New Camera Info Wanted

[NoWorries]

Hi All,

I'm in the market for a new camera to replace my old DSLR
I don't take heaps of photo's and mainly use the Auto function.

My thoughts are either a Sony A6000
But I also have looked at a full frame A7

Anyone have any good experience with cameras and why I should spend the extra money for Full Frame

Thanks in advance

[TheTaipan]

Hi All,

I'm in the market for a new camera to replace my old DSLR
I don't take heaps of photo's and mainly use the Auto function.

My thoughts are either a Sony A6000
But I also have looked at a full frame A7

Anyone have any good experience with cameras and why I should spend the extra money for Full Frame

Thanks in advance

The pros use full frame. Canon or Nikon. Better quality, faster, better processor, more money. In saying that probably best to save your money.

I have two full frame Canons, EOS 5D and EOS 1D Mark 2. Both cost a motza.

Remember there is a lot more to a camera than mega pixels. Most if not all entry level SLRs have plastic lenses. Quality wise they are reasonable. Glass is 1000% better but cost wise is also heaps.

Don't buy any lens with an excessive zoom 55 to 250 as the quality is pretty average. Better off with a 20 to 80 and a 70 to 200.

I am sure David or MSF will come in on this.

[Poita]

Initially given your level of use I would say you are wasting your money buying a full frame.

But to help answer properly if you could provide a bit more detail:
What sort of photography? Indoors, outdoors?
What brand do you currently have?
What lenses do you currently have (zoom and f-stop)?
Do you shoot RAW or JPEG?
Do you do any post processing, if so what software?
Do you want another bulky SLR or would you prefer one of the new mirrorless cameras? (assuming the later as you suggested one!)

You might think some of the above questions silly, but it will give me a much better idea of the level of camera suitable for your use, rather than me just telling you to buy the expensive one because its awesome.

Cheers,
Pete

[NoWorries]

Initially given your level of use I would say you are wasting your money buying a full frame.

But to help answer properly if you could provide a bit more detail:
What sort of photography? Indoors, outdoors?
What brand do you currently have?
What lenses do you currently have (zoom and f-stop)?
Do you shoot RAW or JPEG?
Do you do any post processing, if so what software?
Do you want another bulky SLR or would you prefer one of the new mirrorless cameras? (assuming the later as you suggested one!)

You might think some of the above questions silly, but it will give me a much better idea of the level of camera suitable for your use, rather than me just telling you to buy the expensive one because its awesome.

Cheers,
Pete

Type of photos, big mixture sport travel and indoor (party xmas etc)
Canon EOS 500d (now sold with all lenses)
Basic run of the mill lenses not low fstop models
JPEG
No post processing but may use lightroom as I have it available to me.
Yes Mirrorless

Thanks

[MSF]

Good quality cameras are pretty cheap.
The trick is to buy something that will meet all your needs, without spending more than you really need to.

Sure, It would be great to go and fork out on a (Canon) 1Dx or 5D3 for example - but if you are not needing all the features and capabilities, you would be better off buying a great (but much cheaper) cheaper body (say 70D, or 6D etc) and then spend the money you save on better lenses that are much more suited to your type/style of photography.

I have been using a Full Frame 6D for the last few days (on loan to me) and it's a great bit of kit.
Very usable at 6400ISO and I have been getting some fantastic results.

[Poita]

Given the fact you spend most of your time on auto, I wouldn't worry about full frame. You are far better off getting some better quality glass.

Something like a Nikon D7100 will still give you very reasonable ISO performance and has a good quality sensor. It has way more features than you use now but gives you the opportunity to grow.
Then spend the money on some nice glass. A 35mm or 50mm f1.8 are simply awesome and affordable. If you want a zoom for the travel, the 16-85mm is more expensive but a sharp great walk around lens.

I don't have a huge knowledge on the mirrorless stuff (not a huge fan to be honest) but the same concepts apply. Get a decent non fullframe and then invest in some quality glass. That will give you the biggest improvement.

That said, I still think looking at a Nikon or Canon DSLR is still a better option. A lot more easily available accessories (especially second hand), most shops stock them, a lot more lens choices and they aren't likely to change any time soon in the future so you know you can upgrade the body and still be able to use the lenses at a later date.

[nayala]

Some people said "its depend on the man behind the gun". If you really keen in photography better you spend your money on the lenses. For 4wd mostly I use my wide lens.
Cheers
Nayala

[David Anderson]

For work I use DSLR's both full and crop frame, and they're a great thing.
(Nikon D810,800e,D7100)
You could argue Canon Nikon all day, but IMHO, either system is great.
That said, this mirrorless thing interests me no end and Sony in particular.

The Sony a6000 is an amazing little camera with amazing technology and some great lenses available - the AF is nothing short of genius.
I want one.
Like the A7, I'm not yet 100% convinced that mirrorless is ready for pro work, but it's certainly very close.

I got a quote on one recently and they're cheap as chips..

[TheTaipan]

David, from memory Canon had a mirrorless film SLR years ago. Can't think of the model, EOS 1 something.

Had phenomenal FPS.

I still have my Canon 650, 620 and 5 plus an RB plus a Noblex .

[Shopping Trolley]

I got a Sony A5100 for Christmas and I have a lot to learn. Loving the small size which means it's more likely to be carried and therefore used. Can't give any useful insight into how good the camera is compared to DSLR because mine is severely limited by the guy behind it. I have the high speed SD card which means it shoots sooo much faster than any camera I have used before. Cost roughly $700 with 16-50mm and 50-210mm lenses.

[NoWorries]

Thanks for the replies

I ended up going for a Sony A6000
must say so far I am very impressed
I have not yet had a out of focus photo and man it is much nicer to walk around with than the old Canon

Picture quality is better than the old Canon as well but that should be expected with both being APS-C format and the Sony being 10mp higher than the Canon.

[MSF]

I ended up going for a Sony A6000
must say so far I am very impressed
I have not yet had a out of focus photo and man it is much nicer to walk around with than the old Canon

Picture quality is better than the old Canon as well but that should be expected with both being APS-C format and the Sony being 10mp higher than the Canon.

It's a great little camera, but the fact that the Canon 500D you had is 5 year old technology compared to the Sony will have more to do with the picture quality.
Sure, 24MP sounds awesome, - but you will probably never need half that many...

People get excited over huge megapixels - but more MP doesn't always equal better quality. It's the size of the sensor first and foremost. Having a huuuge megapixel camera is next to useless if you never need to enlarge or print photos over say 12x8 in size. All it is doing is just taking up more room on your memory card per image....
EG, If all you ever want to do is post your images to facebook for example - 3MP is more than enough.

Don't take my word for it though.....

http://www.digital-photo-secrets.com/tip/333/do-more-megapixels-mean-better-photo-quality/

http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3005

http://www.cnet.com/au/news/camera-megapixels-why-more-isnt-always-better-smartphones-unlocked/

There are some exceptions and that's a discussion for another day - I am just saying - don't get caught up with the salespeople who push the more MP is better, all you will do is make you buy larger Memory cards..