBIS). This means that the sensor on which the image is recorded moves to counteract hand held shake. This should mean you can hand hold the camera at much slower shutter speeds than normal. In theory that sounds like a brilliant idea, but in practise it's relevance is negated by the fact that the ISO performance of modern cameras is so good, you just don't need the IBIS. That's hard to explain in lay terms without explaining how exposure typically works, but a good metaphor would be buying a bigger TV when all you really need to do is move closer to the one you have.

That said, having owned and used both the A7 and the A7II, the ergonomics of the latter are much improved over the former. It's a more solidly built camera and the all round user experience is enough to justify buying it over the older model, if indeed she is inclined to have one.

Personally, I would buy a Fuji over a Sony every day of the week; the lenses are better, the output is much nicer and the user experience far more friendly than the Sony, but this is all very much personal preference. The Fuji sensor is smaller than the Sony's so the lenses will appear different in the view finder but that's unlikely to be a problem. The smaller sensor size should make the image quality lower but it really doesn't; Fuji are really on to something with their colour processing and the files from say an X-Pro2 or XT3 are sublime.

You could consider a Nikon or Canon as well of course; again it comes down to how much your wife will like or apprecaite the electronic view finder.

Feel free to ask more questions - I'm a little bored today and happy to help.

The start of this review lists the differences.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-7-ii

Basically the A7ii has in-body image stabilisation. For landscapes that won't make a huge amount of difference but it should mean that with the right adaptor you can use your existing Canon lenses and still get full image stabilisation.

The grip desigh is different and to most people, a lot better.

Whilst the body is smaller than the Canon it is a full frame camera and therefore lenses are generally heavier and more expensive than for the consumer APS cameras like your Canon.

I'm in a similar situation, changing from a Nikon D7000. I went for the Sony E6300 in the end because the sensor is still better than what I have, but as I go hiking a lot the overall weight of the body and decent lens is half that of my current DSLR.

If you put a Sony FE 24-70 F4 lens on the A7 it weighs more or less a kilo. The Sony E6300 with a 16-70 F4 weighs 300g less...

Hope that helps

If she's had a dSLR for ten years then I'd have thought she'd want to stick with Canon so that she can use all her existing lenses etc.

If she's had a dSLR for ten years and only has the one kit lens, I'd suggest that what she needs isn't another dSLR.

If she’s had a dSLR for ten years and only has the one kit lens, I’d suggest that what she needs isn’t another dSLR.

Maybe in theory but the user experience is so much a part of the enjoyment and a ten year old DSLR will feel it's age when you use it compared to something like the X-Pro2/XT3 or even the Sony.

Thanks for the replies all.

To answer some of the points;

She only has the one lens for the Canon but that was down to having other things to spend money on (kids, house etc). Now she has more time and money she wants to get back into photography. Discussing it with her, the biggest priorities are:

1. Photo quality (which is why she had the Canon previously).

2. The ability to buy separate lenses as the limitation of the Canon was distance shots and while we've looked at getting a new lens for the Canon, it is showing it's age and we can spend a little more and get a better body.

3. Size/weight; she doesn't want to lug around a huge camera and the A7 was just smaller than the Canon she has.

Considering those points would a compact like the A6300 be better?

We haven't looked at the Fuji's but if they are good I will search them out here in Norway and get her to try.

If there are any other recommendations keeping in mind the priorities above I'd be glad to hear them.

Thanks again.

Mirrorless cameras are undoubtedly the way forward unless she has intentions of being a full time, high end pro.

The Sony models are highly thought of, but their lenses are incredibly highly priced.

Her existing Canon lens won't be much use on the recently released Canon mirrorless model.

There is a significant weight penalty in carrying a DSLR and a couple of lenses.

Very popular are the Fuji models X-T3 or X-H1 with the later being aimed at the video seeker. Fuji lenses are stunning and reasonably priced.

But.... a lot of it will depend on how the unit feels in her hands. I used Canon because I couldn't get on with the Nikon ergonomics. Simarly I now use Fuji rather than Sony. It's not just holding it, but also how the controls work. My Fuji has the main controls assigned to buttons on the body work. Other systems require you to go into the menu and work your way through setting screens. Only you/your wife can know which is better for your purposes.

The only real way to find out is to go to a decent camera shop and ask to try them out. Then buy from the shop even though the internet is cheaper. WHY? Because as a complete newcomer there will be lots of things you don't understand and you can go back to the shop for help and guidance. The interweb won't give you support.

If you're considering a Fuji then have a look at a used X-T1, they're relatively cheap these days and still damned fine cameras.

That said I know a few photographers who have the new Sony kit and are absolutely in love.

You could always go a stage further and look at micro 4/3 (don't ask) camera systems such as the Olympus or Panasonic. Smaller again than the Fuji or Sony with corresponding weight reductions. A full range of lenses available. Excellent quality images.

One thing we don't know....what will you be doing with the images? Looking at them on your phone/tablet/PC monitor. Posting them to Facebook where they are forgotten inside a couple of days if not hours? You don't need a DSLR for such purposes.

Unless you are looking to get big prints, and by big I mean larger than A3, then you may be better off forgetting DSLR systems. Camera technology has jumped ahead by leaps and bounds in the past 5 years and what was once seen as cast in stone is now very much old and dated thinking.

Considering those points would a compact like the A6300 be better?

Not really, since the lens is what adds the bulk to a camera anyway; the only advantage is that the A6300 is cheaper and has an insanely fast auto focus system (which is really only an advantage for shooting sports and wildlife)

Basically most of the cameras you can buy these days will do all three points just fine and the main deciding factor really should be whether you like the form factor and whether you like the particular way the camera records (RAW) files.

One other point, the more expensive the cameras get the fewer dials, knobs, whistles and bells it will have. Higher end pro photographers mostly concentrate on just four maybe five things on their cameras: shutter speed, aperture, white balance, ISO, exposure metering/compensation and perhaps one other like burst rate or single vs continuous focusing. You really don't need more than this but feature sets, like megapixels, sells cameras sadly. It's a bad thing for consumers but there you go, you get the product you deserve.