Sony a7 camera. 35mm full-frame Exmor CMOS image sensor, ~$740 after 20% off ebay and eftpos gift card
(Please note this ILCE7B model without the Sony Lens does not qualify for $150 Gift card — to qualify, you'll need to purchase "ILCE7KB". Refer to the Sony EFTPOS link below to see more info.)
DSLRs have disadvantages that will eventually see them superceded. But one clear advantage is that they require no power (unless you are using a focus by wire less) when just using the view finder.
I would hope that an A9, at 3x the price and more would outperform my D7200. But when it comes to battery life I doubt it. I think if you shot both cameras side by side taking the same shots, that the D7200 would do very well in comparison to the A9, and I think the CIPA scores are a good indication.
Now you can like the A9 all you like. You can prefer the brand or the camera. But don't let it blind you to reality. At the end of the day a camera is a tool and brand loyalty is for suckers, which is why they have to lock you into a system with the accessories.
I would hope that an A9, at 3x the price and more would outperform my D7200. But when it comes to battery life I doubt it.
Don't worry, there are many other ways the A9 outperforms your D7200 that makes it worth 3x the price.
Now you can like the A9 all you like.
I'm really not sure why you feel so threatened by mirrorless cameras.
Just read your original comment and keep in mind that for some reason, on a post about a cheap A7, you just had to tell everyone that you shot 11,000 photos at an airshow.
You have to remember that you are in the minority. Very, very few people here would be shooting 11,000 photos in a day, so your personal experience would be irrelevant to the general photographer population. You are not on dpreview, you're on OzBargain.
Apart from your spitting comment, you even dropped in this gem:
You people make me laugh.
Sorry, but I guess you're superior because you use the D7200. All "us people" who use mirrorless cameras are inexperienced little kids who don't understand photography at all, which is why we didn't buy a DSLR like your D7200. Because everybody has the exact same requirements and usage scenarios as you, right?
~2000 shots is plenty for me
The post I linked to was from someone who got 6,000 shots on his A9, and someone else in the comments mentions people regularly getting 2,000 shots on the A7 III.
The CIPA-rating for the the Nikon D7200 is 1110.
So based on your own experience, the CIPA rating is inaccurate then.
The CIPA-rating for the the Nikon D7200 is 1110. It is 480 for the A9.
Nice cherry-picking. It is 650 shots for the A9 with the LCD, and 710 for the A7 III with the LCD. And if you plug in a 10,000 or 16,000mAh power bank, it'll be … thousands and thousands.
Yes I know what you're going to say next - you cannot use an LCD while shooting an air show. Great, that's why Nikon is still selling the D7200 - for users like you. Nobody's asking you to buy the A7 or A9. Not every camera has to be made with only you in mind. These cameras are not for you, so just don't buy it. No need to be so upset by people buying mirrorless cameras. There are plenty of people in this world who have different requirements to you.
Now you can like the A9 all you like. You can prefer the brand or the camera. But don't let it blind you to reality.
If you read what I said again, I never said that I preferred Sony, shot with Sony or like Sony at all - I'm just stating an empirical fact that the rating of 480 shots for the A9 does not match up with the experience of other users. I don't own an A9 (or any Sony camera), so I can't test for myself whether that is true or not.
At the end of the day a camera is a tool and brand loyalty is for suckers, which is why they have to lock you into a system with the accessories.
This is just a non-sequitur to the argument, which was never even about Sony vs. Nikon at all - in fact, if you read through my post, I said nothing about Nikon at all. I simply said that it seemed (at least to me) that the numbers are flawed.
Instead of responding to my argument, what you've done is simply gone on a rant about mirrorless vs. DSLR cameras and brand loyalty. None of what you said even makes sense or is relevant to the discussion at hand.
The CIPA testing is designed to compare like for like, but of course won't match each user's shooting style, subject and circumstances.
You are comparing a DSLR Nikon camera to a mirrorless Sony camera. Mirrorless cameras requiring the battery to power an EVF is at the heart of the issue. I'm sorry you can't make the connection, knowing the term "non-sequitur", doesn't mean you are applying it correctly.
You also misused the term "rant". The first definition I hit is "speak or shout at length in an angry, impassioned way.". That was too short and not at all angry so doesn't qualify.
Given the CIPA scores I very seriously doubt there are many circumstances in which an A9 will beat a D7200 for camera life. The testing is not THAT flawed, and I doubt you'd come up with anything less flawed without months of work.
@eug:
Nice cherry-picking. It is 650 shots for the A9 with the LCD, and 710 for the A7 III with the LCD. And if you plug in a 10,000 or 16,000mAh power bank, it'll be … thousands and thousands.
Hang on, you're going to compare the Sony cameras with a power pack plugged in and accuse me of cherry picking? Are you serious?
If you've got alternative recognized battery testing scores that show otherwise, have at it. Otherwise, come on, at least try to sound reasonable.
So based on your own experience, the CIPA rating is inaccurate then.
Do you even understand the CIPA scores? Unless my shooting matches the shooting conditions of the CIPA tests, it says nothing about the accuracy of the CIPA score, and everything about your understanding of them. If you shoot differently you'll get more or less shots than the count at CIPA. CIPA is not "how many shots at an airshow". But it's meant to be representative so that if a camera performs better in CIPA it should hopefully translate to many if most other shooting conditions.
So if in an airshow I get 2000 shots, I'd expect the Sony to manage roughly 900 shots doing the same thing. But of course it's not perfect and burst shooting might be an area where the Sony actually does better. Or it may actually depend more on how much time the camera is on with a view displayed than the number of shots, which is just one reason I don't see DSLRs dying completely for the next few years at least (but it will eventually happen).
And where exactly did I state that I was upset by people buying whatever camera they want? Yes, the Sonys aren't for me. It actually has less to do with battery life and more to do with pricing. (The price on this actual body is cheap but only because it's so old). Buy whatever you like. The competition only benefits me.
Did you even read my initial post? I'm saying exactly the same thing that you're saying:
The reason why mirrorless cameras have such poor battery life compared to DSLRs is because they have to provide a continuous sensor readout even when they're not shooting.
So I completely understand that it is a shortcoming of mirrorless cameras. However, in knowing that, it is not the only metric by which to compare cameras. I don't understand why you had to bring in me preferring the A9 or Sony, as that is not even relevant to what we were talking about.
It just seems bizarre that you're bringing up the idea of brand loyalty when you're the one coming out swinging against another brand without considering the full facts.
Hang on, you're going to compare the Sony cameras with a power pack plugged in and accuse me of cherry picking? Are you serious?
Nice dodge.
I only mentioned the power bank as an aside, and in response to your earlier statement about having to carry 37 batteries if you used a mirrorless.
But it's meant to be representative so that if a camera performs better in CIPA it should hopefully translate to many if most other shooting conditions.
You're missing the point. First you say you can do ~2,000 shots. Then you compare it with the A7's CIPA rating of 300 shots, and assumed all mirrorless cameras have poor battery life and are impractical to use.
So if in an airshow I get 2000 shots, I'd expect the Sony to manage roughly 900 shots doing the same thing.
Right, so you don't need to carry around 37 batteries then.
Yes, the Sonys aren't for me.
So why did you feel the need to reply saying things like:
300 photos. Pah. I would spit if 3 batteries didn't last me 1,000 shots.
You people make me laugh.
Go on down vote. I'll just keep shooting, shall I.
Can I carry 6 batteries with me? Sure, no problem? Can I carry 37? Not easily.
Now you can like the A9 all you like.
Nobody asked you to buy a mirrorless camera. Nobody asked for advice on shooting air shows or even 2,200 shots a day. Different people have different shooting requirements, and mirrorless cameras might be the perfect fit for them.
So what triggered you so much that you had to make that initial reply in such an annoyed, superior tone?
@eug:
Nice dodge.
You misspelt 'refutation'.
Nobody asked you to buy a mirrorless camera. Nobody asked for advice on shooting air shows or even 2,200 shots a day. Different people have different shooting requirements, and mirrorless cameras might be the perfect fit for them.
Are you new to Internet message boards? People post their opinions and discuss things there. You see that 'reply' button. It's an invitation to reply.
No one asked you to reply to my reply either. Total hypocrisy.
So what triggered you so much that you had to make that initial reply in such an annoyed, superior tone?
Annoyed and superior? For stating that I wouldn't pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for a camera that takes 300 shots before needing a battery change? Gimme a break, and get over yourself!
You misspelt 'refutation'.
Oh, what an impressive use of an uncommon word.
Are you new to Internet message boards?
No. But it looks like you are new to Internet etiquette. Or just simply common etiquette.
Annoyed and superior? For stating that I wouldn't pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for a camera that takes 300 shots before needing a battery change? Gimme a break, and get over yourself!
You're sounding even more annoyed and superior now. There there. :)
@eug:
You'll have to troll elsewhere. I'm bored with you. A person who goes on like a pork chop because someone dissed his precious camera has no business giving lectures on nettiquette.
troll
has no business giving lectures on nettiquette.
I'll just leave this here.
300 photos. Pah. I would spit if 3 batteries didn't last me 1,000 shots.
You people make me laugh.
Go on down vote. I'll just keep shooting, shall I.
Can I carry 6 batteries with me? Sure, no problem? Can I carry 37? Not easily.
Now you can like the A9 all you like.
The competition only benefits me.
Gimme a break, and get over yourself!
I'm bored with you.
@eug:
And I'll just leave this here:
Don't worry, there are many other ways the A9 outperforms your D7200 that makes it worth 3x the price.
I'm really not sure why you feel so threatened by mirrorless cameras.
This is just a non-sequitur to the argument
Instead of responding to my argument, what you've done is simply gone on a rant about mirrorless vs. DSLR cameras and brand loyalty. None of what you said even makes sense or is relevant to the discussion at hand.
Nice dodge.
Nobody asked you to buy a mirrorless camera. Nobody asked for advice on shooting air shows or even 2,200 shots a day
So what triggered you so much
Right, so you don't need to carry around 37 batteries then.
I'm just as capable of pulling your quotes in isolation. Yeah, you're the one I want giving lectures on netiquette. Are you done acting like a 10 year old yet? Hypocrite!
Calm down, relax, no need to get so upset and triggered on a forum.
Remember, you're the one who came in to the discussion superior guns blazing with an opinion that only applied to your own unique situation, which you applied to everyone here.
Yeah, you're the one I want giving lectures on netiquette.
The first step to fixing a problem is admitting there is one. Congrats!
Have you considered that different cameras are useful for different applications? I use my A7 for travel photography (landscapes, pics of family/friends etc). It lasts a day or two and then gets charged, no worries. I wouldn't take 11k shots in a year.
Yes I have. My comment was that 300 shots would not be acceptable for me.
These A7's are a great way to get into Full Frame cameras. Obviously there are a bunch of compromises, but there are compromises with every camera. I got a bunch of vintage glass (Jupiter 8m's, Helios 44-2, a bunch of Canon FD's and 135mm vivitar) and using a mirrorless camera like this is awesome for getting more use out of them. The Sony A7ii is even better for the fact that is adds stabilisation for any lense that you throw onto it. I know some people that only want these cameras for the fact they can adapter any manual lenses they want.
Do be aware that Sony's lens range is not very wide, and their equivalent lenses are much more expensive than Canikon.
sony is still producing and selling every gen of a7, and every gen of rx100. How would they make money from the new product.
Those numbers are quite flawed though and are not representative of how you (in particular) seem to be using your cameras. The reason why mirrorless cameras have such poor battery life compared to DSLRs is because they have to provide a continuous sensor readout even when they're not shooting. It'd be like if you shot your D7200's in live view all day every day. If you're spending most of your time shooting, not just looking through the viewfinder, then the mirrorless battery life is perfectly fine. It's possible to get well over 2,000 - 3,000 shots out of a Sony battery.