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

Messages
3,376
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
No
#81
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:
Messages
19,100
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
#82
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
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:
Messages
174
Name
Ant
Edit My Images
No
#83
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.
 
Messages
5,573
Name
Lewis
Edit My Images
Yes
#84
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.
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.
 
Messages
5,544
Edit My Images
Yes
#85
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?
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:
 
Messages
827
Name
Alistair
Edit My Images
No
#86
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.
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:
Messages
236
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
#88
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:
Messages
9,956
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#89
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.

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.
 
Messages
19,100
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
#90
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.
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.
 
Messages
6,315
Name
Riz
Edit My Images
No
#91
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.
This is a very sound conclusion, I sometimes think about having a lighter setup over FF. :)
 
Messages
827
Name
Alistair
Edit My Images
No
#94
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.
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.

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.
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
 
Messages
2,003
Edit My Images
No
#95
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:
Messages
5,358
Edit My Images
No
#97
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!!!
 
Messages
643
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
#99
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
 
OP
OP
morpheve
Messages
162
Name
Eve
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?
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
 
OP
OP
morpheve
Messages
162
Name
Eve
Edit My Images
Yes
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
Thank you for offer will have a look, I did not consider Olympus before. Why did you pick this one among the other brands?
 
OP
OP
morpheve
Messages
162
Name
Eve
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...
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!
 
OP
OP
morpheve
Messages
162
Name
Eve
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.
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:
 
OP
OP
morpheve
Messages
162
Name
Eve
Edit My Images
Yes
Take a look at this review of the XT3 from a landscape photographer and see what you think.
View: https://youtu.be/Yc7evXFjvRY
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?
 
Messages
924
Name
Pete
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...
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
 
Messages
151
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!
 
Messages
5,573
Name
Lewis
Edit My Images
Yes
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:
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.
 
Messages
14,727
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:
Messages
6,315
Name
Riz
Edit My Images
No
Messages
827
Name
Alistair
Edit My Images
No
Messages
14,727
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.
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:
Messages
1,229
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
Last edited:
Messages
1,868
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.
 
Messages
1,229
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
Remove 2x body weights from the total = 1327g TOTAL for the Sony a7iii and 3 lenses. 190g difference from your setup and its FF.
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:
Messages
14,727
Edit My Images
No
Could also find the weights in the spec sheets for the apsc ;)
My "35" combo is 622g and.my "85" combo is 568g
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:
Top