Landscape and ultrawide photog looking for help choosing a new camera system from scratch

[Compaq]

======================================================================================
TL;DR
I mostly shoot landscapes, and I need a new camera system from scratch. Brand does not matter. I want an ultrawide zoom lens (ala Tokina 11-20 f/2.8) and a camera body that is good for photography (not vid) and that gives good IQ (compared to my old Canon 40D). Good ISO performance important. Total cost not more than $1500. Easy to adjust camera also important, but not worth an extra $400. Wireless connectivity a plus. Whichever system (mirrorless, DSLR, APS-C, FF, whatever) that fulfills my needs for the least amount of money is the winner.
======================================================================================

I have recently moved to Tromsø, Norway, and this has sparked my photography interest again. The nature here is fantastic, and I see possible photographs around every corner. But a few years ago I threw away my old and failing Canon 40D and sold my Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. What I have left is a borrowed Canon 45oD, a kit lens whose autofocus no longer works, and a small collection manual focus lenses for my analog Canon SLR, most around 50mm. So, I really want to get a new camera system.

I have made some reflections concerning my future camera system, and hopefully this will help all of you kind people understand my needs.

1. I am not loyal to just one manufacturer. I don't care about the name of on my equipment, as long as it works and does what it's supposed to. I'd happily mix and match brands.
2. I am not an award-winning photographer* who make a living off of photography, and so I do not need the best of the best. I simply want to take photographs that I like. While I of course feel the inner need for L glass, my rational self sits on my right shoulder and says that third-party lenses are more than good enough.
3. Selling my Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (to afford going on vacation to California) was a tough decision, because I really liked that lens! Therefore I am going to buy a ultrawide zoom lens, preferably with a large, constant aperture, regardless of which camera system I end up with. We have months of darkness and northern lights in Tromsø, and I really want to take some spectacular photographs of the northern lights and of the night sky. The ultrawide perspective is just sooo awesome, in my opinion.
4. I really value a camera where I easily can make my exposure adjustments. I am used to the Canon 40D, which has a large thumb wheel on the back, a joystick on the back, another wheel on the top, and a small screen that shows some key settings. This camera was just so easy to use. I bought this used quite inexpensively, but of course the 40D was an expensive camera in its day, on par with the Canon 80D/6D today. To get the same button layout, I would need to enter the semi-pro market, and that costs money. However, being 9 years old, the 40D would most likely be beaten by virtually all DSLR on the market today as far as image quality goes. Therefore, I am willing to swallow a few camels, and get a camera with no secondary screen and no thumb wheel, as long as the image quality is good. Perhaps there are cameras out there with a clever way of quickly adjusting things with just one wheel and a few buttons?
5. I don't really want to spend too much money on photography equipment (at least not in one go). I would say that my budget is around $1000 to $1500, body and ultrawide lens included. If a kit lens is included here, then Yay! If not, that's okay.
6. I am not interested in videography.
7. In this day and age I would like to connect my phone to my camera to remotely control it. Then I don't need a cable release for long exposures (I am assuming, surely this is implemented in the apps, right?).
8. If I can get a camera with lots of AF points and in-body stabilization, then yay! But if not, then that's fine. For landscapes I would mostly use hyperfocal focusing with my (ultra)wide, and for portrait-like photographs I have made due with the center focus point before.
9. Full-frame, APS-C, or MFT? From what I can see, ultrawide zoom lenses are much less expensive for APS-C sensors than for full-frame and MFT (at least for Canon, which is the only brand I have checked). For FF, I would need to get the 16-35 f/2.8L if I want a fast one, and that just completely blows my budget. Probably a lovely lens, though. Options for MFT seem limited, and they do not really go as wide as I want, which is 16mm (35mm eq.). Therefore it seems I can save a lot of money going for APS-C sensors and DSLRs. I do love the smaller size of MFT mirrorless cameras. Since I don't really need AF on the ultrawide, then an adapter from Canon EF-S to Sony E could make me use the Tokina on a Sony A6000, but to control the aperture I think I need to also invest in a half-decent adapter.
10. I'd happily buy glass used, but I may sleep easier at night if I buy the camera body new, due to the insurance.

If something is not on this list, then it is not vital to me whether the camera supports it or not.

I would really appreciate anyone who is able to provide some suggestions based on experience here. The zoo of camera equipment is growing larger, it seems, and when I've been out of the game for a few years it becomes difficult and time-consuming to properly orient myself.

My own opinion right now is that I buy an entry level DSLR + Tokina 11-20 f/2.8 + a normal zoom f/2.8 or f/4 lens.

 

[Derrel]

For landscapes, full frame is unbeatable, in my opinion. YES, ultra-wide lenses for APS-C are affordable, but FX size sensors go "ultra-wide" without the need for aspherical element lens designs, and ultra-wide lenses are more plentiful for FX cameras than for DX sensors. A 14mm on FX is ultra-wide! A 17mm on FX is quite,quite wide. But this is an important point to keep in mind: ultra-wide angle lenses suck on many landscape shots...all they do is make the background look small,far away,insignificant, and boring.

1-A.) Nikon D850,D810,D800,D610
1-B) Sony: A7R-III, A7R-II
2) There is no 2! Proceed directly to third place.
3.) Canon:5Ds,D5 Mark IV,5D Mark III

Personally, I think m4/3 format is too small and too "square-ish" in aspect ratio for landscapes.

Nikon and Canon have EASY-to-use button controls and wheels and menus...SONY, less so.

As far as "Saving money"...honestly, right now, today, the USED Nikon D800 at $700 is the best overall,total camera value, and the used 24-MP Full-Frame Nikon D610 is about $650 used,and is a FANTASTIC value: 39 AF points, and a fantastic sensor; currently, used Canon 5D-III cameras cost way more than the better-made,better-peforming D800, and used Canon 5D Mark II models cost way more than the better-shooting, much better-sensored, used D610 bodies. Right now, Canon is vastly over-priced in the used market, IMHO.

Nikon and Sony have astounding dynamic range and ISO invariability, which Canon does not have in the cameras above that I listed. If you know the Canon 40D, the $650 Nikon D610 will blow you away with its image quality.

Look into 14mm full-frame lenses from Samyang or Bower, and a used Nikon full-frame body for landscapes and night-time star work. Nikon and Sony have the incredible ISO performance you seek...Canon...much less-so.

Nikon has five decades' worth of used lenses available in F-mount. Sony has almost nothing.

 

[chuasam]

Olympus EM10 II with a used 7-14mm f/4 (Panasonic or Olympus)

 

[Jeff15]

Panasonic Lumix G9

 

[Compaq]

Panasonic Lumix G9

That is the least helpful reply I have seen in a long time. But thanks for taking the time, I guess.

 

[sergezap]

Pixel shift hires mode on MFT it's a very cool feature for landscape photography, imho!

 

[Compaq]

For landscapes, full frame is unbeatable, in my opinion. YES, UQ lenses for APS-C are cheaper, but FX size sensors go "ultrawide" without the need for aspherical element lens designs, and ultra-wide lenses are more plentiful for FX cameras than for DX sensors. A 14mm on FX is super-wide! A 17mm on FX is quite,quite wide. And-this is the key" ultra-wide angle lenses suck on man y landscape shots...all they do is make the background look small, faraway and boring.

1-A.) Nikon D850,D810,D800,D610
1-B) Sony: A7R-III, A7R-II
3.) Canon:5Ds,D5 Mark IV,5D Mark III

Personally, I think m4/3 format is too small and too "square-ish" in aspect ratio for landscapes...

Nikon and Canon have EASY-to-use button controls and wheels and menus...SONY, less so.

As far as "Saving money"...honestly, right now, today, the USED Nikon D800 at $700 is the best overall,total camera value, and the used 24-MP Full-Frame Nikon D610 us about $650 used,and is a FANTASTIC value: 39 AF points, and a fantastic sensor; currently, used Canon 5D-III cameras cost way more than the better-made,better-peforming D800, and used Canon 5D Mark II models cost way more than the better-shooting, much better-sensored used D610 bodies. Right now, Canon is vastly over-priced in the used market, IMHO.

Nikon and Sony have astounding dynamic range and ISO invariability, which Canon does not have in the cameras above that I listed. if you know the Canon 40D, the $650 Nikon D610 will blow you away with its image quality.

Look into 14mm full-frame lenses from Samyang or Bower, and a used Nikon full-frame body for landscapes and night-time star work. Nikon and Sony have the incredible ISO performance you seek...Canon...much less-so.

Nikon has five decades' worth of used lenses available in F-mount. Sony has almost nothing.

I was hoping you'd see my question and reply, because I always value your insight!

It actually did not occur to me to get these "old" cameras used. While I was originally looking for ultrawide zoom lenses, primes may be the way to go. Better IQ, and a 16mm on FF would probably suit my needs 80% of the time, 15% of the time I could zoom by walking, and cropping the remaining 5% of the time I guess is a small price to pay for a prime at almost half the cost of a good zoom. Looking at a flickr group for the Samyang 16mm f/2, I judge this to plenty sharp for what I will be doing. And that aperture, though; I'll be collecting more light from the galaxies than I know what to do with...

I see several D800's with a shutter count around 20000. This type of camera should handle much, much more, right? Like 100 - 150000?

Now I just need to convince the significant other...

 

[ac12]

One thing to think about is stitching.
I am still very new to it, but it is a way to get a wider angle than with a single lens, so you don't need that ultra-wide.
And the interesting part is you actually GAIN resolution. This is because you are adding the resolution of the stitched frames, though the math is difficult because of the overlap.

Example rather than a single 2,000 x 3,000 (VxH) image, you could have 2,000 x 10,000, made from 4 stitched frames.​

Another idea that I read is to turn the camera to a vertical orientation and stitch.

Example, so a single frame would be 3,000 x 2,000 (VxH), stitched could be 3,000 x 10,000, made from 6 or 7 stitched frames.
​

A tripod with a decent head and a level, will make this easier.
I tried it by hand and my results have always be less than good, primarily because I cannot keep the vertical angle consistent from frame to frame.

 

[ac12]

Yes a D800 with only 20,000 shutter actuations is a young camera.

 

[Compaq]

After a thorough look on the Norwegian used market, I've narrowed it down to two alternatives within my budget :

1. Nikon D800 and Samyang 24/1.4

2. Canon EOS 6D and Canon 17-40/4 L or Canon 24-105/4 IS L

The Canon lenses are common kit lenses with semi pro models, and used they are very affordable, and versatile. On the other hand, the D800 is the superior camera, and used it costs the same as the 6D. So if course I want the D800, but the lens selection seems much more limited, at least on the Norwegian used market. Ideally I would love the D800 with an affordable lens similar to the Canon ones mentioned above, but I cannot find any!

It feels much more rational to go for versatile and quality lenses and a decent (even good) camera. Heck, no one will say that the 6D is a bad camera, considering that I'm used to the old 40D, right?

 

[JonA_CT]

I don’t know. The D800 is a fantastic landscape camera, and the sensor is significantly better than the 6D sensor in pretty much every way.

I’d buy the D800 and use the 24 mm lens until I could find what I wanted. Let me know if you want to see some D800 files. I don’t have a ton of them, but I’d be willing drop box or whatever some landscape work I did so you could see what killer RAW files the D800 captures.

 

[Compaq]

Update, there's a Sigma 24-70/2.8 DG HSM available for Nikon that fits my budget. Perhaps I should go for this one. More versatile than the 24mm prime. It would be quite some time until I can afford another lens, so having a bit of zoom would allow me to vary a bit. And 2.8 at 24mm still allows for good night sky shots, especially with a ISO bumped a bit on the D800.

I wish it was easier to choose!!

 

[JonA_CT]

Update, there's a Sigma 24-70/2.8 DG HSM available for Nikon that fits my budget. Perhaps I should go for this one. More versatile than the 24mm prime. It would be quite some time until I can afford another lens, so having a bit of zoom would allow me to vary a bit. And 2.8 at 24mm still allows for good night sky shots, especially with a ISO bumped a bit on the D800.

I wish it was easier to choose!!

Nah, just buy the Nikon. Long-term, I think you’ll be happier. If I had any desire to have a full-frame camera again, I’d pick up a D800 in a second.

 

[Derrel]

The D800 is a ----significantly better----camera than the 6D, in virtually every metric and specification. The 6D is like a stripped down D600 or D610: the D800 equals or betters the 5D Mark 3. Don't fool yourself. This is an easy choice. D800.

 

[Compaq]

The D800 is a ----significantly better----camera than the 6D, in virtually every metric and specification. The 6D is like a stripped down D600 or D610: the D800 equals or betters the 5D Mark 3. Don't fool yourself. This is an easy choice. D800.

Then I'd probably get the Sigma 12-24/4-5.6, and save up for the Samyang and get it closer to the winter. I feel like I'm sacrificing lens quality over body quality, which goes against my principles..