I Bought The Oldest Full Frame Mirrorless Sony for $500, and Why You Shouldn't.

In this video I bought a Sony A7 for $500, but you shouldn't imitate me, because there are better options for the same money.

———————————————————

Gear That I Use & Recommend:
CAMERAS:
For Photo & Video

For Video

APS-C LENSES:

FULL FRAME LENSES:

AUDIO:

LIGHTING:

NICE-TO-HAVE ACCESSORIES:

Complete Gear List:

———————————————————

Disclosure:
Most of the links above are affiliate links, which means at no extra cost to you, I will make a small commission if you click them and make a qualifying purchase. If you want to buy something else, you can also use this link to Amazon:

———————————————————

Supporting The Channel:

———————————————————

Professional & Sponsorship Inquiries:

MUSIC: Serein - Blue (Sappheiros Remix)

[christopherkowalewski]

What does come out of this interesting video is that if you:
- want a full frame,
- don't care about sports photography,
- prefer or want to discover the extensively large family of manual-focus (vintage) lenses,
- are fine with carrying two or more extra batteries and
- watch your budget, then
the A7 turns out as an excellent option.

[okefznf]

I can't wait to get the A7 iii 80% off. In ten years...

[leslawrenson]

This video completely misses the point of the A7 for most keen amateur photographers. For me, the big deal was to be able to shoot at full frame with all of my old and expensive Legacy glass. For those of us who come from a purely manual-focus heritage, your greatest gripe about this camera simply isn't a gripe. The fact that I can snap on my pin-sharp 21mm Zeiss piece of glass and snap ultra clean and superbly balanced landscapes at full frame 24 mega-pixels is an absolute joy. And, then, clip on a basis Zeiss 50mm f/1.8 lens and take beautiful portraits with the kind of background bokeh that would make a blind man cry, and all for around $500 used, is little short of stunning. That's what your video presentation ought to have focussed on (pun intended).

[AiurMedia]

The A7 is brilliant if you only shoot stills in controlled environment, i only sold it in 2019 after 5 years with me, brilliant camera.

[jamesf]

As a person who owns Sony a9 and Sony a7, I must say that I don't completely agree with the conclusion. I still use a7 on weddings as a second camera (with around 150000 shutter count), and despite the fact that autofocus isn't great, it's still usable if you use a proper lens. I'd say that if a person wants to shoot portraits or landscapes, it's better to buy a7 over a6xxx. Pictures will look more professional because of larger sensor (yes, I love bokeh), and will be more flexible and editible. Colors aren't that great out of the camera (they tend to be more greenish), but you can easily tweak them using Camera Calibration in Lightroom. I personally like using a7 with Rokinon 35 1.4 (Sony 35 1.4 will autofocus just a tiny bit better but it has some major issues for the price) and pancake Rokinon 35 2.8 which makes the whole camera weight like Sony RX1, which is perfect for traveling. The battery life is worse than the one of a9. I use one battery for the whole wedding in a9 and three in a7. Though they are light and cheap if you buy generic ones. The mount IS somewhat loose, though it's noticable with larger lenses like Sony 85mm 1.4 GM and Rokinon 35mm 1.4. I just installed the a7s mount on it. It costed me around $100, but it's more solid worth large lenses now. The grip is fine if again, you're not using something like 85GM (it's still somewhat fine but not as comfortable as a9 with an L-plate). The body is FAR better than any a6xxx camera.
So if you're planning to do portrait or wedding photography, you better buy Sony a7 with Rokinon 35 1.4 and Rokinon 85 1.4 than Sony a6100 with Sony 16-50 2.8G. Pictures will look a whole lot better. Just remember, that autofocus in low light is not usable (it's the most frustrating thing in this camera).
I really hope this helps if you're on a budget and still want a nice photography setup.

Let's be honest, the Sony aps-c cameras are the gateway drug to the full-frame cameras.

[rjmusicltd]

I brought 2 of these in 2015. With one of them, I use a canon 24 70 f2.8 lense with a metabones adaptor. I have installed updates on all. Still to this day people are blown away by the quality I produce and they ask what I use. When I tell them a7s mk 1 they are shocked. Hype plays a big part in obsolete.

[johnmakphotography]

The focus is really great. I use Sony Alpha cameras for 6+ years. I have used the A7 in world dancing competitions with the 24-70 G Master in continuous AF. 95% of the photos were stunning and in focus. You have to really know your camera to take great images and own it for a while.

[seelyw.]

If you just want the fullframe look the a7 is perfect. Buy a manual lense or use a vintage one. Focus manually and you can take great artistic pictures.

[PrashantSaikia]

I bought one for $310 a couple of months back. Paired with tiny lenses like the Samyang 24/2.8 or the Zeiss 35/2.8, its a great little kit, specially for a full frame. I think this is the smallest and lightest full frame camera you can buy, as all mirrorless cameras have been getting bigger and heavier. And the reason I moved to mirrorless from DSLRs is the smaller size and weight. So, even though the A7 may not be technically as good as everything that's come later, I bought it as I value the small size and lightweight kit.

[mineclashtv]

If you're primarily shooting landscapes and architecture like I do, an old Sony FF camera will still be perfect for the price. I own an a7II, which has IBIS and better ergonomics than the a7 and that thing is awesome. Wide dynamic range, good ISO performance and in combination with some good glass (tried the 16-35 f2.8 GM for a week) the shots will be indistinguishable from e.g. an a7III and you save over 1k. And I also don't have that much trouble with the baterry life, sure it isn't great, but it has always been good enough for me at least

[ironsienna]

I would take your recommendations seriously, but then I saw those samples with the white balance completely bonkers and I realised that maybe for some people photography is more about speed and autofocus than photographs. I bought a used A7 with stock lens a couple of weeks ago and I absolutely love it. A huge upgrade from my beaten up Nikon D7000.

[cocoricov]

Using an a7 with leica lenses for 5 years. It's a great camera. With focus peaking I have everything I need and won't upgrade to anything else!

[chuckmoser]

I bought an A7 in early 2014. Over time I replaced the mount ring with a fotodiox tough mount and had the AA filter replaced with Shott optical glass. I still use this camera even though I also have an A7Riii.

[jan-hendrikbussmann]

A low-light comparison between "old" full-frame and "modern" APS-C would be worth looking at in my opinion. I would think the advantage it may have had against the contemporary cameras would have vanished by now. What you did not touch in the video is the better separation from the background in the portrait shots with the tree as background. Yes, the A7 missed the focus on the eye, but with both cameras at f2.8, the image from the A7 had a less distracting background.

[aarvin]

Is he the SON of the car reviewer Hoovie's Garage?

[AGoy]

Love my old A7. Had it, loved it, abused it for years. Without it I’d not have learned photography, pretty much. It can hack motorsport rather nicely! I keep an old Helios on it these days. Big love for ‘em.

[chakwong]

MILC and vintage lens is a match made in heaven. No autofocus problem, manual focus only. Don't need expensive adapters. $20 ones do nicely. APSC can't use FF vintage lenses without crop factor. :-)

[alonzofarmer]

I paired an a7 with a 85mm 1.8 Viltrox lens and it's an amazing full frame experience!! Give it a try!

[chicken_person]

I got the a7s recently, and because a lot of what I do is more related to low-light performance, I think it is far superior, even as a part of the original a7 series.


I do a lot of astrophotography, and started on that with the a6000. That was frustrating to work with because of what I had to do to work around the questionable-at-best high ISO performance. Once I switched, the completely silent shutter and the gyroscopic level blew me away as features that I make use of every day.


The autofocus isn't great, certainly worse than the a6000, but I've still used it to shoot sports as a student photographer. The slow burst speed is annoying, but the ability to shoot in less-than-perfect light (and even terrible light, I.E. a soccer game from 7 to 9 PM) and still freeze the action is amazing.


If you need low-light performance or want the best image quality for landscape/portraiture, I think the original a7 series still has its place as a budget camera. A 12 megapixel full-frame sensor is certainly more forgiving on lens sharpness than a 24 megapixel APSC, so I feel like my photos are sharper on the a7s as well. I think it comes down to your needs more than "the original a7 series has bad autofocus" or "full-frame sensors have better image quality." I don't think either is worse than the other for the price point, just that they're better for different applications.