Starting again with an interchangeable lens camera
Discussion
I've got a holiday coming up which has been booked for ages and I'm really looking forward to so I'm thinking about upgrading my camera to make the most of it. I haven't bought anything since 2011.
I currently have a Sony NEX-5 with an 18-55 lens, a 16mm fixed lens but I have an adapter that gives a wide angle and another for fish eye. It all works fine but it's always been lacking in zoom. I know there are zoom lenses available but I think it might be worth starting a fresh seeing as I've had it all for a while now.
I also have a canon s100 which I carry around if I'm going to anything where I don't want to be carrying anything too big. I'm not planning on changing this at the moment.
Previously I had a Nikon D70 with the kit lens, a longer one and a 50mm which took great portraits, something the NEX has never been able to match. I swapped the D70 for the NEX as I wanted something smaller to carry around, I have since bought a lowepro rucksack bag which has space for the camera gear at the bottom and general stuff at the top. The D70 was in a dedicated camera bag which was awkward to carry around, I thought I wasn't taking the D70 because of the size of the camera but I think it was the bag now.
I haven't really looked at anything since I bought my current gear so I'm a bit out of touch with what's out there so I'm reaching out to the PH collective.
If you were looking to buy a new setup what would you go for? I'm looking for body, general, long and prime lens, flash. No brand loyalty, budget of max £2kish. I fly in 2 weeks so I should probably have thought about this earlier....
Or should I just stick with what I've got?
I currently have a Sony NEX-5 with an 18-55 lens, a 16mm fixed lens but I have an adapter that gives a wide angle and another for fish eye. It all works fine but it's always been lacking in zoom. I know there are zoom lenses available but I think it might be worth starting a fresh seeing as I've had it all for a while now.
I also have a canon s100 which I carry around if I'm going to anything where I don't want to be carrying anything too big. I'm not planning on changing this at the moment.
Previously I had a Nikon D70 with the kit lens, a longer one and a 50mm which took great portraits, something the NEX has never been able to match. I swapped the D70 for the NEX as I wanted something smaller to carry around, I have since bought a lowepro rucksack bag which has space for the camera gear at the bottom and general stuff at the top. The D70 was in a dedicated camera bag which was awkward to carry around, I thought I wasn't taking the D70 because of the size of the camera but I think it was the bag now.
I haven't really looked at anything since I bought my current gear so I'm a bit out of touch with what's out there so I'm reaching out to the PH collective.
If you were looking to buy a new setup what would you go for? I'm looking for body, general, long and prime lens, flash. No brand loyalty, budget of max £2kish. I fly in 2 weeks so I should probably have thought about this earlier....
Or should I just stick with what I've got?
Well, lucky for you, Sony happens to be the best ecosystem to invest in when it comes to cameras. It's best to stick with Sony, and for 2k, you could get a bunch of stuff.
First up, you can add a zoom lens - something like a 70-200. They have an aps-c version which is 55-210mm. It's compact and reasonably priced - good for outdoor use. This way, you'll have your focal lengths covered all the way from 16mm --> 210mm.
Then you want to add a prime lens. Something like the 35mm f1.8 would be ideal. Or, you could go for the FE 55mm f1.8 - even though it's pricey, that's a full frame lens, so if you ever upgrade to a FF camera, that would work a treat. The 35mm is more versatile, though.
Finally, the camera body, you could either go for the (recently announced) A6400 or the (slightly older) A6500. Both are great. The A6400 has a flip up screen, unlimited video recording and better autofocus, the A6500 has sensor stabilisation, so you can hand-hold slower shutter speeds.
That's what I'd suggest. Sell the NEX5, keep the lenses, add the 55-210 and 35mm lenses and upgrade to the A6400. That would be comfortably within budget with a compact system that covers a large focal range.
Alternatively, you can blow the whole budget on an A7iii, use the APS-C lenses for now, and over time, add some nice (but expensive) lenses.
First up, you can add a zoom lens - something like a 70-200. They have an aps-c version which is 55-210mm. It's compact and reasonably priced - good for outdoor use. This way, you'll have your focal lengths covered all the way from 16mm --> 210mm.
Then you want to add a prime lens. Something like the 35mm f1.8 would be ideal. Or, you could go for the FE 55mm f1.8 - even though it's pricey, that's a full frame lens, so if you ever upgrade to a FF camera, that would work a treat. The 35mm is more versatile, though.
Finally, the camera body, you could either go for the (recently announced) A6400 or the (slightly older) A6500. Both are great. The A6400 has a flip up screen, unlimited video recording and better autofocus, the A6500 has sensor stabilisation, so you can hand-hold slower shutter speeds.
That's what I'd suggest. Sell the NEX5, keep the lenses, add the 55-210 and 35mm lenses and upgrade to the A6400. That would be comfortably within budget with a compact system that covers a large focal range.
Alternatively, you can blow the whole budget on an A7iii, use the APS-C lenses for now, and over time, add some nice (but expensive) lenses.
All IMO of course!
Mirrorless is the way forward
I think Fuji make a a very nice one(cant remember its name, GTX or something car like! nice and retro with dials), not full frame sensor , but seems to be a winner, but Sony are also top of the game in the mirrorless cameras, it would be a toss up between these brands for me
Despite being a 'Canon man' i cant recommend them or Nikon, i think both have sat back a bit and are late to the party and not cutting edge at all despite the recent releases
You should also find out how it feels to you in the hand, the smaller cameras can be a bit fiddly i think
Mirrorless is the way forward
I think Fuji make a a very nice one(cant remember its name, GTX or something car like! nice and retro with dials), not full frame sensor , but seems to be a winner, but Sony are also top of the game in the mirrorless cameras, it would be a toss up between these brands for me
Despite being a 'Canon man' i cant recommend them or Nikon, i think both have sat back a bit and are late to the party and not cutting edge at all despite the recent releases
You should also find out how it feels to you in the hand, the smaller cameras can be a bit fiddly i think
I'm still not convinced with mirror-less.
Much prefer an SLR. The mirrorless variants might be slightly smaller, but not enough to make the pocket cameras.
Whatever you get, stabilised lenses make a big difference, or some other on board stabilisation.
I bought a Canon 200D last year. It's not the greatest, but does all I need. Higher end camera's won't really give you sharper/better photos, just more features, maybe a faster frame rate and a heavier more robust body.
Much prefer an SLR. The mirrorless variants might be slightly smaller, but not enough to make the pocket cameras.
Whatever you get, stabilised lenses make a big difference, or some other on board stabilisation.
I bought a Canon 200D last year. It's not the greatest, but does all I need. Higher end camera's won't really give you sharper/better photos, just more features, maybe a faster frame rate and a heavier more robust body.
300bhp/ton said:
I'm still not convinced with mirror-less.
Always-on viewfinder. WYSIWYG. Ability to use manual lenses. Generally smaller form factor. Better electrickery and manufacturers willing to roll out upgrades on the fly. Both Canon and Nikon have given up protesting, and are trying to beat Sony. Need more reasons?
Thanks for the responses guys. It's great to hear that the lenses I have now could still be of some use, as there are no NEX camera's I thought that fitment lens would now be obsolete.
Sensei Rob said:
Well, lucky for you, Sony happens to be the best ecosystem to invest in when it comes to cameras. It's best to stick with Sony, and for 2k, you could get a bunch of stuff.
First up, you can add a zoom lens - something like a 70-200. They have an aps-c version which is 55-210mm. It's compact and reasonably priced - good for outdoor use. This way, you'll have your focal lengths covered all the way from 16mm --> 210mm.
Then you want to add a prime lens. Something like the 35mm f1.8 would be ideal. Or, you could go for the FE 55mm f1.8 - even though it's pricey, that's a full frame lens, so if you ever upgrade to a FF camera, that would work a treat. The 35mm is more versatile, though.
Finally, the camera body, you could either go for the (recently announced) A6400 or the (slightly older) A6500. Both are great. The A6400 has a flip up screen, unlimited video recording and better autofocus, the A6500 has sensor stabilisation, so you can hand-hold slower shutter speeds.
That's what I'd suggest. Sell the NEX5, keep the lenses, add the 55-210 and 35mm lenses and upgrade to the A6400. That would be comfortably within budget with a compact system that covers a large focal range.
Alternatively, you can blow the whole budget on an A7iii, use the APS-C lenses for now, and over time, add some nice (but expensive) lenses.
I really appreciate you taking the time to put that together. The A7iii looks like too much camera for me to be honest but the A6500 looks to be a good shout. Sadly the A6400 isn't out until I'm back from my trip. The lenses sound good too.First up, you can add a zoom lens - something like a 70-200. They have an aps-c version which is 55-210mm. It's compact and reasonably priced - good for outdoor use. This way, you'll have your focal lengths covered all the way from 16mm --> 210mm.
Then you want to add a prime lens. Something like the 35mm f1.8 would be ideal. Or, you could go for the FE 55mm f1.8 - even though it's pricey, that's a full frame lens, so if you ever upgrade to a FF camera, that would work a treat. The 35mm is more versatile, though.
Finally, the camera body, you could either go for the (recently announced) A6400 or the (slightly older) A6500. Both are great. The A6400 has a flip up screen, unlimited video recording and better autofocus, the A6500 has sensor stabilisation, so you can hand-hold slower shutter speeds.
That's what I'd suggest. Sell the NEX5, keep the lenses, add the 55-210 and 35mm lenses and upgrade to the A6400. That would be comfortably within budget with a compact system that covers a large focal range.
Alternatively, you can blow the whole budget on an A7iii, use the APS-C lenses for now, and over time, add some nice (but expensive) lenses.
Starfighter said:
Time lag?
Tried one a while back and the lag was just enough to cause issues.
Try the more recent cameras. I use a ~4 year old Fuji crop body, and don't notice any lag. Possibly if you were shooting sports. But if so, mash the button and get 10+fps...no mirror to flap up and down, y'see?Tried one a while back and the lag was just enough to cause issues.
Edited by Starfighter on Tuesday 5th February 20:06
Whoozit said:
Always-on viewfinder. WYSIWYG. Ability to use manual lenses. Generally smaller form factor. Better electrickery and manufacturers willing to roll out upgrades on the fly. Both Canon and Nikon have given up protesting, and are trying to beat Sony.
Need more reasons?
What makes you think you can't use manual lenses on DSLRs? Which don't need an electronic "always-on viewfinder" screen wasting battery power because you're actually looking through the lens Need more reasons?
Talking about lenses, Canon and Nikon still have a far bigger range of lenses available whether new, third-party or second hand.
I hear the best mirrorless cameras have nearly caught up with DSLRs for AF speed and tracking, but aren't quite there yet - I haven't tried them myself for comparison but haven't seen anyone seriously shooting motorsport with one either.
Still a long way behind for battery life (about half the battery life of an equivalent DSLR), maybe enough for some people but most mirrorless users seem to carry at least one spare battery with them.
The choice probably comes down to whether the smaller form factor and slightly lighter weight are worth the compromises in battery life and AF tracking for the type of photography you do, and how likely you are to want to access a wide range of second hand lenses as opposed to getting a couple of new lenses and sticking with that.
Edited by GravelBen on Tuesday 5th February 22:24
Whoozit said:
Always-on viewfinder. WYSIWYG. Ability to use manual lenses. Generally smaller form factor. Better electrickery and manufacturers willing to roll out upgrades on the fly. Both Canon and Nikon have given up protesting, and are trying to beat Sony.
Need more reasons?
Just because it’s the current trend doesn’t mean it is the best answer. Need more reasons?
More automatic cars seem to be available these days. But I’ll still be sticking with a manual gearbox where possible.
85Carrera said:
Am sure this has been done elsewhere but what are the advantages? And downsides?
They are slightly smaller. But with a proper lens and good battery they are not small enough to really make any odds. As they won’t fit in your pocket. And there are plenty of other smaller compact cameras for that. Having more info on the screen can be handy. But you can do this in all DSLR’s with the rear screen anyway. Plus on things like the 200D it’s touchscreen and allows you to touch focus like you do on a phone. A viewfinder screen will be too small for this.
And I find there are times when using the screen the camera just can’t quite see what you can with your eye. A real viewfinder won’t have these limitations.
I’m not knocking mirrorless designs. But they really aren’t the be all and end all.
GravelBen said:
What makes you think you can't use manual lenses on DSLRs? Which don't need an electronic "always-on viewfinder" screen wasting battery power because you're actually looking through the lens
Manual lenses can of course be used on DSLRs. But focusing - aaah, that's another thing entirely. Unless you hack your expensive DSLR's focusing screen and invalidate the warranty. GravelBen said:
Talking about lenses, Canon and Nikon still have a far bigger range of lenses available whether new, third-party or second hand.
Which lenses do you genuinely, honestly need? Check the focal lengths used in Lightroom, then think how that could be covered. Specialist lenses I grant you, mirrorless doesn't t have the native range. In those cases, pop on an adaptor and bob's your uncle. GravelBen said:
I hear the best mirrorless cameras have nearly caught up with DSLRs for AF speed and tracking...I haven't tried them myself for comparison
Check the videos of the eye focus tracking on the recent Sony A9 and A6400. Mind blowing.
GravelBen said:
Still a long way behind for battery life (about half the battery life of an equivalent DSLR), maybe enough for some people but most mirrorless users seem to carry at least one spare battery with them.
Yup, that's a given. But do you still carry a Nokia 6210 for the one week battery life? GravelBen said:
...slightly lighter weight
Large backpack of Nikon FF gear vs sling bag, to cover the same reach at about one third of the weight. About all I'm missing is image stabilisation on the 70-200 equivalent. In the not so distant future, in-body IS will come to the midrange mirrorless cameras. AND - my Fuji gear is in the bag, and is grabbed at a moment's notice just in case. The Nikon gear only came out if I was deliberately shooting.
You don't say what type of trip you are going on.
I'm a Sony fan (ex Minolta fan) , and despite having a shed load of bodies and lenses I treated myself to Sony 10RX Mk3 last year for a touring holiday in India.
Very pleased I did, hell of a piece of kit. Lighter to cart around than a DSLR kit, or even a CSC, but still pretty chunky.
Covered all situations admirably.
I'm a Sony fan (ex Minolta fan) , and despite having a shed load of bodies and lenses I treated myself to Sony 10RX Mk3 last year for a touring holiday in India.
Very pleased I did, hell of a piece of kit. Lighter to cart around than a DSLR kit, or even a CSC, but still pretty chunky.
Covered all situations admirably.
Bungleaio said:
I really appreciate you taking the time to put that together. The A7iii looks like too much camera for me to be honest but the A6500 looks to be a good shout. Sadly the A6400 isn't out until I'm back from my trip. The lenses sound good too.
No worries, I'll talk cameras all day to whoever will listen!300bhp/ton said:
85Carrera said:
Am sure this has been done elsewhere but what are the advantages? And downsides?
They are slightly smaller. But with a proper lens and good battery they are not small enough to really make any odds. As they won’t fit in your pocket. And there are plenty of other smaller compact cameras for that. Having more info on the screen can be handy. But you can do this in all DSLR’s with the rear screen anyway. Plus on things like the 200D it’s touchscreen and allows you to touch focus like you do on a phone. A viewfinder screen will be too small for this.
And I find there are times when using the screen the camera just can’t quite see what you can with your eye. A real viewfinder won’t have these limitations.
I’m not knocking mirrorless designs. But they really aren’t the be all and end all.
The electronic viewfinder, on the other hand, is showing you what the processed image looks like. Very useful if you want a particular effect.
Advantages of optical: needs no battery, has zero lag. Disadvantages: can't zoom, doesn't show you end result, can't have graphical overlays with info.
Advantages of EVF: you can zoom, can have useful info on the screen (like grid lines, histogram, spirit level, etc.), what you see is what you get. Disadvantages: requires battery.
All in all, if you go from EVF to optical, it feels like a massive backward step.
The optical viewfinder in most DSLRs can have overlay information like gridlines, spirit level etc turned on or off too. And you can preview depth of field at least with a shortcut button to stop the aperture down.
How much other 'image processing effect' do you actually need to see in your viewfinder before taking a shot?
Getting a bit off-topic for the OP's question though, maybe we should migrate some of this discussion to a general 'mirrorless vs DSLR advantages & disadvantages' thread?
How much other 'image processing effect' do you actually need to see in your viewfinder before taking a shot?
Getting a bit off-topic for the OP's question though, maybe we should migrate some of this discussion to a general 'mirrorless vs DSLR advantages & disadvantages' thread?
Edited by GravelBen on Wednesday 6th February 06:00
OP - some questions for you.
What kind of photography do you want to do?
How much experience do you have?
How much do you want to use manual modes and settings vs in camera processing?
What do you want to do with you pictures?
Any medical conditions we need to account particularly your eyes?
This may help us point you in the right direction.
For most people the extremes of the equipment don’t matter (own up all those with optical 400mm Prime at F4 or better). There are not many bad vameras on the market but there are some expensive mistakes to make by not getting what you want first time.
A solid piece of advice is to put thought and cash in to lenses rather than bodies. The rate of change in the actual camera technology is significant and there will always be better available tomorrow. Lenses have a longer life cycle and hold value better and a crappy lens will never be made better by an expensive body.
What kind of photography do you want to do?
How much experience do you have?
How much do you want to use manual modes and settings vs in camera processing?
What do you want to do with you pictures?
Any medical conditions we need to account particularly your eyes?
This may help us point you in the right direction.
For most people the extremes of the equipment don’t matter (own up all those with optical 400mm Prime at F4 or better). There are not many bad vameras on the market but there are some expensive mistakes to make by not getting what you want first time.
A solid piece of advice is to put thought and cash in to lenses rather than bodies. The rate of change in the actual camera technology is significant and there will always be better available tomorrow. Lenses have a longer life cycle and hold value better and a crappy lens will never be made better by an expensive body.
Edited by Starfighter on Wednesday 6th February 09:58
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff