1. Harlequin565

    Harlequin565

    Messages:
    2,989
    Name:
    Ian
    Edit My Images:
    No
    My tuppence...

    Any combination of...

    X-T3 / X-T2 (1350/979)
    16mm f1.4, 23mm f2 & 35mm f1.4 (travel) (820 / 400 / 480)
    16mm f1.4 (landscape) (820)
    50-140 f2.8 (landscape/portraits) (1300)
    56mm f1.2 (fun!) (780)

    For 3k, I'd go X-T2, 50-140, 16mm f1.4 & 23mm f2. Although I'd probably sell my teenagers to grab the 35mm f1.4 too. Very portable (except the 50-140), super easy to use, and high quality.
    In a pinch, get the lenses off the Fuji refurb store and pick up an new X-T3 instead of the X-T2

    Why? I print landscapes & portraits to A2 (very rarely bigger but some panos), & do very little high ISO stuff because of the huge apertures of the Fuji primes. I just don't need full frame. I hate hunting through menus to find stuff and love that pretty much everything on the Fuji is a physical dial. Focus lock? Button, exp lock? Button, aperture? Dial. Shutter speed? Dial. ISO? Dial. Auto modes? Red A on the same dial. Metering? Dial. Bracketing? Dial.... I could go on... (caveat, the Canikony cameras may have this, but my old Canon didn't, and changing stuff was a proper pain)

    Also, dipping into the various dedicated camera threads will more than likely find a bunch of people who love those cameras. You're unlikely to find complete objectivity :)

    Good luck!
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2018 at 12:42 PM
    morpheve likes this.
  2. woof woof

    woof woof

    Messages:
    18,331
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I have a Sony A7 (the first one) and a couple of Panasonic MFT RF style cameras.

    I'm not sure that posting my pictures will help you too much as I'm not the worlds greatest photographer and any pictures posted here will anyway suffer through the process.

    Personally I'd not worry too much about image quality within formats from different manufacturers (APS-C v APS-C or FF v FF) unless you're going to be regularly pushing things by 6 stops or shooting at ISO 50k. I think that just about anything is good enough these days unless you're looking at one of the older Canon sensor cameras which arguably lag behind the later sensor designs from other companies.

    I'm struggling to see any advantage for DSLR's that would interest me. They can be cheaper and there are lots of cameras and lenses on the used market but other than that mirrorless (for me) offers compact kit (even FF, my A7 and a 35mm f2.8 is small,) reliable focus, the ability to focus anywhere in the frame, the ability to manually focus very accurately, the ability to shoot silently (my A7 doesn't but later A7x bodies will, my Panasonic cameras do,) and the ability to see the dof and the exposure.

    I will post one shot. I posted this in another thread as an example of a shot I couldn't have taken with a DSLR because the camera focused on her face despite it being away from the centre of the frame. I could therefore just frame the shot at 85mm and f1.8 and take the picture without worrying about moving the focus point. This would have been difficult or maybe impossible with a DSLR not in live view but with mirrorless you can do this easily and get it in one shot.

    1-DSC01573.jpg

    Actually I'll post another example which could maybe have been taken with a DSLR but maybe not as quickly or as confidently... This was taken with a manual focus 35mm lens and I could focus very accurately even when using a wide aperture. With mirrorless and given time you can focus very very accurately.

    1-DSC09987.jpg

    Both of these shots will suffer for being posted here so maybe you'll just have to trust me when I say that they're sharp at 100% on my screen.

    One last picture and then I'll stop :D

    Another reason I like mirrorless is that I can use cheap old film era manual lenses easily. I took this with an old Minolta Rokkor 50mm f1.4.

    1-DSC02441-C1.jpg
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2018 at 1:02 PM
    morpheve likes this.
  3. NewBeetle

    NewBeetle

    Messages:
    50
    Name:
    Ant
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I'm in a similar area budget wise and currently these are my thoughts in the various areas of digital cameras within budget.

    1: FF Mirrorless: Ignoring your Nikon lenses I think most would agree Sony have the sector sewn up. Whether it's A7 III (All round good) A7R III (High Res details but not as fast) or A9 (Speed, Speed, Speed)

    2: DSLR: Hard to look passed the Nikon D850 with the 24-120mm f/4 for £2629 brand new at E-Infin

    3: APSC: Fujifilm XT-3 £1339 with the very good kit lens leaves lots of budget for some nice glass.
     
    morpheve likes this.
  4. Craikeybaby

    Craikeybaby

    Messages:
    5,451
    Name:
    Lewis
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Surely there is no room in this thread for sensible posts like this? Aren't we all just meant to recommend what we have and defend it to the death?

    FWIW - I would certainly suggest mirrorless, I like Fuji.
     
    ian-83 and morpheve like this.
  5. redhed17

    redhed17

    Messages:
    5,325
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Yes, you would be able to use any lenses that were designed for the cropped sensor Nikon (DX) cameras on the D750, but they would use the DX mode on the camera and you get less pixels, 10Mp instead of 24Mp and cropped shaded view through the viewfinder. But as a stop gap until one can buy lenses designed for FF cameras it is a good option.

    The D750 still has great image quality, low light performance and excellent AF, though clustered centrally compared to the DX Nikon's AF spread. Nikon haven't replaced it yet, though the Z6 is similar in spec, but they may replace it at some point. Used prices a pretty good though. If I wanted to go FF it would be an option I would consider, especially being a Nikon user, but I don't want to go FF. ;) :LOL:
     
    morpheve likes this.
  6. ABTog

    ABTog

    Messages:
    799
    Name:
    Alistair
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I have to disagree there.
    While your A7 might have made it easier by using face/eye detection, a DSLR can easily focus on a face that's not in the centre. You just select a focus point where you want it. I move my focus points all the time.
    Where mirrorless is better is using the full sensor for auto focus modes, while using either the viewfinder or the screen, rather than having the camera use different autofocus systems when in liveview or in viewfinder mode.

    Anyway, back to the point. DSLR or mirrorless, you need to consider your lens choice when you are thinking in terms of weight.

    Canon 6D II - 765g
    Nikon D750 - 750g
    Sony A7 III - 650g
    Fuji XT3 - 539g

    Lets consider a good quality f2.8 zoom:
    Canon 24-70mm f2.8 L II - 805g
    Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 G ED - 900g (ignoring the VR version)
    Sony 24-70mm f2.8 GM - 886g
    Fuji 16-55mm f2.8 - 655g

    So the Sony is heavier than the Canon and only marginally lighter than the Nikon.

    This is why it's important to work out what you want to use the gear for and what lenses you want. If you're into landscapes, then you can easily ignore the f2.8 lenses and get some lighter weight options.
    Swap those lenses for these:
    Canon 24-105mm f4L IS II - 795g
    Nikon 24-120mm f4 G ED VR - 710g
    Sony 24-105mm f4 G OSS - 663g
    Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4 OIS - 310g

    Granted the Canon isn't much lighter, but you get the point. And you can get even lighter if you are looking at primes. The Fuji primes are great quality and very light by comparison.

    Here's a full visual comparison of sizes:
    http://j.mp/2NB6wtU
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2018 at 2:57 PM
    morpheve and Fraser Euan White like this.
  7. BillN_33

    BillN_33

    Messages:
    11,998
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Eve - will you need to upgrade your computer to process the bigger files that you will get when your upgrade you camera?
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2018 at 2:17 PM
  8. mark.roper

    mark.roper

    Messages:
    182
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Haven't read the thread, not sure what value there is on my 2 cents worth, but in answer to the question what would you buy for £3k, here's what I did buy for £3k, and the reason's why ...

    https://www.wexphotovideo.com/olymp...ith-12-40mm-lens-and-40-150mm-lenses-1641408/

    Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark 2 + 12-40 f/2.8 + 40-150 f/2.8 PRO lens bundle

    I had a Nikon APS-C camera, plus some DX lenses, plus a big Sigma 150-600 zoom, and felt I needed a better body (more fps) and some f/2.8 zooms, as my primary hobby is motorsport photography, and my entry level body + DX lenses were letting me down, and the Sigma was too big, so I looked at the D500 as a replacement body and the 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8's as replacement lenses.

    Size and weight was also an issue, as I'm not that young and my existing kit was already a pain to lug around.

    Once I added up what my wish-list would cost, and what it would all weigh, it all just screamed at me "this stuff is expensive, and heavy!".

    So I bought the Olly EM1.2, and now I have focal lengths 24 - 300 (if FF terms) + I also now have a TC1.4 so 420 effective on the bigger lens.

    I have lightning fast AF, can shoot at insane burst rates, for ridiculous amounts of time, fully weather sealed (my motorsport of choice all happens outside), I have 5-axis IBIS, which is truly a thing of wonder, the sexiest view-finder I've every beheld, and in a package that's half the weight, and half the price, of top end "pro" sports cameras.

    Yes, it has a tiny sensor by comparison to FF, and yes it goes AWOL in bad light (unless your subject isn't moving), but bugger me sideways it is a miraculous piece of kit, and I now find photography a pleasure I never thought was possible.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2018 at 2:09 PM
  9. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    8,870
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No

    Well, that might be what happened when you were recommended the Fuji gear :D

    I posted 2 options that I will never own tbh, I'm not one for pushing what I use on anyone, everyone has different needs and wants.
     
  10. woof woof

    woof woof

    Messages:
    18,331
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    No
    But selecting and moving focus points takes time and that was a spontanious instant shot at 85mm and f1.8. With a dslr I'd still have taken a picture but it wouldn't have been that picture as I'd have had to move the focus point to that point, if possible, or shot using the coverage I could get and cropped later to get the framing because I could put a focus point at that point in the frame or shot to capture the moment with that framing by using a smaller aperture and zone focus.

    With a dslr the focus points are clustered around the centre and they don't give you anywhere near the frame coverage that mirrorless gives you and outer ones are sometimes not as good whereas with mirrorless all focus points are equally good. With mirrorless you can place your focus point pretty much anywhere within the frame or simply not bother and use a clever mode.

    As to your weight figures, yes you can end up with just as heavy mirrorless kit but mirrorless at least gives you the option of fitting a nice compact prime and ending up with sub dslr bulk and weight.
     
  11. Riz_Guru

    Riz_Guru

    Messages:
    6,169
    Name:
    Riz
    Edit My Images:
    No
    This is a very sound conclusion, I sometimes think about having a lighter setup over FF. :)
     
  12. wibbly

    wibbly

    Messages:
    3,864
    Name:
    Dave
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    If I had £3k to spend on a camera, I'd have a Leica Q - great camera for most things.
     
    Fraser Euan White likes this.
  13. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic

    Messages:
    5,532
    Name:
    Terry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    The very best most expensive kit will probably spend its life weighing down the shelves at home...
    While you are out taking shots with the lighter more usable second best.
     
    Manxmaid, Cagey75 and soeren like this.
  14. ABTog

    ABTog

    Messages:
    799
    Name:
    Alistair
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I know that (most) mirror-less systems have better autofocus coverage, whether it is "better" depends on your usage. If you are running and gunning with moving subjects, then yeah eye-af and such are going to be useful. But this again speaks to what the OP is shooting and what they want.

    Compact high quality primes is where Fuji have done really well. Sony have some but the G-Master series primes are very big.
    The problem is when you want a good/pro quality long lens, they all get big even the MFT.

    Personally I have a good FF DSLR kit that I've built up but to get equivalent quality in a mirrorless system would cost significantly more.
    However if I was in the OP's position with a £3k budget I would be looking at mirrorless.
    I would go for a Sony A7III with either:
    1) Sony 24-105mm f4 G OSS - a great all rounder
    2) Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 - cheaper all rounder and f2.8
    Then if you have budget left over, a Samyang AF 35mm f2.8 or Sony FE 50mm f1.8
     
    morpheve likes this.
  15. simonbarker

    simonbarker

    Messages:
    1,844
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Given the choice:

    A used Nikon D810 + 18-35mm, 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8

    Along with a Sony RX100 IV/Canon G1X/etc

    My reasoning is the D810 with those lenses covers quite a nice range and the absolute best price/performance ratio. For travel situations I wouldn't want to carry those pieces, I think the compromises of a 1" type sensor would work out there.

    As much as I like the Sony A73 it eats the whole budget with one good lens (as it's all new) and it's not incredibly small unless used with a 35mm f/2.8 etc.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2018 at 3:47 PM
    morpheve likes this.
  16. soeren

    soeren

    Messages:
    1,095
    Name:
    Soeren
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    This
     
    morpheve likes this.
  17. JJ!

    JJ!

    Messages:
    5,081
    Edit My Images:
    No
    A7iii with one of the mentioned zooms and a 35mm Samyang 2.8.

    Granted the weight of the Sony is as heavy as other FF cameras when it comes to adding the pro glass but with the Sony and Samyang you have the option to go small and light. The lens is about 80g!!!
     
    morpheve likes this.
  18. TheBigYin

    TheBigYin Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,007
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    personally I'd buy a blower brush and lens cloth to clean up my current kit, then spend the rest on travel and accomodation while I got out and actually used the damned stuff I've already got...
     
    ian-83, Cagey75, jakeblu and 7 others like this.
  19. Gandalf

    Gandalf

    Messages:
    477
    Name:
    Andy
    Edit My Images:
    No
    You can have my Olympus OM-D EM-1 mkII and 12-40mm and 40-150mm f2.8 Pro Lenses and 1.4 T/C and a Panasonic 25mm f1.4 Summilux for £3000
     
    morpheve likes this.
  20. T_J_G

    T_J_G

    Messages:
    3,660
    Name:
    Tim
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    XT3 and a selection of lenses :)
     
    morpheve likes this.
  21. morpheve

    morpheve

    Messages:
    153
    Name:
    Eve
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Hi Bill, I am pretty sure my PC is powerful enough to handle :) if not...OMG...will have to upgrade - which I did not think about it.:p
     
  22. morpheve

    morpheve

    Messages:
    153
    Name:
    Eve
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Thank you for offer will have a look, I did not consider Olympus before. Why did you pick this one among the other brands?
     
  23. morpheve

    morpheve

    Messages:
    153
    Name:
    Eve
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Thanks, did not consider Fuji before - why should I? what sense would be good for landscapes?
     
  24. morpheve

    morpheve

    Messages:
    153
    Name:
    Eve
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Oh I know! I like my Nikon, but I had it for such a long time now, it washy best friend and possibly stays with me like ma all previous cameras (just not worth selling now, and we have too many great memories, its like my hand extension, haha).
    But, time to move on and upgrade. When I wrote this original post I kind of had an idea what I want, what to spend. But reading so many great points I consider lots of different options. I am not so technically and equipment say as some of the guys here, but catching up, as I go along.
    Rethinking all I think I would be happy to actually spend less, getmylsef good camera and at least 1 good lens (landscape) and spend more for traveling!
     
  25. ABTog

    ABTog

    Messages:
    799
    Name:
    Alistair
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Take a look at this review of the XT3 from a landscape photographer and see what you think.

    View: https://youtu.be/Yc7evXFjvRY
     
    Manxmaid and T_J_G like this.
  26. morpheve

    morpheve

    Messages:
    153
    Name:
    Eve
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Great point Terry!
    This is what I am thinking now....
    Since I posted this threat, I've received so many great and sensible responses! Thank you all. :ty:
    BTW I really love this forum, you guys helped me here a few times, with your experience, advice, ideas.:ty:

    I am not fixed really on D750 or Sony A7III - its something I would like to have or upgrade. But at the same time of course I do not want to overspend for a piece of the equipment that is gather the dust because is, too big, to heavy for my travels. And in the end I end up compromising my photography and just taking photos with my phone :coat:
     
  27. morpheve

    morpheve

    Messages:
    153
    Name:
    Eve
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Thanks for sharing actually great vid! Adam seems to like it! I am on a cropped censor at the moment, and thought sometime ago to upgrade to Nikon D7200. Which I would be all fine to use all my lenses for now.
    Maybe I can stay with cropped sensor instead of changing to full frame camera?
    What is your opinion, what is getter for landscape?
     
  28. imattersuk

    imattersuk

    Messages:
    635
    Name:
    Pete
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Yes but have you got dual card slots, wi-fi, bluetooth, face and eye detection, a red soft shutter button and a poncy leather hand strap ? If not then you're not a real man :D
     
    morpheve likes this.
  29. Petrochemist

    Petrochemist

    Messages:
    67
    Name:
    Mike
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    My entire spend on cameras in the last 15 years is only just over £2000, but I guess you did want a lens as well...
    None of my bodies is less than 6 years old, & they can all still take good landscapes, so I don't agree that yours needs to be replaced at all. It's just a matter of GAS, but that's what keeps the camera companies in business. :)

    If you can manage to carry it around I'd go with a used medium format model for landscapes. The Pentax 645D should fit the bill nicely.
    I'd rather not carry that much, so would possibly go for the Sony A7iii, but more likely would go for a IR converted A7 and a normal A7ii.
    The addition of IR capability would make a real difference to your landscape options!
     
    morpheve likes this.
  30. Craikeybaby

    Craikeybaby

    Messages:
    5,451
    Name:
    Lewis
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    This is the position I was in - I had a full frame DSLR, which took great photos, but spent most of its time at home. I how have a Fuji X-T2, which takes very good photos, but it half the weight so comes out with me more often.
     
    morpheve likes this.
  31. twist

    twist

    Messages:
    14,334
    Edit My Images:
    No
    A FF camera doesn't have to be big or heavy...

    35 / 50 / 85 combo.

    Weight incl body...

    35 F = 720g / S = 770g
    50 F = 726g / S = 836g
    85 F = 944g / S = 1021g

    Screen Shot 2018-10-11 at 12.52.42.png

    Screen Shot 2018-10-11 at 12.55.05.png


    Screen Shot 2018-10-11 at 12.54.14.png
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018 at 1:03 PM
    morpheve likes this.
  32. Riz_Guru

    Riz_Guru

    Messages:
    6,169
    Name:
    Riz
    Edit My Images:
    No
    And if you work out the costs, you might be better off with FF. Depends on the price difference vs performance etc.
     
    morpheve likes this.
  33. juggler

    juggler

    Messages:
    4,325
    Name:
    Simon
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Why? Old one broken? Limiting you in some way? Doesn't let you shoot in a way you want to?

    If it's the just quality of your pictures then - and I'm making assumptions here - then some training and practice will make a heap more difference than anything else.
     
    TheBigYin likes this.
  34. ABTog

    ABTog

    Messages:
    799
    Name:
    Alistair
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Interesting comparison.
    I'd be interested to see the cost difference. The Sony 50mm f1.8 is cheap at £180 but the others are pricey.
     
  35. twist

    twist

    Messages:
    14,334
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Not really ;)

    F23 = £400 / S35 = £660 or Samyang for Sony (same spec and size, perhaps even lighter) = £249
    F35 = £480 / S50 = £220
    F56 = £780 / S85 = £590

    Total:

    Fuji = £1660
    Sony option 1 = £1470
    Sony option 2 = £1060
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018 at 2:42 PM
    morpheve likes this.
  36. soeren

    soeren

    Messages:
    1,095
    Name:
    Soeren
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    But
    _20181011_154151.JPG
    A6000 and 12mm samyang, 24mm Sony and 60mm sigma. Light and mostly (except for the 24mm) cheap
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018 at 2:44 PM
    morpheve likes this.
  37. Chipper

    Chipper

    Messages:
    1,751
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Well, I have FF Canon and an OM1Mk2 and really like them both. I don't think there are too many duff cameras out there these days. I galloped through this thread and smiled when I read an explanation of the Oly as it mirrored my experience of it but that's all very subjective. I thought I would really like another brand when I went looking for a smaller system; I disliked two others until I came across the Oly. I use both my systems. I imagine that one day I will want to downsize completely but by then who knows what will be about.

    Perhaps you need to get your hands on some of this kit and see what feels right? Assuming that you do actually need something different rather than are being swayed by specs that persuade you that you kit is somehow lacking. {A very hard sell at a presentation I saw last week almost had me reaching for a Sony but I came to my senses and then became annoyed at the constant denigration of everything else} Or you could indeed go travelling... as somebody has already said, you can get pretty much whatever you want with that amount of cash.

    I saw a photo I liked recently at an opening evening of a club season and discovered that it had been taken using a £40 pinhole camera from an antique store in our town.
     
  38. twist

    twist

    Messages:
    14,334
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Remove 2x body weights from the total = 1327g TOTAL for the Sony a7iii and 3 lenses. 190g difference from your setup and its FF.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018 at 2:50 PM
    morpheve and Riz_Guru like this.
  39. soeren

    soeren

    Messages:
    1,095
    Name:
    Soeren
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Could also find the weights in the spec sheets for the apsc ;)
    My "35" combo is 622g and my "85" combo is 568g on our kitchen scale. Now I know why my 200g friday candy seems short of weight:ROFLMAO:
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018 at 3:17 PM
  40. twist

    twist

    Messages:
    14,334
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Yes, you could have.

    Your 35 combo is 148g lighter, an A7iii has 3 times the battery life of an A6000, add another 120g (2x npfw50) and your setup weighs as much as the Sony FF when considering ONLY battery life, not all the other benefits.

    Your setup isn't 35/50/85.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018 at 3:25 PM
    Riz_Guru likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice