Help me buy a camera

Orca

I've decided my iPhone SE's pictures are just not cutting it anymore, so it's time to upgrade to a big boy camera. Since this is a first camera, I don't want to go all in on a full frame and a boatload of lenses I'll never use, so I figure I'll jump halfway in.

Budget: around $2000 before shipping/tax, with generous wiggle room for the right arguments. Including a first set of lenses.

Types of photography I'm going to do (based on the photos I take with my iphone):
* Landscapes. Lots of landscapes. Either while skiing, hiking, driving (so behind glass), in a train (so still behind glass), or in an airplane (yeah, I'm that asshole with his nose stuck to the window clicking away)
* Wildlife
* Time lapses (I can't do this with an iphone and I have seen some shit that would have been so cool if I could have captured a time lapse of it...)
* Portraits
* Macro photography (fairly limited and uncommon...so far)
* Astrophotography (maybe. Eventually. I'd like to but I rarely overnight in areas with limited light pollution. Time for me to suck it up and start doing multi-day hikes? It's going to require some fairly specialized and expensive lenses too...and $1000 doesn't buy you a full frame sensor, which makes a big difference in this space)

Other requirements:
* Remote trigger (given the complaints I've read about Snap Bridge a physical IR remote is preferable)
* Weather sealing since I'll be taking it outdoors

Nice to haves that aren't deal-breakers:
* External Mic
* GPS support for tagging
* Decent video

I've tentatively gravitated towards Nikon due to the selection and quality of lenses and good color performance. It comes at a price though: the lowest-end camera they make with weather sealing is their high-end consumer D7500, which seems like a bit much for a first camera. But a refurbished one is $600, which seems reasonable.

If the D7500 isn't a terrible choice, I was thinking the following lenses given the kinds of things I want to do:
* 10-20mm f/3.5-5.6 VR for landscapes/cityscapes ($300)
* 35mm f/1.8 prime for when I want to get serious about composition or work in low light ($200)
* 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR for general purpose shooting or when I only want to use a single lens. ($600). Or should I just go for the 18-300? They're basically the same price, the same weight, and reviews indicate they're both good for what they are (covering an enormous range with reasonable quality and distortion that can be fixed on camera or in post).

Total including refurb body: $1800

Other options:
* 16-80mm f/2.8-4 VR lens for general purpose shooting, and has a moderately larger aperture than the above set allows for ($700).
* 35mm f/1.8 prime ($200)
* 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 VR lens for when I want to reach out and touch something ($400)

Total including refurb body: $2000

Unfortunately both sets have some overlap in the ranges handled.

But I may have gotten fixated on Nikon simply since it allows me to dig in on one of the half dozen major brands. Should I just back off, get an entry-level Pentax for the weather sealing and call it a day? A new K70 with an 18-135mm kit lens is just $800. Should I revisit this whole discussion after I've been using the Pentax for a year and am ready to drop the dough on a full frame sensor and some really nice optics?

djmitchella

If you're planning on hiking, it's worth considering size/weight -- Olympus's micro 4/3 cameras/lenses are relatively smaller and lighter than the APS-sized ones, and that general system has been working just fine for me for a long time now. There's a complete range of lenses for whatever purpose you might want, but the downside is that there aren't heaps of the floating around second-hand the way there would be with canon/nikon so they're not as easily available.

(the general question is "are you going hiking and taking photos as you hike, or are you going hiking _to take photos_?". If the former, then size/weight matter more than the latter, of course). I like having the ability to fit camera + wide-mid lens in one jacket pocket, have mid-tele lens in the other pocket, and get on with hiking without really noticing them too much.

One question -- are the lenses you're looking at weather-sealed, as well as the body?

Akilae

I own a Pentax KP, and I don't think there's anything strictly entry level about it. It's a great camera, weather sealed, compact and light package, and you can add on the O-GPS1 module for GPS tagging and astrophotography (GPS + in-body SR allows for super long exposures while the sensor rotates to counter the earth's rotation, it's very cool). Pentax makes good, compact lenses that are increasingly weather sealed as well.

The ONLY con I can think of is that Pentax autofocus lags a bit behind the other brands (not as fast, tends a hunt a bit, but spot-on once focus is attained). For your wildlife photography that means pre-focusing (which is what you should do anyway since the best AF in the world will never be 100% on the random movement of living beings). Or taking advantage of the catch-in-focus feature (you set a focus distance, press down on the shutter button, and the camera automatically takes a shot anytime something enters the pre-set AF range).

Color performance does not matter as much these days, since you can tweak the camera's color profile however you like your images. I have a "Nikon" preset on my Pentax to make it take more Nikon-y photos for friends who like that color profile.

My only upgrade path from here would probably be one of the full-frame mirrorless cameras (Sony a7iii...). But for full-frame you end up hauling so much weight in glass that it becomes taxing.

My most common day out lens setup is a 15, 20-40, and a 50-300. I leave the 50-300 at home if traveling light.

BlindZenDriver

Consider looking into some of the alternatives from Sony and Panasonic.
Also you are taking a bit step by going from a phone camera to a setup with separate lenses and all, nothing wrong with that except it is a big investment and maybe you should start with just the camera and then build from there and/or consider getting some of the gear 2nd hand - lots of people buy a lot gear yet never use it and lenses doesn't age that bad.

Akilae

Speaking of, the Sony RX100 is quite good for an all-in-one package.

Doodmann

I would recommend a refurbished Canon 5D MKIII, preferably something with a lens included.

You get an industry standard (if a little on the older side) camera that has tons of options and upgrade options.

Orca

All of the lenses are weather sealed—at least to the point Nikon does so.

For the rest, I need to get back home and either type up proper responses or do some more research and type up a response. Thanks for the input so far everyone!

Akilae

Fwiw, full frame setups like a 5DMKIII, or even the a7iii, get heavy. Don't commit to one until you've had a chance to see how much your desired setup weighs.

The best camera is the camera you have with you. Don't get something so heavy you'll only want to leave it at home.

Orca

Akilae wrote: »

Fwiw, full frame setups like a 5DMKIII, or even the a7iii, get heavy. Don't commit to one until you've had a chance to see how much your desired setup weighs.

The best camera is the camera you have with you. Don't get something so heavy you'll only want to leave it at home.

That makes way too much sense.

Orca

djmitchella wrote: »

If you're planning on hiking, it's worth considering size/weight -- Olympus's micro 4/3 cameras/lenses are relatively smaller and lighter than the APS-sized ones, and that general system has been working just fine for me for a long time now. There's a complete range of lenses for whatever purpose you might want, but the downside is that there aren't heaps of the floating around second-hand the way there would be with canon/nikon so they're not as easily available.

(the general question is "are you going hiking and taking photos as you hike, or are you going hiking _to take photos_?". If the former, then size/weight matter more than the latter, of course). I like having the ability to fit camera + wide-mid lens in one jacket pocket, have mid-tele lens in the other pocket, and get on with hiking without really noticing them too much.

One question -- are the lenses you're looking at weather-sealed, as well as the body?

I'm hiking and taking photos, but talking to a coworker where it sounds like the hikes they're going on would be to take photos, so...a little of column A, a little of column B. The flexibility you're describing sounds nice. I hadn't really considered the 4/3s form factor, but the sensor size isn't that much smaller than APS-C. If there's good optics and the sensors are good I can see it working nicely. More research needed!

Akilae wrote: »

I own a Pentax KP, and I don't think there's anything strictly entry level about it. It's a great camera, weather sealed, compact and light package, and you can add on the O-GPS1 module for GPS tagging and astrophotography (GPS + in-body SR allows for super long exposures while the sensor rotates to counter the earth's rotation, it's very cool). Pentax makes good, compact lenses that are increasingly weather sealed as well.

The ONLY con I can think of is that Pentax autofocus lags a bit behind the other brands (not as fast, tends a hunt a bit, but spot-on once focus is attained). For your wildlife photography that means pre-focusing (which is what you should do anyway since the best AF in the world will never be 100% on the random movement of living beings). Or taking advantage of the catch-in-focus feature (you set a focus distance, press down on the shutter button, and the camera automatically takes a shot anytime something enters the pre-set AF range).

Color performance does not matter as much these days, since you can tweak the camera's color profile however you like your images. I have a "Nikon" preset on my Pentax to make it take more Nikon-y photos for friends who like that color profile.

My only upgrade path from here would probably be one of the full-frame mirrorless cameras (Sony a7iii...). But for full-frame you end up hauling so much weight in glass that it becomes taxing.

My most common day out lens setup is a 15, 20-40, and a 50-300. I leave the 50-300 at home if traveling light.

The Pentax KP is $800 new--it's probably in the same class as the Nikon D7500 I'm looking at for $100 more. I'll check it out for completeness, but if I'm spending that much, I think I'd prefer a Canon or Nikon for the lens availability. The contrast-only autofocus is slow, though the in-body image stabilization is convenient and does lead to cheaper lenses. Size is pretty nice, and the construction looks sturdy as hell. ...maybe I should take a closer look at it, since it is noticeably lighter weight and sturdier than what I've been looking at.

BlindZenDriver wrote: »

Consider looking into some of the alternatives from Sony and Panasonic.
Also you are taking a bit step by going from a phone camera to a setup with separate lenses and all, nothing wrong with that except it is a big investment and maybe you should start with just the camera and then build from there and/or consider getting some of the gear 2nd hand - lots of people buy a lot gear yet never use it and lenses doesn't age that bad.

Oh, I definitely realize I'm making a big purchase from the get-go. But worst comes to worst I just take it on the plane and do landscapes there a few times a year or leave it in time-lapse mode looking out the window. One way or another it's getting use.

Doodmann wrote: »

I would recommend a refurbished Canon 5D MKIII, preferably something with a lens included.

You get an industry standard (if a little on the older side) camera that has tons of options and upgrade options.

Even refurbished, the body alone is above where I think I want to jump for a first camera. It would be sweet, no question, but $1300 for the body leaves me with like one or two lenses. Though, it is full frame, which means everything from here on out is all in the lenses...hm. Okay, I'll have to check this option out too. I didn't think a full frame camera was in reach for my budget.

---

So it looks like I've got some research tonight:

1) 4/3s sensor cameras (size, weight)
2) Pentax KP (size, weight, durability)
3) Canon 5D MK III refurb (full frame, lens selection/availability)
4) Alternatives from Sony and Panasonic (a Sony mirrorless APS-C would be nice and light...and mirrorless cameras can generally interface with a lot of lenses from what I understand)

Thanks everyone.

a5ehren

Personally, I'd avoid spending the whole budget upfront, get an entry-level DSLR with a kit lens (maybe add a fast prime for portraits) and see if you use it like you think.

Astro-photography alone would take your whole budget (and then some) if you want to get into that, unless you want to do a ton of post-processing/exposure stacking. If you want to do single-exposure stuff, you're looking at spending ~$1500 on just the mount, much less the glass.

mts

You need to think about glass before you think about bodies. Nikon has a ton of backwards compatability with their old lens especially if the body has a lens motor in it. Canon not so much. That said if you know people who use one and has lenses you can use, it makes sense to go that way.

That said again size and weight are huge factors. If you don't bring your camera it's worthless a 4/3 setup is nice and compact and has the benefit of being able to use full size lens with adapters

Orca

After some research (more to do obviously), I've decided the 4/3s sensor cameras are off the table. At least from Olympus. The small sensor means a larger crop factor and more challenging optical design--and limited, expensive first party lenses that don't go as wide as I want without flaws. While an older base is cheap, the lenses tend to be more expensive. One exception: I'll probably get a TG-5 before I next go somewhere I snorkel. I didn't realize a true waterproof camera could be had for $500!

Pentax KP and Canon 5D MK III are both full frame DSLRs. That means expensive, heavy lenses (albeit better low light performance). The Pentax KP has some unique features (true RGB due to moving the image sensor!), while the Canon 5D MK III is older but very popular design.

The more I look into it, the more the mirrorless design with a proper EVF sounds attractive. Lower weight, the preview shows you a what-you-see-is-what-you-get after distortion correction (which is important with those ultrawide lenses). If I’m going to spend $1300 for a body, I may as well go all the way and get $2000 full frame mirrorless like a G6 Z6.

Nikon makes some of the best and most compatible first party lenses out there so unless there is a compelling reason, I think sticking with Nikon is a decent idea. Obviously it’s not perfect since the z mount invalidates the older auto focus on their lenses, but since I’m starting from scratch it’s not that big a deal.

The Sony A6300 is an interesting option marred by poor ergonomics and limited first party lens selection. they do have best in class mirrorless tech (especially the silent shutter). Pentax is similar—better ergonomics but limited lens selection.

Where I’m at as of this instant is probably sticking with Nikon for the lenses and color reproduction. But the A6300 remains an interesting option that will be gnawing at me. As will the possibility of spending 2x my nominal budget and just going all in on a mirrorless full frame

Orca

Clearly the best option is to throw it all away and recognize I need to become a LEICA man. Because I deserve it. *cough*

Akilae

Orca wrote: »

Pentax KP and Canon 5D MK III are both full frame DSLRs. That means expensive, heavy lenses (albeit better low light performance). The Pentax KP has some unique features (true RGB due to moving the image sensor!), while the Canon 5D MK III is older but very popular design.

I would agree with all your points, but just one point of correction. The KP is APSC. Pentax's FF camera is the K-1.

Orca

Akilae wrote: »

Orca wrote: »

Pentax KP and Canon 5D MK III are both full frame DSLRs. That means expensive, heavy lenses (albeit better low light performance). The Pentax KP has some unique features (true RGB due to moving the image sensor!), while the Canon 5D MK III is older but very popular design.

I would agree with all your points, but just one point of correction. The KP is APSC. Pentax's FF camera is the K-1.

Thanks. That’s what I get for reading till 1am.

dispatch.o

You can rent nicer cameras. Whatever you decide, it's probably in your best interest to rent one for a weekend or something.

It may even turn out that if you don't use it all the time, rental + insurance is a better route a few times a year.

Orca

dispatch.o wrote: »

You can rent nicer cameras. Whatever you decide, it's probably in your best interest to rent one for a weekend or something.

It may even turn out that if you don't use it all the time, rental + insurance is a better route a few times a year.

Renting means planning ahead. Knowing myself I ain't gonna do that to use it regularly. Damned good idea to test drive before plunking down the cash though.

Orca

All right. I think I've narrowed it to a pair of contenders:

* Sony A6300 since it would make a fantastic walkabout camera with a 35mm prime (giving it more life outside of dedicated "I'm gonna take a picture of that mountain" type efforts)
* Nikon D7500 since it's a damned decent camera and it's buying into the Nikon ecosystem
* Throw away all semblance of a budget and just get a Nikon Z6 (haha yeah right...haha...hah...)

From here I think I'm going to rent the A6300 and D7500 and see which one I like better. Thanks everyone!

mts

Orca wrote: »

After some research (more to do obviously), I've decided the 4/3s sensor cameras are off the table. At least from Olympus. The small sensor means a larger crop factor and more challenging optical design--and limited, expensive first party lenses that don't go as wide as I want without flaws. While an older base is cheap, the lenses tend to be more expensive. One exception: I'll probably get a TG-5 before I next go somewhere I snorkel. I didn't realize a true waterproof camera could be had for $500!

Pentax KP and Canon 5D MK III are both full frame DSLRs. That means expensive, heavy lenses (albeit better low light performance). The Pentax KP has some unique features (true RGB due to moving the image sensor!), while the Canon 5D MK III is older but very popular design.

The more I look into it, the more the mirrorless design with a proper EVF sounds attractive. Lower weight, the preview shows you a what-you-see-is-what-you-get after distortion correction (which is important with those ultrawide lenses). If I’m going to spend $1300 for a body, I may as well go all the way and get $2000 full frame mirrorless like a G6 Z6.

Nikon makes some of the best and most compatible first party lenses out there so unless there is a compelling reason, I think sticking with Nikon is a decent idea. Obviously it’s not perfect since the z mount invalidates the older auto focus on their lenses, but since I’m starting from scratch it’s not that big a deal.

The Sony A6300 is an interesting option marred by poor ergonomics and limited first party lens selection. they do have best in class mirrorless tech (especially the silent shutter). Pentax is similar—better ergonomics but limited lens selection.

Where I’m at as of this instant is probably sticking with Nikon for the lenses and color reproduction. But the A6300 remains an interesting option that will be gnawing at me. As will the possibility of spending 2x my nominal budget and just going all in on a mirrorless full frame

you can get around first party lenses on the sony by getting an adapter. they work well

Akilae

Orca wrote: »

All right. I think I've narrowed it to a pair of contenders:

* Sony A6300 since it would make a fantastic walkabout camera with a 35mm prime (giving it more life outside of dedicated "I'm gonna take a picture of that mountain" type efforts)
* Nikon D7500 since it's a damned decent camera and it's buying into the Nikon ecosystem
* Throw away all semblance of a budget and just get a Nikon Z6 (haha yeah right...haha...hah...)

From here I think I'm going to rent the A6300 and D7500 and see which one I like better. Thanks everyone!

Just a tip. A 35mm on an A6300 gives you approximately 50mm. While it's the "standard" focal length, I've always found it a bit long for flexible work. Good for portraiture, but just doesn't cut it for landscapes and indoor shots. The fastest prime in the world won't do you any good when you just can't get far enough to get things in frame. A 20mm gives you closer to a regular human eye pov (30mm), maybe Sony's 20/2.8 pancake. From what I can find, your iPhone SE's focal length is 29mm, so the pancake might be more what you're used to seeing through. If you find you've always needed zoom on the phone, then maybe consider a longer focal length.

Or just get a good-ish somewhat compact zoom lens. Your family and friends will love you for not needing to constantly stop and swap lenses to get the shot.

Orca

My plan when in the field is to use the all a rounder 18-300 for everything non-landscape, and the 10-24 or equivalent for landscapes. The prime is for leaving everything else at home and focusing on composition.

Orca

After some experimentation and a lot of thought I stuck with the Nikon as my primary. So far I seem to be using that 18-300 the most, and only rarely breaking out the prime (during low light) and the wide angle (for really wide landscapes). There's a good chance the A6300 will end up in my possession at some point in the next year or so as an everyday walkabout since this thing is big and bulky enough I have to deliberately make the choice to want to take photos before I bring it anywhere. Aside from the theft concerns in high traffic areas.

---

I have no idea what I'm doing, but I'm having fun:








Thanks everyone!