DSLR Cameras + Drones

[jimmybell]

In light of the less than ideal driving weather recently, and with an eventful year or so coming up - i'm rekindling an old hobby. Confident there's some decent amateur and Pro photographers on the forum and we all love a debate about 'which is best', so i'm opening up this debate. And.. as we all know - all good hobbies start with an unjustified ridiculously expensive purchase.

For some context, i'm an amateur photographer at best, though i do have some decent lens-time with DSLRs, film SLRs and some modern semi-compact thingers.

I had a 400d + handful of lenses (18-200 IS, nifty50, kit lens etc) for a good few years, i've also used Nikon and Olympus models reasonably often. I sold up everything a year or two ago as carrying around DSLR became a chore and i thought i'd be able to get away with some of the modern smaller (but pricey) Micro 4/3” compacts. Thus i bought a Panasonic LX100 (which is basically the Leica D-Lux 109). I was wrong. It's a great camera, and would take incredible point-and-shoot clueless holiday snaps, but i think it's really a backup camera for when DSLR isn't to hand... and in 2018 it's often easily replaced with a modern iphone. This was made very apparent when at LM24/Goodwood etc events where i had some decent access but struggled to get the snaps i wanted. Camera couldn't keep up with fast moving stuff - especially when the track was far away, or low light, etcetc. Also most close-up angles are fenced, so you actually need to be on a hill further away for a clear shot. Here's a photo to make the thread less wordy:



Thus i'm debating selling the LX100 for ~20% of what i paid for it (!), and putting it towards a DLSR again. Whilst they can be a pain to carry - it seems like it's that or no real photos at all. I'd probably pair it with a decent 'do-everything' lens, and one with ~200m zoom for track/sport/bear/wilderness photog. I'd lean towards Canon again, just because i likely know the controls better, and probably either look at a 70d or 80d.

Anyone have any opinions or similar stories? What kit do you use?

Any thoughts on what glass to get? Primarily for automotive + motorsport photog, but also travel+tourism photography. This year i'll be at goodwood a lot, LM24, EU roadtrips, vancouver island, mexico, maderia, etcetc, and my own wedding is next year so i'd like to chuck my camera around for anyone to use..

As a final curveball - the latest DJI micro-drones genuinely fit in your pocket, also debating one of these for aerial photos (rather than video, but perhaps video too if i'm inspired). Whilst they're expensive, im thinking in certain situations they'd take some incredible pics.

Anyone done drone photography?

 

[Ducklakeview]

I have a (now old) Sony DSLR Alpha which I don't really use these days, so can't really offer advice on that.

However, I also have a DJI Mavic Pro, and I LOVE it.. 4k, with a triple axis gimbal that is rock steady. Folds up nice and small, and I get the full 27 mins flight on each of the 3 batteries. I went for the "Flymore Combo" kit, which includes 2 extra batteries, a charging hub, car charger, soft case and a few extra goodies. I know they now do a couple of smaller drones, BUT they have a 2 axis gimbal and lower resolution.

Mike

 

[jimmybell]

I have a (now old) Sony DSLR Alpha which I don't really use these days, so can't really offer advice on that.

However, I also have a DJI Mavic Pro, and I LOVE it.. 4k, with a triple axis gimbal that is rock steady. Folds up nice and small, and I get the full 27 mins flight on each of the 3 batteries. I went for the "Flymore Combo" kit, which includes 2 extra batteries, a charging hub, car charger, soft case and a few extra goodies. I know they now do a couple of smaller drones, BUT they have a 2 axis gimbal and lower resolution.

Mike

Have you taken many static shots from the drone? I guess these days most of my photography would just end up on instagram, perhaps short videos from a drone would work nicely there.

 

[Ducklakeview]

Yes m8, great for static pics, and you can always extract stills from the 4k video. Just make sure you use a quality class U3 microSD card to cope with the sustained write speeds.

Mike

 

[hopz121]

Take a look at the canon M5 Mirrorless camera, I have one which replaces my 5d mk2 and I am over the moon with it.

It has very similar spec's to a Canon 80d but is a lot more compact

 

[Ducklakeview]

Take a look at the canon M5 Mirrorless camera, I have one which replaces my 5d mk2 and I am over the moon with it.

It has very similar spec's to a Canon 80d but is a lot more compact

+1 on the "mirrorless" DSLR, my Sony was a big step up from the previous "mirrored" dslr - MUCH faster, and allows "on the fly" autofocus, as the sensor isn't obscured by a mirror.

Mike

 

[tomscott]

Mirrorless cameras still arent where good AF is unfortunately.

They use contrast detect to enable the AF so when light is low or the scene is heavily overcast they arent overly reliable.

Cameras that are good are only really high end so A7RIII and the A9 but they still arent to the same level as even a mid range DSLR.

Currently the market is full of bargains, DSLRs are struggling against mirrorless and you can get a 10fps 61point 7DMKII for like £800. Took this and a 5DMKIII with me round the world for a year and they were awesome. Use Canon FF for my photography business and although the cameras are behind sony most of the technology is trivial for a professional because you work and get the best out of your gear and getting the image correct the first time not sorting it out later. To an amateur these may be much more important, but for me lens selection, repair turn around ergonomics and knowing the camera will always get the job done is more important. Plus sony bring a new camera out every year basically making your old one defunct, canons turn around is much longer enabling the camera to have a more serviceable life.

Benefits of mirrorless is the small size. If you have small hands or want to take it away but dont want to be too weighed down. For me I have large hands and i struggle to get my fingers between the grip and the lens and cant get my little finger on the body at all.. Also the mirrorless lenses are still the same size and weight so the camera feels really unbalanced when i tried one with a 24-70 i got sore wrists having a long lens on a camera that is so smalll. Other issues is they arent as weather sealed and the lenses are new and expensive, if it breaks sonys repair centres are non existent with month turn around.

On the subject of sensor size. To me an iphone or a 3/4 size sensor will never be a replacement because the sensors are too small and the image quality (IQ) is so poor in comparison to a full frame camera. You cant get around the physics unfortunately bigger is better.

You have to multiply the crop to factor to figure out how much depth of field you get. If you like those thing DOF images then a bigger sensor is where its at. Problem with bigger sensors is that they tend to accentuate other issues, soft lenses if your technique isnt too great or your not overly stable or shake this will be apparent in images and you have to increase the shutterspeed to combat this. Took me a few weeks to get used to a FF camera.

The physical size of the sensor is more important and people dont realise that MP can actually be a bad thing. The more pixels the higher the pixel density and there is a point to where noise becomes more apparent. For example my 5DMKIV is 30mp on a full frame sensor the iphone X has 12mp have a look at the graph and see the size difference.



I couldnt find an image with an iphone size chip they use 1/3'' size sensors which you can see is smaller than the smallest sensor on there. So to me the iphone images look absolutely awful doesnt matter what you do because the pixel density is off the chart.

Basically the larger the pixels or the smaller the density the better the image quality. The larger the sensor the better light gathering capability a sensor has.

I use different cameras for different applications. Events, weddings and commercial I use FF because the DOF i get from them is beautiful and the rendition is something that no small sensor camera can match. I use crop cameras for wildlife and motorsport because DOF is key so I want more and my lenses end up being much longer. Canon crop cameras have a 1.6x crop factor so a 70-200mm F2.8 is a 112-320 F4 equivalent or a 100-400 is a 160-640mm. With motorsport it depends because being track side you dont really need more than 300mm as your bang in the action so I use FF a lot too, if im still far away from the track then I will use crop and you get the advantage of the speed. Also if you are panning the DOF doesnt really matter because the background will be blurred with the action.

I generally have 2 FF cameras and a crop. One full frame camera with a general purpose 24-70mm and another FF camera with a 70-200mm and often take my crop camera as a back up and it can take a bigger lens so I can pull it out the bag.

You can also use cameras specifications to your advantage. A smaller sensor camera generally gives you more DOF. For example landscape photography F11 is a good place to be to get back to front focus of a scene. Say your using a 24-70mm lens on a crop camera F8 is equivalent to F13 on a full frame body so you can get the same depth of field by using a shorter shutter speed meaning on many occasions for the casual shooter you can get away without a tripod. Same with widlife you cant get close to a wild animal so even pros crop images. Crop cameras have a higher pixel density therefore more pixels on the subject so cropping gives can give you an advantage over a FF camera. Generally you also want the animal completely in focus so crop can help there too as i explained above. There are caveats tho crop cameras are more noisy not as good in low light, to get around this you can use FF and buy a bigger lens but a 600mm lens but they cost 10k and are 5-6kgs a 100-400mm is 1.5kg and gives you more range on a crop camera. Depends whats more important. There isnt a perfect solution just picking the best that suits you, your budget and your back.

Same with lenses wide angle lenses generally give you more DOF by increasing the distance between the foreground and the background (increasing perspective) but a telephoto lens has the opposite effect of compressing perspective (making the forground and background move closer together) and reducing depth of field. Keeping this in mind can enhance the subject your trying to capture.

In conclusion for the price you cant really go wrong with a crop camera with some decent glass like a 70-200mm. I shoot motorsport myself with a 7DMKII. Ive posted these images before but here are some images of Silverstone Classic which I shoot every year with an all access press pass. All of these shot with a 7DMKII I wont post the FF stuff.

No.27 Nissan R91CK (1991) (Nova Engineering) Silverstone Classics 2016 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

N0. 78 1965 2.0 Porsche 911 Classic GT Cars (pre '66) Silverstone Classics 2016 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Jaguar - Art of Performance Tour by Tom Scott, on Flickr

These were shot with an old 40D when the yellow weather warning made my 2 5DMKIIIs cut out. Pulled the back up out.

Sideways Action, Historic Formula 1, Silverstone Classics 25th Anniversary by Tom Scott, on Flickr

BMW E30 M3, No.83, Tim Harvey, Silverstone Classics 2015 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Williams FW07C, Leyland #37, 1981, driven by C. D'Ansembourg, Legends of Modern F1, Silverstone Classic 2015 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Jordan 194, Benetton #3, 1994, driven by Tony Worswick, Legends of Modern F1, Silverstone Classic 2015 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Sir Jackie Stewart, Pit Lane, Silverstone Classics 2013 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

TSP_SC (518 of 191) by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Aston Martin DBR4, No.12, Wolfgang Friedrichs, 1959, Froilan Gonzalez Trophy for HGPCA Pre 61 Grand Prix, Silverstone Classics 2013 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Ferrari F40 25 Years by Tom Scott, on Flickr

The 90D is rumoured to be launched soon the 80D is awsome. I have a 70D would probably give that a miss the IQ isnt a touch on the 80D or if you want something faster get a 7DMKII.

Canons cameras are a touch behind but you cant beat the lens selection, the handling, menu system and general ergonomics. They are also bulletproof. After 8 hours in the rain i did have 2 5DMKIII fail but wrapped them in a towel left over night and booted back up. Impressive they survived that long in monsoon like weather

With drones, no event will let you in with one. I couldn't even get insured on one for the business which is annoying. They are amazing but you have to be so careful for privacy infringement. Unless you are in a secluded area or on private land with permission where it is quiet they are difficult to get away with.

Hope that helps. If you want any more advice feel free to PM me.

 

[jimmybell]

great - thanks tom, just what i'm after.

Looking at your 40d vs 7DMKII pics, i see almost a liquid sharpness on the 7D pics (say the f-type vs the wet weather shots), and perhaps a bit more noise on the 40d? I know the 40d is a lot older and some years back but i wouldn't of expected to be able to see that much difference. Am i right in seeing this, or is it my eyes? And if i'm seeing what i think i am, is that the camera? I presume you flipped the same glass to the 40d when the other body gave out.

I'd not be against a 7DMKII, surprising how cheap they are really. I know often with camera gear it's sometimes a bit of diminishing returns, exponential price curve on the top end stuff. 24-70 does seem to be a popular choice now. Perhaps that paired with a 70-200 on an 80D or 7DMKII. would give some decent future proofing. I'd probably buy another nifty 50 anyway tbh, forces people to move to take better pics - tho maybe save for the f1.4 this time.

Obviously some great pics in your post, looking forward to getting my cars cleaned up for some spring photos.

 

[jimmybell]

Take a look at the canon M5 Mirrorless camera, I have one which replaces my 5d mk2 and I am over the moon with it.

It has very similar spec's to a Canon 80d but is a lot more compact

What have you found to be the main differences since swapping over?

 

[tomscott]

Ye what you see is true. The 40D only has 10mp and the 7DMKII has 20 so twice the pixel density which is where the perceived image quality comes from. Obviously the 40D is a really old camera but I kept it for a long time because I found the files easy to work on and a bit of a peach. By todays standards its very old hat and even the double pixel density of the 7DMKII ISO3200 looks like ISO800 on the 40D. So about 2 stop advantage.

In terms of lenses the issue with crop is that wide angle lenses are difficult, there are pros and cons to everything. Obviously L glass is 35mm so the L lens you put on the camera has to be super sharp as it uses a much smaller area of the glass. The crop sensors are so dense that they show pretty much every flaw whereas you get away with it a bit more on FF.

The other issue is the crop factor its great for long lenses but for short... not so good. A 24-70mm is equivalent to 38.5-112mm so its not great on the wide end. The other issue is that the 24-70 is like £1300 and has no IS, IS really is useful especially on a walk around lens.

So to combat this you need to look at wider L lenses. 17-40 F4, 16-35 F2.8 16-35mm F4 IS.

17-40mm F4 is 28-64 F6.4 so close to 24-70. 28 might not seem too bad but that extra 4mm is actually quite a lot and you would find it hard to fill the frame with some subjects. F6.4 is also really a pretty crap aperture in terms of DOF image will always seem back to front sharp and you wont be able to get the same look as say F2.8 or F4. Its also 20 odd years old and pretty soft.

16-35mm F2.8 26-56mm F4. The range is a bit limited but the aperture is good. There are 3 versions, skip the first. The second is ok (I have this and think its ok) but it is a bit soft. The MKIII is meant to be super sharp but again £2000. It also has no IS so a lot of money for a walk around lens without a pretty normal feature.

16-35mm F4 IS awesome lens but has issues again limited range large aperture of 6.3 equivalent and about £1000, the only one that has IS.

Last option EF-s 17-55mm F2.8 IS. I also have this lens as a backup incase FF lens and body end up dead. Its a super sharp lens, pretty good range roughly equivalent to the 28-60mm F4 with IS. But its not an L lens mine is full of dust and its not weather sealed roughly £1000.

So this is the issue with crop. There are loads of EF-s standard lenses and wide angle but they are all variable apertures and have the same issues no weather sealing and poor DOF.

This is why I use the different bodies for different applications because one camera for everything doesn't exist.

I mean it depends on the budget. Full frame is expensive but you wont loose your money on the glass investment. TBH I dont think you would loose any money really on any of the lenses they just keep their value.

If you are happy to buy grey imports (I always do, save 20% and still get a warranty) then you can save some more money. Digitalrev or SLRHUT are good. I have bought everything from the pair and have had issues and they have alwasy sorted it either repaired or a new one sent. Spot on to deal with.

Another thing worth baring in mind. I currently run a 5DMKIV, 6DMKII, 7DMKII and a 70D.

The 6DMKII was slated at launch. I bought one anyway because the tilty screen is amazingand the only one on a canon FF camera. It has saved me lying on the floor or ruining my knees and back. The 5DMKIII had a lot of failings mainly purple casts in shadows when you lift them. The 6DMKII has basically solved all of the issues of the MKIII and performs almost the same with GPS, tilty screen and wifi. The main drawback is the AF points are close together and a small area only 45 pints vs 61 of the 7 & 5 and the one single card slot which is a ball ache for redundancy for shooting any professional event. That being said I absolutely love it and the IQ it produces. I have found the AF to be much more accurate than the 7D with the 61 point too. Not sure why but the 7DMKII can be all over the place, its also complicated it has a lot of different AF modes that you have to learn to get the best out of it.

Currently you can buy one from digital rev for £1120

At the end of the day we have got to the point where if you cant get good images with any of the new breed of cameras then its an issue with technique not the camera. These technologies generally just help to get good images from mistakes.

One of my all time favourite lenses is the 24-105 that with a FF camera and a 100-400 or a 70-200 F2.8 and 1.4x extender would be an awesome combo.

The 6D is capable. Heres a few shots

Hallin fell, Ullswater Cumbria. by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Sammy & Richard Watson by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Sammy & Richard Watson by Tom Scott, on Flickr

10,000 ISO no problem

Sammy & Richard Watson by Tom Scott, on Flickr

But then so is the 7DMKII I shot a whole week across Europe for Porsche Post with it. Got some awesome shots, all sorts cars landscape etc

Z&P Eurotrip UK to Monaco 2017 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Z&P Eurotrip UK to Monaco 2017 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Furka Pass, Gold Finger Point, Z&P Eurotrip UK to Monaco 2017 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Z&P Eurotrip UK to Monaco 2017 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Z&P Eurotrip UK to Monaco 2017 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Z&P Eurotrip UK to Monaco 2017 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Z&P Eurotrip UK to Monaco 2017 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Can have a look at all the images here
https://flic.kr/s/aHsm3nqeNV

Im fairly certain you do anything with any modern camera like the shots of the cars from the 40D it had 9 AF points and 10mp lol

I shot this with a 70D and EF-s 55-250mm £90 lens I bought the GF.

Fish Eagle, Lake Naivasha, Kenya by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Like I said depends how much you want to spend

 

[jimmybell]

If L on APS-C has to be v sharp, is there merit at looking at non-L glass on cropped cameras?

Am i right in thinking the 7D/7DMKII is the only 'premium' (non 1Dblah) that isn't FF? I haven't really set a budget yet but i guess i could drop to 80D and have some more money for glass. Seems like L-glass on cropped means more glass required to cover wide/standard?
Sometimes travelling would prevent me carrying more than one lens, perhaps could squeeze in a wide prime or something, i like to travel light.

If you had £1000, £1500, £2000 as categories what would you get? I've historically considered just renting a telephoto for the 1-2 times a year i might actually want it, so i could go for simply a body+standard range glass to start.

Your eurotrip looks fun - would like to squeeze one of those in this year in the new toy!

 

[buzyg]

Tom, more great pics, that Alpha is gorgeous.. 8)

 

[patrickbateman]

i like to travel light.

If you had £1000, £1500, £2000 as categories what would you get? I've historically considered just renting a telephoto for the 1-2 times a year i might actually want it, so i could go for simply a body+standard range glass to start.

Sony A7R/ Sony CZ 35mm/Sony CZ 55mm
Small,light and beautifully sharp,
I use one for some applications in my work and love it,

Alongside a slew of semi-disposable 1d's and 5Dmk3&4's with a set of L Lenses, if you go the FF DSLR route have a look at Canons 70-200mm F4, it's one of Canons greatest ever lenses and it's cheap and fairly light, I use their 70-200mm 2.8 for catwalk work and it's remarkable but very heavy to cart around,

My personal street camera is a Leica M Monochrom with a Noctilux 0.95,

 

[jimmybell]

Sony A7R/ Sony CZ 35mm/Sony CZ 55mm
Small,light and beautifully sharp,
I use one for some applications in my work and love it,

Alongside a slew of semi-disposable 1d's and 5Dmk3&4's with a set of L Lenses, if you go the FF DSLR route have a look at Canons 70-200mm F4, it's one of Canons greatest ever lenses and it's cheap and fairly light, I use their 70-200mm 2.8 for catwalk work and it's remarkable but very heavy to cart around,

My personal street camera is a Leica M Monochrom with a Noctilux 0.95,

I think 70-200 seems like a good shout, the harder one to pick is at the standard length 'do-most-things' type thinger. 24-70 f4 perhaps, i imagine the f2.8 version is heavy++

 

[tomscott]

If L on APS-C has to be v sharp, is there merit at looking at non-L glass on cropped cameras?

Am i right in thinking the 7D/7DMKII is the only 'premium' (non 1Dblah) that isn't FF? I haven't really set a budget yet but i guess i could drop to 80D and have some more money for glass. Seems like L-glass on cropped means more glass required to cover wide/standard?
Sometimes travelling would prevent me carrying more than one lens, perhaps could squeeze in a wide prime or something, i like to travel light.

If you had £1000, £1500, £2000 as categories what would you get? I've historically considered just renting a telephoto for the 1-2 times a year i might actually want it, so i could go for simply a body+standard range glass to start.

Your eurotrip looks fun - would like to squeeze one of those in this year in the new toy!

The elephant in the room at the moment is the Nikon offerings, they use the sony sensors and are excelent valye. Currently the D7500 eats the 7DMKII for breakfast, the D500 also is far better than the 6DMKII, the D850 is pretty much the best DSLR every made and the D810 is the budget version which still beats out the 5DMKIV. The lens selection is also nearly on par with canon its down to personal preference. For me I have always used Canon and really they leap frog themselves all the time, I just have a lot invested in the lenses so its not worth selling up and moving for a couple of features.

You are in an interesting position that you can tho, depends if you like they way they feel and operate. Worth a look at them. I think the main thing is it couldnt be a better time to be a photographer with the amount of incredible gear that is available.

TBH if your not keen on the weight aspect and if it will be a hindrance to the point where you will leave it at home then going down the big glass heavy body pro route might end up wasting money.

At the end of the day bodies come out often but lenses last 10+ years. I would say buy the best bod you can afford but the lenses are more important and will give you the look you want.

The best thing to do is go and have a play of some of them. See what you think of the Sony Mirrorless I have friends in the business that swear by them but I like I said the size is too small for me. Then again if it were for travel then the compromise might be worth it. You can also buy grips for them extending the grip area. Thing is if your buying a small camera putting big lenses and grips on them sort of renders having a small camera useless. With the accessories they weigh about the same as a DSLR but the ergonomics still arent great.

From a budget side I would look at the A6000/A6300 they are meant to be excellent from an AF standpoint and do offer better image quality than the canon equivalents but lens selection is a bit slim and the standard lenses you expect like 100-400 or 70-200 are roughly 20-30% more expensive and renting them is more difficult as many dont carry the system. Slightly higher on the list is the A7II which is a nice camera spec wise but is probably top tier with a lens £2500k probs. Thats about as good as it gets people are getting very excited about these high end mirrorless cameras.

On the Canon side there are a few nice options the M5 as discussed is excellent its basically an 80D in a mirrorless body, exactly the same specs and it has a digital view finder, meaning what you see is what you get in terms of exposure etc. It also has DPAF which is canons AF tracking in video and nothing on the market can touch it, its really very good. The nice thing about the canon mirrorless is you can buy an adapter and stick any canon lenses on it without penalty unlike the options for the Sony system like a metabones adapter where AF speed is fairly compromised and varies with lenses.

Last one is probably the direction you thought originally. 80D get a few of the EFs lenses some of them are really plasticy but will save you a fortune and the results are very impressive. the 18-135 STM is excellent and gives a really huge range as a walk around lens. I also have this and can recommend it. A cheap telephoto the 55-250 which is what I took the eagle image with, I think I paid £90 for it and again has STM so for video the AF is silent. Its really small and the IQ is very impressive for the cost.

Put it this way I was using a 7D with the 100-400 MKII while traveling across africa for 3 months and the GF was using a 70D and the 55-250. My combo was roughly £3000 when I purchased them a few years ago and hers was about of £650. The 100-400mm is heavy and a bit unwieldy, roughly 2.5kg and hers 1kg max.

There are obvious benefits to the 100-400mm like focal length, optical quality, IS + IS modes and its weather sealed. But £1500 vs £90 you would think impossible.

Well heres a comparison

7DMKII 100-400 MKII

Fish Eagle, Lake Naivasha, Kenya by Tom Scott, on Flickr

70d 55-250 STM

Fish Eagle, Lake Naivasha, Kenya by Tom Scott, on Flickr

If you pixel peep there is difference but it depends whether that cost difference is worth it.

Anyway here is a few worth looking at with links.

7DMKII + 18-135 £1109
https://store.digitalrev.com/product/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii/MTEwMzc3Ng_A_A

TBH I think the 80D is a better all round camera and is cheaper. The 7DMKII is great for redundancy with two card slots, weather sealing and a general pro body but the 80D has better features. The 7DMKIII is meant to be arriving in the next few months.

80D + 18-135mm £859
https://store.digitalrev.com/product/canon-eos-80d-with-ef/MTEwNDYxOA_A_A

M5 + 18-150 £809
https://store.digitalrev.com/product/canon-eos-m5-with-ef/MTEwNTM5MQ_A_A

Not really sure on the M lenses so thedigitalpicture.com is wroth a look to see how good they are.

M5 + 15-45mm £589 probably a better lens
https://store.digitalrev.com/product/canon-eos-m5-with-ef/MTEwNTIzNA_A_A

A6300 +16-50mm £689
https://store.digitalrev.com/product/sony-alpha-a6300-with-16/MTEwNDYwMw_A_A

Nikon D7500 + 18-140mm £1049
https://store.digitalrev.com/product/nikon-d7500-with-18-140mm/MTEwNTczOQ_A_A
Full frame prosumer cameras

6DMKII +24-105mm £1799
https://store.digitalrev.com/product/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii/MTEwNTc3MQ_A_A

Nikon D500 16-80mm £1699
https://store.digitalrev.com/product/nikon-d500-with-16-80mm/MTEwNDU2MQ_A_A

A7 + 28-70mm £1139 (cheaper because the lens is naff)
https://store.digitalrev.com/product/sony-alpha-a7-ii-body/MTEwMzkyOA_A_A

A7 body £999 + 24-70 F4 Zeiss £725 both - £1724
https://store.digitalrev.com/product/sony-carl-zeiss-vario-tessar/MTEwMjkyMg_A_A

Higher end of £1600+ none with lenses

5DMKIV £1999
https://store.digitalrev.com/product/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv/MTEwNDkwOA_A_A

A7RII £1639
https://store.digitalrev.com/product/sony-alpha-a7r-ii-body/MTEwNDI1MQ_A_A

A7RIII £2759
https://store.digitalrev.com/product/sony-alpha-a7r-iii-body/MTEwNTg2Nw_A_A

Nikon D850 £2639
https://store.digitalrev.com/product/nikon-d850-dslr-body/MTEwNTc4Ng_A_A

I have put the bodies with their lens kit options to keep in budget. Obviously you can buy body only and select better lenses.

Lots of choice lots of great cameras

 

[jimmybell]

Was just at a friends house playing with his borrowed 5DMKII (+nifty50), now i'm FF envious+++

I did think an upside of me sticking with Canon is potentially sharing/borrowing lenses with mates too (i do like my fiances old nikon but i know the canon setup better).

would you say if you want L-glass, the standard L series lenses seem to suit FF cameras better? as 24-70 or 24-105 on an 80d/7dmkii will result in 38-112 equiv etc, so you seem to miss out on lots at the wide end - thus perhaps need an extra lens for wider angle stuff that you may not need with a FF camera.

I'm thinking the most broad purpose setup will make the best sense for me for now. in the next 18 months i'm doing 5-6 hols that'l result in landscape/scenery photog and perhaps some slow moving wildlife most likely at a distance away, all will involve taking portrait pics (3 trips are weddings!), and similarly 2-3 motorsport/automotive events that'l encompass static (probably up close) AND fast moving cars (at a distance), so either i'm buying 3 lenses and a body that can do everything, or perhaps 1 solid body and 1 all-rounder lens where the all-rounder fits into a future set of lenses.

FWIW, i just found my old 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS in a cupboard, so i have that - but i think its trying to do too much and isn't particularly 'good' at anything.

So it's either 6DMKII + 24-105 (then buy/rent/borrow 70-200 for motorsport?), vs 7DMKII/80d + not-sure as any additional lens would probably overlap heavily at either end? you can see why people end up with a collection of camera kit....

 

[bluespit]

reading this with great interest, the pics earlier are magnificent.

I have a lowly 700D but never get anywhere near the sharpness, definition, contrast or depth of field in the ones above.

so the 2 million dollar question is.... is it me or is it my kit?

 

[jimmybell]

kit enables you to do more stuff more easily, but understanding all the concepts means you can still do everything to some extent. that said, i think there's a certain subset of kit that is 'essentials' to achieve certain things. I imagine Tom can provide examples of where kit enables stuff (like why you might own a wide prime, or a fast telephoto, or what a 700d might snap vs a 7D etc), tho i imagine most pros would say the photographer is more important than the kit.

I'd highly recommend something like a nifty 50 for a great (cheap) additional lens to any bag, and a good excuse to try something different/learn some stuff.

share one of your photos you wish you could improve, or want to know why isn't as good as one of Tom's, we can then guess why so and the pro can then edumacate us

 

[bluespit]

ooohhhhh I feel all vulnerable now

in for a penny, taken yesterday

 

[bluespit]

this was the one I wanted

others taken last October in nice sunlight