Switching from Nikon, Budget of approximately 3k, looking for recommendations.

[gryffinwings]

Hi guys, I am in the process of figuring out what camera and lens I want to get. I'm wanting something that is good at a bit of everything, landscape, street photography, photographing my kid, and maybe some wildlife photography.

My current thought is that it's the perfect time to convert to another brand as not much in my current kit carries over if I were to go with the Nikon Z system.

My current camera is a Nikon D7100 with the Nikkor 16-85mm and Nikkor 80-200mm f2.8D (which needs an in camera focus motor).

Since my budget is approximately 3K, and not much over, I am currently looking at getting Canon EOS R6 and the Canon RF 24-105mm f4 L. I'm also considering just getting EF glass with an adapter to get more for my money, but I am unsure what I should do.

Appreciate any recommendations.

 

[ac12]

To me, the BIG question is WHAT wildlife?
Because LONG lenses can get EXPENSIVE fast. And FAST LONG lenses get even more EXPENSIVE.
Example, a 400/2.8 will blow your budget, by itself. Used at KEH, over $4K.

Look at them ALL: Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus/OMDS
Some of it will have to be "hands on." I know people who have used Sony and swear by it. But I also know people who swear AT the Sony.

The 24-105 or 24-120 is probably my favorite FF GP lens.

Look at what lenses you think you want, and what is available for those cameras, and at what price.

Canon has apparently slammed the door on 3rd party lens companies making autofocus RF lenses.
So, no 3rd party RF lenses. For 3rd party, you have use EF lenses via the EF to RF adapter.

As I understand the new Canon RF and Nikon Z lenses are better than the old Canon EF and Nikon F lenses.
So will you end up buying twice, first the EF lens, then upgrade to the RF lens?

A system change is expensive.

What about a Nikon D7500 (DX), or D780 (FX), or even an older D810 (FX). All three have in-body AF motor.

 

[Strodav]

Start by asking yourself what about your current gear doesn't let you take the photos you want to take? I have a D7200 and I still love to use it for general purpose photography even though I have a D500, D850 and Z9. With that said, the biggest advantages I have found to mirrorless is size and weight, IBIS and EVF. IBIS really does up my keeper rate because it all but eliminates camera shake and EVF all but eliminates exposure errors.

To keep costs down, go with a mirrorless aps-c sensor and, right now, Canon has the best offerings in this area. Look at the R6 II, R7, and R10, but it looks like the R7 would fit your needs and budget.

 

[gryffinwings]

To me, the BIG question is WHAT wildlife?
Because LONG lenses can get EXPENSIVE fast. And FAST LONG lenses get even more EXPENSIVE.
Example, a 400/2.8 will blow your budget, by itself. Used at KEH, over $4K.

Look at them ALL: Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus/OMDS
Some of it will have to be "hands on." I know people who have used Sony and swear by it. But I also know people who swear AT the Sony.

The 24-105 or 24-120 is probably my favorite FF GP lens.

Look at what lenses you think you want, and what is available for those cameras, and at what price.

Canon has apparently slammed the door on 3rd party lens companies making autofocus RF lenses.
So, no 3rd party RF lenses. For 3rd party, you have use EF lenses via the EF to RF adapter.

As I understand the new Canon RF and Nikon Z lenses are better than the old Canon EF and Nikon F lenses.
So will you end up buying twice, first the EF lens, then upgrade to the RF lens?

A system change is expensive.

What about a Nikon D7500 (DX), or D780 (FX), or even an older D810 (FX). All three have in-body AF motor.

Land based wild life is what I'll likely be doing, maybe birds on occasion. So I would be considering a Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM at some point, I don't mind putting off that purchase for a little bit.

I'm not considering DSLRs because it's a now a dead end.

Start by asking yourself what about your current gear doesn't let you take the photos you want to take? I have a D7200 and I still love to use it for general purpose photography even though I have a D500, D850 and Z9. With that said, the biggest advantages I have found to mirrorless is size and weight, IBIS and EVF. IBIS really does up my keeper rate because it all but eliminates camera shake and EVF all but eliminates exposure errors.

To keep costs down, go with a mirrorless aps-c sensor and, right now, Canon has the best offerings in this area. Look at the R6 II, R7, and R10, but it looks like the R7 would fit your needs and budget.

My camera reacts too slow for what I want it to do, so I'm wanting to upgrade to Canon R6, I'm not considering APSC because I tend to find myself in low light or more difficult lighting situations that my camera can't cope with. I intend to probably just get the R6 and RF 24-105mm and then add some EF glass to the mix, as it will be more affordable, later.

These are on my list to get eventually:
Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM

 

[JoeW]

It's been my experience that Canon and Nikon are so different ergonomically that Canon users pick up a Nikon and go "ugh" and Nikon users pick up a Canon and go "meh." This is absolutely something you need to by getting your hands on stuff, testing how it feels, how intuitive it seems to you.

I think the far more crucial issue isn't the body, it's the lens. Depending upon what type of birds you shoot, 400mm may be too skimpy (like Bald Eagles or other raptors). I'd be clear on the glass first, and then see what system offers those options within your price points.

I get your point about DSLR's not being the future of the camera industry. Which is why there are bargains to be had. Frankly, given the issues you have with your D7200 (about focus speed), what I'd recommend is another DSLR: the Nikon D500. Superb focus, good FPS, excellent ISO range, perfect for shooting wildlife. And you can get it on-sale now (new). And if you stay with Nikon, then an FTZ adaptor and those lens will work for the mirrorless you ultimately upgrade to in 2-5 years.

Personally, I think for wildlife photographers, you want two bodies. One with your long glass, another with shorter range or landscape/wide angle capabilities. That's why I suggested the D500--because your D7200 then becomes the second camera with the wide angle lens on it.

And if you think it's a mistake to buy a DSLR now rather than a mirrorless, I think mirrorless is changing so quickly than any serious photographer who buys a mirrorless body that isn't a Z9 or an R3 now will be upgrading in 2-3 years anyway.

 

[cgw]

Look at Fuji. The X-Tx series for a MILC and the X-100x series for a fixed-lens go-anywhere camera. Don't be shy about considering trailing edge cameras--new or used. New stuff rarely delivers better than incremental improvements at considerable expense. Spend the savings on glass--my MO across several systems.

 

[ac12]

Land based wild life is what I'll likely be doing, maybe birds on occasion. So I would be considering a Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM at some point, I don't mind putting off that purchase for a little bit.

I'm not considering DSLRs because it's a now a dead end.


My camera reacts too slow for what I want it to do, so I'm wanting to upgrade to Canon R6, I'm not considering APSC because I tend to find myself in low light or more difficult lighting situations that my camera can't cope with. I intend to probably just get the R6 and RF 24-105mm and then add some EF glass to the mix, as it will be more affordable, later.

These are on my list to get eventually:
Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM

Birds can be SMALL.
Depending on small and how far away, the 400 could still be too short.

There is a guy on the micro 4/3 forum who uses a 100-400 to shoot birds. That would be equivalent to a 200-800 on a FF camera.

Try this trick.
Put the 80-200 on your D7100. Set to 200 and look at a bird about the size you think you will be shooting, at about the distance you think you will be shooting.
Full frame = 300mm on a FF camera.
A quarter of the frame = 600mm on a FF camera.

 

[gryffinwings]

It's been my experience that Canon and Nikon are so different ergonomically that Canon users pick up a Nikon and go "ugh" and Nikon users pick up a Canon and go "meh." This is absolutely something you need to by getting your hands on stuff, testing how it feels, how intuitive it seems to you.

I think the far more crucial issue isn't the body, it's the lens. Depending upon what type of birds you shoot, 400mm may be too skimpy (like Bald Eagles or other raptors). I'd be clear on the glass first, and then see what system offers those options within your price points.

I get your point about DSLR's not being the future of the camera industry. Which is why there are bargains to be had. Frankly, given the issues you have with your D7200 (about focus speed), what I'd recommend is another DSLR: the Nikon D500. Superb focus, good FPS, excellent ISO range, perfect for shooting wildlife. And you can get it on-sale now (new). And if you stay with Nikon, then an FTZ adaptor and those lens will work for the mirrorless you ultimately upgrade to in 2-5 years.

Personally, I think for wildlife photographers, you want two bodies. One with your long glass, another with shorter range or landscape/wide angle capabilities. That's why I suggested the D500--because your D7200 then becomes the second camera with the wide angle lens on it.

And if you think it's a mistake to buy a DSLR now rather than a mirrorless, I think mirrorless is changing so quickly than any serious photographer who buys a mirrorless body that isn't a Z9 or an R3 now will be upgrading in 2-3 years anyway.

BTW, I have a D7100, not a D7100, very different sensors, and I think the ISO sensitivity is worse on mine than the D7200. Also, I don't want to deal with having 2 cameras, I don't care to lug that much gear and weight around, if I need to switch lens, that's fine, all of a matter of good planning and flexibility. It's not like I am a professional looking to sell my wares. I do photography for myself and family.

Look at Fuji. The X-Tx series for a MILC and the X-100x series for a fixed-lens go-anywhere camera. Don't be shy about considering trailing edge cameras--new or used. New stuff rarely delivers better than incremental improvements at considerable expense. Spend the savings on glass--my MO across several systems.

Birds can be SMALL.
Depending on small and how far away, the 400 could still be too short.

There is a guy on the micro 4/3 forum who uses a 100-400 to shoot birds. That would be equivalent to a 200-800 on a FF camera.

Try this trick.
Put the 80-200 on your D7100. Set to 200 and look at a bird about the size you think you will be shooting, at about the distance you think you will be shooting.
Full frame = 300mm on a FF camera.
A quarter of the frame = 600mm on a FF camera.

I think I need to put into some perspective into my use case, as I think we are getting hung up on bird photography here.

Here are my priorities in order:
1. Shooting pictures of people, especially family, indoor, outdoor, difficult lighting situations, and kids.
2. Street Photography.
3. Landscape.
4. Land based wild life.
5. Birds if the opportunity presents itself. This will be more a function of the lens than the body.

Anyways, I must also point out that I have had my hands on a Canon 7D Mark II, and I have to say I liked how it felt in hand, so this is a non-issue from my point of view. However, it would be worth maybe taking a look at. To be honest, it would be something to get used to, adapting to new things is something I'm used to dealing with.

Again, I'm not interested in going with another APS-C system, I really want something that can handle low light situations so the Nikon D500 isn't really a logical choice for me. Sure it could use my current batteries and lens, but I would still be stuck with the slow lens that I have:

NIKKOR 16–85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR - This one is slow because of Aperture.
NIKKOR 80-200mm f/2.8D ED - This one is slow because it's a screw drive auto focus setup. Much higher end cameras need to focus this one quickly. Which I do not want to do, because I want to go mirrorless and it wouldn't be supported anyways.

 

[cgw]

Maybe TPF needs a "What Should I Buy" form given the volume of such requests? Better still, some preliminary research on the OP's part seems preferable to this "20 Questions" format.

 

[John 2]

I jumped from the D7100 to Fuji X-T series purely on the basis that I went into my retailer and handled a few cameras to see which felt right in my hands. My experience since has been wholly positive and my interests span the genre you have listed above.. The only other comment I would make is that having started out using Fuji's superlative prime lenses, I have finally ended up with three of their equally excellent zooms that cover the range of focal lengths that I use without any loss of quality. Less to carry. More flexibility. The only prime I now use is their superb 80mm f2.8 macro which doubles as a portrait lens.

 

[Strodav]

Land based wild life is what I'll likely be doing, maybe birds on occasion. So I would be considering a Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM at some point, I don't mind putting off that purchase for a little bit.

I'm not considering DSLRs because it's a now a dead end.


My camera reacts too slow for what I want it to do, so I'm wanting to upgrade to Canon R6, I'm not considering APSC because I tend to find myself in low light or more difficult lighting situations that my camera can't cope with. I intend to probably just get the R6 and RF 24-105mm and then add some EF glass to the mix, as it will be more affordable, later.

These are on my list to get eventually:
Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM

Don't let the FF low light stuff fool you. Take a look at this video:

 

[JoeW]

BTW, I have a D7100, not a D7100, very different sensors, and I think the ISO sensitivity is worse on mine than the D7200. Also, I don't want to deal with having 2 cameras, I don't care to lug that much gear and weight around, if I need to switch lens, that's fine, all of a matter of good planning and flexibility. It's not like I am a professional looking to sell my wares. I do photography for myself and family.




I think I need to put into some perspective into my use case, as I think we are getting hung up on bird photography here.

Here are my priorities in order:
1. Shooting pictures of people, especially family, indoor, outdoor, difficult lighting situations, and kids.
2. Street Photography.
3. Landscape.
4. Land based wild life.
5. Birds if the opportunity presents itself. This will be more a function of the lens than the body.

Anyways, I must also point out that I have had my hands on a Canon 7D Mark II, and I have to say I liked how it felt in hand, so this is a non-issue from my point of view. However, it would be worth maybe taking a look at. To be honest, it would be something to get used to, adapting to new things is something I'm used to dealing with.

Again, I'm not interested in going with another APS-C system, I really want something that can handle low light situations so the Nikon D500 isn't really a logical choice for me. Sure it could use my current batteries and lens, but I would still be stuck with the slow lens that I have:

NIKKOR 16–85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR - This one is slow because of Aperture.
NIKKOR 80-200mm f/2.8D ED - This one is slow because it's a screw drive auto focus setup. Much higher end cameras need to focus this one quickly. Which I do not want to do, because I want to go mirrorless and it wouldn't be supported anyways.

First, that you've handled a Canon and have a sense of the menu system matters--so that's good.

Second, for a lot of informal shooting situation indoors a full-frame mirrorless makes sense. Now, a complicating factor might be if the camera you're looking at as a popup flash. I rarely use mine (mostly for the Nikon Commander series to trigger off-camera speed lights) but for candids indoors it's a useful fill.

Third, I get you don't want to lug around 2 cameras--and you shouldn't. But for serious wildlife expeditions (when you take a 90 minute drive to go shoot Bald Eagles at Conowingo, or go on Safari in Africa. Or go to a nesting grounds on the Eastern Shore.) you'll benefit from having two bodies.

Given that you don't want to continue to use any of your existing lens, I'd still push my initial advice. Pick the lens you need first. For wildlife, you need a minimum of 200mm and more likely 400mm. Price out those lens for a Canon, Sony, and Nikon. Add in a fast wide angle (for landscapes but mostly shooting indoors). And then that tells you how much of your $3,000 you have left to play with for a body.

 

[gryffinwings]

Don't let the FF low light stuff fool you. Take a look at this video:

I think this is probably a better representation of what we are talking about, Full Frame vs APSC.

 

[MitchP]

FWIW, I'm in the process of doing almost the exact same thing. I had bought a little R10 just as a toy to see what the AF was all about. Wow! I was blown away! This is almost the bottom of the Canon R line and the AF was amazing! I researched, planned, schemed and decided to go "all in" on Canon RF. I know they stopped 3rd party AF lenses, which is a bummer. But the eerie, spooky goodness of the the Subject detection and tracking for wildlife over rode those concerns.

So... I sold my D850 and Z6 to get a Canon R6 Mark II, which I'm still waiting on being delivered. I plan on scheming how to get a R5 Mark II when it is released. The new Canon stuff is that good for what I do - wildlife photography. The little crop sensor R10 is my single camera at the moment (until I take delivery of my R6 Mark II), and don't feel handicapped at all. I'm really enjoying it, and the IQ is great.

I've always split my time between Nikon and Canon, with a preference for Nikon. So I'm already familiar with the Canon world and have a fair amount of Canon glass.

 

[beagle100]

FWIW, I'm in the process of doing almost the exact same thing. I had bought a little R10 just as a toy to see what the AF was all about. Wow! I was blown away! This is almost the bottom of the Canon R line and the AF was amazing! I researched, planned, schemed and decided to go "all in" on Canon RF. I know they stopped 3rd party AF lenses, which is a bummer. But the eerie, spooky goodness of the the Subject detection and tracking for wildlife over rode those concerns.

So... I sold my D850 and Z6 to get a Canon R6 Mark II, which I'm still waiting on being delivered. I plan on scheming how to get a R5 Mark II when it is released. The new Canon stuff is that good for what I do - wildlife photography. The little crop sensor R10 is my single camera at the moment (until I take delivery of my R6 Mark II), and don't feel handicapped at all. I'm really enjoying it, and the IQ is great.

I've always split my time between Nikon and Canon, with a preference for Nikon. So I'm already familiar with the Canon world and have a fair amount of Canon glass.

all the newer mirrorless models have significanty better AF, makes the BIF shots stupid easy !