Strick wrote in post #17873415
I have to admit I have followed this thread from the beginning but I am very lost. The OP wants to shoot macro and wildlife but then keeps talking about an A7 and 55mm. Also if you have an idea to replace a 7D, the top level aps-c sensor canon, why look at entry level mirrorless.
I also find it hard to believe that the IBIS didn't work for you on a e-m10 unless it was either not on or not functioning properly. Foe that type of photography the 10 is actually more than capable of producing results close to the 7D.
Basically a full rounded system for me, a one system to rule them all would have to handle a wide range of subjects, Macro and wildlife shooting are the two types of shots i get a lot of enjoyment from and are the areas where i feel Mirrorless' AF would let me down, as i use tracking for both on my 7D. Those areas are also where I've historically had issues on my prior camera (EOS 30D) so I suppose its based on experience.
Maybe I didnt explain some things clearly enough or left out vital parts of my train of thought which lead to some confusion, So let me try to clarify things.
The choice in the A7 and 55mm lens(Likewise the GX7 + 20mm f/1.7, OM-D + 25mm f/1.4) was based upon a gap i have in my current system (Lack of a fast prime in the 35-50mm equivalent neighborhood) the system, if it REPLACED the 7D then yes it needs to excel at macro shooting and wildlife as well. I felt however the best place to start was the capability gap and slowly replace items from there. Thats also the type of lens id use in what i deem my "carry configuration" Which is why I got on the thought of "if Im considering spending a good $700-800 for a 35mm f/1.4 or 24mm f/1.4 Sigma, I wonder if i could get a smaller lighter camera with a similar lens that would be easier to carry around in my bag every place I go" I literally do take the 7D everywhere.. before with the 28mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/2 (old one, Non-IS) sometimes with the 15-85, and at the moment, with the 50mm f/1.4 Sigmalux, the Sigmalux has too narrow of a field of view most of the time which makes shooting at a table difficult. The 15-85 is a bit huge to carry constantly (Albeit awesome) and its a tidge slow which leaves me few isolation options at the 24-35mm settings i tend to use a lot.
Originally the goal was a second camera, Then the money i was spending grew and grew and it got to a point of "Well at this point maybe i should shoot for just replacing the 7D, its old, and a lot of these newer cameras can beat it in terms of IQ" as I said, I was in well over a grand the first two attempts and for that price point the system didnt deliver enough to me as a replacement and keeping it as a second camera felt like a poor investment.
And the OM-D IBIS thing bugs me still, I do know when i turned it off i seemed to do better.. There were other issues, like the Function buttons were in a bad place to operate and fumbly for me, Maybe the EM5II would have been a better choice for me ergonomically. The other issue, the having no feedback and coming home to find out stuff was massively out of focus despite looking correct in the viewfinder and on the rear screen was another issue. And the GX7's focus limitations in some ways were more controllable and such, the OM-D threw up its hands on me a few times in situations i simply felt it should not have, Focused on something in the background off to the right when the focus point was in the mid-left of frame, Focused on something in the foreground at the edge of the frame nowhere near the selected focus point was, refused to focus at macro distances despite focus limiters and overall was a headache.
From my point of view i already elaborated that I didnt want converters and to convert lenses, I even went through the trouble of testing one out and it confirmed that i simply dislike how a converted lens felt on the body, I felt it made the ergonomics wonky and defeated the compact advantage of the A7. I also stated while the A7 is really nice i do doubt its AF Tracking ability from tests in the store. I also started to feel the weight savings when you moved to the "II" Models in the A7 line started to dwindle fast. The lens situation is a key point in this as I could not build my system in native mount lenses. On top of that the price on several must haves for me in their lineup felt priced simply too high compared to what I could get on Canon or Nikon. So it left me either paying near, or more than, $2000 on a second camera that really wont replace my 7D, or attempting to force the square peg of my needs into the round hole of its limitations. For $2000 I felt both options were a poor use of funds.
For simplicity i will use the New street prices for everything in this example. Its too hard to go fishing up specific used copies which might not be available right now
I dont have an issue paying $1000 on the 55mm f/1.8 Sonnar, I do have an issue paying $1000 for the 55 f/1.8 Sonnar, then $1000 for a 24-70 f/4 which is "meh" from what I've read, and not my favorite zoom in that focal range, The closest telephoto is a $1400 70-200 f/4, which is not really the right zoom for me either (And is bright white), The $1000 90mm macro is lovely, but its really not any better than my 100L now is it..Certainly not any smaller or lighter. The 16-35 is fine and priced good enough but im not really a wide angle shooter so this would be way, way down the list of things id buy (My 11-16 has been used not even a dozen times. i just dont do wide angle) I could of course buy the converter and the 70-400 for the wildlife side of things, $350 for the converter, $2200 for the 70-400, $2550. But stop and consider for only a couple hundred more than that I can buy a D610 and the 200-500...And thats JUST a lens, if im being completely fair the Sony combo (A7II, 70-400, A to E converter) is $4250 versus the Nikon at $2900. $1350 difference buys another lens or two.
So in summation, the Sony i would spend more on lenses that would not work as well for me, Really the only two id be completely satisfied with are the 55mm f/1.8 Sonnar and the 90mm macro. I can see the point in the Sonnar, Less so on the 90... Id happily buy the 90 if the rest of the system worked basically, but it wont, so id see no point in picking it up when i already have the very lovely 100L. To me it costs too much to just be "A second camera" as well
To reiterate, i tried a converter and the ergonomics of it felt really wrong to me. Plus I felt i was still throwing away most of the size and weight benefits doing so(Or zero advantage in weight if we're talkin the A7II). It just made less sense to me. The package will be just as deep as an SLR (Due to the register distance) and if im converting over most of my lenses I just feel why not just buy the SLR that goes with them instead. Additionally, as stated, MF for me, even on Sony with peaking and etc would be an absolute last resort, and would likely lead to me not using it if thats what i had to use all the time. I know I really badly want AF, especially good tracking AF. Which is also where the converters will fall flat for me (Except the Sony one due to it basically having one of their pellicile mirror SLRs in there)
Which has brought me back around to the GX7, For about $500 with the lens, i can live and accept its limitations as my carry around camera, for that price it does not NEED to be my 7D or try to replace it for everything. So I think i got my lightweight option taken care of.
Now, if i want to actually upgrade the 7D.. I have quite a lot of choices, and i can take weight out of the equation and prioritize performance/IQ. Thus bringing something like a Nikon D600 or D610 into the option list.
I hope this clears up some of the confusion