Please help me to choose a FF camera system (landscape, wildlife)

filster7 wrote:

Hi everyone, I'd like to buy full-frame camera with couple of lenses - specifically for landscape and wildlife photography (and I'd like to add a macro lens later). It's very much possible that for wildlife I'd end up doing a lot of videography instead of just stills - so the camera should be very good at that too.

My max budget for the body only is around 2500 EUR but I would be happier if it would be much less in the end. It's possible that for "budget reasons" I'd go with a body and a "kit lens" (hopefully a good one) first, adding a telephoto zoom next and then finally buying a landscape lens.

I was once working in a specialized shop that was selling cameras and I was able to try basically everything that was available at that time (2007). At that time I mostly gravitated towards Nikon (the D300) but I what I really wanted was the Canon 5D for landscape - but on the other hand the 5D wouldn't be the best for wildlife. I liked the ergonomics of both of those cameras.

Fast forward 2021 and we have the mirrorless systems. So apart from the brand I'm also looking at those and thinking if it wouldn't be wiser to go that route in terms of getting a future-proof system. I don't like the EVF (but maybe I won't need to use it at all), I'm not sure about the AF speed/precision compared to the DSLR and the cameras/lenses are/seem to be more expensive than the DSLR ones.

Before considering any mirrorless system my choice was a Nikon D780 with 200-500 f/5.6 and 16-35 f/4. I could also get a 50 f/1.8 and a SB-400 flash from my sister since she doesn't use them. That would basically cover the most ground I need covered and also wouldn't ruin me financially (and I could still buy a nice tripod and a camera bag).

So the more expensive mirrorless system would really need to make sense. I was looking at the Nikon Z6 II with the 24-70 f/4 kit but their 100-400 is around 2800 EUR which is a pretty steep price (for me). This would be my first choice if going mirrorless (since it's Nikon - but it doesn't have to be). Then the Canon R6 + 24-105 f/4-7.1 kit (I was never a fan of such long zooms since the quality usually wasn't there) and then probably (?) the RF 100-400 f/5,6-8 (it's on the cheaper side but hopefully it would perform "ok"). I didn't look much at Sony since the A7 MK III is quite old now and the MK IV is pretty expensive for me. But I'm open to suggestions - the MK III is now really at a good price thanks to Black Friday deals + the 200 EUR cashback (also at a good price with the 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 kit). I could pair it with Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 without busting the bank (or go with 24-70 f/4 and 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 that could still fit into my budget - tightly).

The other question I had was about the adaptors - how's the general consensus about using the mirrorless bodies with "normal" lenses? For example the Canon 400 f/5.6 on Canon R6.

Many options to consider. Thanks in advance! Filip

If you shoot BIF then a second hand a9 + 200-600G is going to be unmatched.  You can add the 1.4 teleconverter with virtually no loss of AF performance or image quality.  If you are more landscape and wildlife stills then a secondhand 42mp a7riii is better.  The Tamron short zoom options for landscape.

filster7 wrote:

Hi everyone, I'd like to buy full-frame camera with couple of lenses - specifically for landscape and wildlife photography (and I'd like to add a macro lens later). It's very much possible that for wildlife I'd end up doing a lot of videography instead of just stills - so the camera should be very good at that too.

My max budget for the body only is around 2500 EUR but I would be happier if it would be much less in the end. It's possible that for "budget reasons" I'd go with a body and a "kit lens" (hopefully a good one) first, adding a telephoto zoom next and then finally buying a landscape lens.

I was once working in a specialized shop that was selling cameras and I was able to try basically everything that was available at that time (2007). At that time I mostly gravitated towards Nikon (the D300) but I what I really wanted was the Canon 5D for landscape - but on the other hand the 5D wouldn't be the best for wildlife. I liked the ergonomics of both of those cameras.

Fast forward 2021 and we have the mirrorless systems. So apart from the brand I'm also looking at those and thinking if it wouldn't be wiser to go that route in terms of getting a future-proof system. I don't like the EVF (but maybe I won't need to use it at all), I'm not sure about the AF speed/precision compared to the DSLR and the cameras/lenses are/seem to be more expensive than the DSLR ones.

Before considering any mirrorless system my choice was a Nikon D780 with 200-500 f/5.6 and 16-35 f/4. I could also get a 50 f/1.8 and a SB-400 flash from my sister since she doesn't use them. That would basically cover the most ground I need covered and also wouldn't ruin me financially (and I could still buy a nice tripod and a camera bag).

So the more expensive mirrorless system would really need to make sense. I was looking at the Nikon Z6 II with the 24-70 f/4 kit but their 100-400 is around 2800 EUR which is a pretty steep price (for me). This would be my first choice if going mirrorless (since it's Nikon - but it doesn't have to be). Then the Canon R6 + 24-105 f/4-7.1 kit (I was never a fan of such long zooms since the quality usually wasn't there) and then probably (?) the RF 100-400 f/5,6-8 (it's on the cheaper side but hopefully it would perform "ok"). I didn't look much at Sony since the A7 MK III is quite old now and the MK IV is pretty expensive for me. But I'm open to suggestions - the MK III is now really at a good price thanks to Black Friday deals + the 200 EUR cashback (also at a good price with the 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 kit). I could pair it with Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 without busting the bank (or go with 24-70 f/4 and 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 that could still fit into my budget - tightly).

The other question I had was about the adaptors - how's the general consensus about using the mirrorless bodies with "normal" lenses? For example the Canon 400 f/5.6 on Canon R6.

Many options to consider. Thanks in advance! Filip

First, why full frame? that's a small budget for wildlife with that sensor even if you go for used stuff.

Second, if you experience is that old be aware that newer zooms are very very good. And the "kit" lens for a FF is not comparable to the kit on the old APS-C $500 cameras.

Most would recommend a 600mm lens for wildlife. You could get by with say the Canon EF 400mm 5.6L and crop, and maybe find it used for an affordable price.

I'd consider a D500...it's still a ripping good camera and a favorite with wildlife shooters.

filster7 wrote:

Hi everyone, I'd like to buy full-frame camera with couple of lenses - specifically for landscape and wildlife photography (and I'd like to add a macro lens later). It's very much possible that for wildlife I'd end up doing a lot of videography instead of just stills - so the camera should be very good at that too.

My max budget for the body only is around 2500 EUR but I would be happier if it would be much less in the end. It's possible that for "budget reasons" I'd go with a body and a "kit lens" (hopefully a good one) first, adding a telephoto zoom next and then finally buying a landscape lens.

I was once working in a specialized shop that was selling cameras and I was able to try basically everything that was available at that time (2007). At that time I mostly gravitated towards Nikon (the D300) but I what I really wanted was the Canon 5D for landscape - but on the other hand the 5D wouldn't be the best for wildlife. I liked the ergonomics of both of those cameras.

Fast forward 2021 and we have the mirrorless systems. So apart from the brand I'm also looking at those and thinking if it wouldn't be wiser to go that route in terms of getting a future-proof system. I don't like the EVF (but maybe I won't need to use it at all), I'm not sure about the AF speed/precision compared to the DSLR and the cameras/lenses are/seem to be more expensive than the DSLR ones.

Before considering any mirrorless system my choice was a Nikon D780 with 200-500 f/5.6 and 16-35 f/4. I could also get a 50 f/1.8 and a SB-400 flash from my sister since she doesn't use them. That would basically cover the most ground I need covered and also wouldn't ruin me financially (and I could still buy a nice tripod and a camera bag).

So the more expensive mirrorless system would really need to make sense. I was looking at the Nikon Z6 II with the 24-70 f/4 kit but their 100-400 is around 2800 EUR which is a pretty steep price (for me). This would be my first choice if going mirrorless (since it's Nikon - but it doesn't have to be). Then the Canon R6 + 24-105 f/4-7.1 kit (I was never a fan of such long zooms since the quality usually wasn't there) and then probably (?) the RF 100-400 f/5,6-8 (it's on the cheaper side but hopefully it would perform "ok"). I didn't look much at Sony since the A7 MK III is quite old now and the MK IV is pretty expensive for me. But I'm open to suggestions - the MK III is now really at a good price thanks to Black Friday deals + the 200 EUR cashback (also at a good price with the 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 kit). I could pair it with Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 without busting the bank (or go with 24-70 f/4 and 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 that could still fit into my budget - tightly).

The other question I had was about the adaptors - how's the general consensus about using the mirrorless bodies with "normal" lenses? For example the Canon 400 f/5.6 on Canon R6.

Many options to consider. Thanks in advance! Filip

If you don’t need to rely upon tracking AF then the L-mount options would suit you. They all have very very strong video capabilities, and access to a very large range of affordable, high-quality lenses - including native Sigma:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4612895 (Over 100 lenses)

They have extensive features and the highest IQ for their respective classes:

The smallest, specialised options are the 24mpx Sigma fp and 61mpx Sigma fp L with "crop-zoom" (also the Lumix box cine camera).

The medium-sized all-rounder is the 24mpx Lumix S5

The hefty options are the 24mpx Lumix S1, S1H, and 47mpx S1R. These generally have the best full-frame IBIS available.

(There are also Leica SL and APS-C options.)

DPReview’s L-mount, Leica, and Sigma forums have more info.

The system is also notable for small lens options: 350g Lumix 20-60, 470g Sigma 28-70mmF2.8 and "I" series primes.  (Also 295g 18-50mmF2.8 aps-c lens)

Note also that Sigma provides teleconverters for the 105mm macro, 100-400, 150-600 which are not available for the E-mount versions (Note that they also unofficially work with the Leica-certified Panasonic 70-200 lenses, the f/4 version is quite affordable given the Leica designation. The non-Leica Panasonic Lumix 70-300 doesn’t take any teleconverters, though.)

techie takes pics wrote:

You've probably read that full frame is the 'best' so you must absolutely have full frame.

You want it so much that you're willing to compromise on lenses.

If you are the owner of a pizza shop, will you spend a lot of time deciding between a Ferrari or a Lamborghini for your delivery? Surely it matters, as the 'best' car delivers the best pizza's, right?

I always recommend that a camera is best equipped with lenses about 2-3 times the price of the body - as a rule of thumb.

OK so what lens do you suggest for the $6500 Sony Alpha 1. Only $13k - $20k lenses.

Sorry your rule of thumb makes no sense in a world where the cameras now have very advanced features such as 50mp, 8k video, 30fps stills, Eye AF, AF Tracking across 90% of the frame, etc..

By your rule of thumb even the most expensive 70-200 f2.8 would be too cheap to use on the Z9, R3, R5 or A1.

If you spend your budget on the body and have to equip it with the cheapest kit lens, consider selling frozen pizzas, but hey, at least they are delivery by a Ferrari.

The lens defines the picture; the composition, sharpness, image quality. The camera merely records what it receives.
When you skew the balance too much towards the exiting black box with all the buttons and the high review scores, you run into the law of diminishing returns. A system delivers better pictures for your dollar or euro, if you apply some balance; the 1 : 2-3 ratio I suggested. Not: 1 : 0.1 .

For 2500, I would recommend either:

• a 2500 body and expect to invest another 5000 in lenses, to unlock its potential; or:
• 2500 as total budget, 600-800 on a body and the rest in fantastic lenses.

Lenses are important.

So this is taken with a AU$9k camera and AU$3k lens. No way any $1k camera could reliably take this kind of image.

The lens isn't what keeps things in focus here, it is the camera. In fact the camera plays a far more important role in keeping things in focus - things like Eye AF, focussing 120 times per second, tracking across 90% of the frame.

On the budget end of things the same applies. A $1000 Sony a6400 matches perfectly well with the $1000 70-350 lens.

It would make no sense whatsoever to buy the $3000 100-400GM and use that on the $1000 a6400 since most of the time the a6400 AF system will be the component that fails to keep up.  Never mind the IQ coming from an APS-C sensor.

Krusty79 wrote:

Whenever someone buying a new camera says they want it for wildlife, I always ask - do you need it for stationary/perched critters, or running/flying ones? The AF demands are much higher for moving/flying animals.

Do you care about eye AF?

You sounded like you didn't like EVFs - but you are open to mirrorless?

Hi, thanks for stopping by to help. Regarding the AF, I would say that most of the time I won't be "chasing" fast moving animals. For example I plan to go to Iceland next year to (also) take some photos of the puffins there. The puffins can be chillin' at their burrows but they also can be in flight. I think I would be pretty happy with photos of them just chillin'. But for example for the Sony 200-600 what I read so far about it the AF should be pretty good and it would still fit into my budget.

About the eye AF - never thought about it really.

I don't like the "feeling" of looking into a small screen instead of a "real" viewfinder but I would enjoy the bigger screen that I could tilt and reap the benefits of the mirrorless system - so I would most probably use that the most. Especially when wanting to record some videos I guess. For me it's mostly about the pros and cons here - if the mirrorless system would give me more of the pros (better for video, lighter for traveling, more future proof) I could live with the EVF - I don't see that as a deal breaker. I was just used to as DSLR so far.

ikolbyi wrote:

I didn't see in your post an explanation why you only want to consider a full-frame camera. If you can detail your reasoning it would better help us answer your above questions.

That said, if more than 50% of the camera will be used for video: Canon, Sony & Olympus are the top choices. Panasonic (both m4/3 & FF) are in the middle with Nikon & Fuji rounding out the bottom.

Hi, thanks for stopping by. I always associated full-frame with "better overall quality". This means better dynamic range, depth of field control, better perf. at high ISOs. But I only compare it with what I had experience with - D300 vs Canon 5D "back in the day". At that time I was mostly interested in landscape photography with occasional macro and I really liked the images 5D was giving. I liked D300 more for everything else.

The downside for the FF cameras at that time was that they were clunky and noisy - and more expensive. But nowadays it seems that the prices went down, FF DSLRs are more affordable and with mirrorless you event don't get the clunkiness and noisy mirror (but you get steep prices). So I was thinking if I'm going to invest into a system and buy a camera with 2-3 lenses now I better choose wisely.

I added video to the equation only recently but I'm gravitating towards it more and more I guess.

duncang wrote:

If you shoot BIF then a second hand a9 + 200-600G is going to be unmatched. You can add the 1.4 teleconverter with virtually no loss of AF performance or image quality. If you are more landscape and wildlife stills then a secondhand 42mp a7riii is better. The Tamron short zoom options for landscape.

The 200-600 looks really sweet. Thanks for the advice about the teleconverter, I didn't think about that 👍

robgendreau wrote:

First, why full frame? that's a small budget for wildlife with that sensor even if you go for used stuff.

Second, if you experience is that old be aware that newer zooms are very very good. And the "kit" lens for a FF is not comparable to the kit on the old APS-C $500 cameras.

Most would recommend a 600mm lens for wildlife. You could get by with say the Canon EF 400mm 5.6L and crop, and maybe find it used for an affordable price.

I'd consider a D500...it's still a ripping good camera and a favorite with wildlife shooters.

Why full-frame is a very good question. I always viewed full-frame as "better". Of course, not better for everything - at least in the past the FF cameras were bigger/clunkier. I liked FF cameras for their dynamic range, depth of field control and better perf. at high ISOs. Also FF lenses were of very good quality and sometimes even cheaper as the comparable ones for APS-C cameras. But as you wrote, my opinions are based on experience from more than a decade ago. So things could have changed but I still think physics play the decisive role here and a bigger sensor will have it's advantages.

From the point of view of really investing into a system (buying several lenses) I didn't even consider a crop factor, I just wanted to go the FF route right away. But I don't say I can't or won't reconsider if there are reasonable arguments for it 🙂 I liked the fact that you can get a FF camera in a smaller body without the noisy mirror and have the advantage of doing video too. Thanks for the advice for the D500.

Strangefinder wrote:

If you don’t need to rely upon tracking AF then the L-mount options would suit you. They all have very very strong video capabilities, and access to a very large range of affordable, high-quality lenses - including native Sigma:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4612895 (Over 100 lenses)

They have extensive features and the highest IQ for their respective classes:

The smallest, specialised options are the 24mpx Sigma fp and 61mpx Sigma fp L with "crop-zoom" (also the Lumix box cine camera).

The medium-sized all-rounder is the 24mpx Lumix S5

The hefty options are the 24mpx Lumix S1, S1H, and 47mpx S1R. These generally have the best full-frame IBIS available.

(There are also Leica SL and APS-C options.)

DPReview’s L-mount, Leica, and Sigma forums have more info.

The system is also notable for small lens options: 350g Lumix 20-60, 470g Sigma 28-70mmF2.8 and "I" series primes. (Also 295g 18-50mmF2.8 aps-c lens)

Note also that Sigma provides teleconverters for the 105mm macro, 100-400, 150-600 which are not available for the E-mount versions (Note that they also unofficially work with the Leica-certified Panasonic 70-200 lenses, the f/4 version is quite affordable given the Leica designation. The non-Leica Panasonic Lumix 70-300 doesn’t take any teleconverters, though.)

Hi, thanks for the suggestion - I'll check out the L-mount too.

techie takes pics wrote:

You've probably read that full frame is the 'best' so you must absolutely have full frame.

You want it so much that you're willing to compromise on lenses.

If you are the owner of a pizza shop, will you spend a lot of time deciding between a Ferrari or a Lamborghini for your delivery? Surely it matters, as the 'best' car delivers the best pizza's, right?

I always recommend that a camera is best equipped with lenses about 2-3 times the price of the body - as a rule of thumb.

If you spend your budget on the body and have to equip it with the cheapest kit lens, consider selling frozen pizzas, but hey, at least they are delivery by a Ferrari.

The lens defines the picture; the composition, sharpness, image quality. The camera merely records what it receives.
When you skew the balance too much towards the exiting black box with all the buttons and the high review scores, you run into the law of diminishing returns. A system delivers better pictures for your dollar or euro, if you apply some balance; the 1 : 2-3 ratio I suggested. Not: 1 : 0.1 .

For 2500, I would recommend either:

• a 2500 body and expect to invest another 5000 in lenses, to unlock its potential; or:
• 2500 as total budget, 600-800 on a body and the rest in fantastic lenses.

Lenses are important.

Hi, thanks for stopping by and for the advice. I just want to clarify some things.

The reason I want to invest in a system is that I would like to get back into photography. Currently I work in IT but there was a time when I worked in a specialized shop that was selling camera equipment and it was my responsibility to know the stuff that we were selling. So I was able to try almost everything that existed at that time in the "camera & lenses" realm. This meant everything from the basic point & shoots to FF cameras of that time. But it was 2006/2007 - so I had hands-on experience for example with Canons 80D, 5D, 1D MKIII or Nikons D200, D300, D3. The difference of picture quality (especially at high ISOs but also in terms of depth of field and other parameters) between for example the D300 and D3 was night and day. My experience might be outdated (that's why I asked for advice here) but I'd say the basic laws of physics still apply. I just wanted to get into FF right away since I know I'd appreciate the benefits of it. And I also understand that in order to fully benefit from FF (and also the higher resolutions) I need very good lenses.

Regarding my budget, as I wrote, the 2500 EUR is a ceiling for the body only. My limit for this purchase including lenses is around 5000 EUR. So far I'm looking at Sony A7III + Sony 24-105 f/4 + Sony 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 - this would cost me around 4500 EUR but I could get 500 EUR back through cashback. I read (and watched) reviews about those lenses and they seem to be more then capable performers. I also got a suggestion here in the thread to go with the A7RIII instead but that would cost me 700 EUR more so I'm a bit hesitant about it - I'm trying to weight the pros and cons for it (the final price would be 4700 EUR instead of 4000 EUR with the cashback counted in). I'd like to keep a financial buffer there for a nice tripod and a camera backpack + some filters.

ikolbyi wrote:

mostlyboringphotog wrote:

ikolbyi wrote:

mostlyboringphotog wrote:

techie takes pics wrote:

You've probably read that full frame is the 'best' so you must absolutely have full frame.

You want it so much that you're willing to compromise on lenses.

If you are the owner of a pizza shop, will you spend a lot of time deciding between a Ferrari or a Lamborghini for your delivery? Surely it matters, as the 'best' car delivers the best pizza's, right?

I always recommend that a camera is best equipped with lenses about 2-3 times the price of the body - as a rule of thumb.

If you spend your budget on the body and have to equip it with the cheapest kit lens, consider selling frozen pizzas, but hey, at least they are delivery by a Ferrari.

The lens defines the picture; the composition, sharpness, image quality. The camera merely records what it receives.
When you skew the balance too much towards the exiting black box with all the buttons and the high review scores, you run into the law of diminishing returns. A system delivers better pictures for your dollar or euro, if you apply some balance; the 1 : 2-3 ratio I suggested. Not: 1 : 0.1 .

For 2500, I would recommend either:

• a 2500 body and expect to invest another 5000 in lenses, to unlock its potential; or:
• 2500 as total budget, 600-800 on a body and the rest in fantastic lenses.

Lenses are important. - bold added

But so is the body - I used to agree with your bolded statement without reservation until someone pointed out that the "better" body improves all the lens you have.

Image MTF is result of the sensor MTF and the lens MTF and those values are multiplicative. So the lower MTF of body will lower the lens MTF more than the higher MTF body.

With the maturing digital camera, I would rather invest in the best body I can afford now and add "better" lens over time.

And FF sensor camera does have the "more" technical image quality over the crop sensors (of course, MF sensor camera has even "more" technical image quality over the FF camera) . That is simply the mathematical fact. Whether one can appreciate and make most of it, does, of course, depends on the photographer,

I am a MF & m4/3 photographer and I use to use APSC & FF sensor cameras. The sensor is not everything: 40% of it is the lens, 20% is the camera body and 40% is the person behind the camera. I have m4/3 prints hanging on my wall in print size 24x20, and people thought I used my MF camera to take them. - bold added

For me, I find the above to be least convincing reason to use one format over another.

Someone may think a phone cam photo taken with 4/3rd camera - but you wouldn't think to use phone cam instead of 4/3rd.

Again, for me, it's what I see. not what other "may" see in the photo. If I present a photo, what I used to take the photo should be irrelevant.

I use each camera (and lens) for different reasons as both systems have their strenghts and weaknesses. Yes, MF has weaknesses that m4/3 are better at.

Most reasonable photographers (including myself) would agree with the above without any reservation.

In order to fully answer the OP question, we need to understand their reasoning behind only FF cameras.

I disagree somewhat as this assumption can be paternalistic. OP did not ask what format would be best - the question was about a few FF brands.

FF may or may not be the "best" for them.

This is simply a truism - any camera may or may not be the "best" for anyone.

What I don't understand is this implicit discouragement of FF camera being "too much" of a camera.

If everything else was equal, why wouldn't we use the camera with the largest sensor?

The larger sensor image can always be equalized to a smaller sensor performance envelope but the reverse is not really practical.

But of course, not everything else is equal - thus we end up owning more than one camera/format

I would rather see a photographer (regardless of skill level) use better glass with a cheaper or older camera body/sensor.

Can inexpensive glass take nice photos? Yes under ideal conditions. Better glass makes up for the short comings in the camera body and performs in poor photography conditions unlike cheaper glass.

Canon L and Sigma (Art/Sports/Contemporary line) make excellent glass. I am not a big fan of Sony & Nikon glass.

If a buyer prefers Nikon or Sony bodies, I always steer them toward Sigma glass for that reason. Canon non-L glass is hit-or-miss. Sigma EX-line, stay away from as their may be incompatibility issues. I have no experience with Tamron or Fiji X-series. I dont like Panasonic glass, unless it was co-developed with Leica.

Regarding the OP, my recommendation is to select the glass and mount they prefer best, then purchase the camera body around that mount. If they like the Sigma or Tamron glass the best, both companies make their lenses for diffrent mounts giving them options. If they like Canon glass, then that narrows down the camera choice to Canon (for example).

In today's photography era (2021), in my humble opinion their really is not a 'bad choice'. All modern cameras will do a professional job as long as you understand the system and how to apply that system to the act of photography.

The question is, what system works best your you? (This is a personal question)

.... Unless we are talking about sports/action, then stay far far away from Canon RP & R. Horrible cameras for action as the EVF refresh rate is too slow to keep up (well documented issue that I have experienced)

Thanks a lot to everybody for the advice. Regarding what you all wrote there, what would you a say about a Sony A7III + Sony 24-105 f/4 + Sony 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 combo? Would you go with the A7RIII instead if it would cost 700 EUR more (money that you could invest in another lens for example) - mostly for travel, landscape and wildlife photography?

Also regarding the Sigma - what do you think about the 150-600 f/5-6.3? I personally don't like that it extends while zooming and the weight shift it would cause. That also why I gravitate towards the Sony 200-600 more.