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.)
Bought one last week, epic camera. (upgraded from A6500)
Waiting for mine. Excited.
selling your a6500?
Sold it in Europe for more than what I paid here in Aus ;)
I'm interested in buying A6500 in a week or so. Especially for it's small size, larger sensor than most cameras and in body image stabilisation.
How long did you use A6500 for? How did you find it? Would you recommend it?
Thanks.
If you can afford it, buy A7rii/sii or A7iii. Full frame has more lens selection and flexibility because you can use it as both crop and full frame lens (so 2-in-1 lens).
I'm thinking of buying this too! Where have you found it to be the cheapest at?
I bought the A6500 initially because of the fast AF and IBIS, comparing it to my A7 III; it's tiny! At the time of buying I was comparing between A 7S II and A6500. If form factor is important, go with the A6500. However I mostly shoot in low light situations and I was missing that full frame look, A7 III ticks all the boxes for me. My favourite lens on the A6500 was the Sigma 30mm F1.8, fantastic lens and very affordable. Of course you can always use FE lenses on the APSC bodies but they are a lot more expensive.
@chateatsblog: www.ryda.com.au is the cheapest at $1550.
Then Ted's Cameras, JB hi-fi and Sony's official website at $1650. Sony website shows $2200 but you'll see the discounted price when the camera is added to the cart.
You get $150 cash back/EFTPOS card on top via redemption from Sony.
www.ditialcamerawharehouse.com.au is selling it for $1750. Just came back from their store without buying because they wouldn't price match.
@points4life: Thanks. Form factor is important. Was considering RX100 VI and then decided on A6500. For extra couple of hundred dollars I'll get interchangeable lenses option, bigger sensor with 35mm f/1.8 Sony lense.
Can't go any bigger than A6500.
@Secret ID: Yes good call, you could even go for an A6300 if IBIS and filming aren't of the highest priority for you. Before jumping on the Sony 35mm 1.8, have a look at the Sigma 30mm 1.4 (I had this lens, loved it) https://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/sigma-30mm-fa14-dc… it's also cheaper. Keep in mind the crop factor will push you around 55mm instead. The other lens I was about to get before jumping ship to FE is the Sigma 16mm F1.4, It also gets rave reviews and is equivalent of 24mm https://www.thephoblographer.com/2018/01/22/review-sigma-16m…
@points4life: Filming isn't a priority at this point in time but IBIS definitely is. Some reviews say it overheats when recording 4K but some haven't experienced it at all. I rarely shoot videos so not too worried about it.
Based on other people's reviews they say that Sigma lense is great but autofocus will be even better with native Sony lense. That's why I decided to go with Sony. Thanks for the links, will review that lense once again.
@chateatsblog:
Price dropped today. Picked up mine for $1299 from George's Cameras. Will claim $150 from Sony.
This is one of those ancient cameras that exist purely as an entry level into full frame now. Still got great image quality but I remember it being around this price like 3 years ago?
In any case, just remember everyone, that lenses are more important than the body! They are the bigger and more important investment. Take that into account with your camera budget
How does it stack up against A6000 or A6300?
Better IQ than the A6000 or A6300 by virtue of having a much bigger sensor. In terms of usability, I would rate it about on par with the A6000, but definitely behind the A6300, which will have much better focusing and features.
Ultimately, depends on what you want to do. If you're after a landscape camera, this will be the best camera for the price. If you're after something to shoot action or sports, then it'll be one of the worst.
What about it makes it bad for sports? What's a good camera for sports? I currently use G7, but it's for indoor sport, this camera isn't great in low light…
@bleeder: a bunch of things. Lenses (though this has improved significantly), focus, battery life, etc. It's a great camera, but you're probably better with an APS-C than this for sports in this price range - just because of the crop factor, lenses, etc.
@bleeder: Yeah, like the others have said - it's a combination of things. I'd say the three biggest factors are speed, autofocus and lenses.
In terms of speed, the 5 FPS isn't actually all that bad, but it's not a very fast camera. The buffer fills up quickly, it takes a while to clear out the buffer and the camera is practically unusable whilst it's flushing the buffer, unlike other cameras. The AF on this body is actually quite bad, especially compared with the modern A7 bodies. It's probably on-par with (at best) an upper entry-level modern DSLR.
In terms of lenses, you just don't have many options. There's the 70-200's (f/4 and f/2.8), but they're not really long enough for most sports, and you have the 100-400 (which is really expensive), and the 70-300 (which is just bad value).
If you want a Sony camera, even the A6000 is better for sports. If you're willing to look beyond Sony, something like the Nikon D7100 will blow this A7 out of the water in terms of focus speed, lens selection and usability for sports.
I bought it around $900 back in 2014.
Sony gave LE-EA4 and sony carry case for free.
You are right about the lenses and Sony FE lenses are not cheap at all.
I live near the beach. I just need the one lense.
Telescopic. :)
Won't binoculars be cheaper?
Do they still have issues such as night reflection etc?
what?
Sensor reflection issue.
Just assume yes. It's the first generation A7.
1985 just rang.
tell them to buy into Apple stock
Just remember these Sony cameras are not good for night sky photography: https://www.lonelyspeck.com/why-i-no-longer-recommend-sony-c…
apparently fixed for a7rIII though, but costs +$3000.
apparently fixed for a7rIII though, but costs +$3000.
Pretty sure the A7R III still has the problem. The A7 III (as low as $2470 recently) doesn't, though.
not according to this: https://petapixel.com/2018/06/08/sonys-star-eater-problem-ha…
edit: yes you're right, it's the a7iii that doesn't have the issue.
They replaced the StarEater algorithm with the WalletEater algorithm.
My A7Sii is great for it, incredible low light sensor on that one.
a7ii for $1250 if my math is correct. Bit annoyed as I paid more last week.
Me too. However I got mine from the shop, so at least I don't have to worry about it being thrown around by lostpost
upvote for 'lostpost' :)
Hm where from?
Ryda/nofrills
Ted's price jacked this. Was $999 before the ebay sale.
They sure did. Still $999 in their non-eBay store
So it's still cheaper by $110 with this sale, then.
yes but price jacking really dampens the mood
@FeZZa21: Not sure why everyone is soooo uptight about it. I just look at the final price because that's what matters when it comes to bargains - whether or not the final price you pay is the bargain.
There have been a number of times where stores reduce prices during sales, but people are unfortunately blinded by confirmation bias so they ignore those times and only complain about price rises, even though the final price paid is still cheaper than without the sale.
@eug:
So true. Marketing in general is essentially price jacking as much as is tolerable whilst pursuing particular sales targets. There's no "goodness" in any prices, they're simply what the seller can get away with. So I'm not sure why anyone would care how they come to a buy price as long as its as little as they can get away with themselves.
Very nice camera. I got rid of mine a few months ago. Let down badly by its <100 shot battery life. Lens selection is getting there, but you gotta push into the high end for some focal length + aperture combinations.
What do you have now? I was thinking of the A7ii to replace my OMD E-M5 mk1, but I think it's the same battery life as the A7?
Chasing that FF shallow DOF.
Be prepared for expensive bulky lenses.
The grass is always greener yada yada.
Unless you are a pro making money off your gear, M43 is the sweet spot.
I guess, but am relatively unhappy with my 25mm f1.4 in DOF and when I have to shoot 3200 ISO +
I want to separate the subject from the background but also highly value being compact. I hate my 12-40mm F2.8 and is rarely on it.
Thinking of the A7ii with 35mm f2.8 and a 55mm f1.8 to go with it. The F1.4s are ideal but like you say not as compact.
I used camera size comparison with lenses and the respective sizes don't see that much different. Only 1-2cm difference.
E-M5 + 17mm f1.8 is similar to A7ii + 35mm f2.8
E-M5 + 25mm f1.4 is similar to A7ii + 55mm f1.8
E-M5 + 12-40 F2.8 is a bit more compact and much cheaper than the 24-105 F4.
The 35mm equivalent I am not gaining much but the ~50mm I am gaining a lot of difference.
What I might do is probably wait it out for prices to drop further and jump on the train when A7 mkIV comes out and buy a II or III.
I owned an M43 a few years back, it was too big to pocket, and the image quality wasn't as good as the APSC canon I had at the time.
I'd choose one of the sony apsc cameras over M43.
Bulky lenses? My FA limited lenses on the Pentax K-1 are tiny.
@RtN:
I went from EP-3/GF-1 > Pentax K01 in search of low light ability, then from the K01 to th A7. I am using mainly adapted Leica M and Nikon F glass with a native E-mounts.
In retrospect I should have gone straight to NEX/Sony. In your comparison above the E-M5 + 12-40 should be matched with the A7II + 24-70/4, it is pretty close in size and cost, but far better in terms of IQ. As much as people like to rag on the 24-70/4, I have been lucky enough to borrow copies for when I have travelled with the A7 and it is a far nicer lens than the 28-70 kit that I own.
In terms of A7 vs A7II you will get a in body stablisation, but no real performance again in low light (approx 1/2 to 1 stop) and no real AF speed again. I am eyeing off an A7RII or an A7III as an upgrade in future, for now my A7 will keep going.
Unless you are a pro making money off your gear, M43 is the sweet spot.
Ff is the sweet spot
No wait
APSC is the sweet spot
No wait
M43 is the sweet spot
No wait
1” is the sweet spot
No wait
Smartphones is the sweet spot
No wait
Enjoying traveling and not taking any pictures is the sweet spot
No wait
…
@RtN: I had this exact combination - A7 + Zeiss 35mm f2.8. Shallow depth of field was impossible unless shooting 10cm from subject. Abandon that hope.
Yes the 55mm would give me it though. I would most definitely be getting 35mm though as a general lens if I do go Sony.
@sylon: If you don't need AF, there's a whole ton of interesting lenses you can use.
Unless you are a pro making money off your gear, M43 is the sweet spot.
That's very subjective. It depends on what kind of casual photos you take. Are you taking portraits of your kids? Your kids at soccer? Landscape scenery on holiday? Food photos? Photos at parties?
Personally I think the advantages of APS-C (cleaner images in low light, large selection of adaptable lenses with a much smaller crop factor) outweigh the benefits of m43 (smaller bodies and lenses).
I had this exact combination - A7 + Zeiss 35mm f2.8. Shallow depth of field was impossible unless shooting 10cm from subject
I have the Zeiss 35mm 2.8 as well, and you can definitely get some shallow depth of field from even half a meter away. Of course it's not going to look like f/1.4, but I just don't want people to think it's going to look like a phone camera shot.
@RtN:
I completely understand the dilemma you're in. The (unfortunate) truth is that if you want shallow DOF (i.e. bigger aperture), the only solution is to have a bigger lens as you need more glass.
Your 25/1.4 on M4/3 will be similar to what you'd get from a 50/2.8 on a FF, so it's actually not bad and plenty of people are happy with their 24-70/2.8 zooms, but I'm also a stickler for shallow DoF, so I completely get where you're coming from.
The problem with Sony (and most mirrorless systems) in my view is that they're still horrendously overpriced. The fact that you can get a D750 for just over $1500 (i.e. half the price of the A7 III) is ridiculous. If you're after shallow DoF and that's your priority, I reckon a D750 and some Sigma f/1.4 primes would be my go to. You can get a D750 and Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART lens for less than the price of a Sony A7 III body only right now, which is just great value.
Yes, it's fat and bulky, but that's just the price you have to pay. I used to be a pro photographer and used to have a full Canon kit which was great. But ever since selling all of that, I've just been unhappy with all of the small systems I've found for personal photography. I'm tempted to just pick up a whole new DSLR system (i.e. Canon/Nikon) and then grab a Fuji X100F for my daily carry.
Thanks for that, yeah I know… why can't we have it all! It's conspiracy, the manufacturers are holding out on us. I don't think I can justify buying an A7iii atm, it'll be my smashed avocado toast.
As I mentioned previously, size is a large factor for me. I have exactly that but a Fuji X100T as a daily carry, AF is a bit lackluster on it.People mentioned that the X100F AF was not much better? I tried it in store but it seemed a lot more decisive and quicker than my X100T.
Anyway I did look into the Canon 6D/Nikon FF but felt it was too large and heavy for me even if I wasn't carrying it daily.
I think if I can sell my M43 gear for a decent price then I'll switch systems. I went into a store and the a7ii + 35mm2.8 seemed very nice to hold and is relatively light. Wish there was the 55mm to try but they were out of stock.
On the other end, I also own a RX100 III that I used once…. that thing is too small to handle for me.
Sub 100 battery life is rather odd. I had mine and I was able to shoot around 300. There were plenty of ways to increase battery life (Turning off Wifi etc).
And yes, it has Sensor reflection issues. However, it only occurs in direct light at night.
Mine has been with my since 2014, I was getting 300+ shots per charge on my last trip (Germany/Austria over Xmas 2017). That is with wifi/NFC left on.
Really confused by the sub 100 shot experience mentioned above. Non-genuine batteries maybe?
@aim54x: Most likely they're leaving it on for long periods of time between shots. The EVF and screen are battery killers
@phil1311: that is a good point as well, maybe the sleep timer was set to something long, mine is short and I don’t turn off the camera that often if I am out taking photos.
Scrap the A7ii, save a bit more money and go for A7iii. You will have no problem using your Canon glass with it, some good Youtube reviews on the subject.
Lol I shoot on my phone. The purists will be aghast, but I'm over carrying extra weight for (in my eyes) minimal benefit.
In reality, bigger batteries mean bigger bodies and more weight. Small cameras like the A7 and OMD are just that - small cameras. You accept a bunch of compromises in order to have one. Lower weight means less room for those precious milliamperes.
I see you mention low depth of field shots down there. Welp, the low weight of these cameras also makes that hard. The real low aperture lenses, like below f1.4, are usually big heavy things. You can get converter rings and whatever to use cheaper Canon EF lenses or Nikons, but they bring further compromises like losing autofocus. So then you have a little camera, stuck on a big heavy lens, that can't AF like it was built to…and…you reach the point where you wonder if a 5D3 with a cheap 35mm f1.8 would do a better job for less money and fewer headaches. Long story short; everything is a compromise. This camera is no exception.
Yes I am very worried that the grass is greener on the other side. Because I guess having a compromise with the a7+55mm f1.8 would give me a decent weight/size camera with more bokeh than my em5 can give me.
My Canon 6D plus a 35mm or 50mm f1.4 produced shallow DOF for days. Was a very affordable, light and compact combo by SLR standards.
My more compact setup which produces decently shallow DOF is my EOS M3 with 22mm f2 pancake. Back in the day I think this setup only cost me about $600 in total.
To be clear this doesn't qualify for the $150 gift card, the model that comes with the kit lens does. This is ILCE7B (body only), the eftpos card is for ILCE7KB (with kit lens).
Well spotted!
blackfalcon53 yep, you are right.
Thanks to the MOD that edited the post
Yeah it's disappointing, I had been looking earlier and it took me a while to work out why this model number didn't seem to match up with the promotion.
https://store.sony.com.au/cameras-interchangeablelenscamera/…
Yea……
Didnt mention about the giftcard at all……
I work professionally as a wedding photographer and wanted something light to carry around when I go on holidays or trips(not 10kg of gear strapped on my neck) so I purchased an Olympus omd em5. Very disappointed of the battery life, slow AF in low light and no optical viewfinder. That's more of a me thing as I am used to bring the camera up to my eye to frame the shot. Anyone wanting to get into this mirrorless system should have those 3 things in mind.
One more thing as I guess we are all camera enthusiasts reading this post, are there any good binoculars on sale at Ted's or other stores that have the 20% off? I used to have a Russian BPC4 8x30 but it got stolen. It had very nice optics and build quality. Anything else as good worth considering up to $300?
The EM5 is 5 years old. Things move quickly in mirrorless world. You do have some points though. Battery life on mirrorless about half that of DSLR which is why the A7III is so exciting with 780shots. EVF on non budget models are excellent these days and I prefer the WYSIWYG composing. Not sure what you mean by "used to bring the camera up to my eye"? I mean the EVF works the same way…
I'm sorry forgot to say it was the mark 2 version. I got that camera two years ago, sold it after an year as I wasn't using it at all. Yes EVF works the same way but compared to the big and bright viewfinder on my d4 and d800 there is much to be desired. I have also used(not owned) other EVF cameras but in low light there is always fuzziness to the image displayed. Reminds me of the 8mm camcorder days.
not on a9 / a7r3 / a73
Yes EVF works the same way but compared to the big and bright viewfinder on my d4 and d800 there is much to be desired.
I shot on a Canon 5D MkII for years and loved the optical viewfinder. I then bought the NEX7 in 2011 and thought the viewfinder was pretty good, but I still liked the 5D better.
Then I upgraded to the A6300 then A6500, then A7S II. The EVFs were so good that I didn't miss the 5D's optical VF at all. I used to have to change focusing screens on the 5D when switching certain lenses, now I just use focus peaking which IMHO works even better, especially in darker indoor conditions. I then bought the A7 III and sold all my Canon gear and haven't looked back.
With the A7S II and A7 III, the EVF lets you frame photos in ridiculously dark conditions before you take a long exposure where an optical VF would be unusable, as the sensor is more sensitive to light than your eye.
I'd suggest checking out the Sony A6500 or the probably soon to be announced A6700. The speed the A6500 can lock focus is up there with the best of any type of camera. Yes it's a digital viewfinder, but it doesn't take long to get used to that. The zoom kit lens is pretty meh, but fine for holiday snaps and takes up no space. Can always throw a couple of other lenses in the bag to take with you when you want to get your Ansel Adams on.
As for binoculars, maybe the Canon IS (https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/New-Canon-8x25-IS-Binoculars/123…) but outside your budget. Perhaps one of the Nikons then? eg https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/New-Nikon-12X50-ACULON-A211/1231… or https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/New-Nikon-Travelite-10x25-EX/123…. Would check 'em out in a store first though.
Spot on, the A6500 is a very good camera, my colleague sometimes uses it for video. Thanks for the recommendations, I will have a look. I don't mind spending more than $300 but don't need anything better than that :) Would you know if the optics match/surpass the contrast and sharpness of older binos back in the days? When I go to Ted's ebay store >> visit store >> binoculars >> no items to display. How did you find these?
So https://buymobile.com.au/products/carl-zeiss-victory-ht-10-x… is out of the question then? ;-)
Yeah - the Teds eBay store is broken in that you can't filter using their tabs. Just go to their main store (http://stores.ebay.com.au/teds-cameras-1) and search for binocular. If you want cheap but semi decent, https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/New-Nikon-8X42-ACULON-A211-/1231… is apparently good although not waterproof (if that is an issue for you). But for under $100 it's a pretty good deal.
As far as image quality - very generally speaking (most) older binos are like toys in comparison to the newer ones. You can get' em with smaller lenses that let more light in due to coatings and better glass.
Personally I'm tempted with the Nikon Travelite 10x25 EX for $160, although when you consider shipping https://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/nikon-travelite-vi… might be cheaper.
Oooh. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=cart_acce…
US$116.21 shipped, making it about AUD$155 and it includes a flashlight (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=cart_acce…).
@PlasticSpaceman: argh. Have fallen down a rabbit hole. Was mixing up the standard Travelite and the EX version. $160 for https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/New-Nikon-Travelite-10x25-EX/123… is definitely better.
Can vouch for the 6500. It is a brilliant camera.
A7 here for nearly 4 and a half years now. Great camera, and this is a great price. Easily get a day out of one battery (I tend to work on that, rather than number of shots I can squeeze out of a battery) - personally I try to concentrate on getting a photo right the first time rather than taking multiple shots and hoping one works out. If I come away with six photos I'm happy with, that means a lot more to me than ending up with 600 photos some of which may or may not be keepers. Maybe I'm too old school, but it also means less mucking around in post and I'm lazy. But I digress. Managing battery life is not rocket science - just put it in airplane mode to disable wifi etc if you're not using that, switch it off if you're not going to be using it for a while. Using manual focus, or not continually changing focus on things, also helps (depending on the lens, having the body continually moving the focus can suck a battery dry). I do have multiple batteries just in case (and it only takes a couple of seconds to swap them out), as well as a grip that holds two batteries so makes the body easier to hold as well as doubles the amount of shooting you can do before having to swap anything out.
Newer bodies are definitely better - various tweaks making both image quality and usability better - so if I was in the market now I'd probably seriously consider one of those unless budget absolutely ruled it out, but that does not make this a bad camera at all. I have no plans for updating. What I also like about it is when I want to travel light I can always grab my APS-C body - uses the same lenses and batteries. Oh, and it supports installation of apps on the camera itself, that some of the newer models no longer allow…..
It is a great camera for the price. Especially if you are into manual focus lens (old and new like the Voigtlander's/Loxia's). Save on the body and spent more dollars on the good glass. The A7 MKII has in-body stabilization but that's not a big deal. At the end of the day with a good lens I doubt you would see much of a IQ difference between the A7, A7 MKII, or even the A7 MKIII (all 24MP).
Was just wondering have you tried IBIS? I am on a budget but IBIS is pushing me to spend almost double to go for the A7ii but coming from and Olympus E-M5 I really love IBIS, I can tell the difference when I shoot with my FUJI X100T which does not have it and I almost need to always shoot with 1/30 for relatively consistent shots, ideally 1/60.
The IBIS on the A7 is one of the weakest (due to stabilizing a larger sensor). I think the A7 IBIS is good for 3 stops where as the M5 is 5 stops
I currently have a em5 mk1, so I think 3 stops or something.
I literally took 11,000+ at an airshow on 5 batteries with 2 Nikon D7200 bodies. (My record for number of shots in a day).
300 photos. Pah. I would spit if 3 batteries didn't last me 1,000 shots. I'd need 37 batteries on a mirrorless body if it only allows 300 or 19 if you really get 600 shots. You people make me laugh.
Go on down vote. I'll just keep shooting, shall I.
11k?! Hope that was a time-lapse :P
That was pass after pass of aircraft all day at 5fps.
I only do one airshow a year - Wings Over Illawarra. Which is good or I'd be killing camera shutters left, right and center.
Out of curiosity, how many photos do you end up keeping?
All of them. I don't delete photos unless it is a complete misfocus.
3 things to consider if you want to shoot high volumes:
1) Have you ever had a relative or family friend die unexpectedly? Any photos of them are precious and no one cares on bit if it's a technical miss. That's an extreme circumstance but you never know which photo you've taken is going to be interesting years down the track.
2) How long will you spend deleting? How much is your time worth? I haven't reviewed those 11,000 photos yet. Only a small sample of them. I've had a busy month. If I spent 10 seconds on each of those photos it would take 30.5 hrs. How long before you get tired and delete ones you really shouldn't.
If I want to look at photos it's a case of positive selection. I will pick out an aircraft I'm interested in or something will catch my eye and I'll grab the best of those shots assuming there's a good one. There is no way you're going to look at 11,000 shots in one or two sittings.
3) 4TB drives are cheap. My whole collection fits onto 3 (if you exclude wedding and honeymoon photos from 2007, otherwise 4). I didn't always have 24 MP cameras. My first cameras shot images that were a few hundred KB in size.
I also will go long periods without shooting then get time and motivation to go nuts. Only since getting the 24MP cameras have I been shooting up to about half a TB a day and that'd probably be just that once per year.
Would be a whole different ball game if I was shooting video, but I'm really not interested in more than the odd one here or there.
There is a standard calculation for that. Something like 30secs of screen on time and one photo. So camera burst shots aren't a direct comparison.
Fair enough.
I literally took 11,000+ at an airshow on 5 batteries with 2 Nikon D7200 bodies. (My record for number of shots in a day).
300 photos. Pah. I would spit if 3 batteries didn't last me 1,000 shots. I'd need 37 batteries on a mirrorless body if it only allows 300 or 19 if you really get 600 shots. You people make me laugh.
5 batteries for 11,000 shots, so 2,200 shots per battery? Are you ready to spit on your Nikon D7200? ;)
This guy got more than 6,000 shots on one battery with his Sony A9 mirrorless by just burst-shooting a lot.
And if you run out of batteries, you can just plug in an ordinary power bank and keep shooting.
No need to spit on my gear. ~2000 shots is plenty for me. 300 is not acceptable. It isn't a p*ssing contest. It's a matter of what's practical. Can I carry 6 batteries with me? Sure, no problem? Can I carry 37? Not easily.
The CIPA-rating for the the Nikon D7200 is 1110. It is 480 for the A9.
Sources:
https://www.apotelyt.com/camera-power/nikon-d7200-battery
https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a9/sony-a9A6.HTM
Wish they had the A7III…