Is the original a7 worth it?

[Window_Frame]

As a video camera, I've heard nothing but BAD things about it. Video is murky, codec is garbage, low-light is abysmal, etc. But I'm on a budget, and I want a camera that can give me nice bokeh right out of the box. Is it worth the investment knowing its faults? Or should I just get something with a smaller sensor like the NX500 or a G7 and be done with it?

 

[Cinegain]

I'd opt for G7 with a lens turbo and throw some vintage bright glass in front or something.

[Andrew Reid]

A used FS100 is the answer

If it is within $500 of the A7 get that instead.

[Window_Frame]

I'd opt for G7 with a lens turbo and throw some vintage bright glass in front or something.

​Is there a cheap adapter out there that would allow me to put a Canon EF 50mm 1.8 on a G7?

[Cinegain]

​Is there a cheap adapter out there that would allow me to put a Canon EF 50mm 1.8 on a G7?

​Nah, forget that cheapo Canon 50mm f/1.8 altogether if you're going M43. There's no aperture control possible for these Canon lenses with cheap adapters. If you can, get the G7, with a 100-ish costing lens turbo (Nikon -> M43), with the Sigma ART 18-35mm f/1.8 in Nikon mount. That's a super solid starting point. Then get some cheap Fotga adapters (like 15 USD each) for like M42, Pentax and Minolta (full manual lenses) and start gathering some vintage glass where you feel you're lacking range. Like a Pentax-M SMC Asahi 50mm f/1.4 for example. Maybe save up for a native MFT T0.95,f/0.95 lens from SLR Magic/Voigtländer.

[Window_Frame]

​Nah, forget that cheapo Canon 50mm f/1.8 altogether if you're going M43. There's no aperture control possible for these Canon lenses with cheap adapters. If you can, get the G7, with a 100-ish costing lens turbo (Nikon -> M43), with the Sigma ART 18-35mm f/1.8 in Nikon mount. That's a super solid starting point. Then get some cheap Fotga adapters (like 15 USD each) for like M42, Pentax and Minolta (full manual lenses) and start gathering some vintage glass where you feel you're lacking range. Like a Pentax-M SMC Asahi 50mm f/1.4 for example. Maybe save up for a native MFT T0.95,f/0.95 lens from SLR Magic/Voigtländer.

Thanks for the response. All of that seems a little out of my range at this point in terms of budget. I think it would be just cheaper for me to buy the FF a7 or an NX500 with a prime lens for it.

[TheRenaissanceMan]

Thanks for the response. All of that seems a little out of my range at this point in terms of budget. I think it would be just cheaper for me to buy the FF a7 or an NX500 with a prime lens for it.

​The Panasonic G7 with an SLR Magic 12/17mm f/1.6 and 35mm f/1.4 kit would cost you around 1500 and gives excellent image quality. What are you aiming for price-wise? And what are you looking to get out of your purchase? Shallower depth of field? More resolution? Better overall image quality? Nicer ergonomics? 

The A7 with a cheap 35mm or 50mm will indeed be cheaper, but the video quality's pretty lacking and you won't have much flexibility. 

[Window_Frame]

​The Panasonic G7 with an SLR Magic 12/17mm f/1.6 and 35mm f/1.4 kit would cost you around 1500 and gives excellent image quality. What are you aiming for price-wise? And what are you looking to get out of your purchase? Shallower depth of field? More resolution? Better overall image quality? Nicer ergonomics? 
The A7 with a cheap 35mm or 50mm will indeed be cheaper, but the video quality's pretty lacking and you won't have much flexibility. 

​To be honest with you, I'm looking for shallow depth of field and some nice detail. I've used the a7s for a shoot and fell in love with that camera. I have been trying to find something comparable that is somewhat within my budget (1,000 or so), but I'm not having much luck.

[TheRenaissanceMan]

​To be honest with you, I'm looking for shallow depth of field and some nice detail. I've used the a7s for a shoot and fell in love with that camera. I have been trying to find something comparable that is somewhat within my budget (1,000 or so), but I'm not having much luck.

​Yeah, I'm not sure what to tell you. The best alternatives would be the A7R (much worse low-light, softer, worse codec) or the A6000 with a Speedbooster (decent low-light, just got the XAVC-S 50mbps codec via firmware, but no mic or headphone jacks), but neither is a perfect replacement. I've seen the A7S go for as low as $1500 on Ebay, but that's still above your budget. 

I would take a serious look at samples with the GH4 and SLR Magic lenses. Despite being on a smaller sensor, those lenses produce great shallow DoF because their bokeh is so smooth. Incredibly cinematic glass. If you like what you see, the G7 might still be a good option.

Good luck with whatever you decide. 

[Mattias Burling]

I've had both the A7 and the FS100. If having to choose one of them today I would let size be the factor. Do I want a small camera or a fully featured one.

Here is a shootout I did but I have reviewed the A7 as well. 

 

[Xavier Plagaro Mussard]

Get a Panasonic LX100 and think about your video skills, instead of your lens collection!

[Window_Frame]

I've had both the A7 and the FS100. If having to choose one of them today I would let size be the factor. Do I want a small camera or a fully featured one.

Here is a shootout I did but I have reviewed the A7 as well. 

To me, It looks like the FS100 is a bit better looking than the a7 in your comparison video. Would you say that is true? Does the a7 hold up against the FS100? 

[Mattias Burling]

To me, It looks like the FS100 is a bit better looking than the a7 in your comparison video. Would you say that is true? Does the a7 hold up against the FS100? 

They are pretty similar. 

The A7 is of course full frame but the FS100 has way less moire and rolling shutter.

[fuzzynormal]

For your budget, as mentioned by Cinegain, "G7, with lens turbo"  You can buy a cheap SMC f1.4 Pentax 50mm.  It's usually less than $100 on eBay.  Or, buy a f1.7 for $50.  Both will go plenty shallow on the DOF and you'll get a lot of IQ from the 4k rez of the G7.

From what I see, Panasonic are really the best bet for low-budget camera bodies with impressive specs that cater to the video side of things.  

The setup listed above is under $1K as you requested --and it'll give you lots of ways to burn money (but not a ton) afterwards by buying lots of old used glass.

Your images will have so much more character than the sterile look of modern lenses.  For motion picture/cinema I consider this a very good thing.  You tastes may vary.  For instance, I have a EM5II with the Oly 12mm-40mm f2.8.  Very Pragmatic lens for run and gun corporate shooting, but it looks so pristine and clinical I never use it on my personal stuff.  Honestly, I find that older glass is the best bet to take the edge off of digital video.  That and a 0° shutter, but again... it's all individual preference.

[BrorSvensson]

im corrently with the nex 7 and love everything about it, just nut one thing. I love the look of fullframe with my nikon glass + speedbooster but i want to use my leica glass full frame. Is the A7 and downgrade in image quality from the nex 7? I have never had a shoot that the moire had ruined on the nex 7 and my canon 600d so moire is not an issue for me. I shoot alot of fisheye skateboarding and similar action sports. As i have a fisheye when filming fast motion and panning, rolling shutter dosen't really show up becuase of the distortion.

So do you guys recommend the a7 for me? or should i want for something else? Im on a 800 euro budget and thats where the a7 sits second hand in sweden.

[Julian]

If you're planning on using it for stills too, the A7 is definitely worth it. If you have some nice Leica glass it is by far the cheapest option to let those lenses shine. For stills, the sensor is way ahead of aps-c or m43.

I can't imagine video will be worse than the NEX-7 or 600D. If you do a lot of shots with small depth of field, you won't notice moire/aliasing or lack of sharpness. Deep dof shots / landscapes with a lot of detail will show the problems of such cameras though.

If you can get one for €800, you'd probably sell it easily for the same price if it turns out you don't like it. Waiting for something else makes no sense, it's very unlikely there will be a cheaper fullframe camera anytime soon.

 

 

 

 

[BrorSvensson]

If you're planning on using it for stills too, the A7 is definitely worth it. If you have some nice Leica glass it is by far the cheapest option to let those lenses shine. For stills, the sensor is way ahead of aps-c or m43.

I can't imagine video will be worse than the NEX-7 or 600D. If you do a lot of shots with small depth of field, you won't notice moire/aliasing or lack of sharpness. Deep dof shots / landscapes with a lot of detail will show the problems of such cameras though.

If you can get one for €800, you'd probably sell it easily for the same price if it turns out you don't like it. Waiting for something else makes no sense, it's very unlikely there will be a cheaper fullframe camera anytime soon.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the info! I also had the 5d mark ii with magic lantern on my list but found out that leica lenses wont work on it :/​

[Julian]

Yep, you'll need a mirrorless camera for Leica lenses. Your only option is something from the Sony A7 line, or a Leica M camera...

Or you have to be very skilled with a hacksaw and make something like this:
http://nofilmschool.com/2012/10/leica-m-lenses-on-modified-canon-5d-mark-ii-prove-anything-is-possible

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BrorSvensson]

Yep, you'll need a mirrorless camera for Leica lenses. Your only option is something from the Sony A7 line, or a Leica M camera...

Or you have to be very skilled with a hacksaw and make something like this:
http://nofilmschool.com/2012/10/leica-m-lenses-on-modified-canon-5d-mark-ii-prove-anything-is-possible

 

 

 

 

 

 

​haha thats aweomse, thanks for the help Julian! You are always an informative and nice person!

[PannySVHS]

For your budget, as mentioned by Cinegain, "G7, with lens turbo"  You can buy a cheap SMC f1.4 Pentax 50mm.  It's usually less than $100 on eBay.  Or, buy a f1.7 for $50.  Both will go plenty shallow on the DOF and you'll get a lot of IQ from the 4k rez of the G7.

From what I see, Panasonic are really the best bet for low-budget camera bodies with impressive specs that cater to the video side of things.  

The setup listed above is under $1K as you requested --and it'll give you lots of ways to burn money (but not a ton) afterwards by buying lots of old used glass.

Your images will have so much more character than the sterile look of modern lenses.  For motion picture/cinema I consider this a very good thing.  You tastes may vary.  For instance, I have a EM5II with the Oly 12mm-40mm f2.8.  Very Pragmatic lens for run and gun corporate shooting, but it looks so pristine and clinical I never use it on my personal stuff.  Honestly, I find that older glass is the best bet to take the edge off of digital video.  That and a 0° shutter, but again... it's all individual preference.

​

Would really consider G7 instead of A7. G6 has been a great choice for my first short this weekend. Put some Canon FD glass into the play and you got a great setup

for a beautiful picture, strong and light codec, nice handling. I did my shoot just with one 28mm lens,

lighted the scenes up and was happy to be able to stay within 160 to 200 ISO.

 

About the Lens Turbo, I´ve read quiet a few convincing comments about it. As far as my experience goes, received mine yesterday. It has a loose fit on the m43 mount and

I almost couldnt unmount my FD lens later on. Pin within adapter was bent, though I do know how to mount to my normal FD adapter.

Any way, 28mm is still wide enough on M43 and still has a nice perspective considered normal enough for Super 35 Cinema standard. My 20mm 1.7 Lumix lens just

went over the edge perspective wise. G6 plus adapter plus lenshood plus FD cost me 320 Euros all together. For sound I recommend a Beachtek preamp I rented

over the last weekend.