Need new camera- what would you buy for £3000?

OP
OP
morpheve
Messages
162
Name
Eve
Edit My Images
Yes
#41
Same res as the A7iii at 24mp?

Still think best best is for the OP to go try them in hand!
Will do. I already read so much about it, that really after all I thought I actually know less than more!
Need to go to the shop and play wit them!
This is so crazy when you want to buy the best of off..! So much choice! Thanks for all comments and advice it’s good to see different opinions, criticism and experience!
 
Messages
1,090
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
#45
I'm tempted to sell my XCD 30mm to fund one :D or just wait until my photography business generates me some income that I might buy one when the Leica Q2 comes..
Didn't you have a Q until very recently? I thought that was one of the Leicas you weren't going to sell... :D
 
Messages
5,217
Edit My Images
No
#46
Didn't you have a Q until very recently? I thought that was one of the Leicas you weren't going to sell... :D
I sold it to fund an X1D, as I thought the A9 would cover the job of the Leica Q - and to some degree it does, but not in the same small package, the closest lens 28mm f2.0 just doesn't have the same Q quality.
 
Messages
276
Edit My Images
Yes
#48
Good quality shots can be shared/ uploaded to social media such as insta
Thank you.

I was asking to see whether it would affect your camera requirements. There’s a feature I never use but some Nikon and canon cameras have built in WiFi / Bluetooth so you can use your phone to a) control it and b) upload images straight to social media if that’s your thing. I think and I may be wrong, the Sony cameras require a Sony smart phone.

The any of the cameras mentioned here will suffice your needs - I have an 810 (amongst others :D) and the iq is spectacular. The file sizes are large though. - this will be the case of any 24mp+ camera though.
 
Messages
6,439
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
#49
This is more or less the exact budget I gave myself recently having sold off my Fuji gear. For £2800 ish, I got a d800, a Nikon 24-70 2.8, a Nikon 70-200 2.8 vr2, a sigma 20mm 1.4 art and 35mm art.

I know you’d have to tweak this stuff to suit OP’s requirements but I couldn’t bring myself to spend all that money and end up with one camera and one lens. Or if I did, I’d probably already have a very good idea of exactly what I’d want, at least in terms of focal length, prime or zoom etc.

In the spirit of being more helpful though, assuming buying new, a d750, a tamron 24-70 g2 and return flights to India sounds good to me.
 
Last edited:
Messages
11,585
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#52
Man, I wish I had this problem!

If I did, I'd wait a little, see what this new Z7 is really all about. Or just go for the A7III if you like the look of Sony's lens line up. Get a 2.8 short zoom and an 85mm
 
Messages
1,561
Name
Eloise
Edit My Images
Yes
#53
Can you wait... the Nikon Z6 with 24-70 and FTZ adaptor for your old lenses.

Or at least wait and try one.
 
Messages
1,167
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
Yes
#54
I've been with Sony FE for several years now. The A7iii is the only body that has really sparked my 'upgrade' interest. It is only interest though :)

If you want to jump ship, and want the latest then the A7iii. The kit lens is okay on 24mp but add another £800ish for the Tamron or £1200 for the FE24-105. Even the older A7 series is okay as you don't need fast AF, adapted lens performance, etc for travel & landscape.

Also depends what Nikon lenses you have.... If you have really good ones, then I would consider a Nikon DSLR upgrade maybe...?
 
Messages
69
Edit My Images
No
#56
I’d be (and am) considering the Sony A7R3 as already recommended. The trend seems to be going Mirrorless so wouldn’t want to invest in normal DSLR at the moment. I’m still doing reading but recon it’s the way I’ll,go
 
Messages
5,624
Edit My Images
Yes
#58
Good points here thanks.
With my Nikon I got 35mm, 50mm, 14-55mm, 55-200mm, 100-300mm.
Depending on what you feel is wrong with what you have, and which camera it is, you may be better served getting better lenses.

If you go Nikon FF some of your current lenses may work, but if DX lenses will work in a cropped view. A cropped view on a D8** may still give reasonable resolution, a D750, though an excellent camera, would not. Any D8** camera will probably be larger and heavier than what you have now, the D750 is a lot lighter, and depending on what Nikon DX you have may not be much heavier. You have the benefit of all your lenses being useable on a new Nikon camera.

It sounds like you are more tempted to the Sony a7's though. Most people will say they matured with the version III's, and while you can get earlier versions and save money, you may feel disappointed, especially with AF and battery life.

So then you have to decide do you need the resolution, as that will not only have an effect on images, but also how much you have for lenses. If you go the Sony route I very much doubt you will be able to afford the focal range you have now, particularly at the long end. Same with the Nikon option above, but at least you already have the lens, whereas if the 100-300mm (is it 300 or 400?) is something you use often, it will appear a bit wider on a FF sensor, and be expensive to get close to the same view. And indeed you will have to get used to focal lengths you may be used to appearing a bit wider on either FF options.
 
Last edited:
Messages
13,971
Edit My Images
No
#59
I've not followed the rest of the posts but in the current market I would buy a grey Sony A7Riii and 24-70mm f4. The reason being is that it's reasonably small and light for travel, especially for FF. You're going to get top image quality and great IQ and DR for landscapes. I personally use liveview (rear LCD) a lot on travels and mirrorless cameras certainly have an advantage in this regards.

If it wasn't for the travel aspect I would choose a grey Nikon D850 and 24-70mm f2.8. I have this combo and it's truly excellent. However, imo it's too heavy and bulky for travel, plus liveview is slow. (I actually use the Olympus EM1 and 12-40mm f2.8 for travel due to this). IQ of the D850 is phenomenal though, and I prefer the ergonomics over the Sony. Also it's weather sealed which the Sony isn't.
 
Messages
1,216
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
No
#60
It's true though..... for the money it does so much.... Eye-AF is a game changer! The IQ/DR/ISO abilities are great.
Don't remember the last time I took a photo with an eye in it, so wouldn't change my game ;)
 
Messages
13,971
Edit My Images
No
#61
It's true though..... for the money it does so much.... Eye-AF is a game changer! The IQ/DR/ISO abilities are great.
Oh how the phrase ‘game changer’ makes me laugh ;) :p

Don’t get me wrong I’m sure it’s useful, but it’s not like you can’t take a portrait without it ;)
 
Messages
6,352
Name
Riz
Edit My Images
No
#62
Oh how the phrase ‘game changer’ makes me laugh ;) :p

Don’t get me wrong I’m sure it’s useful, but it’s not like you can’t take a portrait without it ;)
Ok so the game changer tag gets thrown about a little too much ;) perhaps not appropriate for the Sony A7 III.

I know you can take a portrait without Eye-AF but you could apply that same logic on any camera type, who needs digital, let’s shoot film like the old’un days as digital only makes things useful right?
Who needs EVF when you can have OVF, EVF isn’t needed to take a good photo?
In fact who needs mirrorless if a DSLR can take a good photo?

My point is, a lot of these new mirrorless features including Eye-AF are not required, they just make life easier, the end results are more or less the same since the days of film, DSLR and now mirrorless. :D
 
Messages
13,971
Edit My Images
No
#64
Ok so the game changer tag gets thrown about a little too much ;) perhaps not appropriate for the Sony A7 III.

I know you can take a portrait without Eye-AF but you could apply that same logic on any camera type, who needs digital, let’s shoot film like the old’un days as digital only makes things useful right?
Who needs EVF when you can have OVF, EVF isn’t needed to take a good photo?
In fact who needs mirrorless if a DSLR can take a good photo?

My point is, a lot of these new mirrorless features including Eye-AF are not required, they just make life easier, the end results are more or less the same since the days of film, DSLR and now mirrorless. :D
Thanks for pointing out the obvious :p ;)

I do still prefer the look of film though ;)
 
Messages
5,536
Edit My Images
No
#65
Ok so the game changer tag gets thrown about a little too much ;) perhaps not appropriate for the Sony A7 III.

I know you can take a portrait without Eye-AF but you could apply that same logic on any camera type, who needs digital, let’s shoot film like the old’un days as digital only makes things useful right?
Who needs EVF when you can have OVF, EVF isn’t needed to take a good photo?
In fact who needs mirrorless if a DSLR can take a good photo?

My point is, a lot of these new mirrorless features including Eye-AF are not required, they just make life easier, the end results are more or less the same since the days of film, DSLR and now mirrorless. :D
No doubt its a great feature and it looks like Sony have it nailed. If my camera had it or didn't have it wouldn't bother me - never used face detect either! Mainly because my camera has hardly taken any pictures of humans lol. But, for portrait and wedding photographers it is fantastic. But that's the same for many features on all modern cameras. I reckon there are features on my D750 that people use all the time and I don't, but if I ever need them, they are there!

When someone does animal-AF - that's will be a game changer!!!

If you go the A7RIII route then prepare to splash some cash on the super fast SD cards and fairly large capacity ones too as those files run big!
 
Messages
13,971
Edit My Images
No
#66
No doubt its a great feature and it looks like Sony have it nailed. If my camera had it or didn't have it wouldn't bother me - never used face detect either! Mainly because my camera has hardly taken any pictures of humans lol. But, for portrait and wedding photographers it is fantastic. But that's the same for many features on all modern cameras. I reckon there are features on my D750 that people use all the time and I don't, but if I ever need them, they are there!

When someone does animal-AF - that's will be a game changer!!!

If you go the A7RIII route then prepare to splash some cash on the super fast SD cards and fairly large capacity ones too as those files run big!
The thing is when does tech take away the art of photography? This will obviously be a personal thing, and there will be some that say as soon as we had AF systems the art of photography was gone. My point is, I like to fell that I'm doing something, there's a bit of effort in there. If I could manually focus at wide apertures I would, but I have to also realise my own shortcomings. A potential 'issue' with eye-af is that essentially your photography becomes point and shoot. Sure for a pro that just needs to get the job done I can see the benefit, but for the hobbyist does it take something away? Without using it properly I can't say for sure, but I personally want something to do myself with photography (y)
 
Messages
1,216
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
No
#67
The thing is when does tech take away the art of photography?
I don't think it takes away the art of photography. The craft of photography however is another matter. This could lead into a discussion as to "what is art?" :eek:
 
Messages
11,585
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#68
When you really think on it, it is a bit cringey that photographers today are so pampered they demand eye AF! When did this ever happen? I have it on the G80 but have it switched off most of the time, it really is not needed. And they demand a million AF points, most probably reverting to single point after a week :D
 
Messages
13,971
Edit My Images
No
#70
I don't think it takes away the art of photography. The craft of photography however is another matter. This could lead into a discussion as to "what is art?" :eek:
Yeah, craft is a better way of saying it (y)
 
Messages
11,585
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#71
It is both an art and a craft IMO. It's also just a hobby for most of us, but doesn't mean we can't be all arty farty when the mood takes us :D
 

badlywornroy

I am not macho
Messages
1,721
Name
Roy
Edit My Images
No
#72
What do you do with your pictures ? do you make money from photography, no ? Maybe like most here your pictures are only viewed online with the occasional one printed. Why not buy a Sony RX10 MKIV ? Great quality pictures from 24mm to 600mm. With the £1,600.00 (ish) you save take your wife/husband/partner on the holiday of a lifetime.

P. S Don’t forget to take plenty of pictures with your RX10 and show them to us when you return. :)
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,153
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
#74
Admittedly you won't get a lens with it but, you could get my 1dx2 for that money.
Great for insta snaps and the likes.
 
OP
OP
morpheve
Messages
162
Name
Eve
Edit My Images
Yes
#75
Depending on what you feel is wrong with what you have, and which camera it is, you may be better served getting better lenses.

If you go Nikon FF some of your current lenses may work, but if DX lenses will work in a cropped view. A cropped view on a D8** may still give reasonable resolution, a D750, though an excellent camera, would not. Any D8** camera will probably be larger and heavier than what you have now, the D750 is a lot lighter, and depending on what Nikon DX you have may not be much heavier. You have the benefit of all your lenses being useable on a new Nikon camera.

It sounds like you are more tempted to the Sony a7's though. Most people will say they matured with the version III's, and while you can get earlier versions and save money, you may feel disappointed, especially with AF and battery life.

So then you have to decide do you need the resolution, as that will not only have an effect on images, but also how much you have for lenses. If you go the Sony route I very much doubt you will be able to afford the focal range you have now, particularly at the long end. Same with the Nikon option above, but at least you already have the lens, whereas if the 100-300mm (is it 300 or 400?) is something you use often, it will appear a bit wider on a FF sensor, and be expensive to get close to the same view. And indeed you will have to get used to focal lengths you may be used to appearing a bit wider on either FF options.
Do you know if I would be able to use my current Nikon lenses with for example Nikon d750 full frame?

More I read the threat more I am convinced to upgrade the Nikon body, and actually save some money and not spend so much

Loved the idea of Sony but you are right the lenses are very expensive.

Was thinking about Nikon D750 but just wonder if any of my old lenses would work?
 
OP
OP
morpheve
Messages
162
Name
Eve
Edit My Images
Yes
#76
I've not followed the rest of the posts but in the current market I would buy a grey Sony A7Riii and 24-70mm f4. The reason being is that it's reasonably small and light for travel, especially for FF. You're going to get top image quality and great IQ and DR for landscapes. I personally use liveview (rear LCD) a lot on travels and mirrorless cameras certainly have an advantage in this regards.

If it wasn't for the travel aspect I would choose a grey Nikon D850 and 24-70mm f2.8. I have this combo and it's truly excellent. However, imo it's too heavy and bulky for travel, plus liveview is slow. (I actually use the Olympus EM1 and 12-40mm f2.8 for travel due to this). IQ of the D850 is phenomenal though, and I prefer the ergonomics over the Sony. Also it's weather sealed which the Sony isn't.

Thanks for your reply.
I never had Sony, just read reviews and how happy people are who got them.
I was convinced to get one and now kind of gone back to a favour of Nikon again, I have a few lenses.
Want to get my attention towards landscape and you right - would be nice to have an excellent piece of kit that do not weight tonnes. I am only small person.
 
Messages
20,189
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
#77
Thanks for your reply.
I never had Sony, just read reviews and how happy people are who got them.
I was convinced to get one and now kind of gone back to a favour of Nikon again, I have a few lenses.
Want to get my attention towards landscape and you right - would be nice to have an excellent piece of kit that do not weight tonnes. I am only small person.
Before committing to anything maybe you could have a think about DSLR v mirrorless. Personally I see advantages for mirrorless such as more consistent focus, in view histogram and level, full frame AF coverage, being able to focus manually very accurately and being able to see the dof and the exposure. There may be advantages in staying with DSLR's for you but my days with them are over.
 
OP
OP
morpheve
Messages
162
Name
Eve
Edit My Images
Yes
#78
What do you do with your pictures ? do you make money from photography, no ? Maybe like most here your pictures are only viewed online with the occasional one printed. Why not buy a Sony RX10 MKIV ? Great quality pictures from 24mm to 600mm. With the £1,600.00 (ish) you save take your wife/husband/partner on the holiday of a lifetime.

P. S Don’t forget to take plenty of pictures with your RX10 and show them to us when you return. :)
No, I am not make money from photography, or not yet :-( will have a look at RX10 MKIII. Thanks
 
OP
OP
morpheve
Messages
162
Name
Eve
Edit My Images
Yes
#79
Before committing to anything maybe you could have a think about DSLR v mirrorless. Personally I see advantages for mirrorless such as more consistent focus, in view histogram and level, full frame AF coverage, being able to focus manually very accurately and being able to see the dof and the exposure. There may be advantages in staying with DSLR's for you but my days with them are over.
You right I need to think this through. Bit hard because never had mirrorless camera, but will have a read.
Did you say you have Sony? Any pictures you can share or send link to page? Would love to see them if you don’t mind. Thanks
 
Messages
5,964
Name
Terry
Edit My Images
Yes
#80
I would start by deciding what format I considered necessary for the size output that I required.
Then I would consider the size weight and ease of use of camera and the lenses that I would actually need for the type of shots I want to take.
Then I would consider the more intangible qualities of the output. like colour and tonality.
Then the special features like speed of focus. and other special focus and sharpness abilities such as follow focus and eye location, and shake control.

Just about any of the more recent cameras are capable of delivering quality and sharpness that far exceeds most actual needs.
I would certainly restrict my search to mirrorless.
As I do not need the extra image size available to Full frame or medium format, nor the minor advantage they can give in light gathering and high iso ability I would give very little extra consideration to Full Frame.
I consider the advantage of the Usability and likelihood of taking more shots, on more occasions, with smaller cameras as a very major factor in my choice.

However the best camera is always just round the next corner.
 
Top