Need help with lens research for a Nikon 7100 vs Canon 70D

Considering getting my first DLSR and looking to be under $2500 for the body and maybe 1 or 2 lenses.

Things I'd like to to shoot initially:

1) Action sport shots of ultimate frisbee players in daylight roughly 20-50 ft away.
2) Golf shots or softball players roughly 10-50 ft away in daylight.
3) up close shots of bumblebees , flowers, and such or normal portraits of friends (sort of a

Long term goal 4) Swing dancers in low light roughly 10-20 ft away (I know this is tough for a cheaper camera). I would be willing to sacrafice this lens at the moment and get it at a later time.standard lens that's an all around one)


I will be biking around with this camera so the lighter and more compact it is the better. Also waterproofing is a plus. I am not a pro, and I do not need pro glass.

Would love to do mirrorless camera but I feel like they don't have as good of an auto focus as the DLSRS (or good lenses) so I'm narrowing it down to DLSR until the mirrorless catch up in terms of lenses and quality for action shots.

Would like to stick to Nikon or Canon if possible because it's going to be an investment and I'd possibly like to "rent" some lenses down the road. I would consider Pentax, Sony, etc. but you have to do a really good job of telling me why they are so much better.

Cameras I'm looking at via my research are the following, what I need help with is lens research now. What lenses would you recommend I start with in each of the following cameras for the above goals. I'm trying to figure this out because if the lens cost is considerably cheaper in one of the cases I may pick that body over the other.

Nikon D7100

- Better sensor

- Better low light performance than canon

- Better AF system- Crappy buffer

- not as good lenses

- Can sigma lenses fill the void?


Canon 70D

- Has better buffer and access to better lenses than Nikon offers I've heard.

Now the question is, which lenses should I consider for the above goals. How do I even begin to research it as I know nothing about glass?

If you decide to go with Canon I would recommend getting the 18-135mm STM lens which is probably available as a kit with the 70D.

The 18-135mm is a good quality, very flexible lens and will probably cover most of your immediate requirements. Add other lenses later on for situations where you find the 18-135mm to be limiting.

There will be an equivalent lens for Nikon and I don't really think that it makes very much difference whether you go for Canon, Nikon or Pentax.

hungryhippo said:

Considering getting my first DLSR and looking to be under $2500 for the body and maybe 1 or 2 lenses.

Things I'd like to to shoot initially:

1) Action sport shots of ultimate frisbee players in daylight roughly 20-50 ft away.
2) Golf shots or softball players roughly 10-50 ft away in daylight.
3) up close shots of bumblebees , flowers, and such or normal portraits of friends (sort of a

Long term goal 4) Swing dancers in low light roughly 10-20 ft away (I know this is tough for a cheaper camera). I would be willing to sacrafice this lens at the moment and get it at a later time.standard lens that's an all around one)

I will be biking around with this camera so the lighter and more compact it is the better. Also waterproofing is a plus. I am not a pro, and I do not need pro glass.

Would love to do mirrorless camera but I feel like they don't have as good of an auto focus as the DLSRS (or good lenses) so I'm narrowing it down to DLSR until the mirrorless catch up in terms of lenses and quality for action shots.

Would like to stick to Nikon or Canon if possible because it's going to be an investment and I'd possibly like to "rent" some lenses down the road. I would consider Pentax, Sony, etc. but you have to do a really good job of telling me why they are so much better.

Cameras I'm looking at via my research are the following, what I need help with is lens research now. What lenses would you recommend I start with in each of the following cameras for the above goals. I'm trying to figure this out because if the lens cost is considerably cheaper in one of the cases I may pick that body over the other.

Nikon D7100

- Better sensor

- Better low light performance than canon

- Better AF system- Crappy buffer

- not as good lenses

- Can sigma lenses fill the void?

Canon 70D

- Has better buffer and access to better lenses than Nikon offers I've heard.

Now the question is, which lenses should I consider for the above goals. How do I even begin to research it as I know nothing about glass?

Click to expand...

Not sure where you heard this, but don't put too much stock in it. Both Nikon and Canon have huge selections of quality lenses. Unfortunately, they also have fans that sometimes bash the other brand - like Fords and Chevy's. The truth is you they are both great, although they don't always have exact equals (which seems intentional).

For Nikon, you can get a 18-140mm lens with the D7100. It gets very positive reviews and has a very useful range. It would cover tons of general shooting scenarios - portraits/casual shots of your friends, and the sports you mention if you want to include some of the field of play. It would also leave you with plenty of funds for a reasonable telephoto like the 55-300mm, 70-200mm f/4 or maybe even the new Tamron 150-600mm.

For Canon, the 18-135 is very similar and equally useful. You could add the 100-400mm, or 400mm f/5.6 and then maybe look at a faster (f/2.8 or f/1.8) lens for lower light situations.

At any rate, you have a decent budget and tons of possibilities.

hungryhippo said:

Considering getting my first DLSR and looking to be under $2500 for the body and maybe 1 or 2 lenses.

Things I'd like to to shoot initially:

1) Action sport shots of ultimate frisbee players in daylight roughly 20-50 ft away.

Click to expand...

Since it is daylight, any medium telephone lens would work, you need fast shutter speed. You also need a very fast Auto Focus, or use Hyperfocal and not worry about focus.

hungryhippo said:

2) Golf shots or softball players roughly 10-50 ft away in daylight.

Click to expand...

Same as 1.

hungryhippo said:

3) up close shots of bumblebees , flowers, and such or normal portraits of friends (sort of a

Long term goal

Click to expand...

Portraits are normally shot at focal lengths of 35mm - 50 mm is APS-C.

Close up of bumblebess require a Macro capability of lens. Some 50 mm lens come with macro capabilities

hungryhippo said:

4) Swing dancers in low light roughly 10-20 ft away (I know this is tough for a cheaper camera). I would be willing to sacrafice this lens at the moment and get it at a later time.standard lens that's an all around one)

Click to expand...

This is a toughy. Night shooting in low lights, requires fast lenses and/or flash. Also costs more. If less than 10 feet a 50mm f1.8, more than 15 feet you would need 85mm F1.8, and again depending on how bad the lighting is you may need flash.

hungryhippo said:

I will be biking around with this camera so the lighter and more compact it is the better. Also waterproofing is a plus. I am not a pro, and I do not need pro glass.

Click to expand...

The 70-200 F2.8 would probably do a lot, but it costs too much and it is too heavy for bike use.

hungryhippo said:

Now the question is, which lenses should I consider for the above goals. How do I even begin to research it as I know nothing about glass?

Click to expand...

In my opinion a 18-140 mm VR would fill the bill. At 18mm F22 everything from 2 feet to infinity would be in sharp focus for a landscape shot. Use 50mm to 85 mm for action shots within 50 feet. You may need 200mm or more for baseball shots from the stadium.

The VR would probably give you 2 extra stops for low light, plus help with camera shakes in other scenarios.

Besides those two I would also look at the Sony SLT A77mkII. SLTs are different from the Canon and Nikon DSLRs in that they have a fixed semi-silvered mirror that directs a portion light up to a dedicated phase detection AF sensor allowing the rest to pass through to the main imaging sensor. SLTs have an electronic viewfinder and rear LCD that both get a live feed from the main imaging sensor.

Features worth mentioning:

• focus peaking with the EVF or rear LCD for manual focusing also in video.
• you can use the EVF for shooting video whereas with A DSLR you can only use the rear LCD
• with setting effects on, you can see the result of your exposure settings including when using exposure compensation and when setting white balance with EVF/LCD
• Autofocus for video
• image stabilization is used in the camera body rather than the lens meaning any lens mounted is stabilized.

As far as ISO performance goes the A77mkII, is about a 1/3 stop behind the D7100 based on their DXO mark scores. Most reviews seem to put the A77mkII's ISO performance as good up to 3200-6400 and being usable with post production up to 12,800. The camera is still new so their aren't a lot of good comparisons available yet, but you can try this:


For continuous shooting, the A77mkII has normal frame rates of 3 or 8 fps and a special 12fps mode. When in this special mode, the aperture is locked at it's widest setting up to f/3.5, but you can change ISO. Shutter speed is changed automatically from frame to frame depending on changes in exposure. When shooting at 3 or 8 fps you have full control over exposure settings. It also has a deeper buffer than the 70D or D7100, with 75 Jpegs (FINE) and 28 RAW at 8fps.

The AF system is more advanced than the original A77 and seems to have excellent tracking capabilities for action shooting. It features 79 AF points with 15 being cross-type. It also features a built in distance limiter so that if you no your subject is going to be within a certain distance away it'll ignore things closer or further away so that it doesn't focus on something other than your subject. For sort of an introduction to the AF system you can look at this:


Or this one that I believe a forum member made:


and as an example:


The build quality of the camera is pretty solid and is weather sealed. The 16-50mm f/2.8 that the A77s usually come bundled with is also weather sealed.

For lenses, Sony took over Minolta's camera division in 2006 and still uses the A-mount that they were using at the time. This means that all Minolta AF lenses are compatible with Sony DSLRs and SLTs and they automatically get stabilization when mounted on one of the Sony bodies. A lot of Sony users tend to use some Minolta lenses because there are a number of decent to excellent lenses that can be found rather cheaply. Some people just prefer the look they get with some lenses. For a complete database of all the lenses available for the A-mount with user reviews and rating go to dyxum.com.

Right the A77mkII is only available with the 16-50mm f/2.8 as a kit which runs about $1700 total. However the 16-50mm is an excellent lens with excellent build quality. A similar set-up with the D7100 would about $2400 and with the 70D $1980.

I would think that the 16-50mm would be good enough for portraits of your friends, group shots, and probably also swing dancers.

For shots of things up close you probably want a macro lens. You probably would want something like the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro because it has a large working distance so you don't have to be too close to your subject and risk scaring it away. However as a starter macro lens you can get a Minolta AF 50mm f/2.8 Macro in the $150-200 price range used. You can also look at the Sony DT 30mm f/2.8 Macro for $200 new and about $100 used.

For action that gets a bit trickier. Usually you want a long focal length combined with a large aperture like f/2.8. A 70-200mm f/2.8 would be ideal but even the Tamron and Sigma versions are at about $1000. If you're in good light you can get away with something like f/5.6 but if you're indoors you would want something closer to f/2.8. My first thought would be to look for a Minolta AF 135mm f/2.8, usually about $250-300. It basically gives you the same view you would get with a 200mm lens on a full frame camera. If you mainly want something for outdoors you can usually get the Sony DT 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6 bundled with a camera for $200 extra. Another option would be the Minolta AF 70-210mm f/4, usually $70-150.

So one possible option:

• A77mkII + 16-50mm f/2.8 + 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6 $1900
• Minolta AF 50mm f/2.8 Macro $200
• leaving $400 for memory cards, a bag, tripod, and maybe a drops/spills warranty

I know that you came here to solve that task of good decision, but I must assure you that it´s more like matter of luck the way you do it. All these cams are very good at certain things. Noo one is really worst. That way you just buy one, and then find with more shots taken and more experience, what do you really want and what do you really need. I believe no Canon, Nikon or Sony recommendation will solve it for you. There are also shortcomings, which many people don´t mention in their recommendation. You figure it out.

All you really need is not yet possible to buy in one body. Be it best noise performance, widest lens choices, most FPS and other stuff. What you think you need before your long-term practice is not the same you´ll need after it.

In my own opinion D7100 is best stills APS-C DSLR available, medicore for sports. Canon 7D is best for sports, but is medicore these days for stills, Mirrorless cams have much more FPS these days, but don´t deliver so much versatility in lenses and stuff.

This is from another thread where the possibility of a Nikon with a selection of lenses was discussed. You should be able to get the D7100 and the 4 lenses mentioned for US$2500.

• Nikon D7100
• Nikon 35mm f/1.8
• Nikon 18-140mm (sometimes provided with the D7100)
• Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6
• Tamron 70-300mm VC

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54091750

hungryhippo said:

Considering getting my first DLSR and looking to be under $2500 for the body and maybe 1 or 2 lenses.

Things I'd like to to shoot initially:

1) Action sport shots of ultimate frisbee players in daylight roughly 20-50 ft away.

Click to expand...

Canon 70-200 f4

hungryhippo said:

2) Golf shots or softball players roughly 10-50 ft away in daylight.

Click to expand...

Canon 70-200 f4

hungryhippo said:

3) up close shots of bumblebees , flowers, and such or normal portraits of friends (sort of a

Click to expand...

100mm macro

hungryhippo said:

Long term goal4) Swing dancers in low light roughly 10-20 ft away (I know this is tough for a cheaper camera). I would be willing to sacrafice this lens at the moment and get it at a later time.standard lens that's an all around one)

Click to expand...

If you can figure out the distance exactly, a fast prime, like say the canon 85mm 1.8.

hungryhippo said:

I will be biking around with this camera so the lighter and more compact it is the better. Also waterproofing is a plus. I am not a pro, and I do not need pro glass.

Would love to do mirrorless camera but I feel like they don't have as good of an auto focus as the DLSRS (or good lenses) so I'm narrowing it down to DLSR until the mirrorless catch up in terms of lenses and quality for action shots.

Would like to stick to Nikon or Canon if possible because it's going to be an investment and I'd possibly like to "rent" some lenses down the road. I would consider Pentax, Sony, etc. but you have to do a really good job of telling me why they are so much better.

Click to expand...

You might be selling pentax short, you could get a coupe of decent zooms and a couple of great primes.

hungryhippo said:

Cameras I'm looking at via my research are the following, what I need help with is lens research now. What lenses would you recommend I start with in each of the following cameras for the above goals. I'm trying to figure this out because if the lens cost is considerably cheaper in one of the cases I may pick that body over the other.

Nikon D7100

- Better sensor

- Better low light performance than canon

Click to expand...

If low light means poor lighting (light source size, however dim) it doesn't matter, the shots are going to look dreadful anyway: you always need to take of control light in some way.

hungryhippo said:

- Better AF system- Crappy buffer

Click to expand...

Unfortunately that small buffer is why there's an entire forum on DPReview with people who feel abandoned by Nikon: No D400. The AF on the field is probably similar.

hungryhippo said:

- not as good lenses

- Can sigma lenses fill the void?

Canon 70D

- Has better buffer and access to better lenses than Nikon offers I've heard.

Click to expand...

+ Video with STM lenses

+ Wifi control from a tablet or phone.

+ Not better lenses, but a different lineup.

I mention Canon lenses which are the ones I know but you should check out the equivalents in other brands, although the quality / price ratio of the 70-200 f4 (non IS) is hard to equal. They're all very similar cameras no matter what the fanboys say, and your technique makes a much bigger difference. it's easier to choose the lenses first, the camera second. Research how these cameras are handled in manual modes and try them in person to see which one feels better. (i.e. spinning both wheels) You may not shoot in manual modes to begin with, but it should be a goal to get the shots you see in your mind.

hungryhippo said:

Now the question is, which lenses should I consider for the above goals. How do I even begin to research it as I know nothing about glass?

Click to expand...

hungryhippo said:

Considering getting my first DLSR and looking to be under $2500 for the body and maybe 1 or 2 lenses.

Things I'd like to to shoot initially:

1) Action sport shots of ultimate frisbee players in daylight roughly 20-50 ft away.
2) Golf shots or softball players roughly 10-50 ft away in daylight.
3) up close shots of bumblebees , flowers, and such or normal portraits of friends (sort of a

Long term goal 4) Swing dancers in low light roughly 10-20 ft away (I know this is tough for a cheaper camera). I would be willing to sacrafice this lens at the moment and get it at a later time.standard lens that's an all around one)

I will be biking around with this camera so the lighter and more compact it is the better. Also waterproofing is a plus. I am not a pro, and I do not need pro glass.

Would love to do mirrorless camera but I feel like they don't have as good of an auto focus as the DLSRS (or good lenses) so I'm narrowing it down to DLSR until the mirrorless catch up in terms of lenses and quality for action shots.

Would like to stick to Nikon or Canon if possible because it's going to be an investment and I'd possibly like to "rent" some lenses down the road. I would consider Pentax, Sony, etc. but you have to do a really good job of telling me why they are so much better.

Cameras I'm looking at via my research are the following, what I need help with is lens research now. What lenses would you recommend I start with in each of the following cameras for the above goals. I'm trying to figure this out because if the lens cost is considerably cheaper in one of the cases I may pick that body over the other.

Nikon D7100

- Better sensor

- Better low light performance than canon

- Better AF system- Crappy buffer

- not as good lenses

- Can sigma lenses fill the void?

Canon 70D

- Has better buffer and access to better lenses than Nikon offers I've heard.

Now the question is, which lenses should I consider for the above goals. How do I even begin to research it as I know nothing about glass?

Click to expand...

Please watch this video - Canon 70D vs Nikon D7100 Epic Shootout Comparison | Which camera to buy?

Some of your assumptions are off. The AF system of the D7100 is not better, nor is the low light performance.

Canon has really raised the bar with their STM lens line. They offer outstanding image quality at very reasonable prices.

With the 70D you could get the EF-S 10-18 IS STM, EF-S 18-55 IS STM, EF-S 55-250 IS STM, EF 40mm f/2.8 STM. Still be under your budget, and most likely will never have to buy another lens.

--
All statements in my posts represent my interpretation of data, research opinion or viewpoints.
The opinions expressed are not representations of fact, and are subject to change without notice.
All images are used for educational purposes.

I have a Sony A65, Pentax K5ii and Nikon D7100 I have used a lot.

For action, the D7100 has awesome AF performance when I use it with my Nikon 18-140. With my Sony and Pentax I get the action shots I want with no problem if I apply some skill and intelligence. With my D7100, with barely any effort and skill involved, the shots all come out great. It is like the AF is just glued onto the subject.

In the price range of lenses and usage you are thinking of, Nikon is in no way lacking in terms of having great lenses.

(might be different for pro lenses at the $4000+ range... I do not know about that..something I have not studied.)

I considered getting the 70D but obviously did not need another camera, but also was put off a bit by some complaints I have read on the forums about some cameras having some AF issues. But still there are some youtube videos out there comparing 70D to D7100 that make a strong case for the 70D AF. And LiveView AF on the 70D would be much better than the D7100. Take a look at the dpreview reviews of all the Nikon APS-C cameras. In the Cons sections in conclusions, poor LiveView AF is always mentioned.

With my kids, great LiveView AF is the thing that makes for great photos. It is the reason I do most of my shooting with my Sony A65 and the D7100 sits on the shelf most days.

Short version :

they're both good DSLRs and it seems likely the biggest issue with your photography for years to come will be lack of technique. I suspect you'd see not real difference with them ( or any entry level DSLR ) until your technique has developed and that normally takes considerable time - years rather than weeks.

Longer version :

hungryhippo said:

Considering getting my first DLSR and looking to be under $2500 for the body and maybe 1 or 2 lenses.

Click to expand...

I'm not convinced you will get more benefit from this level of spending on a body or lenses.

hungryhippo said:

Things I'd like to to shoot initially:

Action sport shots of ultimate frisbee players in daylight roughly 20-50 ft away.

Click to expand...

This is something a basic DSLR from any time in the last five years could handle if you have the technique for it.

hungryhippo said:

Golf shots or softball players roughly 10-50 ft away in daylight.

Click to expand...

Golf shots ? Again nothing a basic DSLR could not handle.

Softball. The only problem I've experienced with softball is that it's often played in less than optimal lighting. This might benefit from moving to a better sensor ( e.g. a used D700 ) rather than either of the models you mention. In good light there's really no need for this.

hungryhippo said:

up close shots of bumblebees , flowers, and such or normal portraits of friends ( sort of a Long term goal )

Click to expand...

Nothing any entry level DSLR or MILC could not do with a proper macro lens and the right technique.

hungryhippo said:

4) Swing dancers in low light roughly 10-20 ft away (I know this is tough for a cheaper camera).

Click to expand...

Well if you can't improve the light ( e.g. flash ) you get a better sensor. I'd be looking very hard at a D700, 5D2, D600, D800, etc, ( all used ) coupled with a good fast lens.

hungryhippo said:

I would be willing to sacrafice this lens at the moment and get it at a later time.standard lens that's an all around one)

Click to expand...

No idea what you mean by this, as you don't mention a lens.

hungryhippo said:

I will be biking around with this camera so the lighter and more compact it is the better. Also waterproofing is a plus. I am not a pro, and I do not need pro glass.

Click to expand...

Well I'd wonder if you need a DSLR at this point or something like a Fuji Xti might do just as well for you. However I'd note that you might want to use heavier lenses later on for some subjects and the body is going to start to seem lightweight in this context. For example, as 70-200 f2.8 ( a pretty common general sports lens ) would weight about 1.5kg and isn't a casual walk around lens for most people. Combine that with a 24-70 f2.8 and you're at maybe 2.5 kilos just for the basic lenses.

All photography is compromise.

hungryhippo said:

Would love to do mirrorless camera but I feel like they don't have as good of an auto focus as the DLSRS (or good lenses) so I'm narrowing it down to DLSR until the mirrorless catch up in terms of lenses and quality for action shots.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you need good autofocus. Your subjects don't strike me as requiring more than basic AF and good technique ( people have been shooting action for a long time and they didn't even have autofocus ).

hungryhippo said:

Would like to stick to Nikon or Canon if possible because it's going to be an investment and I'd possibly like to "rent" some lenses down the road. I would consider Pentax, Sony, etc. but you have to do a really good job of telling me why they are so much better.

Click to expand...

The Sony DSLTs have focus peaking in the EVFs and in-body image stabilization ( IBIS ) which can be very useful ( but less so for sports as you basically need a high shutter speed anyway ). They're usually good at burst rates as well.

Pentax make some nice solid systems, have IBIS and I'm skeptical that you'd see much difference in practice compared to a D7100 or 70D for your subjects.

For lens availability the Nikon and Canon are best. I would caution you against chasing that dragon, as many of those lenses are rather exotic and I'm doubtful you'd ever need them.

hungryhippo said:

Cameras I'm looking at via my research are the following, what I need help with is lens research now. What lenses would you recommend I start with in each of the following cameras for the above goals. I'm trying to figure this out because if the lens cost is considerably cheaper in one of the cases I may pick that body over the other.

Click to expand...

I'd start either with a good 70-300 VR or similar and a 18-135 or 18-140. I think it makes little practical difference ( and will for some considerable time ) whether you get the D7100 or 70D or an entry level model like a D5300 or something like that.

These lenses and bodies are a reasonable compromise over weight and performance for your needs.

hungryhippo said:

Now the question is, which lenses should I consider for the above goals. How do I even begin to research it as I know nothing about glass?

Click to expand...

The problem here is that you're falling into the trap of thinking that better equipment makes better images. I think you really need to develop technique and accept that as your limiting factor for a considerable time.

Sports shooters tend to need to practice a lot to maintain technique even when they get it. It's easy to let your skills drop off.

You need to get a book on basic technique first.

I think you should reconsider Pentax - they tend to have the mid-range Canon/Nikon features in their step-up beginner's models (e.g. pentaprism viewfinder) and offer inexpensive weather sealing with their water resistant lenses. Only Canon professional 'L' lenses are water sealed, so if that's important, you'll probably have to just take your chances with Canon/Nikon.

OTOH, the Canon 7D is probably (still) the best sports/action non-pro camera and Canon is selling a refurbished body for $720. It is quite heavy, however. You could get the 18-135, 70-200 f/4 or 55-250 and 50 f/1.8 and do pretty well.

Firstly can you live with the buffer of D7100? if not there is no point going any further with it.

Apart from that both systems have great lenses and who ever told nikon didn't is wrong.

People normally get stuck in comparing minor details in camera and forget the bigger picture. In real world shooting 1/3rd-1/2 stop of ISO difference or having a bit more mp all becomes a bit insignificant for 95% of the shooting you'll do.

IMO there a couple of things that one should consider deciding a system - Lenses and ergonomics.

First make a list of lenses you'll need and by that I mean rough focal lengths you'll need (you can work this out easily by either borrowing and using someones camera or even with a p&s with a zoom lens tbh). Then work out which system provides the best lens options for your focal length needs. For example if you need a coverage of 50-200mm for most of your shooting you can find a nice 70-200mm or a 50-150mm or buy a couple of lenses like 16-50mm and 70-200mm to cover most ranges.

Then ergonomics, go and try out all the cameras including pentax and sony (should they provide the lenses you need). Canon ergonomics works differently to that of nikon. It pretty easy for me to switch between sony and nikon but canon is completely different. Sony and pentax have in-body stabilization which you may find more useful should you wish to use more primes like 35mm/50mm etc as these don't normally come with stabilization.

There is no "best" camera or "best" system, you just need to figure out which works best for you. That could be anything including pentax, sony, fuji whatever. People shouldn't need to work hard to convince of a certain system, you should be able figure out which fits best for you. If pentax for example provides the best ergonomics (for you) and covers all the lenses then its the best fit for you, why does it matter what someone else thinks about other cameras...!

--
Focus on what you have, not on what you don't.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nandbytes/