Nikon D3200 or Canon EOS 80D?

Status
Not open for further replies.

northrop

grumman
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
9,928
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.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
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...
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,647
D3200 is a bit long in the tooth. 80D is a great camera. But bottom line I agree with northrop that buying a different camera is going to change... well anything about your photography.
Investing in glass if you like Nikon as a platform is probably the way to go. If you're shooting landscapes, having a 1 solid wideangle zoom will help at least with capture and framing (as in, having the tool for the job).
But it won't actually change anything in terms of actual usage. That comes down to you and your level of skill. Much like $20000 in tools doesn't make your a carpenter. A $4000 guitar doesn't make you a better player, and on down the line.
So all that said, if you don't have a wide angle lens, sure get that. But past that it will be about actually learning what it takes to create a great image. From understanding how cameras work all the way to post.
===
EDIT: The only reason to upgrade your body is if you can give a tangible benefit that it will allow you to do a very particular function your current camera cannot. Since you're a landscape shooter, there really isn't any part of the camera that you'll need any sort of enhanced function for in order to take a better photo.

To be a good landscaper you need to: pre-visualize (be able to find the scene you want and use apps or just time and patience to find the time of day you need to be there to actually take the photo). Have a sturdy tripod. A wide angle lens. And then the techniques in camera and in the editing room to get the shot.

Meaning that you at minimum need to master and understand the exposure triangle, depth of field, hyper-focal distance, how to minimize noise (via longer shutter speeds and lower ISOs), know where your lens is sharpest, understanding framing and how to frame. If you can master the technical (how to operate the camera) and the artistic (understanding artistic choice and how to frame amongst other techniques) you'll be able to get great photos.

To help you put this in perspective your D3200 is significantly more complex than any camera that Ansel Adams ever had. There isn't any landscape you can't shoot on your current camera that an 80D would make better.
 
Last edited:

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,858
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
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,647
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, it's all about why you're buying what you're buying.
If you want to spend money to have the next latest and greatest thing, by all means, it's your money. But do not expect to see any change in your results. If your goal is to get better photos, that takes learning things, patience, and practice. If you just want something shiny, you could buy any number of hobby items. From shoes and watches to cars. But the critical part of this whole thing is, it won't make you a better photographer, and you will not get better photos with a newer or more expensive camera.

That's why I gave the analogy about a craftsmen and his tools or about a guitar. A $4000 guitar doesn't make you a better guitarist. You actually have to be able to play it. And that takes time, and practice.
In photography a lot of it is "dumbed" down (because you can choose to automate a lot of the cameras systems and have it make decisions for you). Because of the "instant result" nature of photography there is the misnomer that it is therefore easy. But really what happens the most often is that there is this garbage in, garbage out process which leads people to think that it must be equipment that changes those factors, when it's not. It's skill, technique, and understanding what you're shooting on. Believe me when I say the whole photography industry is based around this. Canon doesn't release a new Rebel every year because technology has come so far, it's to keep selling them and turning them over. There is a new gadget every week that promises it will improve your photography. If it helps your perspective it's the same in the music industry and very apparent with sports equipment (10 more feet with these golf clubs! A better smash with this tennis racket!) and on down the line. This is how they keep their turnover rates high especially to hobbyists that think they need the next big thing in order to take a better photo (or to have a better golf swing, or whatever).

Their goal is to sell you something. Plain and simple. And if you're rarely using the camera you have now, do you honestly think buying a new camera will change that? The camera industry hopes you think it will, so they can sell you another one.

My goal isn't to deter you from buying something or to get you to buy something else. I just want you to be informed about precisely what it is you're buying and also to let you know at least the basics on what it takes to get a good photo. It already sounds like you have a limited budget. And if you're going to put money into this, I would still say buying glass is the way to go, with the one caveat that you do so because you want to stay on Nikon's system. The only other thing to discuss is camera preference and that's a whole other bag of worms. However, you're already on Nikon so really you're probably used to their way of doing things, at least more so than say Canon, Sony, or Fuji. But no matter what system you're on, it will be the same in the sense that you'll need: a camera, a wide angle zoom, and a tripod. And although they will have different ways of doing things, at their core, functionally they're all the same.

===

EDIT: To drive my point home: The D3200 has an 81 SensorMark score from DXOmark and the 80D has a 79. That should illustrate two things: that the quality difference between the two cameras is basically the same and that scores on cameras don't really matter (because I bet I could show you 50 from one camera 50 from the other, mix them together and you wouldn't be able to tell which came from which).
https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-d3200-review/
https://www.dxomark.com/canon-eos-80d-sensor-review-dynamic-performer/

They have have the same megapixels. Roughly the same sensor size. High ISOs don't matter anyway when your goal is to be shooting at 100 all the time while on a tripod (for a landscaper).

This isn't to say that there aren't reasons to move from a D3200 to a D80 ever... but for your usage case, based upon what you've said there isn't. I noted that in my first response to you. If there is something that the camera does that your current camera does not and you need that specific function then go for it. But generally speaking that level of feature is few and far between. Even less for stills.
 
Last edited:

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
UnknownSouljer is right- the sensors are very close. For landscapes, I'd even give the nod to the D3200, i.e., shooting at ISO100. Above that is going to be a bit of a draw.

Where the 80D excels over the D3200 will be in tracking movement, as in taking burst shots of something that is moving where the camera has to refocus before each frame, and in video where it can track in 'live view' (something Nikon has not managed in a shipping camera, though something they can very likely master and something that will be necessary for their upcoming mirrorless line).

So, the reason better lenses are recommended is because the D3200 would make a find base camera for landscapes; the 80D would not be an improvement here. With respect to occasionally photographing animals, the D3200 would also certainly be effective until you get into real wildlife and birding (and another mortgage for the lenses).

For a bit of reference: Nikon's top-end DX DSLR, the D500, is most certainly best in class. However, like the 80D it would only be truly superior for tracking, while providing lower resolution. Moving to full-frame in terms of D610 or D750 would provide you a bit better image quality but not more resolution.

A real upgrade for landscape would come from Nikon's D810/D850. The latter at 46MP is considered best in class.

However, in the end it comes down to the lenses, and before that, technique!
 
Last edited:

BB Gun

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 14, 2004
Messages
1,536
IMO - the only reason to upgrade a body is if the pictures you regularly (or regularly enough) take push the sensor's limits. I.e. extreme dynamic range, low light/high iso, need more megapixels for more crop room when in situations where you can't frame as tightly you'd otherwise like or for which you don't have lenses. This is where a new sensor/electronics can help immensely though I haven't compared the two you're now comparing.

If you're not pushing the limits of your sensor and haven't often experienced issues similar to above, then lenses and practice are the way to go.

Sometimes, though, that "new gear" provides some impetus for the practice, which is of benefit in and of itself. :)

Don't be afraid of refurb Canons and get a refurb 80D/18-135 combo... can save a decent amount of coin.

I use the 18-135 STM on my refurb 70D, and its a decent lens, but my 24-105 takes noticeably better pictures. The 24-105's range just isn't quite broad enough (particularly at the wide end) for "I only have room for a single lens" situations, and the 18-135 seems to be just about right for that - so far.

BB
 

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,858
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.

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.
 
Last edited:

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,647
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.
I say this all the time, if you can: "buy used". Use eBay, Craigslist (if you have it in your country), Facebook Marketplace (if available), and any other means you can find.
Other than looking "pristine", buying a new camera gets you nothing. Provided the camera hasn't been dropped or tampered with, they can last scores of years. If you don't believe me, just know there are photographers shooting with 60+ year old Leicas and Medium Format systems from the 70s-80s all the time. Granted plastics aren't the same as those old metal tanks, but camera systems are actually surprisingly quite reliable.***

In terms of buying another camera, it comes down to what I mentioned near the end of my last post. Which is camera preference. There are many different camera systems that exist in specific niches to full-fill preference. That's it. At the end of the day, they all use the exposure triangle, and have a shutter button that clicks and takes a photo. Some of the niches is the way the camera is physically controlled (Fuji and Leica dominate this space) to having features (Sony and Panasonic are mostly about feature creep). The rules of how cameras work on principle never change though. That isn't to say that having certain features isn't useful. But the point is, you have to have at least some idea of what is important TO YOU in order to give an accurate suggestion on what is worth buying. Because every one of these cameras is "good". It's just a matter of "good for who".

Hobbyists often just say: "I just want a simple camera that takes nice photos". And that's great, but that is literally every camera. So it requires a pretty big degree of specificity on what you want/need.

Generally, for shooters that really want to learn the craft and have a camera they can take anywhere, I'd recommend a Fuji. I found out the other day, that here in the US, you can buy an X-T1 (Fuji's last generation flagship camera) for $500. That is a seriously huge amount of camera for pennies on the dollar. Fuji is all about control. Having physical controls for exposure adjustments and really learning the craft of photography. There are a lot of automated modes too if you want to cop out, but it's a serious work horse tool that can be used everyday.

If you want to buy a Nikon, I'd probably recommend getting a D800 ($600-$800 used in the US) if you can or a D600, which is not nearly as good as a D800 but for some reason costs around the same on the used market. Canon probably a used 6D ($500-$700). Or if you're patient with terrible autofocus, then a 5DII, which can be had all day for $500 or sometimes less. Sony an a6300 or original a7r (but generally I recommend against Sony for new photographers as their system is incredibly complex for no real reason).

Each of these cameras is great. Each of them have different strengths and weaknesses. Differences in ergonomics. Differences in camera tech. Price is such a low determining factor. There is a huge amount of cameras and lens systems. So knowing what you want to accomplish helps a lot. Or, just stick with the camera you have and work with that until you have a bigger understanding of what spending more money on a different camera body will get you. I'd probably recommend that approach even more.

===

EDIT: ***Just so we're clear, I practice what I preach. Every piece of gear I own is used. And it has stretched my dollars a lot. I just sold most of my Canon stuff recently in a move to Sony (for very specific reasons mind you, not "just cause", as has been discussed above). I wouldn't have been able to get all the tools I did if I bought new.
I was able to buy virtually two complete systems for around $3500. There are two more lenses I want, so probably it will end up around $4300. That might sound like a lot. But I paid pennies on the dollar and of course a lot of the cost was offset by my selling of my old equipment. I haven't done all the math, but I'm certain I saved at least $2000 over buying new. I'd rather have that $2000 in my pocket any day, rather than having a shiny new camera or lens.
 
Last edited:

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
...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.
Sure! For a standard super-zoom :).

However, it's not wide, and it's not fast. Which means that you'd still be missing that wide range, and would need to pick up one or more lenses for Canon for that spot. That's where you are now.

But what I'm picking up is that you want a sensor that's particularly good for astro. That's fine, just understand that this isn't a cheap pursuit, and if I were upgrading from a D3200, an 80D isn't where I'd want to stop ;).
 

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,858
I appreciate the replies guys.

I do use Photoshop for image manipulation. I don't do point and shoot photos, that I use my phone for. I shoot in RAW and then edit pictures in Photoshop. I'm not an expert, but advanced amateur. I don't mind learning new things and finding new ways is quite exciting in my opinion.
Even though I always saw it as a hobby, I always loved snapping pictures of basically everything. This year I came back from my Thailand vacation with 15.000 photos and dozens of videos (even though I was in Thailand the year before that lol).
I love exploring new places and that is why I have almost everything that can shoot. A DSLR, an action cam, a video cam (although a crappy one), a drone and when I buy a phone, its camera is one of the most important aspects I look at. One of the reasons why I chose Note 8.
Taking pictures and using Photoshop is no small thing to learn, there are entire university courses dedicated to these arts. And being just a hobbyist means there's a lot to learn. But I also love travelling so maybe I should give it a more serious thought, take a few courses and become a full time photographer.

I've also looked at Sony A7R II, that one seems to be what I'm looking for, but that would stretch my budget quite a bit. It's at €1700 body only. But it does have a 43 mpix sensor and would probably be a lot more versatile than both D3200 and 80D.
Can't find many used cameras here in Sweden. I found D7500 body only for about €1000. Sure I have the option to use EU Ebay but I'm a bit wary of buying used cameras from other people who live in another country.

Unfortunately my car broke down, so I have to set away the budget for that, about €1000, and then I want to get some parts for my drone which will end up at another €800 or so, and I need to upgrade my laptop because I noticed 8gb often doesn't cut it for Photoshop and Premiere XD
It's just unfortunate that I ended up with a lot of expenses when I wanted a camera as well.
 
Last edited:

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,858
Alright, so I know you guys have advised me to keep my D3200 and that I'm going completely against that advisement.
But I've decided to up my budget to about €3000 and I want to give my old D3200 to my sister.

So I'm going to buy Sony A7R II.

I need however help in deciding which lens to get.

I have few options.

1) FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS which is about €1400

2) Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS + FE 50mm f/2.8 Macro lens which together cost exactly the same.

3) 24-70mm F28 GM which is about €400 more expensive but seems to go to all-around lens.

With #1 I get an all-around lens with a good zoom, while with #2 I get a wide-angle landscape lens + macro lens, but lose on that zoom option and have to carry around two lenses.
I'm leaning towards #2 as for the same price I get more options and I can always add zoom lens later.
But #1 has gotten some great reviews, like this one: https://kenrockwell.com/sony/lenses/24-105mm-f4.htm

Any better suggestions?
 
Last edited:

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
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.
 

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,858
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, only 4.5 and above and those are not Sony but Sigma lenses for Canon/Nikon.
I need to order from that website because if I order from a Swedish store, I can expect to pay 30% more.

So F4 is enough for landscapes in normal cases? But what about sunsets? Sunset photography is something I really love doing and is quite important to me.
I've been reading a lot about that 24-70mm and it seems to be really stellar, but as you mentioned, I am concerned about it being only 24 and not lower. I have 18 on my D3200 and there's quite a difference between 18 and 24. Maybe I can later add 12-24 and keep this one for starters while I'm still getting the hand of it?
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 have attached a photo of the stuff I've been planning to order.
I'm also getting a polarized filter because I love those on my drone and I do shoot a lot of sunsets.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
I can't find an F4 12-24 lens on eglobalcentral.eu,
It's this lens.

So F4 is enough for landscapes in normal cases?
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.

I've been reading a lot about that 24-70mm and it seems to be really stellar
It is! It's the best one currently made. However, that doesn't mean that it's the best for you ;).

I have 18 on my D3200 and there's quite a difference between 18 and 24.
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!

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).
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.

I'm also getting a polarized filter because I love those on my drone and I do shoot a lot of sunsets.
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.

But what about sunsets? Sunset photography is something I really love doing and is quite important to me.
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.
 

northrop

grumman
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
9,928
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 :coffee::smuggrin:

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.
 

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,858
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 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 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 :coffee::smuggrin:

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.
Nah, I decided to up my budget because at €1500 budget the upgrades were not really upgrades.
I will most likely not get that 24-70mm lens. I think the above option is probably the best considering my budget.
 
Last edited:

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
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 ;).
 

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,858
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 ;).
Unfortunately, I can't, 16-35 + 24-105 would cost me almost €700 more compared to 16-35 + 24-70, excluding 50mm macro lens in both cases.
 

northrop

grumman
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
9,928
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.
 

kumquat

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
5,269
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.
 

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,858
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.
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.
 

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,858
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.
Well just as you mentioned, I've had 18-55 with an entry DSLR. Now I want to upgrade.
I already have a larger tripod from my old camera.
The image I attached before is the budget I'm willing to spend. With all the things I need to keep me going.
Except that I'm going to change that to 16-35 and 24-70 lens.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
I've grown out of my D3200
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!

I've had 18-55 with an entry DSLR
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.

Except that I'm going to change that to 16-35 and 24-70 lens.
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!
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,647
I get long and ramble-y. I'll try to not.

I've read quite a lot about lenses, I don't know what else I need to learn?
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.


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 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.


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.
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.


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.
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...
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.
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.


===

okay, real EDIT: One of the things I bring up all the time in discussing why it's not about gear to new photographers:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7ECB90D96DF59DE5
Check out this old series from DigitalRev. If you want to watch a couple in particular, I recommend,
Vincent Laforet:
Douglas Sonders:
and/or Philip Bloom:

A garbage holga film camera with a plastic lens can blow unskilled people out of the water and question the need for any piece of equipment over $500. So thank you for the reminder, I need to also stop complaining about the gear I have and just shoot more.
 
Last edited:

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,858
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.
Thanks for the lesson. You speak wisely.

But I'd like to point a few things. I agree that most people have no clue about what takes to make a good photo. They look at photos in magazines and they don't pay much attention how much work was put into taking that photo. Also, photography is very objective. Some people would find a photo with high vibrance beautiful and artistic. Others would despise it because it's unrealistic (the schism dividing people on HDR photos for example).

If I know everything about lenses or nothing is not important. It's the will to learn. And if I knew what I wanted, I wouldn't be here asking for advice.
Granted, it would be extremely stupid to walk out and spend €1500 on a lens I know nothing about. This is why I have not bought anything yet. It's been a few days now and while I've pretty much made up my mind what I want, I'll wait a few more days before I decide.

And because I don't know everything is the reason why my choices change during this thread. I learn new things and find out what I really want. Since I've made this thread, I've spent about half a day (probably more to be honest) reading about different cameras and lenses and trying to figure out what I wanted. I've read and watched youtube reviews on basically all Sony lenses. And not just professional reviews but consumer experiences.

Also, I'd like to add that while I have not utilized my D3200 to its full potential, it doesn't mean that I don't have experience with different camera settings. My drone has a bunch of them, and while it's not feature rich as a DSLR, it has quite a few things I can alter. This is probably the part that I should've explained earlier as people believe that I have no prior experience as I've mentioned that I have not really been using my D3200. I have played a lot with exposure, shutter speed and iso among other things on my drone which is a Mavic Pro. And I shoot in RAW with it and edit my photos in Photoshop.

I don't just "point and shoot" and then expect to get a lot better pictures once I get a more expensive camera/lens.
But I'm also the kind of person why enjoy buying new technology.
I buy a new high end video card every time it's released and a flagship phone every year. And while I absolutely love my phone, I'm also the guy who gets annoyed at people who pull down shades on trains because they don't want glare on their phone, but blocking me from looking out. I don't see why I shouldn't put a bit more money into something that attracts me. I love new tech and there's so much beauty out there that I can capture with a camera. But not my damn D3200. It's too old. Can we get past this "D3200 would do just fine for what you want to do"?



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've been thinking a lot and trying out my D3200 with its 18-55mm and figured out that while it's nice having that 18mm, I would rather have more zoom. So I've decided to go for 24-105 f/4. And once I feel like it, I can pick up 12-24mm wide lens. I think for now I will be happy with that 24-105.
 

kumquat

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
5,269
"I've grown out of my D3200."

You have absolutely not grown out of your D3200. You haven't even begun to explore what it's capable of, not by a long shot.

You've learned a little bit about the basics of exposure. It's time to put them to work and lean how to actually shoot.
 

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,858
So the decision has fallen to:

Brand new:
Sony A7R II
FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS
FE 12-24mm f/4 G
Godox TT350 flash
2x batteries
Price: €4700

vs

Used:
Canon EOS 5Ds (about 25.000 shutter counts)
Canon 24-70 f2.8 L
Canon 70-200 f2.8 L II
Canon 135 f2 L
Canon 35 f1.4
2xCanon Speedlite 600EX II-RT + Canon Transmitter ST-E3-RT
Used by a professional photographer, he claims that everything is in a very good condition and the lenses were protected by UV filter.
Price: €4000


Things I like about Sony kit:
+ Stabilization from both camera and the main lens (5 axis).
+ Much wider angle for landscape and architecture.
+ Tilting screen.
+ Much smaller and lighter, both lenses and the camera. I can use my old tripod because the whole package is so light. Also, easier to haul around with my drone.
+ A bit better image quality compared to Canon.
+ In my opinion, it's a more advanced/complete camera.
+- It's new, but €700 more expensive.

Things I like/don't like about Canon kit:
+ Fast USB transfers. 10x faster than Sony. It's kinda important to me considering the pictures are at 50mpix. I don't want to spend the whole day transferring the pictures.
+ Plenty of high-quality lenses, brand new worth a lot more than what I get with Sony, although I do miss that ultra wide angle.
+ Includes 2 flashes and a transmitter
+ Cheaper
- I don't have money to buy a wider high-quality lens like Sony 12-24.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,647
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.
 
Last edited:

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,858
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.
 
Last edited:

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,647
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.
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.


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'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.


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.
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 2 ways it does so in 5 ways, hence the name. 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 making cellphones. 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.
You'd probably learn a lot about what you care about if you had the chance to shoot with each of these cameras for a week. You'd find out that a lot of these choices are in fact preference and also about usage case. Any of our suggestions can only go so far, because at the end of the day you have to like using it and shooting with it. If you don't then it doesn't matter how good other people think it is. Especially when talking about cameras at this level. The D750/D810/D850 and 5DIV/5DSR and A7RII/A7RIII/A7III are all remarkably similar. They'll all get the job done for you with preferences paid towards certain things. And as a tool you're gonna just find that you like one more than the other and that people in general just like one more than the other.
 
Last edited:

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,858
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.
Sorry about mixing up axis and gimbal, I got confused while typing about drones.

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.
 
Last edited:

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,647
$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 mispoke. It's $2700. But I never was going to buy it, so it just never entered my field of thought.


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.
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.



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.
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.


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.
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.


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.
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.
 
Last edited:

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,047
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...
After reading all of your posts, you got the best advice right at the start. Other options will only get you a smaller bank account at this stage in your photography.
 

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,858
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.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,647
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.
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.


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'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.
 
Last edited:

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,858
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.
Well, I just ordered:

A7R III
12-24 F4
24-105 F4
Godox Mini TT350S flash
A couple of tripods (one big and one small one with flexible legs)
B+W 77mm XS-Pro Ksm C Pol Nano filter
B+W 77mm XS-Pro UV Nano filter
Samsung 256gb EVO Plus
Lowepro ProTactic 450 AW bag

I was debating with myself if I should get Zeiss Batis 18mm F2.8 because it works with 77mm filters I ordered for my 24-105 lens. 12-24 doesn't accept screw-on filters. I don't like the huge square ones (and they are expensive).
But then I found out that I am a puritan and want Sony lens, not a bunch of random stuff. Guess I am getting myself into a Sony system now, eh?
This all cost me about €6000 excluding the bag. 300 euros more than I expected. Ebay and their currency conversion rates...
You're right I probably shelled out far more money than I needed, but I don't think I will regret it in the long run. I realized shortly after I made this thread that €1000-1500 ain't gonna cut it if I want to upgrade my camera.
Besides, in my opinion, I do not think that this is throwing away money. Sure I buy expensive stuff, but I am pretty careful about what I buy. I think gambing in Las Vegas or online is a far worse way to spend money ;)
 
Last edited:

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
Gonna pick on UnknownSouljer a bit ;)

-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.
This is true when considering the lenses wide-open; however, the original 35/1.4L is still quite the performer stopped down, and it remains fairly light and compact for its type. The Sigma 35/1.4 | Art, Canon 35/2 IS and Tamron 35/1.8 VC are also all great alternatives, with the 35/2 IS being smallest and lightest and the 35/1.4 | Art being the sharpest (and largest and heaviest).

-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 24-70/2.8L II is very good, and essentially second-best in the market behind Sony's latest 24-70/2.8GM, largely in terms of background rendering. For landscapes, the difference would likely be indiscernible.

-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.
The 135L is compact and fast-focusing and plenty sharp, but it isn't pin-sharp on the latest bodies, and it still has significant longitudinal CA. A better example in this focal length is Sigma's 135/1.8 | Art, which is incredible, and their upcoming 105/1.4 | Art, which promises even better performance. Note that the Art lenses are large and heavy.

-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.
It has been superseded in performance by Nikon's latest 70-200/2.8E VR, and the upcoming 'III' version will not make up that distance; however, that's not that big of a deal given how well the Canon already performs, and especially since it performs better than Sony's 70-200/2.8GM in the wild. Sony likely designed a better lens, but they shoved so much technology at such tight tolerances into the design that they can't actually make copies that live up to it. Also, if you have a 70-200/2.8, you don't really need the 135L, especially not for landscapes, unless you have a specific shot in mind and a hard weight limitation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top