[pinholecam]

A close relative is looking at getting a good camera system...interchangeable lenses, availability of accessories that he can build up his camera system as time goes on.


Thanks in advance for your contributions. I am not as 'up' on mirrorless photography as I am on 35mm SLR/ Rangefinder...or DSLR photography, so any info would be great.

IMHO, just get the Sony A7iii or IV.
Don't bother with 'baby steps' into an apsc system as the size difference isn't that big (nor the weight )
You also avoid another set of lenses when you move to FF.

Why Sony?
1. Adapters
2. Monster AF adapter (since you have Pentax AF lenses)
3. 3rd party accessories
4. Video (if you want to venture into this even a bit )
5. AF

[UncleVanya]

Near a year ago I started my transition to mirrorless system. The Nikon Z system was the most attractive to me at the moment.
In my case I got a FF camera.The Z6 II fit my budget. I think that the OP can find a FF Z in the 1500$-1750$ range. A Z6, maybe a lightly used Z6 II or Z7 I think can fit its budget.

That budget was inclusive of lenses if I understood the original post.

---------- Post added 01-28-23 at 08:43 PM ----------

IMHO, just get the Sony A7iii or IV.
Don't bother with 'baby steps' into an apsc system as the size difference isn't that big (nor the weight )
You also avoid another set of lenses when you move to FF.

Why Sony?
1. Adapters
2. Monster AF adapter (since you have Pentax AF lenses)
3. 3rd party accessories
4. Video (if you want to venture into this even a bit )
5. AF

The camera isn’t for the OP. The existing Pentax lenses aren’t involved. I like my Sony a7riii and used the RII before it and liked it as well. An RII plus a lens like the Tamron 28-200 is within reach but only just. The Sony apsc line may be aging a bit but there are benefits in weight and lens size/cost.

[kyzyl]

I'm reading a lot of recommendations without experience of the cameras suggested...



I see the old crop vs full frame sensor debate still rages in peoples' prejudices - that honestly doesn't matter any more, hasn't mattered in a long time...


(:

I see the debate ultimately as one about cost (historically FF have been pricier, but prices have come down), availability (similarly FF offerings have been less in the past) and lenses (availability of FF lenses). Maybe size/weight too, depending on application.

I think outside of those, most if not everyone would pick FF photographically because, if cost/availability/lenses were not an obstacle, why not?

[pres589]

Size & weight made me go away from FF for a mirrorless system though that is somewhat negated by cameras like the Sony A7C or Sigma fp. That said, both of those seem kind of... non-optimal.

Nikon is talking about a 26mm f2.8 pancake prime that offers full frame support. That, their 40mm f2, and a 3rd party 85 or perhaps an adapted 90mm macro would be awesome! And then I remember how expensive their zooms are.

[kyzyl]

I'm sure this video has been linked to before, but it's a pretty nice high level explanation (w/o sales/marketing bs) of the optical benefits for mirrorless large-throat design (in this case the Nikon Z).

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Of the new systems out there Nikon's Z has the largest throat diameter (55mm) and shortest flange distance (16mm). For comparison the K-mount is 48 and 45mm respectively, the 45 due to mirrorbox.
What's interesting with the short flange distance is the Z system may also be compatible with their old rangefinder lenses.

[gatorguy]

I'm sure this video has been linked to before, but it's a pretty nice high level explanation (w/o sales/marketing bs) of the optical benefits for mirrorless large-throat design (in this case the Nikon Z).
https://youtu.be/LxT17A40d50

Of the new systems out there Nikon's Z has the largest throat diameter (55mm) and shortest flange distance (16mm). For comparison the K-mount is 48 and 45mm respectively, the 45 due to mirrorbox.
What's interesting with the short flange distance is the Z system may also be compatible with their old rangefinder lenses.

Tthe potential is there but, for the most part, it hasn't played out with what's been introduced so far. In an ever-shrinking marketplace, I don't personally think the theoretical advantages will ever fully blossom.

[morenjavi]

That budget was inclusive of lenses if I understood the original post.

I see... well, it's so difficul to give any advice without knowing the preferences of the final user.
I think that Nikon Z system, at present, is more 'complete' regarding FF cameras, and especially FF lenses. I think there are only 3 APSC lenses, two of them are budget zooms (no idea about quality). An easy recomentation can be one DX camera, for example the Z50 (that received some recent firmware updates) in a kit with two zooms (16-50 + 50-250), and that combination fits the budget (B&H site).

But I'm biased towards FF cameras, I think it's better to start with a 'cheap' FF camera (Z5) and then get one 'generic' lens, for example the Z28mm or Z40mm that are quite good and small. I've seen a Z5 + 24-50mm kit that fits the budget too.

Size & weight made me go away from FF for a mirrorless system though that is somewhat negated by cameras like the Sony A7C or Sigma fp. That said, both of those seem kind of... non-optimal.

Nikon is talking about a 26mm f2.8 pancake prime that offers full frame support. That, their 40mm f2, and a 3rd party 85 or perhaps an adapted 90mm macro would be awesome! And then I remember how expensive their zooms are.

Nikon FF Z cameras (not the Z9) are smaller and lighter than all DSLR APSC cameras I owned. Z5/Z6/Z6II with the 40mm (or the 28mm f2.8) is a really light anf fun combination. I started with just the 40mm and, in my experience, It's a surprisingly good lens for the price. I'm not using a lot now because I have the Z 35mm, and usually I prefer to get the 28mm as a more generic lens if I want to travel light. I'm using the latter combination more frecuently than my phone for casual pics (well, I confess that my phone is not very good ).

[gatorguy]

I think that the OP can find a FF Z in the 1500$-1750$ range. A Z6, maybe a lightly used Z6 II or Z7 I think can fit its budget

Someone suggested a Nikon Z-50 with 2 kit lenses (16-50 and 50-250), and that comes in at about $1300. Something like that may be exactly what the OP had in mind when he asked for suggestions.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1735581-REG/nikon_nikon_z50_mirrorles...981&

[lesmore49]

For what it's worth, a friend of mine upgraded from his Nikon D5300 to a Z5 with the 24-200 - he's been enjoying it a lot and is very happy with the superzoom. He does miss the UWA side, since he was shooting a Tokina 11-16 for a long time, though.

I wish Nikon and Canon weren't so bent on going mirrorless only and no DSLR, as is my understanding. A number of years ago, it would of been comparatively easy to advise my younger relative, to get something like a Nikon D5300 ASP-C DSLR...accompanied by a moderate wide angle zoom....and a normal to telephoto...in the 50-70 -300 .

I was looking at the Nikon Z50 with a 16-50 and 50-250 lenses. I have found out that this impressive mirrorless has a plastic lens mount, which causes me some concern...insofar as durability. Some have also said that this camera so far, only has three lenses available.

I maybe overly concerned about a plastic lens mount, but only this year did my Pentax 24-70's lens hood snap. I realize that this lens is a Tamron branded Pentax, but right from the start (3 years ago) I felt this lens hood was not up to the robust construction of my plastic Pentax lenshoods.

[lesmore49]

IMHO, just get the Sony A7iii or IV.
Don't bother with 'baby steps' into an apsc system as the size difference isn't that big (nor the weight )
You also avoid another set of lenses when you move to FF.

Why Sony?
1. Adapters
2. Monster AF adapter (since you have Pentax AF lenses)
3. 3rd party accessories
4. Video (if you want to venture into this even a bit )
5. AF

Nice camera for sure, but out of their budget.

[lesmore49]

I'm reading a lot of recommendations without experience of the cameras suggested...

If I was starting out from scratch, I honestly don't know if I'd buy a Pentax DSLR all over again (or any DSLR), mainly because you become locked into that lens mount....

I'm thinking in terms of adaptability, where a DSLR cannot touch any mirrorless mount....

For the way I work in my photography hobby, currently, it would have to be mirrorless - just to give me the option of future expansion...

I see the old crop vs full frame sensor debate still rages in peoples' prejudices - that honestly doesn't matter any more, hasn't mattered in a long time...

I read a blog a number of years ago, and the article was simply this: are there any 'bad' cameras any more?

all the current, or even last generation, cameras on the market today are exceptional, truly marvels of technology... are any of them producing substandard images?


if I had someone that was curious about getting into photography as a hobby, I'd show them what was working for me, show them photos of other photographers that are producing images today, with the current generation of camera/lens/software...

I'd try to explain that all the techno-babble hype is just that, just marketing to hook you into their systems with excessive claims of ISO/megapixels/eye & brain candy...

(or maybe I just haven't had enough coffee yet this morning)


(:

I plan to show them my Pentax k5, along with my 16-45 wide angle-normal and 55-300, let them try it out, see if this is the type of lenses they want to use for their purposes.
The wide angle for people shots, landscapes, etc. and the 55-300 for wildlife pix....birds , etc.

These are the type of pix I think they want to take.

The K5 maybe a bit outmoded now, in terms of linking with cell phones, etc...but it's picture taking ability...still is pretty good, even though it was introduced...what...10-12 years ago.

[lesmore49]

A general thank you to the posters in this thread. I've learned a lot and please, if you have other ideas, advice, please post them. Thx again.

[luftfluss]

I plan to show them my Pentax k5, along with my 16-45 wide angle-normal and 55-300, let them try it out, see if this is the type of lenses they want to use for their purposes.
The wide angle for people shots, landscapes, etc. and the 55-300 for wildlife pix....birds , etc.

These are the type of pix I think they want to take.

The K5 maybe a bit outmoded now, in terms of linking with cell phones, etc...but it's picture taking ability...still is pretty good, even though it was introduced...what...10-12 years ago.

FWIW, Pentax has been selling the 50/1.8 and 35/2.4 with plastic mounts for over a dozen years, and they seem to be durable enough.

Edit: The Z50 body has a metal lens mount, the 16-50's mount is plastic.

[UncleVanya]

FWIW, Pentax has been selling the 50/1.8 and 35/2.4 with plastic mounts for over a dozen years, and they seem to be durable enough.

On the other hand… Sony tried a composite body mount on the a7. People had issues. A body mount takes a lot more abuse than a lens mount.

[luftfluss]

On the other hand… Sony tried a composite body mount on the a7. People had issues. A body mount takes a lot more abuse than a lens mount.

Interesting... and kinda scary.

I took the OP's comment about the "plastic lens mount" to mean the 16-50, as the Z50's body has a metal lens mount. But maybe I should edit my comment to make sure...