Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Why am I seeing an abundance of used A7 and A7R's on the web being sold my their owners? Is there something Im missing?
Im asking because Im in the market for a new camera, and this is one of four candidates.
Nothing wrong with it at all. It's not everyone's cup of tea but it's normal for early adopters and GAS violators to jump in an out of systems. The same thing happened with the Fuji XT-1, Olympus OMD EM-1, Nikon D800, etc. As for being able to take sharp pictures well Digiloyd is full of crap. There are plenty of sharp images in the Fun with A7/A7r thread so it's possible. It's not the perfect camera for all but it's my favorite camera since the Leica M9 and a technical improvement in many assets.
As for a MF replacement - no it's not. It does narrow the gap for MOST though when you figure most people are looking at cropped sensor MF in the sense you can print to similar sizes. It can't reproduce the smoother tonal transitions and there's no replacement for larger sensor sizes. If you are going for $50K+ FF MF systems then yeah you probably aren't looking for compromises.
Interesting.. Id just have assumed that MF users wouldnt have been interested in this camera at all.
I haven't seen half as many X-T1's on the used market as I have of the A7/r, nowhere near it.
A7's are selling for 2/3 their retail price body only, and the X-T1 is selling for a margin less than retail.. which speaks to me on some level of people dumping them faster than fury.
I wonder is it because its a completely new departure for Sony and that when I compare it to the X-T1 for instance, its routed in an already established system with with reasonable expectations are demanded....?
Id really like to hear from everybody who bought an A7/r who sold it and find out what the under lying reason was for their extraction from that camera.
I'm glad someone said it as I can't and you know what I'm talking about
One factor is the initial misconception that A7/r would be great hi-ISO bodies for
M lenses. It was discouraging to see how few in the 'normal' 28-50 range would cover the corners adequately. At that point I almost sold mine. I suppose quite a few others did.
The irony, as I see it, is that these turn out to be the bodies that 'save' R lenses, instead. (And C/Y Zeiss.)
One factor is the initial misconception that A7/r would be great hi-ISO bodies for
M lenses. It was discouraging to see how few in the 'normal' 28-50 range would cover the corners adequately. At that point I almost sold mine. I suppose quite a few others did.
The irony, as I see it, is that these turn out to be the bodies that 'save' R lenses, instead. (And C/Y Zeiss.)
I haven't seen half as many X-T1's on the used market as I have of the A7/r, nowhere near it.
A7's are selling for 2/3 their retail price body only, and the X-T1 is selling for a margin less than retail.. which speaks to me on some level of people dumping them faster than fury.
I wonder is it because its a completely new departure for Sony and that when I compare it to the X-T1 for instance, its routed in an already established system with with reasonable expectations are demanded....?
Id really like to hear from everybody who bought an A7/r who sold it and find out what the under lying reason was for their extraction from that camera.