[pblogic]

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.

I'm a Pentax guy, have been since 1968, when I got my first good camera, a Pentax S1a. Still have it, still use it, but have also accumulated a lot of Pentax equipment over the years. Digital included....K1, K5, Km, K10d, Ricoh GR ll...plus lots of lenses. I'm going to stay with Pentax.

But this isn't about me. It's about someone who is interested in entering involved amateur photography.

I'm looking for suggestions, advice as to what to get. I realize mirrorless seems to be where the industry is at this point so I was going to recommend entry level, interchangeable lens ability, mirrorless.

I'm looking at a system that will hopefully be around for a number of years, to avoid getting a company that may switch to another non compatible system...which would leave the purchaser...down the road...with an orphan system.

I know, good luck, who knows, who can predict, etc.

I'm looking at recommending a system that is very good quality, and that would probably initially be ASP-C sized sensor, with a possibility of eventually going to a full framed sensor...and the possibility of being able to use lenses, etc...with either system. Don't know if that exists. And who knows, if they are content to stick to just ASP-C...well that is ok too.

Probably an initial budget would be in the ballpark of $ 1500-1750 USD. I was thinking of suggesting to him, getting one body, with a wide angle to normal zoom and a normal to telephoto...say around 55-300, 55-250mm or so.

Just general zoom ranges...but something that would cover moderate wide angle, moderate normal to moderate telephoto.

Possibly the addition of a moderate flash, if it would make it in the budget.

The mirrorless makes I'm looking at, to recommend would include Nikon, Canon, Sony and Fuji. So if you could give me your ideas on the pluses/minuses of these mirrorless entry level, systems, it would be much appreciated.

In my opinion, as far as survivability is concerned, Canon is here to stay, probably Nikon, I think Fuji could be around for years...possibly Sony, unless the novelty wears off for them.

Canon has changed lens mounts over the years. I have a Canon F-1 with it's FD mount. I know, I know, the FD mount was a long time ago.


Me, I'm a confirmed DSLR photographer, and confirmed Pentax owner/user. Again it is not about me, I'm an old, grizzled guy. it is about my relative, who is in his early 30's and will be, I think an interest photographer for decades to come.

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.

For bare entry level it's hard to beat the value of the Nikon Z5. However, Sony has a better lens selection that's growing all of the time. I would look at a used Sony if a new one is outside of budget, because of the lens selection and the stellar auto focus that will be nice for a beginner. Cannon is making great gear, but they just discontinued support for third party lenses, and their first part lenses are too expensive for an amateur. Besides for a single body, and considering the cost of their lenses, I think Canon has priced themselves out of the amateur market. It's just a bad investment, especially because the Sony bodies offer just as much performance, with the option of cheaper third party lenses.

At this point I think Sony is the best horse to back.

[morenjavi]

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.

Hello. Just some clarifications.
- (This have been pointed by another poster) Z50 body is magnesium alloy. It's just the 16-50 that have a plastic mount. I don't know what kind of plastic is the mount made of. The Z28mm and Z40mm are also made of the same plastic. I own both and have observed no issues after near a year of use. Also I have not read issues about this plastic mount, but we have no idea about the future durability.
- About FF/APSC lenses and bodies. All Z bodies can mount any Z lens. FF (FX) lenses are compatible with APSC (DX) cameras, You'll see a cropped image, that's all. The (vintage?) Z fc (APSC camera), for example, is sold with the Z28mm, as a kit. There are only 3 specific APSC lenses, all the other lenses are FF (FX).
- APSC (DX) cameras doesn't feature IBIS, but the 3 APSC lenses feature VR. A DX camera + FX lens combination does not feature any vibration compensation. This is a point to consider.

[Serkevan]

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.

Yeah, I personally wouldn't bother with the APS-C Z/RF offerings. Nikon and Canon only really made basic consumer-grade zooms and a couple primes each for them even in the DSLR days, and I'm sure that won't change now.

[c.a.m]

Several years ago, I recommended a Fujifilm X-T3 to my twenty-something son. He wanted to shoot stills and video. My main rationale for Fuji: within his price range; useful features; good IQ; good lenses; good video; no need for lens calibration/AF fine adjustment. At the time, I had the impression that the Fuji system seemed to attract 'younger' photographers, although I might have been influenced by the marketing hype.

He's been using the camera happily with three lenses (XF 18-55, XF 50-200, and XF 50/2) to do occasional side-gigs for paying clients. I had a chance to play with it for a week, and was quite pleased with the system, especially the lenses.

Of course, that kit is way out of the stated budget, and Fuji lenses are generally not cheap. However, something like an X-T30 II and lenses in the XC series might work. In Canada, a X-T30 II bundled with XF 18-55 + additional XC 50-230 would run about CAD $2100. The two XC zooms (16-45 and 50-230) are inferior to the XF series, but are relatively inexpensive.

- Craig

---

Last edited by c.a.m; 01-31-2023 at 06:08 AM.

[pres589]

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.



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 ).

Seems like the K-5 II is generally the same size as the Z6; in some dimensions a few mm smaller, in total depth a few mm greater. K-1 is going to be larger. Lenses is where the difference really comes through and I agree that Nikon offers some glass of interest in the 40mm f2 and 28mm f2.8 Z-mount primes. That upcoming 26mm f2.8 looks pretty interesting as well. The problem I see with Z's is the zooms are either... not that good, or pretty good, massive, and very costly.

The more I think about different systems the less any of them seem perfect. Give Panasonic's 20-60 kit zoom a Z mount, get something like the Leica R-mount 90mm f2 autofocus and a Z mount, and we're talking. Should be a quick weekend project.

[morenjavi]

Seems like the K-5 II is generally the same size as the Z6; in some dimensions a few mm smaller, in total depth a few mm greater. K-1 is going to be larger. Lenses is where the difference really comes through and I agree that Nikon offers some glass of interest in the 40mm f2 and 28mm f2.8 Z-mount primes. That upcoming 26mm f2.8 looks pretty interesting as well. The problem I see with Z's is the zooms are either... not that good, or pretty good, massive, and very costly.

The more I think about different systems the less any of them seem perfect. Give Panasonic's 20-60 kit zoom a Z mount, get something like the Leica R-mount 90mm f2 autofocus and a Z mount, and we're talking. Should be a quick weekend project.

Starting previous year I still had my K5 and K3-II cameras. Then I bought the Z6II so I could make some comparisons. On paper, the Z6II is 80g lighter than K3-II and about 40g lighter than K5. But, when you see the three cameras side by side, the difference in size (volume) is noticeable, more noticeable compared to the K3-II. The depth is where you see the difference, because the Z doesn't have mirror or OVF. Taking the camera in the hand, you feel the weight difference. Lens I have are light, so I can operate comfortably the camera with one hand (except maybe if I mount the 85mm).

About lenses, I agree, most zooms are not cheap, some of the most popular (24-200, 24-120, 28-75) cost near 1k€, but there are several brands that are going to make Z lenses, so I think that we'll see more consumer zooms soon. Regarding 'premium' f/1.8 primes, I think the 50/85 are not too expensive for the quality you get. The 35mm is maybe a bit expensive, I got one refurbished in Amazon for a good price and i'm quite happy with it. Regarding f1.2 primes... well, not for everybody. Forget about the 100-400, 70-200 if you want a cheap zoom or the 400 600 etc primes... I read rumours about a more affordable 70-180/4, can be interesting.

No system is perfect, you're right about that. I'm not in love with the Nikon Z menu system and some of the ergonomics, but I love the focusing system (that can be improved) and image quality. But I suppose we have to put pros and cons and get the system that better fit our needs.

Regards.

[UncleVanya]

About lenses, I agree, most zooms are not cheap, some of the most popular (24-200, 24-120, 28-75) cost near 1k€, but there are several brands that are going to make Z lenses, so I think that we'll see more consumer zooms soon. Regarding 'premium' f/1.8 primes, I think the 50/85 are not too expensive for the quality you get. The 35mm is maybe a bit expensive, I got one refurbished in Amazon for a good price and i'm quite happy with it. Regarding f1.2 primes... well, not for everybody. Forget about the 100-400, 70-200 if you want a cheap zoom or the 400 600 etc primes... I read rumours about a more affordable 70-180/4, can be interesting.

The Tamron 70-300 RXD on my Sony E is surprisingly superb. It easily bests the 70-300 G A-Mount lens and the 70-300 SP A mount Tamron I had before. In most testing it equals or exceeds the current Sony G 70-300 except for the lack of optical stabilization and the 1/3 slower f stop of the long end (f6.3 vs. f5.6). I even compared some real world shots with my Sony GM 70-200/2.8 with the 1.4x E mount TC - the Sony was slightly softer than the Tamron in the same lighting and distance. Granted 280 vs. 300 - but even when I zoomed back to 200 on the Tamron and compared without the TC the GM was not visibly much sharper if at all. These tests were at f8 or f7.1 so that doesn't really focus on the fact that the GM is an f2.8 lens with plenty of opportunities to work in lower light and render with less dof if needed. This is the GM original version not the new GM II.

My point is that with Tamron adding lenses under their own name to the Nikon Z mount - there's good stuff ahead for Nikon users on a budget.

[morenjavi]

The Tamron 70-300 RXD on my Sony E is surprisingly superb. It easily bests the 70-300 G A-Mount lens and the 70-300 SP A mount Tamron I had before. In most testing it equals or exceeds the current Sony G 70-300 except for the lack of optical stabilization and the 1/3 slower f stop of the long end (f6.3 vs. f5.6). I even compared some real world shots with my Sony GM 70-200/2.8 with the 1.4x E mount TC - the Sony was slightly softer than the Tamron in the same lighting and distance. Granted 280 vs. 300 - but even when I zoomed back to 200 on the Tamron and compared without the TC the GM was not visibly much sharper if at all. These tests were at f8 or f7.1 so that doesn't really focus on the fact that the GM is an f2.8 lens with plenty of opportunities to work in lower light and render with less dof if needed. This is the GM original version not the new GM II.

My point is that with Tamron adding lenses under their own name to the Nikon Z mount - there's good stuff ahead for Nikon users on a budget.

Agree. It seems that this lens (DI III RXD) exists for Nikon Z, it's around 660€ in my area. Is it a good price?

[Jonathan Mac]

I usually recommend Fujifilm as the best APS-C option but there's no upgrade to FF, but then will your friend really upgrade to FF or does he just like the reassurance of it being there? For what most good APS-C cameras cost these days there's often very little to be saved by going the APS-C route. In many cases FF is actually cheaper than APS-C.

In FF, the biggest system, by which I mean number of cameras and lenses and also a big used market, is Sony, but to my eye the Sony A7 cameras are expensive and lack critical features such as good ergonomics and in-camera RAW development. You can save by buying the older models but then you can add to that list poor jpeg colour, poor menus and even worse ergonomics.

The Panasonic Lumix S5 FF mirrorless has just been replaced with the mark II version so you may be able to find some good deals on the original. I bought mine in April 2022 and got the camera plus 20-60mm kit zoom and 50mm f/1.8 for €1750 and both of those lenses are superb.

[UncleVanya]

Agree. It seems that this lens (DI III RXD) exists for Nikon Z, it's around 660€ in my area. Is it a good price?

I don’t know. I haven’t been tracking the prices of the Nikon version or your area. I bought my Sony e Mount version for around $400 USD. That price was a special and since then the prices have gone up a little. Today at Adorama the price here is $699 for the Nikon version and $499 ( including a $50 rebate ) for the Sony version. So there is a small premium for the Nikon version which is newly released.

[reh321]

I did not know that Canon had zero third party support...I'm assuming aftermarket lenses, etc...for it

Canon doesn’t need third party support.

I was a Canon user for twenty years, and had only one third-party lens at the end.

This was DSLR, but the EF-mount lenses I used back then were very good - good enough to lure me away from Pentax - and 100% of their functions are available to the the modern MILC user via the Canon-built adapter, and {like Pentax}, there is a wealth of DSLR lenses available in the used market. I came back to Pentax because I was ‘let down’ by two consecutive Canon Rebel bodies, but if I were to go MILC, the first brand I would think of would be Canon.

[UncleVanya]

Canon doesn’t need third party support.

I was a Canon user for twenty years, and had only one third-party lens at the end.

This was DSLR, but the EF-mount lenses I used back then were very good - good enough to lure me away from Pentax - and 100% of their functions are available to the the modern MILC user via the Canon-built adapter, and {like Pentax}, there is a wealth of DSLR lenses available in the used market. I came back to Pentax because I was ‘let down’ by two consecutive Canon Rebel bodies, but if I were to go MILC, the first brand I would think of would be Canon.

Past history doesn’t tell the full story. The price point that they have and the selection they have is more constrained than for the other MILC companies that engage in a more permissive model.

[reh321]

Past history doesn’t tell the full story. The price point that they have and the selection they have is more constrained than for the other MILC companies that engage in a more permissive model.

I will cheerfully admit I am biased; that “QL-19” was a good camera - until I accidentally dunked it; only recently did I trash it. I used that Canon {rangefinder} “QL-19” during grad school, and I probably took more photos during the 6 years I had it than during the 12 years I used a Pentax {SLR} “Super Program”. I don’t know how prices compare, but what I said is also true. For sentimental reasons I probably would select a Canon. Not everyone will tell of their biases, but I will.

Pentax’s recent announcement of their exploring building a new film camera caused me to see whether eBay has any “QL-19” or “QL-17” {the same thing with a F/1.7 lens instead of the F/1.9 lens my camera had} cameras - yes, they do, and I almost purchased it …. but that would not be the camera I had around my neck when my girl friend {now my wife of 40+ years} and I forded a creek because the bridge was out.

[UncleVanya]

I will cheerfully admit I am biased; that “QL-19” was a good camera - until I accidentally dunked it; only recently did I trash it. I used that Canon {rangefinder} “QL-19” during grad school, and I probably took more photos during the 6 years I had it than during the 12 years I used a Pentax {SLR} “Super Program”. I don’t know how prices compare, but what I said is also true. For sentimental reasons I probably would select a Canon. Not everyone will tell of their biases, but I will.

Pentax’s recent announcement of their exploring building a new film camera caused me to see whether eBay has any “QL-19” or “QL-17” {the same thing with a F/1.7 lens instead of the F/1.9 lens my camera had} cameras - yes, they do, and I almost purchased it …. but that would not be the camera I had around my neck when my girl friend {now my wife of 40+ years} and I forded a creek because the bridge was out.

I know nostalgia. I fully embrace bias also. I am opposed to Canon for reasons unrelated to their products. But I attempt to ensure my bias is not coloring my statements of fact as best I can. Fact 1: Canon doesn't allow 3rd party lenses today. Fact 2: Others do. Fact 3: No matter what size Canon is - they can't possibly make as many different designs as the entire universe of 3rd party manufacturers. Fact 4: Canon is pricey compared to some of the 3rd party offerings.

Opinion 1: You have a nice story and a good memory. There's no reason not to feel warm when you think about Canon.

[StiffLegged]

I’d suggest the friend visit a real camera store (if possible) and waste some salesman’s time trying various cameras to see what he feels drawn to. There are no bad cameras any more, but I’d suggest ignoring Canon since they’ve blocked 3rd-party lenses - I’d want the choice. Just remember he doesn’t have to buy on the day.