A Question if I may... What would you buy given a fresh start, clean slate approach???

'F-Stop'

'F-Stop'

Messages
172
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
My wife and I returned from holiday last month (Cancun, Mexico) and now have no notable events to look forward to...just a couple of concerts where my iPhone 7 will suffice. With this in mind I decided to have a clear out of my camera gear and start afresh. Now, to be completely honest I do have a point & shoot (Sony HX90) that I leave in my glovebox for those times when we go out without any cameras or in my case without my phone (more often than not as I tend to just forget to pick it up on the way out the door :rolleyes: ). I might just hang on to the little Sony as my wife (who is not ‘in’ to photography at all other than her iPhone) admittedly quite likes the simplicity of it and therefore will happily snap away with it...anything’s better than using a f*@+€^g mobile phone to take photos with right?...as I keep telling her :cautious:

So here I am at the ripe old age of 51, and not owning a ‘proper’ camera...for the first time since the age of 15 which was when I got my first ‘proper’ camera...an Olympus OM10 (which I loved and passed my photography exams with). Anyways, over the years I’ve owned everything from Dslr’s, large sensor point & shoots, M43’s and just about everything in between. The only camera I’ve never owned is a full frame one...and I must admit that as much as an A7R ii appeals, I just can’t justify the cost (especially to SWMBO) :help:

Even though I feel like a kid in a sweet shop with everything in front of me to choose from (and in my case a budget smaller than my eyes...see above) I really am lost as to which direction to go in next! I know for definite that it won’t be a dslr purely because of the size and weight, but other than that I’m at a loss. I’m not ruling out another large sensor point & shoot after really enjoying the results I got from an RX100, but there again I could miss the option to change lenses too much to commit to this.

So good people of Talk Photography what would you do given hindsight and being in a position to start all over again? I’m not looking for a definitive answer, more like just wanting to mull over and consider other people’s opinions in addition to my own whilst I’ve got the luxury of time and a clean slate approach to the issue.

Many many thanks, in advance, for all and any opinions you may wish to share :ty:

Andy :thinking:
 
Hi Andy, does the answer start with what images you want to create? This will drive your selection process, no? So tell us more what you want to do with it...:)
 
It wouldn't be a case of starting again as such for me, I use a full frame camera and it is better than I'll ever be. But if I were to buy into another system it would probably be something like an Olympus OM 10, they have just brought out a new version which looks good imo.
 
I have a Sony A7 which I mostly use with a Sony AF 35mm f2.8 or manual primes and a couple of Panasonic MFT RF style cameras for which I have three primes and four zooms.

If aiming for the best quality you can fit in a smaller than a DSLR package the Sony A7 series is at the top of the heap for quality but pushing the size a bit with some of the lenses, fit a compact lens to an A7 though and you have a MFT SLR style sized package. Would you be happy with an A7? They're cheaper than the A7RII :D

MFT has the advantage of being more compact and cheaper and there are some responsive bodies and fast focusing lenses but you're not going to get A7 quality from MFT if you go looking for the differences.

Maybe something APS-C would be a happy compromise? Sony A6xxx?
 
Last edited:
Ok guys, thanks for all your answers so far :ty:

There’s already been a couple of comments made that have really got me thinking. I won’t go into that any further for the time being as I still would like to hear furthermore on your camera selections and reasons behind them.

Also, some of the comments have mentioned needing more information before suggesting any cameras...and I realised I might have been maybe a touch too vague and should really provide more details for you all to consider....so here goes...

So far as budget is concerned...I really don’t have one. I would love to be able to say money isn’t a factor but, unfortunately, it is. Let me explain. I don’t think the solution to my dilemma can be found by simply throwing unlimited funds at it. If that was the case I could simply go out and purchase a different (and expensive) camera and/or lens for every eventuality. However, I believe that it would only be a matter of time that I’d find myself right back here facing the same quandary but minus my wife, house and car etc. So, if it transpires that a large sensor compact is what I need then there are a few to choose from with differing costs within the spectrum that they sell for. I simply choose one and buy it. The important bit here is that I would have recognised that it was that type of camera that I need in the first place.

So let me give you some further food for thought on my wants and needs.

1) I’ve got a confession to make...I’m a bit of a pixel peeper I’m afraid. I can’t help it, I just always finding myself scrutinising photos and I’m regularly disappointed with what I see. Having said that one of the cameras I have just sold was a Fuji with an APS-C sensor and I was quite impressed with the quality I was getting from it. One of the cameras I’ve had in the past was a Panasonic LUMIX GM1...and I got some fantastic photos from it even though I was only using the standard 12-32mm kit lens. A great little camera that unfortunately was missing one thing I can’t go without anymore...

2) It must have a viewfinder. Optical or electronic, I don’t mind as long as it’s got one. I have a medical condition that affects my eyes and I really struggle with just an lcd screen in anything approaching a sunny day :cool:

3) Ok, so finally I think I want a camera with some sort of zoom capability. I loved the gm1 for its portability and the kit lens was fine the majority of the time. However, I also had a Panasonic G7 with the F3.5 14-140mm lens that really was invaluable on a few occasions simply because of being able to zoom in on the subject/action. Something that a fixed prime doesn’t offer.

So with all that in mind I’d like to hand it back to see what you guys suggest. I don’t think there is any absolute solution, but your considered opinions would be invaluable in my quest for my next great camera experience.

Thanks again

Andy :help:
 
I also started 42 years ago with an Olympus OM10 with the manual adapter which was posh at the time lol. Throughout the years and my career as a wedding photographer Ive faithfully stuck with Canon. Last year whilst I needed a new camera anyway I decided to take the plunge and move to the dark side. I now own a Nikon D810 and have never regretted taking that step Sometimes is good to take a step back and reasses..funds permitting of course.
What about trying some of the mirrorless options theyre not as heavy. Go handle some models..given you can find an actual real shop nowadays
Anyway I wish you luck and hope you find what youre after
 
Andy I'm still none the wiser what you want to do with it....extreme action sports? Dramatic landscapes at dusk and dawn, Wildlife in the polar regions?....holiday snaps? Makes a big difference I would say.
 
'F-Stop' said:
know for definite that it won’t be a dslr purely because of the size and weight
Click to expand...

'F-Stop' said:
It must have a viewfinder. Optical or electronic, I don’t mind as long as it’s got one. I have a medical condition that affects my eyes and I really struggle with just an lcd screen in anything approaching a sunny day
Click to expand...

Canon 100D/200D ? The smallest and lightest DSLR you can get, especially with a pancake lens on.

I was in a similar position to you recently - wanted a smaller camera with a viewfinder. Canon 100D (second hand) won out in the end over a few mirrorless camers with EVFs for the optical viewfinder and range (and cheapness) of the lenses.

Olympus Trip 35 and Pentax ME Super cover my film needs, whilst the Canon 100D and iPhone covers my digital needs. With a pancake on the Canon easily slips into a small bag, and if I don't mind a bit more bulk I can put a zoom on. iPhone for those times when I wouldn't normally have a camera.
 
Last edited:
OK so a DSLR is out due to size and weight, in which case I would also rule out the Sony A7's. Whilst they can be lighter, if you start adding fast zoom lenses you won't notice much weight and size saving over a DSLR. As you don't say what you want to shoot and give a rough budget then I'll blindly suggest a few.

1) Fuji XT1 (or XT2 if you want to shoot anything moving). You've been happy with them before so no reason why you won't be happy again. I had the XT1 and loved it,........ until I saw the controversial Fuji artefacts. I'll let you google that if you so wish but I would like to point out that I tried at least 8 different lots of software with all the recommended adjustments.

2) The Sony A6xxx series. Great image quality due to the APS-C sized sensor, great AF (for mirrorless) and now has a decent enough selection of lenses. Downsides are they're not weather sealed (at least not the earlier bodies and I don't think the lenses are), they're not the prettiest cameras, and they're not particularly comfortable to hold imo, YMMV

3) Olympus OMD series, either the EM5-II or EM1. Again though if you want to shoot sports etc then you'd have to look at the EM1-II which isn't cheap, and not available in silver as yet (Olympus cameras are oh so pretty in silver ;)). Both the Em5-II and EM1's are weather sealed, have the amazing 5 -axis image stabilisation and have tons of customisable features. They also have nice large viewfinders. Some people find Olympus menus confusing (I'm not one of them) but once set up to your preferences you rarely need the menus anyway. The M4/3 system has just about every lens that you could want and for me the perfect balance between size, weight and IQ. I run the EM1 as a lighter alternative to my FF D750 and it doesn't disappoint. I'm not going to say it's as good as the D750 IQ as that would be silly, but it's closer than the difference in sensor size would make you think. Of course, with the smaller sensor and 2x crop factor it makes subject isolation that little more difficult (if that's your bag), but it can be done and you can get a couple of f1.2 lenses now which helps. I've gone through virtually every system (including large sensor compacts) and ended up back with Olympus. I'm a big fan.
 
If I were starting with a clean sheet, I'd end up with what I have now:

7DII, 10-20mm, 15-85mm, 100-400mm II, 1.4x III, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm macro
EOS-M, 18-55mm, EF adapter

Covers pretty much everything I want from camera system. Ideally I'd add a 5DIII or IV, but don't currently want to spend anything more on camera gear.

Bottom line is build a system around your needs/wants, which are likely to be different from mine.

Good luck.
 
snerkler said:
OK so a DSLR is out due to size and weight, in which case I would also rule out the Sony A7's. Whilst they can be lighter, if you start adding fast zoom lenses you won't notice much weight and size saving over a DSLR.
Click to expand...

Deeeep sigh...

This is one of the most common complaints and I think as usual when this is said it's not really fair...

Yes, some of the Sony A7/A9 system lenses are the size of DSLR lenses but you're still saving on the body and you have to try and remember that some of these lenses are aiming at the very high end of the market and you shouldn't be comparing lenses aiming to be the best you can buy with cheap nifty fifty or crappy kit zoom DSLR lenses. Compare the high end fast Sony primes and zoom to other high end lenses such as the Sigma Art range or Canon L and you'll see a similar bulk and weight but with the Sony system you don't have to use these very high end larger lenses on the smaller bodies, you do also have high quality compact primes which enable you to have a camera and lens package which would rival Fuji and even MFT bulk wise but give you better image quality.

If you look at an A7 with one of the larger lenses at least have the fairness of mind to compare it to a DSLR with a similar quality lens. These days it's easy enough to check. Look at this site...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#579.394,679.596,720.383,594.383,621.383,673.383,ha,b
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Deeeep sigh...

This is one of the most common complaints and I think as usual when this is said it's not really fair...

Yes, some of the Sony A7/A9 system lenses are the size of DSLR lenses but you're still saving on the body and you have to try and remember that some of these lenses are aiming at the very high end of the market and you shouldn't be comparing lenses aiming to be the best you can buy with cheap nifty fifty or crappy kit zoom DSLR lenses. Compare the high end fast Sony primes and zoom to other high end lenses such as the Sigma Art range or Canon L and you'll see a similar bulk and weight but with the Sony system you don't have to use these very high end larger lenses on the smaller bodies, you do also have high quality compact primes which enable you to have a camera and lens package which would rival Fuji and even MFT bulk wise but give you better image quality.

If you look at an A7 with one of the larger lenses at least have the fairness of mind to compare it to a DSLR with a similar quality lens. These days it's easy enough to check. Look at this site...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#579.394,679.596,720.383,594.383,621.383,673.383,ha,b
Click to expand...
I think you may need to re-read my post.
 
Money no object (and at a total lower than my current kit bags), 4x Fuji X-T2 with 10-24,18-135,55-200 and 100-400 with 2x teleconverter. Only(!) needs me to buy 3 more bodies - I have the lenses already. Might need a slightly bigger bag, although my current one holds 3 bodies with lenses along with a couple of extra odds and sods.
 
snerkler said:
I think you may need to re-read my post.
Click to expand...
Why would I need to?

snerkler said:
OK so a DSLR is out due to size and weight, in which case I would also rule out the Sony A7's. Whilst they can be lighter, if you start adding fast zoom lenses you won't notice much weight and size saving over a DSLR.
Click to expand...

You're comparing a Sony A7 with a DSLR and ruling both out on size but you don't take into consideration the more compact lenses which enable an A7 to be the size of a APS-C or MFT SLR style body. At least be fair and mention the fact that the A7/A9 can be a compact system.

Holding, handling and using the cameras is the ultimate test but the comparator site is at least there to give anyone with an open mind a quick reference.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I think you may need to re-read my post.
Click to expand...

However we don't know that the OP wants fast zoom lenses as he is talking about P&S cameras he may be happier with lenses that are f4.

Back to the original question. If I was was starting over I would have pretty similar to what I have now and thats a Sony A7Rii, with a combination of fast primes and versatile zooms. If money were no object I would also have a Sony A9 for wildlife and sport with fast telephoto lenses, more realistically financially would be a Canon 7dii. I am part way there as I have the A7Rii, Sigma 35mm f1.4 ART, Sony FE 85 f1.8, Sony FE16-35 f4, Sigma 120-300 f2.8 Sport. My current focal length wish list consists of a 50mm prime, 24-70 and 70-200. I may change the Sigma lenses for a 25mm prime and Sony fe100-400 gm. However the bank manager is standing in my way.

I guess the main issue with the question is, that none of this was available when I started and Canon was the best system for me, however manufacturers and needs change over the years
 
snerkler said:
OK so a DSLR is out due to size and weight, in which case I would also rule out the Sony A7's. Whilst they can be lighter, if you start adding fast zoom lenses you won't notice much weight and size saving over a DSLR. As you don't say what you want to shoot and give a rough budget then I'll blindly suggest a few.
Click to expand...

woof woof said:
Why would I need to?
Click to expand...
Because you've clearly overlooked the bits I've just highlighted.

You're comparing a Sony A7 with a DSLR and ruling both out on size but you don't take into consideration the more compact lenses which enable an A7 to be the size of a APS-C or MFT SLR style body. At least be fair and mention the fact that the A7/A9 can be a compact system.
Click to expand...
Again, may I refer you to the bit I've highlighted.

ChrisHeathcote said:
However we don't know that the OP wants fast zoom lenses as he is talking about P&S cameras he may be happier with lenses that are f4.
Click to expand...
Agreed, hence why I said I was blindly suggesting a few examples. However, based on the fact that the OP is open to fixed lens zooms I assumed (rightly or wrongly as we don't have enough info) that zooms lenses would be more of a preference (y)
 
snerkler said:
Agreed, hence why I said I was blindly suggesting a few examples. However, based on the fact that the OP is open to fixed lens zooms I assumed (rightly or wrongly as we don't have enough info) that zooms lenses would be more of a preference (y)
Click to expand...

I think the 2 areas in bold, pretty much sum up this thread, unfortunately a few contradictions don't help with the matter. However even including the zooms providing the OP is happy with a max f4 (also taking into account the better light gathering ability of FF) the A7 range could still be an option.
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
I think the 2 areas in bold, pretty much sum up this thread, unfortunately a few contradictions don't help with the matter. However even including the zooms providing the OP is happy with a max f4 (also taking into account the better light gathering ability of FF) the A7 range could still be an option.
Click to expand...
It could very much so, I don't dispute that. I just tried to respond the best I could based on limited info from the OP. Having tried various systems I personally didn't find the A7 series gave me much a size and weight saving over a DSLR with comparable lenses. Obviously some folk feel different, and I guess when you use something like a 50mm f1.8 the overall weight saving with an A7 is circa 20%, which does sound significant. However, in the real world it didn't 'feel' that different to me. Maybe it's the grip or balance, which then becomes much more subjective and why there is a wide difference of opinion (y)

But going back to the F4 lens for a second. If you look at the 24-70mm f4 on the A7II you could get the 12-40mm f2.8 on an EM1 which obviously has one stop better light gathering therefore narrowing the gap of the extra light gathering ability of the A7, plus the Olly setup is lighter and smaller even though it's f2.8 vs f4. Use the 12-40mm on the EM5-II and it's lighter and smaller still (camerasize has the weight wrong for the EM5-II).

There's just too much bloomin choice ;) And without knowing the OP's wants and needs we could go back and forth all day long :LOL:
 
snerkler said:
If you look at the 24-70mm f4 on the A7II you could get the 12-40mm f2.8 on an EM1 which obviously has one stop better light gathering
Click to expand...
But doesn't the 12-40mm f2.9 equate to a f4/5.6 equivalent FF lens in terms of light gathering abilities?
 
Riz_Guru said:
But doesn't the 12-40mm f2.9 equate to a f4/5.6 equivalent FF lens in terms of light gathering abilities?
Click to expand...
No f2.8 is f2.8 regardless of format. FF sensors gather more light purely due to the fact they're larger. I believe that it's a combination of this and pixel density that gives FF its better noise handling, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong ;)
 
If starting again, I would certainly go mirrorless, and probably Fuji. The combination of size/weight/cost sort of rules against the Sony. I have no experience with the Olympus kit, other than my very old C2020Z, which still takes great pictures, even if they are only 8MP!
 
snerkler said:
No f2.8 is f2.8 regardless of format. FF sensors gather more light purely due to the fact they're larger. I believe that it's a combination of this and pixel density that gives FF its better noise handling, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong ;)
Click to expand...
I am not so sure, the physical glass / lens opening on a non-FF lenses is smaller, so in theory would gather less light?
I always assumed that a f2.8 APS-C lens resulted in the same light gather and DOF ability like a FF f4 lens.... :)
Off to do some research. :D
 
Riz_Guru said:
I am not so sure, the physical glass / lens opening on a non-FF lenses is smaller, so in theory would gather less light?
I always assumed that a f2.8 APS-C lens resulted in the same light gather and DOF ability like a FF f4 lens.... :)
Off to do some research. :D
Click to expand...
It depends what you're referring to. In terms of exposure then an f2.8 lens is an f2.8 lens, so (in theory) if a shot required ISO 100 1/100 f2.8 on an M4/3 camera it would also require ISO 100 1/100 f2.8 on a FF camera. As mentioned the FF sensor is a lot bigger so overall will gather more light. I don't believe it gathers any more light per surface area but there are people more knowledgable than me on that who may confirm or deny ;)

In terms of physical lens opening size, this is proportional to the focal length of a lens. Therefore the physical opening on a 50mm f1.8 m4/3 lens should (I believe) be the same size as that on a FF 50mm f1.8 lens. Of course though the field of view of these two formats will be very different. If you want the same FOV then you'd need a 25mm lens on m4/3 therefore the physical lens opening will be smaller, but the same intensity of light 'should' reach the sensor.

This is my understanding, but as always I'm happy to be proven wrong (y)
 
This is incredible. Thank you all for your replies. I’m overwhelmed (but not surprised) by just how passionate you all feel about your equipment (ooohhh matron :naughty:). From the responses above it is obvious that the subject evokes strong feelings and opinions...and I’m so glad you all were so willing to share those views/opinions on this forum (y)

Several of the camera suggestions have got me thinking with one in particular that caught me by surprise...as I had already ruled it out...but now find myself pondering the possibility after all.

Here’s what got me thinking...

Ste_S said:
Canon 100D/200D ? The smallest and lightest DSLR you can get, especially with a pancake lens on.

I was in a similar position to you recently - wanted a smaller camera with a viewfinder. Canon 100D (second hand) won out in the end over a few mirrorless camers with EVFs for the optical viewfinder and range (and cheapness) of the lenses.

the Canon 100D and iPhone covers my digital needs. With a pancake on the Canon easily slips into a small bag, and if I don't mind a bit more bulk I can put a zoom on. iPhone for those times when I wouldn't normally have a camera.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, I have owned a 100D. I bought it quite soon after they were released and kept it for a while without progressing any further than the standard kit lens. Thinking back, the only reason I sold it (part ex.d it if I remember correctly) was because I decided I wanted a fully articulated screen and moved on to a Panasonic G6 or 7 (I’ve had both).

I might take a look at the 200D and read a few reviews as the idea of using it with a pancake lens would give me the portability I strive for and the flexibility to attach a decent telephoto/zoom for when the occasion arises (I wouldn’t be opposed to leaving it in my boot).

Before I forget, I’d just like to add that the majority of my photography revolves around days out, holidays and attending car shows in particular. I think taking photos of cars in their absolute prime condition is where my nasty pixel peeping habit originated :rolleyes: . I’ve gone to a few F1 races but only really took photos in the pits and paddock area as opposed to trying to capture fast moving action ( I just use video for that). I’ve taken a few landscapes before but generally only whilst out and about on holiday...nothing too dramatic or serious. Looking back through some albums I noticed I have some lovely shots of some of the roses we have in our garden and realised that I had taken many more photos of this subject matter than I would have imagined had the evidence not been in front of me. To the people who asked about my style of photography I hope this helps.

Once again, can I thank everyone who has taken the time and trouble to share their opinions and views and I would like to assure you that each and every response is appreciated very much.

:ty:

Andy
 
'F-Stop' said:
This is incredible. Thank you all for your replies. I’m overwhelmed (but not surprised) by just how passionate you all feel about your equipment (ooohhh matron :naughty:). From the responses above it is obvious that the subject evokes strong feelings and opinions...and I’m so glad you all were so willing to share those views/opinions on this forum (y)

Several of the camera suggestions have got me thinking with one in particular that caught me by surprise...as I had already ruled it out...but now find myself pondering the possibility after all.

Here’s what got me thinking...



Funnily enough, I have owned a 100D. I bought it quite soon after they were released and kept it for a while without progressing any further than the standard kit lens. Thinking back, the only reason I sold it (part ex.d it if I remember correctly) was because I decided I wanted a fully articulated screen and moved on to a Panasonic G6 or 7 (I’ve had both).

I might take a look at the 200D and read a few reviews as the idea of using it with a pancake lens would give me the portability I strive for and the flexibility to attach a decent telephoto/zoom for when the occasion arises (I wouldn’t be opposed to leaving it in my boot).

Before I forget, I’d just like to add that the majority of my photography revolves around days out, holidays and attending car shows in particular. I think taking photos of cars in their absolute prime condition is where my nasty pixel peeping habit originated :rolleyes: . I’ve gone to a few F1 races but only really took photos in the pits and paddock area as opposed to trying to capture fast moving action ( I just use video for that). I’ve taken a few landscapes before but generally only whilst out and about on holiday...nothing too dramatic or serious. Looking back through some albums I noticed I have some lovely shots of some of the roses we have in our garden and realised that I had taken many more photos of this subject matter than I would have imagined had the evidence not been in front of me. To the people who asked about my style of photography I hope this helps.

Once again, can I thank everyone who has taken the time and trouble to share their opinions and views and I would like to assure you that each and every response is appreciated very much.

:ty:

Andy
Click to expand...
For what you want ot shoot any of the above mentioned cameras will be sufficient then (y). Just one word of 'warning' about the Canon, if a fully articulated screen is a big priority I assume you'll want to do some shooting using the LCD as well as the viewfinder? If so the AF won't be as snappy as mirrorless. But again, for what you say you want to shoot it will be plenty good enough.
 
+1 for what you want to shoot you won't go wrong with any modern camera. I'd suggest getting along to a shop and simply seeing what you prefer in practice and budget.
 
If I started again from sratch, I would buy exactly what I have. Canon EOS 80D, EF-S 10-22 mm lens, EF-S 18-135 lens, EF 70-300 mm kens, Tamron 90 mm lens, Sigma 150-600 mm lens, Benro tripod.

I bought that kit for a reason and that reason has not changed. I have never understood people buying expensive things without working out what they want first.
 
Last edited:
It's really going to depend on budget. If money was no object I would have to think long and hard between a Sony A99ii and the fantastic Sony/Zeiss lenses or the Nikon D850 and some of the Nikkor 1.4 primes.

I too have had the chance to start over twice in the last year (don't ask) but each time I went with a Nikon ff body D750/600 and the fantastic 1.8 prime lens range.

So there you have it a cheap(er) Nikon ff body and a selection of the 1.8 primes.
 
john.margetts said:
If I started again from sratch, I would buy exactly what I have. Canon EOS 80D, EF-S 10-22 mm lens, EF-S 18-135 lens, EF 70-300 mm kens, Tamron 90 mm lens, Sigma 150-600 mm lens, Benro tripod.

I bought that kit for a reason and that reason has not changed. I have never understood people buying expensive things without working out what they want first.
Click to expand...

Likewise if I was starting again from scratch I would have the same as I have now... what that kit is is irrelevant for this thread as my purposes are completely different from the OP
 
newbie1 said:
Likewise if I was starting again from scratch I would have the same as I have now... what that kit is is irrelevant for this thread as my purposes are completely different from the OP
Click to expand...
Exactly. I would buy the D850 but the OP has said they don't want a big heavy DSLR.
 
Ok, did some research on the 200D and have ruled it out...seems like the viewfinder is only average and the 9 point AF is archaic plus no 4K recording.
Starting to look very closely at the Panasonic GX80. The kit lens seems to be quite well received and could buy a 14-140mm f3.5 for when I need a bit of zooming...all things considered, this is now a strong contender.
Anyone with practical experience with this camera please feel free to add your thoughts incase ive missed something about it :help:

Thanks

Andy :runaway:
 
I would choose my lenses first. Prime or zoom, fast or compact, FX or DX. Perhaps a pair of Summicrons or a trio of Carl Zeiss lenses - and then the body choice would be easy.

A camera body is, after all, merely a light tight box to mount on the back of a lens. Well maybe a little bit more than that.
 
In your situation I wouldn't choose very differently from the decision I made in the past.

Olympus E-M10 Mkii (because the Mkiii is much more for not much less) + the pancake zoom lens make a very portable and very capable set up.
Add the cheap but decent 40-150 and you have a reasonable amount of reach too..
The whole lot would go in a very small bag and if the bug bit there are quite cheap and good primes too.

http://www.wexphotographic.com/olym...4-42mm-lens-and-40-150mm-lens-silver-1579589/

If money were tighter I'd consider either the E-M5 Mki or E-M1 Mki used - there are a lot of bargains to be had in the the camera shops.
http://www.wexphotographic.com/used...ort=FSM_Rational_Price&esp_category_order=asc

The stabilisation in my E-M10 Mki is pretty good so the 5 axis in any of the others should be very good.

(I've used Wex for links because I've had a good experience buying used from them but I'm sure other retailers are just as reliable)
 
Last edited:
'F-Stop' said:
...Before I forget, I’d just like to add that the majority of my photography revolves around days out, holidays and attending car shows in particular...
Click to expand...

This, to me, is an important piece of information, and could have a significant bearing on the 'right' camera for you.

It sounds as if you want a good camera, that will give high quality shots, and allow you to control the way the pictures are taken, but portability and convenience (in terms of carrying gear about) will also be important - photography is something you want to do when you are out, rather than the reason you are going out.

I'd be looking at m4/3 or mirror-less APS-C - you don't need a vast array of lenses, long telephotos, etc.

My 'travel' camera is a Sony A6000, with the 16-50 & 55-210 'kit' lenses, and 50 f/1.8 prime.
These fit in a small shoulder bag, along with spare batteries, lens cloth, and a Meike 320 flash.

Can bigger cameras do things this setup can't? - Of Course, but for the sort of photography you have outlined, something similar would be quite capable of doing what you want, without breaking the bank, or your back!
 
For the moment i would not do anything at all .......apart from sitting on the fence.
The photographic world is facing another decisive moment.
It is pretty certain that some form of Mirrorless camera system is going to end up centre stage for some while to come, and largely displace the mirror design.

Even camera makers are hedging their bets about the winning form for mirrorless, by offering one design aping the DSLR, and the other rangefinder cameras.
Apart from the fact that lenses need to end up pointing forward and illuminate a sensor somewhere in the direct light path behind them. very little else has anything like a fixed position.
Not even the ubiquitous tripod screw is always positions directly under the lens. Nor are batteries and memory cards always positioned so that they can be changed when the camera is mounted on a tripod. It is hard to think of a camera where everything is in an easy to use and get at location.
There is a lot of experimentation and trial and error going on.
A majority of camera makers will settle on a generic solution sometime soon, but they will be salted with unique and strange concepts...as they alway have been.

One thing that I would like to see is universal quick release grooves built into cameras.. probably slightly narrower than the current Arca Swiss design as it is a little too deep for mirrorless camera bodies.. However I would still leave the heritage 1/4 screw thread as an alternative.

I can't help feeling that there is a better compromises between sensor size and lens size, between the 4/3rds and APS and between FF and Aps. leaving the so called medium format size much where it is now. The problem as I see it is than many lenses look and feel disproportionately large compared to their format and body size.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top