Nebell
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2015
- Messages
- 2,383
Edit:
Ended up with A7R III
Ended up with A7R III
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Honestly, I am quite a bit lost in the whole lens world.
I read up some and learned what some of the numbers do, but there's quite a bit more to learn.
What I'm using now is Nikkor AF-S DX 18-55 3,5-5,6 G VR. I got this with the camera when I bought it back in 2013 and have not tried to swap out the lenses. I never really put any thought into it as I used it quite rarely. But it did a great job just point and shoot.
If I am just to upgrade my D3200 with new lenses, I wouldn't want to go above €500.
Why I'm considering in a new camera is that the newer mid rangers offer what old top rangers had. They have a better sensor and wider iso range among other quality of life things.
And I love new gadgets, that's why I'm on this forum XD
Well, someone recommended me a few lenses for D3200 and after I checked the price here the whole package cost the same as brand new 80D + EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens. This lens got pretty good reviews.
I know what you guys are trying to say, that the picture is only as good as the photographer. But I don't plan to stay a semi-amateur (I'm not a complete newbie) forever. This is basically the only hobby I have, besides playing video games, but I am tired of video games.
My plan is to sometimes in the future focus more on astrophotography and I've read that D3200 is not a great option.
I'll sit down a bit and think if I want a bit more expensive camera.
If someone has time to waste at work or something, could you look up here and suggest me something? https://www.eglobalcentral.eu
That website offers cameras and accessories a lot cheaper than what I can find here in Sweden. For example I save €500 if I order 80D + that lens mentioned earlier, compared to what I would pay here.
I could stretch my budget to €1500 or maybe a bit higher.
...whole package cost the same as brand new 80D + EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens. This lens got pretty good reviews.
I'd hit #2 with two potential modifications: switching the zoom out for the 12-24/4, and considering a longer lens such as Sony's inexpensive FE 85/1.8 later.
#1 isn't bad, but doesn't go very wide, and #3 also doesn't go very wide and is large and heavy. The A7 cameras are fairly svelte but fast glass is fast glass. Further, the 24-70/2.8 lenses are generally 'event' zooms. For landscapes the wider f/2.8 aperture is irrelevant and it's still not wide enough to isolate for portraiture like a cheaper 85/1.8 (or better) can.
Come back later when you want to really look at astro.
I can't find an F4 12-24 lens on eglobalcentral.eu,
So F4 is enough for landscapes in normal cases?
I've been reading a lot about that 24-70mm and it seems to be really stellar
I have 18 on my D3200 and there's quite a difference between 18 and 24.
Another reason why I'm considering a more all-around lens is because I have a lot to carry in my backpack. It has to fit my laptop, tablet, mavic drone with all the accessories (batteries, controller, controller holder).
I'm also getting a polarized filter because I love those on my drone and I do shoot a lot of sunsets.
But what about sunsets? Sunset photography is something I really love doing and is quite important to me.
It's this lens.
For landscapes, you'll typically be at f/8 and narrower, and with the 42MP sensor you'll be balancing resolution with depth of field. Stopping down to f/11 or narrower will cost you acuity but get more in focus, etc. F/4 is very wide for landscapes.
It is! It's the best one currently made. However, that doesn't mean that it's the best for you .
The difference here would be like the difference between 8mm and 16mm on your D3200. The conversion factor is 1.5x for FX <-> DX. And when you go wide, every millimeter of focal length matters even more!
This is the main reason not to get the 24-70/2.8 GM . Due to the weight of this pro lens, the 24-105/4G or 16-35/4 would be the better bets. Side note: Sony really hamstrung themselves with a few of their earlier lenses; the 16-35/4G is noticeably worse on the 35mm end, and their most compact slower zooms, the 24-70/4 and 28-70, are mediocre. That leaves the 24-105/4G, really. Alternatively, you could use the 16-35/4, but have a 40mm or 50mm lens such as the macro you mentioned above.
You can get one, but you should be aware that they have issues with wider lenses, generally pictures with lots of sky. Also, the widest lenses, like the 12-24, do not take screw on filters and thus require more elaborate solutions.
Saved for last because I'm not sure what you mean by 'sunset photography'. To me, this is the same as any landscape photography aside from the specific timing, and aperture doesn't play a big part in terms of exposure.
I just like how OP wanted to spend €500 on a lens upgrade or perhaps a €1000 (or a hair more) for a system swap, only to up his budget to €1500 a day later, and then to €3000 a day after that. I'm just gonna hang around until next week when we reach medium format budget before making any more suggestions
Kidding aside, I don't know anything about Sony ecosystem, so I'm not even going to pretend like I know what to suggest, but in terms of filters, skip the CP for wide angle, unless the 24-70mm lens is what you strongly consider as your walk around lens, which you shouldn't, as IdiotInCharge pointed out, this isn't really a lens for you. For your landscape sunset/sunrise shots, an ND grad (hard transition 2 or 3 stops) would be preferred. Look up LEE grad systems to get an idea, and go from there. Just don't buy cheap plastic filters that will scratch easily. If you're serious about this, then spend the money on a quality filter.
Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS + Vario-Tessar T* 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS?
This will work, just note what I'd said above about these lenses: the 16-35 loses sharpness on the 35mm end, and the 24-70/4 isn't that great overall. If you could combine the 16-35/4 with the 24-105/4 and then add one of the 50mm lenses (macro or 50/1.8), I think you'd be set. That might be worth stretching your budget a bit .
Before you invest in bigger lenses, you need to invest in your photography. You don't seem to know what the numbers on a lens even mean, so you have some work to do. Take a class, read a book, experiment with the equipment you have. Nothing you buy will make you a better photographer right now. The D3200 and the lens you have is more than adequate for learning, and no new lens or body will significantly change anything you do or produce right now.
Why are you under an impression that you have to buy everything at once? So far, for the past 5 years, you've been working with a single 18-55 lens. Buy the camera and the 16-35 lens only, maybe a tripod or filters, and go to work with that. Wait a few more months and start adding gear later on as you save more cash. In the meantime, take this opportunity to learn your new camera and its capabilities.
I've grown out of my D3200
I've had 18-55 with an entry DSLR
Except that I'm going to change that to 16-35 and 24-70 lens.
I've read quite a lot about lenses, I don't know what else I need to learn?
A lot has changed since I created this thread.
When I made this thread, I didn't know what different aperture meant, nor I had an idea about what the difference is between 35mm and 70mm lens.
I already take a lot of photos with my Note 8 which turn out great and my friends keep telling me that I should invest more into photography.
Yeah, I could keep using my phone and shoot just like people keep telling me that I should keep my D3200 and shoot with it.
I have the basics. People tell me I have the eye for photos, so why not give it a more serious go? I've grown out of my D3200. I want something newer.
It's not that I am not thankful for tips and replies, but I've been told here that 80D is not much better over my D3200 so I decided to increase my budget.
I found that 12-24 and unfortunately it's quite expensive because I would have to add a second lens to at least 55mm, preferably to 70mm.
What about this option:
Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS + Vario-Tessar T* 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS?
Seems to cover most of what I need and is within my budget.
I get long and ramble-y. I'll try to not.
With respect, you've learned specs on a sheet. But you have no idea what any of those things mean in practice. You have experience with one lens on one system. And perhaps I don't know how good your work is or isn't, but I haven't seen any evidence that shows your ability to control. In fact, mostly the opposite.
I think there is quite a bit of difference between knowing that "f/2.8 > f/4.0" versus knowing which aperture is appropriate for a given shooting situation. There is also a big difference between wanting a series of specs versus knowing what they do and whether they benefit you at all.
And it's true, there is a big difference between 35mm and 75mm, but your experience will really affect you in terms of knowledge how big (or little) of a difference they are.
With respect, your friends likely don't know anything about photography. The general public doesn't either, because generally speaking they have no idea what it takes to produce serious images.
And also with respect, you haven't grown out of your D3200. In fact I'm 100% sure you've never pushed that camera to its limit. You're looking at specs on a sheet and you see that one series of numbers is bigger than another series of numbers and therefore you want to upgrade. But in terms of practical purposes you don't have a clue in how that will help you.
In terms of how it will change your photography, it will likely not change it all. You'll have a camera that is capable of more, but in practice you won't notice any difference outside of the obvious double in resolution. However even that increase in resolution will be minimized when you start realizing that more often than not, you'll be exporting this photos at something like 2048 pixel width on the long end for web. And your prints 99.9% of the time if you ever actually print will likely always be less than 12". Even a poster size of 3'x2', it would be hard to see a massive resolution difference at a distance of 3'.
Photography, yes, is about your ability to see things. But that is married to having an understanding of the technical. All art is those two parts, technical and artistic mastery. If you don't know how to mix paint or hold a brush properly you never get to a place where you can paint what "you see in your head". To be a master painter you must have a solid grasp on both. Photography is much the same. It's just that as I mentioned earlier in another post, technology has allowed people to dumb down photography. Pushing the button should almost be an afterthought. It's about all the knowledge you put into your work beforehand that will matter.
You learned a 'different' lesson than we were trying to teach. I was merely trying to make it very apparent that buying something newer to increase where you can go in your photography was a mistake. So you learned the wrong lesson and instead pulled down a bigger budget. So now you're buying something in which the specs "for sure look bigger!" but you're already underutilizing what you have. For some reason you believe that the D3200 is not a capable enough camera, while also not knowing truly how capable it is.
===
And finally, on gear...
It's posts like these that really let me know that you don't know what you're getting yourself into. It's not that these lenses aren't fantastic, but you're obsessed with this idea of "coverage". You want to ensure that you have every millimeter in focal length covered from 16mm to 200mm (if not now, then eventually). But for what you're trying to do, it doesn't serve you.
You aren't really certain at all what you need and this is because you aren't really certain at all what your shooting style is or what your requirements are. There are photographers that shoot landscape all day with 21mm primes. That means they don't zoom. They have one lens in the bag, one camera, it shoots one focal length, and they absolutely crush it. But they are able to do so because they understand their singular focal length very well, they like and appreciate its visual style and aesthetic (that is to say, they understand how 21mm is different than 16mm or 24mm or 28mm), and they understand how to make artistic choices with that one lens.
I know that when someone really knows what these focal lengths are and what they mean, they can have a discussion with me about the differences between 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm. Because most people can't (a lot of people think that 24mm and 28mm feel the same, to me, there's a big difference). And most people who don't have an understanding of wide angle lenses aren't certain of the differences in characteristics outside of one being wider or narrower than the other.
For photography, I shoot prime only. I don't have zooms in my bag, and lately I only shoot on a 35mm and a 50mm for general purpose work. I like to shoot 28mm on the street. I know that I like 85mm compression for some types of portrait work. I know that I don't need an ultra wide angle or a 24-70. I know that unless I'm shooting an event that a 70-200mm doesn't need a place in my bag. In other words I know just as much about what I don't need as what I do need. And I know how and when these things should be used.
If you're serious about landscapes and you only get one zoom, then the 12-24mm should be it. But if you need to hedge, because honestly you don't know what you need, then fine, buy the 16-35mm (I see this as a mistake for a serious landscaper, there is a MASSIVE difference between 12mm and 16mm on the wide end). But really you don't even need a second lens outside of that. If you MUST buy a second lens after a 16-35mm, I'd recommend you buy the 55m f/1.8. That lens will teach you some real shooting discipline while being probably one of the best general purpose lenses you can buy on Sony.
And it will teach you that because you're obsessed with "versatility" rather than focusing on focal length as an artistic choice. Primes will force you to learn photography in ways that zooms never will.
===
All edits are for spelling/grammar.
This may be how you feel, but here's a reality check: for everything you're interested in doing, I'd personally be happy with your D3200! Currently, I use my compact mirrorless system based around Canon's EOS-M5 more than I use my 6D. The 6D still has its place, of course, but that's more limited to low-light and astro- these days, alongside shallow depth of field natural light photography. For studio work, I can't tell the difference between the two!
You can call it an 'entry DSLR', and that's certainly how Nikon likes to market such cameras, but it's also a compact camera. And it's inexpensive. That means that it's easy to pack, the lenses are smaller and lighter, and if it is damaged or stolen, whatever!
Many professionals will carry professional gear such as the 1D X II / D5 / A9 with a complement of f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes, and still have a compact camera like your D3200 (or say Canon's SL2, or a Fuji X...) available.
Referencing northrop's statement about buying everything at once, I do recommend holding off on the 24-70/4. The 24-105/4G would be worth saving up for, but there's another lens that I forgot to mention: Tamron's E-mount 28-75/2.8. This is a new lens that is very compact and will likely be effective for your purposes. It's not as good as Sony's GM, but it's not as heavy or expensive either!
I would rather have more zoom
The Sony kit is closer to what you need in terms of shooting landscape.
The Canon kit is very competent as an all around kit for a portrait/event/sport photographer.
I personally don't think the pros and cons really line up all that much.
Sony in their infinite wisdom, does not allow for both lens stabilization and body stabilization simultaneously. So really having it in both the lens and body is redundant.
Speed of getting images is based upon the speed of the media. So if you want to get your photos faster, get a UHS-II V90 card and a fast USB 3.1 card reader, and that will be blazing quick to get your photos off the card. If you're using slow media, then you'll of course get a slow result.
Sony has:
Size/weight
Better IQ (but this is ONLY in terms of lab tests, I'm certain you won't be able to tell in real use).
Great 4k video and passable 1080p high fps video.
Tilt screen increases usability, but it's worse from a durability and weather perspective.
True Hybrid camera that can do photo and stills well.
IBIS - While I did note that you can't combine it with OSS, it's still really useful to have for older manual lenses or other lenses without OSS. I won't minimize that for handheld shooting and it does help video as well.
Scopes! - Although it only has Zebras and Focus Peaking, it's 2 more things that Canon doesn't have, and I use both constantly. If Sony would put false color into these it would be... well just a full blown video making tool.
Cons:
Electronic Viewfinder (some people love this thing, but honestly I always have to wonder why the world is so "grainy" all of a sudden. They need to double the resolution on this).
Battery life is terrible (expect an hour to an hour and a half of on time)
Ergonomics need work (after assigning all the buttons and Fn menu, it's passable, but will never feel great in the hand).
Menu Hell - Also an ergonomics issue, but it deserves its own spot.
Limited metering modes (I really wish that it had highlight priority mode for run and gun shooting).
Really small buffer (be prepared to be locked out of the camera after every picture while the buffer clears)
You're buying lenses that are slow. Get prepared to have to shoot at higher ISOs anytime you're indoors.
Sony Lenses are stupidly expensive... for no reason.
Canon:
Excellent Ergonomics (faster, more direct controls, better feel in the hand). This includes direct control for manual focusing, which has to be electronically selected on Sony. A highly annoying "feature" of Sony cameras.
Optical Viewfinder & Live View (get access to both modes)
Pro level build quality/durability (weather resistance)
More complete all-around system (also cheaper more complete glass down the line).
Excellent Battery Life (you can shoot on one battery all day if you leave the back LCD off).
Better focusing modes (compared to the A7RII, the III might be a lot better, but I don't have one).
Most of the lenses in the system are fast or very fast. The 70-200mm is legendarily good (and rightly so, I know, I owned one). And two lenses are f/2 or faster. As a mostly wide open shooter, I appreciate fast glass a lot.
Cons:
You're buying a lot of lenses that have better counterparts, you won't be getting all the resolution out of the camera.
You're buying a lot of lenses you don't need
Contrast detection AF in Live View is terrible (unfortunately dual-pixel AF didn't start coming on cameras until the 70D which was released after this).
Bigger/Heavier
Video Modes are terrible (if you care about that). No mic jack
===
The way to think about this: If you're a working photographer that is trying to make money, I'd pickup that Canon setup real fast. It's way more complete if you're trying to use it as a business tool. There is no question which would be better for that purpose. But you're looking to do landscape and I imagine just general photography with your family. So either setup is fine. You could do those things with the Sony as well, but the Canon setup already comes with all that purpose built glass and is less expensive. To have as complete a system on the Sony (which is already more expensive), you'd have to spend twice as much as you already are.
Just pickup the Sony. I'd argue though that unless you really need the MP, just get a new A7III instead. It's a more usable camera from a number of perspectives. If you're as much into tech as you claim, then literally this has all of it, except for resolution. Which honestly for 99.9% of people don't really need. I admit it helps with cropping, but it doesn't help in terms of IQ in the way that most people think it does. It's true that the A7RII and A7RIII reign in terms of absolute picture quality. But there are a huge amount QOL improvements on the A7III vs the A7RII. Better battery life (new battery type). Faster SD card readout. Better/faster buffer. Better AF and AF modes. Better video/video modes. Better button placement. Better ergonomics (addition of thumbstick for AF point selection). Better metering modes. Better/cleaner higher ISO.
Of course the new A7RIII has all of those features AND the resolution, but I'll assume that from a price perspective, that isn't attainable (video quality is better on the A7III however due to lower pixel density, which is advantageous for that application).
Alternatively if you want to save money, you could buy the Canon setup. Sell all the lenses you don't need and buy the ones you do need. So you save 700 off the bat, in theory you could get a wide angle lens by just selling stuff you don't want. Or help makeup the difference with the 700.
Unfortunately I can't afford A7 III. I would love to be able to but it's too expensive at about €500 more than A7R II. I know I have upped my budget since I made this thread, but it's hitting the limit at €5000 for everything. I have set aside a budget at €10000 but I need to fix my car as well
I'm chasing the cameras in EU. In Sweden the price is quite a lot higher than the rest of EU.
For example, brand new A7R II cost €2400 in Sweden while in Ireland through Ebay, it's about €1650. €750 is a huge difference.
The guy Selling Canon is a good photographer (I googled him) so I'm pretty confident that he is not lying about his stuff being in good condition. Two of the lenses are made in the 90's, but according to reviews, the reason why Canon didn't bother to upgrade them until lately is because they are that good. I do want to be able to shoot everything so the variation in lens he offers is actually quite interesting. Do you suggest I pick Canon instead? I could pick up Canon 17-40 f/4 L for about €300.
The difference between A7R II and 5Ds image quality is negligible in my opinion. Also people claim that Canon has more natural skin colors and that you need less editing (I'm not very confident in post-processing people).
Video being terrible doesn't bother me that much. I have a drone and an action cam that I can mount pretty much anywhere.
I thought you could combine OSS and IBIS on A7R II to get that 5 gimbal stabilization?
And I also don't use Live View. I prefer Viewfinder and I have never seen this new EVF so I don't know what to expect.
I have been shooting a lot with my D3200 in Aperture mode lately and you guys are right. It's a pretty good camera especially considering I have a €150 lens attached to it. But I'm still giving it away for free to my sister and want something that will last me a long time.
I still recommend buying used for what it's worth. Just buy from people with 99.8% or higher feedback that have over 150 or so feedbacks (with a good chunk of them being from selling). Like I said a lot earlier, that money in your pocket is worth a lot.
I'm incredibly familiar with the Canon system, as I shot with them from my first camera (a Rebel XTi) to a 5DII and then a 5D III before going mirrorless. I would have done a 5D IV, but for my usage cases I needed a real hybrid camera that has 4k that makes sense. And short of the 1DX II, Canon doesn't have that right now (and even if you can afford that camera, it uses a terrible motion jpeg codec).
So that said, all of these lenses I have first hand experience with either through ownership or through rental, and I rented a decent chunk.
I can tell you this:
-The 35mm f/1.4 has low resolution. The II is a massive overhaul. The 35mm f/2 IS that Canon released in the 10s is sharper than the f/1.4 mk I by a significant margin. Which is kind of depressing, considering that the f/2 was being sold for $550 alongside the mark I at the time for $1400. It would be several years before the II came out.
-The 24-70mm f/2.8L I is a pig. It was my first L lens, and I had it probably longer than any other lens on the system (2007-2013ish). It will get the job done, but I sold mine to go prime only and I reaped the benefits of that. The II corrected a lot, but it wasn't out at the time, and I moved on from zooms anyway. Personally I'd ditch it in a hot second unless it's a primary, needed focal length. I'd rather (and do) shoot on a 50mm prime or a 35mm prime over a 24-70. To me it just has too many compromises and I don't find the "versatility" to be significantly useful. But obviously you're talking to someone that isn't a "zoom guy".
-The 135L is a God portrait lens. Probably one of the best on any system period. That lens is probably the sharpest lens Canon makes outside of the 300mm f/2.8L IS II. But it's not just the sharpness, the boke and rendition wide open is also really good.
-70-200mm f2.8L IS II, I said earlier is probably the best 70-200mm on any system period. They're coming out with a III version and basically all they changing on it is the coatings and some other minor tweaks. The thing is that good. 70-200mm is really versatile as a short telephoto. It's useful for just.... well everything.
-The Flashes are Canon's top, but they're overkill. I tend to think most top end speedlights on any system are. As they charge way too much money essentially for automated systems.
===
Color comes down to preference. I've shot on Canon and Sony. I'd say if you're shooting RAW and you own Lightroom, both can get you a result you want. The advantage of the Sony is being able to pull and push highlights and shadows a bit more compared to Canon. I liked Canon color for what its worth, but it still has the same struggles you'll find on any system: namely making sure your white balance is really correct and knowing how to play with saturation and color and hue.
That said, I've never shot jpeg on any of these cameras, and generally speaking it's the in camera processing that is being referred to when discussing "color". Still, there are profiles in camera to correct color if you dislike Sony jpeg color. But like all things, it's just about how much work you want to put in.
As for the 17-40L, it's a good lens. I did shoot some amount of landscapes on it. The 11-24mm f/4 of course is the lens you really want, but Canon wants $2000 US for it, so I imagine in Euros it ain't cheap.
If you want a more general purpose wide angle then the 16-35mm f/2.8L III is incredible. It's also pricey though. Definitely, definitely skip the I and II version of the lens. They didn't update much from the 1 to the 2, and the sharpness is disappointing on them (the 17-40 is honestly better). It's just incredibly soft.
If you're willing to start putting money into specialization lenses, then the 17mm f/4 TS-E is probably one of the best lenses you can buy on any camera system period for landscape/architecture. With the 24mm TS-E as a great compliment. Both are incredibly expensive as very serious purpose built lenses. But if you want the best that 35mm has to offer, it's those two.
---
Having a video camera in hand is a lot different than using an action camera or a drone. It's a different level and type of video production. Sony offers a legitimate way to inexpensively enter into video production. Whether that's important to you or not is another matter. It was enough for me to move to a system that allowed me to do so. And considering that Sony is the only game in town if you are a hybrid shooter, I didn't have much choice. (To be clear, there are other systems that do both, but are weighted in a way that I didn't appreciate. Panasonic as an example is weighted a lot towards video and also has an incredibly small sensor size, which I didn't appreciate). And this is coming from a guy that also owns a Mavic Pro and am considering buying a GoPro as a complimentary but not primary tool.
5 axis stabilization isn't a combination between IBIS and OSS. It's just the type of IBIS found in Sony cameras. It stabilizes on 5-axis'. X & Y, Yaw & Pitch, as well as Roll. So the sensor doesn't just compensate one way. Gimbal's are an entirely different thing. They are a device to stabilize the cameras motion while shooting video. They come in either a pistol grip or two handed grip form (such as the Zhiyun Crane pistol grip and DJI Ronin 2 handed grip).
Panasonic does allow combining of their lens and body stabilization. I guess Sony just hasn't figured out the tech to do it yet. Considering that IBIS has existed now for about 3 generations of camera, it's kind of disappointing. I guess they have other priorities.
Live view usage is inevitable with a Sony camera. It's annoying to try and turn it's rear LCD off, and it always has a picture up so long as it's on and not timed out. So, even me a hardcore OVF guy is using the LCD. Primarily for shooting video, but also for getting off angle camera shots (it's great if you're trying to be sneaky or need to shoot overhead). I begrudgingly will tell you it's useful. The EVF is inferior to OVF in my opinion. It's serviceable. But my eyes just have more resolution than it can dish out. I don't care much for the live view look on EVF either, but, once again, might as well use it. So, it's not my preference, but I live with it.
===
As for picking a system, it's up to you. At the end of the day, it's your money and you know better than us what you're planning on doing with it. Either way, you're buying into not only a camera, but a system. So try and think about how that will affect you down the line.
Canon is way more built out. I think they have the best lenses of any 35mm system and I prefer their ergonomics the most. It's just they haven't made a camera that makes sense since 2008 (The 5D2) and are really slow at putting in all the tech that they have the capacity to. So Canon is all about making sure their cameras work in any environment, and they get the critical things right (like having good color, a complete system, good ergonomics, good working files, etc). They just lag at implementation of some tech that other companies beat them over the head with.
Sony is kind of the opposite, as they are a relatively new entrant to the market. They bought all of Minolta so that's how they entered. But their basic strategy has been like a cellphone one. Just iterate as fast as possible and cram as many features in as possible and create a system that's all about bang for the buck. Their lenses are overpriced and incomplete. But they have great sensors and great tech. So if you can live with their ergonomic annoyances and high costs, their output is really good.
That's my super short breakdown. I don't think that one system fits all. I can tell you that if I didn't shoot video at all or didn't care about it, I'd still be on Canon today. That's a no brainer for me. They're just so fast once you understand how to control them. And all the other things I mentioned before (glass, bigger system, etc).
Honestly for photo only, I generally would recommend Canon or Fuji (or Leica if you have more money than sense). Nikon has the best sensor tech camera right now, but I guess I've just never liked their ergonomics and I'd rather have the faster glass on Canon than a little more DR or resolution on Nikon. But a lot of that stuff even is preference and obviously there are plenty of photographers that prefer Nikon over Canon.
$2000 for 11-24mm? You guys are getting off cheap. It's €2900 or $3400 in Sweden... It can be found on EU eBay for $2800. Bargain.
I don't shoot JPG as I think that my post processing in Photoshop is much better and I like the creative freedom with RAW. I use it for different things, not just editing photos. I don't own Lightroom, but I might pick it up, Adobe offers cheap enough monthly sub.
There's a rather interesting auction here in Sweden with A7R II, Sony 24-70mm GM/f2.8 +UV filter + variable ND filter, Sony 100-400mm GM/f4.5-5.6 +UV filter, Zeiss Batis 18mm/f2.8 and some other stuff (tripod, bag), but it's at €6500 and it's almost new (he claims 150 shutter count). I haven't really looked up those lenses except that they are quite expensive and I know GM is Sony's best offering. I have to read up on technical info. But getting this means I wouldn't be able to get everything I want for my car. So It's a priority thing.
I'm considering that used Canon kit and picking up 17-40 L lens. 70-200 lens for action and 135 for portraits and 17-40 for landscape/architecture. 24-70 and 35 would be just a bonus?
What I'm concerned about is that monstrous weight. The camera itself is 3x D3200s weight, and that 70-200 lens is monstrous. The camera + that lens weighs more than my laptop. Even my D3200 with its lens weighs about the same as A7R II body only.
The thing is, even though I have a drone, I prefer to take photos with it. I don't own Premiere and I'm not very proficient with it. And it's another thing to learn. I find myself shooting photos much more than video. Not much of a video guy here so in that department A7R II is not very interesting.
I'm not really used to any ecosystem. Sure I own a D3200 and I'm familiar with its menu system and find it rather easy to use, but I have not bought any extra lenses or accessories to lose a lot by changing the system.
Buying another entry level camera, no matter how new or old, isn't going to make you a better photographer. You already have a decent rig to play with. Use it, learn it, take advantage of whatever the camera has to offer. Say you buy a new camera... what features are you looking to get out of that 80D that you're currently missing in D3200?
My personal suggestion would be to go with option 1, but we need to know what you're working with before we start throwing suggestions at you.
Look up Nikon's 16-80/2.8-4E VR, 10-20 VR, and 40/2.8 or 60/2.8 macro lenses.
First for landscapes and general usage, second for landscapes, and third for macro.
You could do the same with Canon, but you already have a Nikon body...
I mispoke. It's $2700. But I never was going to buy it, so it just never entered my field of thought.
I generally also prefer to do work on my photos. But there is something to be said for speed of workflow. Some people care, some people don't.
It's a solid auction in terms of content. But I don't know prices well enough where you are to say whether or not that is a good deal. The other thing is this: for the most part all lenses are good, it's just "in comparison to what" and also "for what purpose". So, even while I'm critical of lenses, they all have their place in a system and can be used to great effect if you know how to use them. These lenses in this auction, the same. I don't have a want or need for a 100-400mm, but if you need some serious reach, then it's a good option (like birders or people shooting outdoors sports).
If you can flip the 24-70mm and 35mm that would be ideal, then pickup either a 35mm f/2.8L II a 35mm f/2.0, a 50L or some combination thereof. Or just a 24-70mm II or 24-105mm f/4.0L II if you prefer a zoom (I'd rather have the faster primes). (I'd probably do that in the Sony auction as well, and just get a 50mm GM and 35mm GM).
It's heavy but balanced. Honestly once you see the output of the 70-200mm, you stop caring about the weight. I'm sure the 70-200mm f/2.8 GM (Sony) is roughly the same weight (although yes, the body is lighter, but generally that makes the system feel less balanced). There isn't anywhere to decrease the weight on. I'm sure Nikon's is within the same as well. If you want a longer lens, and you want it to be fast, there isn't a lot that can be done about weight. Some people can deal with that, I guess some people can't. I've always cared about quality over those considerations. Mirrorless has really only taken off since 2015 (or 2013 arguably). Before then if you were a pro, you had to be on a dSLR. So not that it helps you per se, but everyone had to "deal" with the weight.
If it's all just a hobby, it doesn't matter too much. But it does help a lot trying to capture moments in life if that ever becomes a thing you want to do. Or start a youtube channel. Or capture you doing burnouts or something. I dunno.
This is very true. Not sure if you have friends with cameras, but this is a time in which getting to hear them talk about their cameras and also play with their gear would be very useful. Not sure if there are rental houses around or even just camera stores. But if you can touch these cameras and be really annoying and test them in the store for a few hours (flipping through menus and seeing if you can manipulate the systems in ways you want), test the AF systems, metering modes, bring an SD card to "steal files", then that will teach you a lot about what you're looking for.
Your input (and others here) have been priceless.
It's one thing reading reviews and user experience, but a completely different thing having a discussion with someone who is so knowledgeable.
Honestly, if I was to decide what I want by reading online, I would've bought a camera a long time ago. You make it difficult
I probably don't need that 100-400 lens. If I can consider that €6500 A7RII with all those lenses, then I can consider A7III (or even R) with 12-24 G and 24-105 G lenses. The car parts I want are anyway only exterior stuff that I can live without.
Photography is something I was always interested in. It was a hobby, yes, but mainly because I've spent too much time playing video games. For the past few years, I have gotten out of video games and lately into cryptocurrency which is way too stressful. Photography is the next best thing I know and I want to make it more than just a hobby.
A7III looks good, very good in fact, especially for that price. But I do tend to crop my pictures rather often and maybe those extra pixels would help not having a longer than 105mm lens. Especially if I actually decide to get A7RIII since it has a higher dynamic range.
What hardware do you use to edit your pictures?
I have a Dell XPS 15 with i5 cpu, 8gb ram and 1050 and 4k screen. 8gb seem enough for my Mavic Pro (12mp) and D3200 but Photoshop does sometimes complain that I don't have enough ram (rarely). I plan to upgrade it to 16gb. I have no idea how 16gb will perform with up to 42mp/50mp photos. I do have a desktop PC as well but for gaming, it has a weaker CPU, i3-8350k, 16gb ram and 1080Ti.
I personally think you're going to be shelling out far more money than you need to. After all, I'm still of the opinion that the D3200 can carry you a long way. It's your money, so obviously I can't stop you, but when talking about this level of money, I want people to be really happy and not have regrets. Nothing is more sad than every time I buy a piece of camera gear from someone off of Craigslist or eBay, only to hear they spent a huge amount of money on something they never bothered to use. I guess that's great for me, because I'm buying these things for a fraction, but all of this stuff is to be used. Now, I know you're saying you want to change hobbies, but I hope you carefully consider. It's a lot of money to drop.
All that said the A7RII can be had here for $1500-$1600 generally versus the A7III which is $2000 new (the used market is still near the new price for the time being). The A7RIII meanwhile is $3200. Not including tax on any of these. All of these I guarantee are way more camera than you need. Megapixels or otherwise. You've never had 42MP and you've cropped, and been just fine. Cropping should generally speaking only be used to correct minor framing mistakes. Even with 42MP, I would say for best practices using it like a digital zoom isn't what you want to do.
There isn't much of a output difference between the A7R II vs the A7R III. Saving the money there might be worth it. The QOL between the Gen II's and III's stack up. But personally even with that I'd probably just try to save the money there and decide between the A7RII's higher DR and A7III's QOL improvements and leave the RIII on the shelf. If you have 12mm-105mm you don't really have any limitations (at least regarding focal length) other than your own mentally imposed ones. Zoom with your feet. Learn to move around. Find angles. There's always excuses to spend more money on gear. And reach definitely is one of them. It's not uncommon for birders to spend $10,000+ on one telephoto lens, and for them it's just a hobby. They'll never make money to recoup that cost. Personally That stuff gets a little crazy to me, and much the same way I have to say as we come around full circle: don't look at any piece of equipment you have as a limitation. Instead figure out how to maximize what you have. You can always gear chase. But it won't make you a better photographer. Even if you had every piece of glass all of these companies ever make, it will teach you far less about decisions and choice. 105mm isn't short by any means and it will only become a problem in the day-to-day if you are interested in photographing sports or other things you can't physically approach. For everything else there's feet.
I'm on Apple's ecosystem. It's not a requirement at all, PC's work just as well. I'd say your system is more than adequate. 16GB should help 24GB is sort of the sweet spot (16GB for photos and the rest can go into system RAM. Otherwise it's 12GB for photos and the rest for system RAM). You'll want 32GB+ if you want to more comfortably work with 4k video. Your GPU matters as well as now everything is GPU accelerated. So all that said, just upgrade the RAM on your laptop and that machine is fine. The 1050 is plenty. The 1080Ti should be a monster. I don't have enough experience with i3's to know if that is detrimental to your performance or if it's enough in Photoshop. But I'm guessing it's fine. 42MP files are more crushing then 24MP ones though for sure, but my machines mostly work without issues despite them being a bit old (I'm a bit overdue for a computer upgrade, it's probably the next major thing to spend money on).
Honestly, compared to video, photos are 'low impact'. Just try playing back any 4k videos you're editing at 100% quality with full blown color grading, sharpening, denoising, a contrast stack, and whatever else you have back in real time. It's even more crushing at 5, 6, 8k. I won't be doing any of that in real time at 100% for a long long time.
-The 35mm f/1.4 has low resolution. The II is a massive overhaul. The 35mm f/2 IS that Canon released in the 10s is sharper than the f/1.4 mk I by a significant margin. Which is kind of depressing, considering that the f/2 was being sold for $550 alongside the mark I at the time for $1400. It would be several years before the II came out.
-The 24-70mm f/2.8L I is a pig. It was my first L lens, and I had it probably longer than any other lens on the system (2007-2013ish). It will get the job done, but I sold mine to go prime only and I reaped the benefits of that. The II corrected a lot, but it wasn't out at the time, and I moved on from zooms anyway. Personally I'd ditch it in a hot second unless it's a primary, needed focal length. I'd rather (and do) shoot on a 50mm prime or a 35mm prime over a 24-70. To me it just has too many compromises and I don't find the "versatility" to be significantly useful. But obviously you're talking to someone that isn't a "zoom guy".
-The 135L is a God portrait lens. Probably one of the best on any system period. That lens is probably the sharpest lens Canon makes outside of the 300mm f/2.8L IS II. But it's not just the sharpness, the boke and rendition wide open is also really good.
-70-200mm f2.8L IS II, I said earlier is probably the best 70-200mm on any system period. They're coming out with a III version and basically all they changing on it is the coatings and some other minor tweaks. The thing is that good. 70-200mm is really versatile as a short telephoto. It's useful for just.... well everything.