K-3II + 16-85mm HD WR for around $1000 as a first DSLR

Hey! I posted a similar question to the Nikon and Sony forums as well, just to get an idea about different opinions here on dpr.

I'd like to buy my first DSLR (or mirrorless), with a budget around $750 — the budget is rather flexible and I can go over it if I have a good reason to do so. My original idea was to buy a second-hand Nikon D7200 + Sigma 17-50mm for around $650, but then I saw some other pretty nice deals, and suddenly fell into the trap of analysis paralysis. Now, I need your help to get out.

About myself: I tend to take photos of landscape or architecture, I don't plan to take videos, and sport or birds definitely won't be my focus (pun intended).

About the cameras I found:

1. New A7 + FE 28-70 mm [$860]
2. New A7II + some cheap lens (if I can find those) [$780 + the lens ($500?)]
3. second hand Nikon D7200 + Sigma 17-50 [$650]
4. second hand Pentax K-3II + a great lens (Pentax HD 16-85 WR) [$1050]

I heard great things about full frame, especially given I like to take pictures of landscapes, however, I'm not sure whether FF is worth the price bump (+ the price bump on lenses).

So, to wrap up, my questions are

1. Is it worth to go for anything beyond the Nikon 7200, for me? baseline $650
2. And if so, should I go for
   1. Good APS-C + great lens (Pentax K-3II) for + $400
   2. First-hand, but old model, FF + FE 28-70 mm (Sony A7) for + $200
   3. New FF + some cheap lens (Sony A7II) for + $500

Thanks a lot!

Eugleo said:

Hey! I posted a similar question to the Nikon and Sony forums as well, just to get an idea about different opinions here on dpr.

I'd like to buy my first DSLR (or mirrorless), with a budget around $750 — the budget is rather flexible and I can go over it if I have a good reason to do so. My original idea was to buy a second-hand Nikon D7200 + Sigma 17-50mm for around $650, but then I saw some other pretty nice deals, and suddenly fell into the trap of analysis paralysis. Now, I need your help to get out.

About myself: I tend to take photos of landscape or architecture, I don't plan to take videos, and sport or birds definitely won't be my focus (pun intended).

About the cameras I found:

1. New A7 + FE 28-70 mm [$860]
2. New A7II + some cheap lens (if I can find those) [$780 + the lens ($500?)]
3. second hand Nikon D7200 + Sigma 17-50 [$650]
4. second hand Pentax K-3II + a great lens (Pentax HD 16-85 WR) [$1050]

I heard great things about full frame, especially given I like to take pictures of landscapes, however, I'm not sure whether FF is worth the price bump (+ the price bump on lenses).

So, to wrap up, my questions are

1. Is it worth to go for anything beyond the Nikon 7200, for me? baseline $650
2. And if so, should I go for
   1. Good APS-C + great lens (Pentax K-3II) for + $400
   2. First-hand, but old model, FF + FE 28-70 mm (Sony A7) for + $200
   3. New FF + some cheap lens (Sony A7II) for + $500

Thanks a lot!

Click to expand...

Why not a choice of Fujifilm Xe3 with XF 35mm f2 all new.

I don't recommend aged cameras.

Eugleo said:

Hey! I posted a similar question to the Nikon and Sony forums as well, just to get an idea about different opinions here on dpr.

I'd like to buy my first DSLR (or mirrorless), with a budget around $750 — the budget is rather flexible and I can go over it if I have a good reason to do so. My original idea was to buy a second-hand Nikon D7200 + Sigma 17-50mm for around $650, but then I saw some other pretty nice deals, and suddenly fell into the trap of analysis paralysis. Now, I need your help to get out.

About myself: I tend to take photos of landscape or architecture, I don't plan to take videos, and sport or birds definitely won't be my focus (pun intended).

About the cameras I found:

1. New A7 + FE 28-70 mm [$860]
2. New A7II + some cheap lens (if I can find those) [$780 + the lens ($500?)]
3. second hand Nikon D7200 + Sigma 17-50 [$650]
4. second hand Pentax K-3II + a great lens (Pentax HD 16-85 WR) [$1050]

I heard great things about full frame, especially given I like to take pictures of landscapes, however, I'm not sure whether FF is worth the price bump (+ the price bump on lenses).

So, to wrap up, my questions are

1. Is it worth to go for anything beyond the Nikon 7200, for me? baseline $650
2. And if so, should I go for
   1. Good APS-C + great lens (Pentax K-3II) for + $400
   2. First-hand, but old model, FF + FE 28-70 mm (Sony A7) for + $200
   3. New FF + some cheap lens (Sony A7II) for + $500

Thanks a lot!

Click to expand...

All these cameras have their strengths and weaknesses. I would suggesting buying the cheapest alternative, as its your first system camera.

Eugleo said:

Hey! I posted a similar question to the Nikon and Sony forums as well, just to get an idea about different opinions here on dpr.

I'd like to buy my first DSLR (or mirrorless), with a budget around $750 — the budget is rather flexible and I can go over it if I have a good reason to do so. My original idea was to buy a second-hand Nikon D7200 + Sigma 17-50mm for around $650, but then I saw some other pretty nice deals, and suddenly fell into the trap of analysis paralysis. Now, I need your help to get out.

About myself: I tend to take photos of landscape or architecture, I don't plan to take videos, and sport or birds definitely won't be my focus (pun intended).

About the cameras I found:

1. New A7 + FE 28-70 mm [$860]
2. New A7II + some cheap lens (if I can find those) [$780 + the lens ($500?)]
3. second hand Nikon D7200 + Sigma 17-50 [$650]
4. second hand Pentax K-3II + a great lens (Pentax HD 16-85 WR) [$1050]

I heard great things about full frame, especially given I like to take pictures of landscapes, however, I'm not sure whether FF is worth the price bump (+ the price bump on lenses).

So, to wrap up, my questions are

1. Is it worth to go for anything beyond the Nikon 7200, for me? baseline $650
2. And if so, should I go for
   1. Good APS-C + great lens (Pentax K-3II) for + $400
   2. First-hand, but old model, FF + FE 28-70 mm (Sony A7) for + $200
   3. New FF + some cheap lens (Sony A7II) for + $500

Thanks a lot!

Click to expand...

I can't speak to the Sony & Nikon options but $1,050 seems on the high side for a used K-3ii + DA16-85. If you go to B&H right now you can get a new K-70 + DA18-135 for just under $700. For a first DSLR it might be a better option.

Doug

For landscape and architecture you can do much better for less money. Instead of APS-C I'd suggest a Canon 6D (used at KEH = $652) plus a 28-135 IS zoom (used $122). For $775 you get an excellent fullframe camera with great image quality, and a very competent lens.

A more radical approach: Buying out of style used gear that was a star attraction in its day will let you learn very cheaply what you like and don't like. You can sell it on when you're done with it and get much of the cost back.

So save even more money and get a Canon 5D II for $539, or even an original 5D for $239.

Even better, on the Nikon side you might look at a D700, $400 at KEH, with a Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8, at $76.

Save the rest of your $1k budget for when you know exactly what you need.

Eugleo said:

Hey! I posted a similar question to the Nikon and Sony forums as well, just to get an idea about different opinions here on dpr.

I'd like to buy my first DSLR (or mirrorless), with a budget around $750 — the budget is rather flexible and I can go over it if I have a good reason to do so. My original idea was to buy a second-hand Nikon D7200 + Sigma 17-50mm for around $650, but then I saw some other pretty nice deals, and suddenly fell into the trap of analysis paralysis. Now, I need your help to get out.

About myself: I tend to take photos of landscape or architecture, I don't plan to take videos, and sport or birds definitely won't be my focus (pun intended).

About the cameras I found:

1. New A7 + FE 28-70 mm [$860]
2. New A7II + some cheap lens (if I can find those) [$780 + the lens ($500?)]
3. second hand Nikon D7200 + Sigma 17-50 [$650]
4. second hand Pentax K-3II + a great lens (Pentax HD 16-85 WR) [$1050]

I heard great things about full frame, especially given I like to take pictures of landscapes, however, I'm not sure whether FF is worth the price bump (+ the price bump on lenses).

So, to wrap up, my questions are

1. Is it worth to go for anything beyond the Nikon 7200, for me? baseline $650
2. And if so, should I go for
   1. Good APS-C + great lens (Pentax K-3II) for + $400
   2. First-hand, but old model, FF + FE 28-70 mm (Sony A7) for + $200
   3. New FF + some cheap lens (Sony A7II) for + $500

Thanks a lot!

Click to expand...

I've got that K-3ii and that lens and I'd take it over the D7200. For the weather sealing alone (Nikon's is reputedly pretty great, but I'd say the Pentax is just as good if not better, but the real deal is that the lens for the Nikon is not weather sealed (I think) while the Pentax IS. Kinda nice for outside work like landscapes.

The A7 sealing is by all accounts not so good, esp in earlier models. And again, the lens.

Some other pluses for the Pentax:

Not FF. I was gonna sell my K-3ii when I went FF, but kept it. Glad I did, since sometimes it's very nice to haul around with a crop long lens vs the extra weight and bulk of some FF lenses on the FF body. And I really appreciate the reach outdoors, even if not doing wildlife, since some landscape really benefits from a telephoto.

GPS. Most landscape shooters I know georeference their images. Yeah, I used to do it with my phone but it's a pain. The Pentax GPS is quite accurate and faster to acquire than other cameras I've used.

IBIS. A quite good implementation on the Pentax. And that means it's a lot easier to use manual focus old Pentax and Takumar lenses on it, and some of that old glass is still exceptionally good. And often a great bargain. So easier to shoot handheld.

Astrotracer. A function of GPS and IBIS, it allows for shooting much longer night landscapes without star trails. Quite awesome, actually. Check out some of the samples over at pentaxforums.com. That 16-85mm could probably work with it despite it's aperture.

Pixel shift. Yeah, not good with moving objects unless you want to composite, but that's not too tough with say water where you don't need the higher res. But some shots I've done in still air like the desert have been much better with it. Macros and still life too. https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/pentax-k3-ii/pentax-k3-iiTECH2.HTM

In short I should sell mine, but I just can't. It's a great camera. Lots more info here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/

I love my Pentax K50 (it's waterproof) for it's excellent performance, built quality, ability to use vintage Pentax lenses (like the Super Takumars), and it's still a very good (and inexpensive) camera today.

That said, I have a Nikon D5300 and D7200 and they are both excellent performers. Fact is that their IQ is really no better than the Pentax as it get's down to the lenses and if I do my part. I really suggest you go visit a real camera shop and look at their new and used section to get your hands on them to feel their ergonomics, run through the menu, take your sd card and shoot some images. My local shop lets me walk outside for a few snaps. Someone mentioned the K70 and that's a great camera. Other choices would be a Canon T5i, T6i, T7i, or a used 80D, Nikon D3400, 3500, D5300, D7000, D7200, or possibly something in the M4/3 class like a Panasonic G7 ($500 with lens), Panasonic FZ1000 (1" sensor, but excellent performer). Any of these will more than get the job done. Take a basic DSLR class, join camera clubs (MeetUp is great), and get out there!

Forgot to add that the Nikon kit lenses are outstanding. Their 18-55 and their often included 70-300 (get the VR model) are sharp, fast to focus, silent, light, and inexpensive. Nikon hit a home run with these. I have not shot with the Canon STM lenses, but the new one's get high praise. So since your head is spinning by now, go to your camera shop for starters. We all have our favorites, including camera sales people just as a heads up. No wrong choices as they are all great tools and it's up to you to learn it.

Camera body can always upgrade but lens are rarely unless you’re going to sell the lens and buy another one later with some lost. If I am you, I’ll search for the new best lens that I can afford for my shooting mode and use the remaining cash to buy the camera body (new or used). Later, when I have more money, I’ll buy more lens and/or upgrade the camera body.

bkpix said:

For landscape and architecture you can do much better for less money. Instead of APS-C I'd suggest a Canon 6D (used at KEH = $652) plus a 28-135 IS zoom (used $122). For $775 you get an excellent fullframe camera with great image quality, and a very competent lens.

Click to expand...

That’s an interesting recommendation, I didn’t know about the midrange FF cameras from Canon! That might actually be the best choice.(And btw, I know also found out that Nikon D600 FF exists; was it intentional that you recommended specifically the Canon over the D600?)

Update: I just checked the latest deals; a new popped up, with Sony A7II plus the kit lens 28-70 for $900. Thats only $120 more than the Canon setup you recommended. In this case, would you still choose the Canon?

Eugleo said:

Hey! I posted a similar question to the Nikon and Sony forums as well, just to get an idea about different opinions here on dpr.

I'd like to buy my first DSLR (or mirrorless), with a budget around $750 — the budget is rather flexible and I can go over it if I have a good reason to do so. My original idea was to buy a second-hand Nikon D7200 + Sigma 17-50mm for around $650, but then I saw some other pretty nice deals, and suddenly fell into the trap of analysis paralysis. Now, I need your help to get out.

About myself: I tend to take photos of landscape or architecture, I don't plan to take videos, and sport or birds definitely won't be my focus (pun intended).

About the cameras I found:

1. New A7 + FE 28-70 mm [$860]
2. New A7II + some cheap lens (if I can find those) [$780 + the lens ($500?)]
3. second hand Nikon D7200 + Sigma 17-50 [$650]
4. second hand Pentax K-3II + a great lens (Pentax HD 16-85 WR) [$1050]

I heard great things about full frame, especially given I like to take pictures of landscapes, however, I'm not sure whether FF is worth the price bump (+ the price bump on lenses).

So, to wrap up, my questions are

1. Is it worth to go for anything beyond the Nikon 7200, for me? baseline $650
2. And if so, should I go for
   1. Good APS-C + great lens (Pentax K-3II) for + $400
   2. First-hand, but old model, FF + FE 28-70 mm (Sony A7) for + $200
   3. New FF + some cheap lens (Sony A7II) for + $500

Thanks a lot!

Click to expand...

A7II and adapt some legacy glass. Having to manually focus slows you down a little and that's not a bad thing when learning. Later get an LA-EA3 and/or LA-EA4 adaptor and you can autofocus old Minolta/Sony A mount lenses which are nearly as good as the Sony FE glass but much cheaper. After a while you'll be drooling over Sony GM lenses but will know exactly which lens to get and it will be money well spent rather than a big hole in your pocket.

Alternately the APS-C route with Pentax is not a bad idea if you prefer small primes over zooms otherwise your kit will be practically the same size/weight as a FF kit but with few benefits.

Eugleo said:

Eugleo said:

For landscape and architecture you can do much better for less money. Instead of APS-C I'd suggest a Canon 6D (used at KEH = $652) plus a 28-135 IS zoom (used $122). For $775 you get an excellent fullframe camera with great image quality, and a very competent lens.

Click to expand...

That’s an interesting recommendation, I didn’t know about the midrange FF cameras from Canon! That might actually be the best choice.(And btw, I know also found out that Nikon D600 FF exists; was it intentional that you recommended specifically the Canon over the D600?)

Update: I just checked the latest deals; a new popped up, with Sony A7II plus the kit lens 28-70 for $900. Thats only $120 more than the Canon setup you recommended. In this case, would you still choose the Canon?

Click to expand...

Go check it out at a real camera shop to see, feel and shoot. Personally I did not like it at all. If you need weather/water proof, Sony is nowhere near Pentax, Canon, Nikon with regards to WP. Bring your Visa card when adding lenses.

Eugleo said:

Hey! I posted a similar question to the Nikon and Sony forums as well, just to get an idea about different opinions here on dpr.

Click to expand...

+1

I saw your post in the Nikon forum and replied there.

I was actually thinking of adding a post there to point out that the Olympus you were looking at is also weather-resistant, which depending on how you want to use your camera may be advantageous.

And then I saw your post here. The K-3II should be weather-resistant as well. As well as the WR lens you are looking at.

That may come in handy!

Eugleo said:

I'd like to buy my first DSLR (or mirrorless), with a budget around $750 — the budget is rather flexible and I can go over it if I have a good reason to do so. My original idea was to buy a second-hand Nikon D7200 + Sigma 17-50mm for around $650, but then I saw some other pretty nice deals, and suddenly fell into the trap of analysis paralysis. Now, I need your help to get out.

Click to expand...

+1

Analysis paralysis.

Yes. I am a slave to that.

Luckily . . . when I started buying gear, there was a lot less cameras available.

I got into dSLR cameras before m43 had come out, and mirrorless was not really a major thing yet.

Eugleo said:

About myself: I tend to take photos of landscape or architecture, I don't plan to take videos, and sport or birds definitely won't be my focus (pun intended).

Click to expand...

If that is the case, the Olympus and Pentax could well suit you IMHO.

Eugleo said:

About the cameras I found:

1. New A7 + FE 28-70 mm [$860]
2. New A7II + some cheap lens (if I can find those) [$780 + the lens ($500?)]
3. second hand Nikon D7200 + Sigma 17-50 [$650]
4. second hand Pentax K-3II + a great lens (Pentax HD 16-85 WR) [$1050]

I heard great things about full frame, especially given I like to take pictures of landscapes, however, I'm not sure whether FF is worth the price bump (+ the price bump on lenses).

Click to expand...

If you are using a tripod, and can work with longer shutter speeds, I suspect that the bigger sensor may not end up being so critical.

I went FF because I happened to have FF lenses, and I was offered a paid gig. The thing was that it was in small(ish) rooms and I couldn't make it work with FF lenses on an APS-C body. So I would either have to not accept the paid job, buy APS-C lenses (2 or 3) or simply get a full frame camera. In the end, it happened to be easier to buy the FF than to hunt for 2-3 lenses.

But now that I have FF, I do see a difference. But that IMHO is because I shoot a lot of indoor sports. Something that I can't put my camera on a tripod and I can't accept a longer shutter speed to let in more light.

So, for me . . . I think I am getting my monies worth out of the FF body.

The other thing, I guess, is if you get faster lenses (such as fast primes or faster zooms) then you can get more light to the APS-C sensor. (I was simply not willing to buy faster zooms, as I already had perfectly fine f/2.8 zooms for FF.)

Eugleo said:

So, to wrap up, my questions are

1. Is it worth to go for anything beyond the Nikon 7200, for me? baseline $650

Click to expand...

That is up to you.

What do you want to shoot? What lens are you willing to buy and work with.

And . . . what quality of IQ do you want to end up with.

Eugleo said:

1. And if so, should I go for
   1. Good APS-C + great lens (Pentax K-3II) for + $400
   2. First-hand, but old model, FF + FE 28-70 mm (Sony A7) for + $200
   3. New FF + some cheap lens (Sony A7II) for + $500

Click to expand...

IMHO . . . think about the weather resistance (WR) feature of the Pentax and Olympus and decide if that is something that interests you.

Then look at what you want to shoot, and how easily available the lenses are for what you want to shoot on each platform. As well as other accessories that you may want to have.

Eugleo said:

Thanks a lot!

Click to expand...

+1

Take care & Happy Shooting!

I'd go with the D7200.

Please remember you're not just buying a camera, you're buying into a proprietary lens mount and accessory catalog. Which you will likely build into slowly over time.

The Nikon has a better ecosystem imo. You'll get lenses with near silent motors -- including the primes that you won't with Pentax. And 3rd party is more vibrant for Nikon (or Canon for that matter).

You'll have more room to grow too as there is a D7500 or D500 to move into when you're ready (should you see the need) on crop system.

And of course a bevy of Full Frame bodies waiting to go too.

You'll also get a better AF system and arguably a better metering system in the Nikon platform. Same going for Canon both over Pentax.

Canon sensors don't seem to offer the same level of dynamic range which is helpful in landscape shooting (pulling up shadows mostly) that the Nikon and Pentax bodies can.

The WR on the Pentax is going to be better (with the WR lens), but you can skirt that feature by using a cover over any camera.

Last Sunday I took a photo with my K-3II + DA 16-85mm:





Even if I look at the photo in full resolution, I wouldn't know why this combination is not perfectly suited for landscape and architectural photography.

Kind regards,

Anton

You will probabely notice little (if any) difference in picture quality between the listed sets (and many more). The important thing, as other poster pointed out, is ergonomy and here can be a big difference between them. Handling and shooting process must also be a pleasure. It is very important part, so try to take the camera in your hands and operate for a while. It should give you the aswer for the fundamental question. Belive me - it really counts.

Eugleo said:

About the cameras I found:

1. New A7 + FE 28-70 mm [$860]
2. New A7II + some cheap lens (if I can find those) [$780 + the lens ($500?)]

Click to expand...

As a first system, I would avoid those models as it will be difficult to handle/maneuver their menus and ergonomics. The more recent Sony FF have improved a lot, but they are of course way more expensive.

Eugleo said:

1. second hand Nikon D7200 + Sigma 17-50 [$650]
2. second hand Pentax K-3II + a great lens (Pentax HD 16-85 WR) [$1050]

Click to expand...

Either will be excellent as a starting system and will do very well in your applications (landscape and architecture). If you are planning to build on that system in the future, I would however recommend the Nikon as it will be easier to find accessories and third party products in most electronics and camera stores shelves.

--
~George

Eugleo said:

Eugleo said:

For landscape and architecture you can do much better for less money. Instead of APS-C I'd suggest a Canon 6D (used at KEH = $652) plus a 28-135 IS zoom (used $122). For $775 you get an excellent fullframe camera with great image quality, and a very competent lens.

Click to expand...

That’s an interesting recommendation, I didn’t know about the midrange FF cameras from Canon! That might actually be the best choice.(And btw, I know also found out that Nikon D600 FF exists; was it intentional that you recommended specifically the Canon over the D600?)

Update: I just checked the latest deals; a new popped up, with Sony A7II plus the kit lens 28-70 for $900. Thats only $120 more than the Canon setup you recommended. In this case, would you still choose the Canon?

Click to expand...

I mentioned the Canon 6D because I've owned one for six years and enjoy shooting with it. Very little experience with Nikon.

I haven't used Sony at all, but the consistent word on the webs seems to be poorly designed menus and controls. Both Canon and Pentax have excellent control systems, which make them a pleasure to use.

Finally, before being seduced by full frame, you might read through this discussion on FM forum about gear for landscape. Some pretty accomplished landscape photographers weigh in on the merits of different systems -- and there's quite a bit of discussion about the impact of the weight of your gear on your work. Dan Mitchell nails it with this comment:

"Folks who aren't going to print larger than about 20" x 30" should carefully consider using a good APS-C camera, perhaps a mirrorless system, especially if they can also manage to downsize their set of lenses as a result."

bkpix said:

Eugleo said:

bkpix said:

For landscape and architecture you can do much better for less money. Instead of APS-C I'd suggest a Canon 6D (used at KEH = $652) plus a 28-135 IS zoom (used $122). For $775 you get an excellent fullframe camera with great image quality, and a very competent lens.

Click to expand...

That’s an interesting recommendation, I didn’t know about the midrange FF cameras from Canon! That might actually be the best choice.(And btw, I know also found out that Nikon D600 FF exists; was it intentional that you recommended specifically the Canon over the D600?)

Update: I just checked the latest deals; a new popped up, with Sony A7II plus the kit lens 28-70 for $900. Thats only $120 more than the Canon setup you recommended. In this case, would you still choose the Canon?

Click to expand...

I mentioned the Canon 6D because I've owned one for six years and enjoy shooting with it. Very little experience with Nikon.

I haven't used Sony at all, but the consistent word on the webs seems to be poorly designed menus and controls. Both Canon and Pentax have excellent control systems, which make them a pleasure to use.

Finally, before being seduced by full frame, you might read through this discussion on FM forum about gear for landscape. Some pretty accomplished landscape photographers weigh in on the merits of different systems -- and there's quite a bit of discussion about the impact of the weight of your gear on your work. Dan Mitchell nails it with this comment:

"Folks who aren't going to print larger than about 20" x 30" should carefully consider using a good APS-C camera, perhaps a mirrorless system, especially if they can also manage to downsize their set of lenses as a result."

Click to expand...

The best value compact DSLR compact camera out there is the Pentax K-70, no other brand comes close for a landscape photographer at this price and it is £369 here on Black Friday. It is insane the features you get for the money even at normal price.

I am an experienced landscape photographer yet it is my choice. 24MP, 4.5 stop IBIS, electronic levels, red screen for astrophotography and GPS/astrotracer function with add-on module, pixel shift, focus peaking, fully articulated screen, multiple interval shooting modes, modern high ISO and noise performance to mention a few.

I printed 30" x 20" from 16MP using an expensive photo lab. This will print 36" x 24" normally and using pixel shift much bigger again with even more dynamic range available too.

I wouldn't recommend old FF bodies, they are big and completely outdated and why would you want to start photography on that in 2019? Pentax do the best landscape DSLRs and have an extensive APS-C line up with the small and mighty DA Limited lenses amongst them.

hi where did u see the k70 at that price thanks .

norman shearer said:

A7II and adapt some legacy glass. Having to manually focus slows you down a little and that's not a bad thing when learning. Later get an LA-EA3 and/or LA-EA4 adaptor and you can autofocus old Minolta/Sony A mount lenses which are nearly as good as the Sony FE glass but much cheaper.

Click to expand...

Oh, so theres more choices to make if I go down the Sony route! Is there any “legacy lens” that you would recommend (or some subset of them, at least)?

And, in your view, would I be losing much from the Canon 6D if I choose the Sony for its compactness?