Full-frame compact system camera 24.3 MP Exmor CMOS sensor Includes versatile Sony 28-70mm FE lens Advanced Hybrid AF: phase-detect and contrast-detect AF XGA OLED Tru-Finder Dust/moisture-resistant magnesium alloy body Full HD (1920x1080 - 60p/25p) movie recording with audio level control and clean HDMI output 4K photo output and support for TRILUMINOS Display 3.0" tiltable LCD, 1.23million dots NFC and Wi-Fi ISO 100-25,600 5 fps continuous shooting 30-1/8000sec. shutter speed range Takes Sony E-mount lenses
Includes Free Sony LCS-AMA Soft Carrying Case worth £45
Lenses are expensive due to full frame. This is the main expense of switching from APS-C to full frame.
Any Mk III models will also be full frame and therefore have expensive lenses.
The Fuji XT-2, whilst very good, is APS-C, so will always have cheaper glass due to size.
N.B This isn't a bash at APS-C.
Latest comments (40)
Biggunspaul
31 May 17#38
Another question to the experts out there.
What is the photo quality difference between the a7 and a7s ?
From what I've seen the pow light performance of the a7s is just something else but is only rated at 12mp,where the a7 is rated a 24mp.
I know megapixels aren't everything but unsure to why a more expensive camera has less than the cheaper a7.
afroylnt to Biggunspaul
31 May 17#39
Brexit?
Might be because 7s has a much faster Max exposure rate, just guessng though.
minos to Biggunspaul
31 May 17#40
It is easier to explain with a metaphor. Imagine that the camera sensor is a set of water cups stuck together, each cup representing a pixel. The light is water droplets. When given a fixed surface area (Full Frame) if you put less cups together, you can make them bigger and with larger diameter, so they can capture more water volume(higher dynamic range) and capture more light per pixel per time unit, because of the increased diameter ( low light perfomance).
Similarly the old NEX-5N which has 16MP totally destroys in low light perfomance the newer 5100 which is 24MP.
In the same principle a full frame will always outperform a crop camera of same resolution, because the same ammount of pixels have more space to themselves.
The A7S is an alien breed of camera that is why you you see it used even in proffesional film production.
flipflop2
31 May 17#27
Is this the right place to advertize such an expensive camera? I mean how many people could afford to buy one? I thought this site was really meant for you every day household products.
pukenukem to flipflop2
31 May 171#29
Nope, this is a site for all 'deals'. Good news is you can ignore the ones that are not of interest to you, such as this. Happy times.
anewman to flipflop2
31 May 172#33
This is far from expensive, it is the cheapest full frame mirrorless camera.
SPRR0W to flipflop2
31 May 17#34
Get lost
Biggunspaul to flipflop2
31 May 17#37
I think you've missed the point of this site.It's not about posting up things that are cheap to buy,more about things that have a good saving over the regular price,be it a tin of beans or a Lamborghini.
So sorry to say you are completely wrong when you thought this site was just for deals on everyday products.
And dare I say it but you've got a bit of a nerve to knock someone's deal,when they have taken time out to try and help others to save money,and yet you have never posted a single deal since joining in 2010 !
anewman
31 May 17#36
Bit crass, none of the people at a food bank would have considered buying such a camera.
minos
31 May 171#35
Likewise, I have been using the APS-C sensor camera's for a while now and I am very pleased with them, but I have been very impressed on how the A7 I have tested behaves in low light. The small flange focal distance makes it destroy considerably more expensive FF DSLR type cameras. And the fact that you can use your old lenses and the crop Sony lenses makes is an interesting upgrade for anyone who already owns a 5000/6000.
Last but not least, full frame means insane field of view for ultra wide landscape photography and easier to handle bokeh for portrait photography. The only drawback is if you want to go tele-lens which can be considerably bigger than an APS-C one.
In short if you are a hobbyist and can allocate 1500£ pounds without having to eat at a food bank, go for it. If you already own a 5000/6000 and feel like testing how much of a push a FF gives you go for it, if you just want to shoot in auto don’t go for it.
Last but not least, this camera has good resale value on Ebay even higher than the deal value, if you spread body and lens. That alone makes it a good deal.
anewman
31 May 17#32
I'll never understand when people on forums start talking about cameras that don't exist yet, like A7R III. You can only buy what there is available in the shops now.
minos
31 May 172#28
This is a good deal and by far the best camera for mid level photographers. Being full frame and mirror-less means makes it one of the best performers in low light, and you can literally use any lens you want, from old film lenses to APSC lenses from the crop series.
Yes the dedicated lenses can be expensive but full frame is usually professional territory, with an entry ticket over 2000K. The only disadvantage I would see in using this camera is how obscenely expensive the battery packs are, but this is becoming a norm in modern age digital photography.
pukenukem to minos
31 May 17#31
I have an A6000 with a fair investment in the APSC lens world so I've never bothered with the FF plunge, but have to at some point at this is tempting. I've bought a couple of legacy lens which are loads of fun, and their manual nature really teaches you a lot. Would say though, the in body stabilisation is very tempting and me personally would probably try and push to that, especially if you're going to use the older lens. Hmm food for thought here.
srdrSEA
30 May 172#7
another outdated crap
sparklehedgehog to srdrSEA
30 May 172#8
May be outdated but still blow away anything from canikon for the same money in terms of IQ!
pukenukem to srdrSEA
31 May 17#30
What does this post mean? That you feel the world it littered with outdated products and there is nothing new and exciting anymore? I feel frustration and anger, a sadness if you will. ...Another. Outdated. Crap. Such a defeated and deflated view. I hope you find what you're looking for...one day.
HOTPOT
30 May 17#26
Fantastic camera. I've had the lot & this is great. I've used it for 3 years, best photos I've ever taken. Don't be put off by much of the rubbish spoken on here.
Vanderlust
30 May 17#25
Had this for a year then sold it and got an A7Rii two months ago.
No matter what. Get the 55mm.
djeyewater
30 May 171#24
So long as you don't mind manual focus, you can use a plethora of older smaller, cheaper (and still good quality) lenses on this camera. I've never used the A7 series, but understand that manual focus is much easier than DSLRs thanks to viewfinder tools like focus peaking and magnification.
plamen_gb
30 May 171#20
I've had both the A7 and A7ii you will barely see a difference in normal shooting using the Sony FE lenses, they both work great, the quality and ISO are amazing after all it is FF, I think it is the cheapest brand new FF that comes with a lens. And the kit lens is quite good too. Well worth the money. One thing though buy batteries - one lasts no more than 200-300 shots.
anewman to plamen_gb
30 May 17#23
They both use near enough identical sensors. The benefits of the A7II are the in body image stabilisation that lets you get away with a slower shutter handheld, slightly improved Auto Focus, full magnesium chassis (alot of this is plastic), and improved metal lens mount (again lens mount on A7 is plastic and prone to wearing - though it is possible to buy a metal repleacement), and improved grip/shutter button placement.
I use an A7 myself. I think the step up to the A7II is worth it if you can afford it. The A7R II I'd only consider if you have money to effectively throw away.
Look at the latest crop of full frame cameras from Canikon, like D810 released July 2014. A7 was released October 2013, not that much earlier. If you don't want "outdated crap" get the A7R II but expect to pay for it.
I agree lenses are comparatively expensive when you look at other full frame systems. I ended up getting an LA-EA4 adapter and use Minolta A mount glass. If you want to go the route of A mount glass though, you're probably better off getting one of the SLTs like the A99.
The only other full frame option at this sort of price range is the Pentax K1. It looks amazing for the price, many clever features Sony don't have, but again the issue is lenses. There aren't many available, and most of what's available is just rebranded Sigma/Tamron lenses.
Also for anyone weighing up APS-C vs full frame, I'd say APS-C isn't that much worse than full frame, and there is some great fast third party lenses coming out at the moment that will give you similar depth of field to full frame.
Thoughtful
30 May 17#19
But it's £999 almost everywhere so save for the free bag which probably isn't worth £45 there's not much to shout about.
Nice camera though, but very prone to the rear screen scratching or delaminating, there are some you tube videos on how to fix this.
TK42 to Thoughtful
30 May 17#22
2 Year Sony Warranty included + Quidco. + Free bag.
Would recommend a GGS Optical Glass LCD Screen Protector
slannmage
30 May 17#21
1k and can't record 4k
robo989
30 May 17#18
Love reading the camera deals where everyone Freudian slips their way to trying to one up each other in the knowledge department...
(guilty as charged)
Jbdesignme
30 May 17#17
Personally I went for the a6500 as full-frame wouldn't improve much on what I shoot. Recommend the a6500 for anyone thinking about getting a crop-sensor!
Biggunspaul
30 May 17#16
It's ok saying that but will it be £882 ? I doubt it
BenderRodriguez
30 May 17#15
Lenses are very expensive compared to other full frame systems and they're just as big and heavy.
o3mar
30 May 174#14
Lenses are expensive due to full frame. This is the main expense of switching from APS-C to full frame.
Any Mk III models will also be full frame and therefore have expensive lenses.
The Fuji XT-2, whilst very good, is APS-C, so will always have cheaper glass due to size.
N.B This isn't a bash at APS-C.
BenderRodriguez
30 May 17#13
I've got the xt2 and will be selling it soon, a huge mistake. IQ is so-so, well controlled chroma noise but lots of issues with waxy skin tones and foliage, xtrans sensor simply doesn't work for landscapes (and yes, I tried dozen different raw converters like everyone suggests). Not to mention glass prices, 50mm equivalent costs 3-4 times more than 50mm for C/N and still won't give you that depth of field. 56 1.2 is ridiculously overpriced compared to 85 1.8 and again the dof is nowhere that close.
It's a great second camera but I wish I didn't fall for the mirrorless marketing hype.
crazylegs
30 May 171#5
Cons
Lenses Too Expensive
No Mains Battery Charger
Sometimes Doesn't Magnify
Very Poor Battery Life
sparklehedgehog to crazylegs
30 May 17#9
I like how you didn't list a single Pro!
o3mar to crazylegs
30 May 171#12
Lenses are expensive due to full frame. This is the main expense of switching from APS-C to full frame.
TK42
30 May 17#10
Battery life is poor you can however buy aftermarket ones for just £10 ea. One of the benefits of this camera is its small size and weight (and Full Frame). I would expect any newer models to be quite a bit bigger to accommodate a larger battery (take a look at the new Sony A9). Lenses can be expensive but the standard kit lens this comes with, is very good.
BenderRodriguez to TK42
30 May 171#11
The size benefit is negated by larger lenses.
Full free mirrorless is pointless - same bulk as dslr with poor battery life and tiny, hard to operate controls.
![Fresh Breakfast Meat Box (Using code) @ Campbells Meat [Haggis / Lorne Sausage / Bacon / Black Pudding & More]](/images/topics/208684_1.jpg)
![[Xbox One] Q. u. b. e: Director's Cut on Deals with Gold](/images/topics/208716_1.jpg)
Opening post
24.3 MP Exmor CMOS sensor
Includes versatile Sony 28-70mm FE lens
Advanced Hybrid AF: phase-detect and contrast-detect AF
XGA OLED Tru-Finder
Dust/moisture-resistant magnesium alloy body
Full HD (1920x1080 - 60p/25p) movie recording with audio level control and clean HDMI output
4K photo output and support for TRILUMINOS Display
3.0" tiltable LCD, 1.23million dots
NFC and Wi-Fi
ISO 100-25,600
5 fps continuous shooting
30-1/8000sec. shutter speed range
Takes Sony E-mount lenses
Includes Free Sony LCS-AMA Soft Carrying Case worth £45
+ Free Extended 2 Year Sony Warranty worth £30
£100 Sony Cashback until 3rd Sept.
https://www.sony.co.uk/cashback/summer-cashback
Potential 2% Quidco making the price - £882.
Top comments
Any Mk III models will also be full frame and therefore have expensive lenses.
The Fuji XT-2, whilst very good, is APS-C, so will always have cheaper glass due to size.
N.B This isn't a bash at APS-C.
Latest comments (40)
What is the photo quality difference between the a7 and a7s ?
From what I've seen the pow light performance of the a7s is just something else but is only rated at 12mp,where the a7 is rated a 24mp.
I know megapixels aren't everything but unsure to why a more expensive camera has less than the cheaper a7.
Might be because 7s has a much faster Max exposure rate, just guessng though.
Similarly the old NEX-5N which has 16MP totally destroys in low light perfomance the newer 5100 which is 24MP.
In the same principle a full frame will always outperform a crop camera of same resolution, because the same ammount of pixels have more space to themselves.
The A7S is an alien breed of camera that is why you you see it used even in proffesional film production.
So sorry to say you are completely wrong when you thought this site was just for deals on everyday products.
And dare I say it but you've got a bit of a nerve to knock someone's deal,when they have taken time out to try and help others to save money,and yet you have never posted a single deal since joining in 2010 !
Last but not least, full frame means insane field of view for ultra wide landscape photography and easier to handle bokeh for portrait photography. The only drawback is if you want to go tele-lens which can be considerably bigger than an APS-C one.
In short if you are a hobbyist and can allocate 1500£ pounds without having to eat at a food bank, go for it. If you already own a 5000/6000 and feel like testing how much of a push a FF gives you go for it, if you just want to shoot in auto don’t go for it.
Last but not least, this camera has good resale value on Ebay even higher than the deal value, if you spread body and lens. That alone makes it a good deal.
Yes the dedicated lenses can be expensive but full frame is usually professional territory, with an entry ticket over 2000K. The only disadvantage I would see in using this camera is how obscenely expensive the battery packs are, but this is becoming a norm in modern age digital photography.
No matter what. Get the 55mm.
I use an A7 myself. I think the step up to the A7II is worth it if you can afford it. The A7R II I'd only consider if you have money to effectively throw away.
Look at the latest crop of full frame cameras from Canikon, like D810 released July 2014. A7 was released October 2013, not that much earlier. If you don't want "outdated crap" get the A7R II but expect to pay for it.
I agree lenses are comparatively expensive when you look at other full frame systems. I ended up getting an LA-EA4 adapter and use Minolta A mount glass. If you want to go the route of A mount glass though, you're probably better off getting one of the SLTs like the A99.
The only other full frame option at this sort of price range is the Pentax K1. It looks amazing for the price, many clever features Sony don't have, but again the issue is lenses. There aren't many available, and most of what's available is just rebranded Sigma/Tamron lenses.
Also for anyone weighing up APS-C vs full frame, I'd say APS-C isn't that much worse than full frame, and there is some great fast third party lenses coming out at the moment that will give you similar depth of field to full frame.
Nice camera though, but very prone to the rear screen scratching or delaminating, there are some you tube videos on how to fix this.
Would recommend a GGS Optical Glass LCD Screen Protector
(guilty as charged)
Any Mk III models will also be full frame and therefore have expensive lenses.
The Fuji XT-2, whilst very good, is APS-C, so will always have cheaper glass due to size.
N.B This isn't a bash at APS-C.
It's a great second camera but I wish I didn't fall for the mirrorless marketing hype.
Lenses Too Expensive
No Mains Battery Charger
Sometimes Doesn't Magnify
Very Poor Battery Life
Full free mirrorless is pointless - same bulk as dslr with poor battery life and tiny, hard to operate controls.
http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Sony/Sony-E-Mount-Cameras/Sony-Alpha-A7-with-28-70mm-lens
Thinking of doing away with my canon 700d and getting this instead,anyone know if it will be much of an upgrade ?
Would love to get the Sony a7s but the price is a little too high.