Help me choose a new camera system!

RichardC27

RichardC27

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,839
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
I will be shortly be receiving an amount of inheritance money, and I've decided a good use for this would be updating my currently ancient photo equipment setup. My current setup is a Canon EOS 80D, a 14 year old Sigma 120-400mm, and a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 lens. I mainly shoot motorsport, and the camera doesn't really get much use outside of that. But, I feel like I don't use it because neither of my lenses are that great, so I'm not willing to carry around a big camera all day for mediocre results I'm not happy with. With a smaller / better quality system (or both), I feel like I'd use the camera more, and be more willing to take it with me on days out, holiday etc.

I have a net budget of around £3.5- £4k, obviously the lower the better! I have only ever shot a Canon DSLR, but I am looking to change my entire setup so I am open to any manufacturer and system. I'm discounting another DSLR as I don't see the point in investing cash into dead / soon to be dead camera systems at this point.

My three main choices are:

Sony - A7IV body, Tamron 27-75mm f/2,8 G2 and Sony 200-600mm Or Tamron 150-500mm lenses. This is within budget once the value of my current gear is taken into account, and gives me a full frame camera with two great lenses for motorsport and general photography. The Sony system is probably the most mature at this point with the greatest choice of lenses from several manufacturers. From doing my research Sony's AF system is great, especially for sports photography.

Canon EOS R6, Canon 24-105mm f/4 and Canon RF 100-500mm lenses. This combo is quite a bit more expensive than the Sony setup given above, for a lower resolution but higher FPS camera. The camera would be familiar to me due to having used Canon exclusively to this point, The Canon is also a much bigger camera than the Sony, which is good for ergonomics but bad for me wanting to carry it around with me. The RF system is also nowhere near as mature as the Sony, although I know you can adapt EF lenses onto the Canon mirrorless cameras without too much trouble.

Fuji X-T4, Fuji 16-55mm f/2.8 and Fuji 70-300mm lenses. A bit of a curveball this, but I have borrowed a Fuji camera to shoot motorsport before and think I would like it with more time to learn how the camera works. This system is also well over £1000 cheaper than either of the two mentioned above, with a more portable camera body. Downsides are the APS-C sensor, compared to FF for the other two, and a lack of lens options for the motorsport side of things. I have used the Fuji 100-400mm lens and wasn't that impressed. Also have read that the Fuji AF system can struggle with fast action, which isn't a problem for the Canon or Sony. Although saying that, I never had a problem with it from my brief use of an X-T3 to shoot motorsport, so this maybe isn't such a huge issue.

I'm not interested in Micro 4/3rds, the sensors are too small and I've discounted Nikon as well due to a lack of suitable lenses and the cost of the system. So, does anyone have any thoughts on the above? Any further suggestions? In my head I've discounted the Canon for cost. The Sony system is the sensible choice, but the Fuji system has always appealed to me, and Fuji images do have a certain look which is difficult to replicate, and that I really like. But, given I can afford a Full Frame system, surely I'd be mad not to jump in while I have the chance?
 
Last edited:
I just thought I'd annoy and irritate you by saying that if you've been using a Canon 80D a recent MFT camera could possibly offer you a real step up in image quality.

There. I've said it! Sorry! :D

Honestly though, it's obviously up to you but one thing I like to do is start at the end product (the picture and the image quality and of course how it will be displayed and viewed) and work back from that to decide the kit and the settings and if MFT can't give you what you want then fair enough.
 
woof woof said:
if you've been using a Canon 80D a recent MFT camera could possibly offer you a real step up in image quality.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Adamcski said:
No issues with my G9 here
Click to expand...
...and again.

The current generation of M43 cameras are well worth considering on a cost performance basis. My advice is more or less objective, in that I also use Nikon full frame and Sony APS.
 
The sony is the obvious one to me from your set, except given your criteria I'd have headed directly to M43 as having lowest weight and best stabilisation to aid panning shots at lower shutter speeds.
 
Fuji X-S10?
 
another firm believer in MFT here to .. do NOT trust posts about small sensor size etc its a myth if I didn't post what camera/lens I took my shots with no one would know . check out photos in the olympus section in this part of the forum then come back and explain why the sensors are to small ?
 
Same here for micro 4/3. Happybowner of a Lumix G9 and kit (also got the R5 and kit, but personally I prefer the g9)
 
If you’re really concerned about weight, then an MFT system is the way to go.

But anyone saying that there’s ‘no difference’ between MFT and crop or FF is simply denying physics. It’s literally flat earth levels of ‘anti science’.

But back to your choices, I don’t understand some of your remarks on Canon v Sony, the fact that Sony’s AF system is older than Canon’s is really irrelevant, it would be relevant if it meant the canon AF system is 2nd rate. But it isn’t.

2ndly the EF lenses don’t ‘adapt without too much trouble’. They fit via an adaptor, and in many cases actually work better on the R cameras than they do on DSLR’s.

If I was buying a camera just for motorsport, then AF would be my primary concern, and I really don’t know how good the AF is on the latest Fuji or MFT contenders. And that would be my question to other users.

Cos it really doesn’t matter if a hobby landscape shooter or a wedding photographer is happy with their Fuji or MFT kit, what’s it like for motorsport compared to Sony and Canon (or indeed Nikon).
 
It might help to take advantage of the test drive that Canon offers and the Olympus Test and Wow. I know people whoo swear by all of the systems that you mention, including Nikon and Olympus. There are no bad systems these days especially with the names that you have listed. Have a look at Mike Inkley for motorsport - he had to switch from a FF set up when he was hit by a vehicle when out on his bicycle. Andy Rouse has been a Nikon and a Canon ambassador and now he uses Olympus... yes, I know he is not everybody's cup of tea but he gets decent photographs with whatever he uses. I have Canon and Olympus systems. I know another very skilled nature photographer. who runs both and achieves fabulous images with both. What will you do with the images: print - how big? Screen? Books? Good luck with your decision; given that it is a unique opportunity, hopefully you can take your time.
 
RichardC27 said:
I'm not interested in Micro 4/3rds, the sensors are too small
Click to expand...

I guess you should qualify that. Too small for what purpose. You may be entirely correct but who knows?

It was almost inevitable people would start recommending m43 after that ;).
 
OH has R6 and RF100-500 and likes it....

The lens is leap years ahead of the Sigma 120-400, and it takes an extender but you are already talking about f9.5 aperture which to me is a bit of a snag.
 
I guess I asked for the MFT contingent to come on the thread after my initial post! I've nothing against MFT, and if I was looking for a pure travel camera I'd be looking for something from that system. But the sensor is too small, with all of the DoF, noise and resolution issues that brings. As mentioned above, you can't beat physics, and I'm unwilling to spend a few grand for a smaller sensor. Again, nothing against the system or the images it can create but it's not for me.

I think more has been made of the AF issue than I perhaps intended as well, I'd imagine any of the systems I've mentioned will run rings around a 14 year old lens on an APSC DSLR body so anything will be a step up. Interesting replies though and nice to see different thoughts on this.

The Sony I think is the obvious choice, but doing the sums that package is £1400 more than the Fuji choices I listed, and I'm not sure it's £1400 better. But the Sony would give me more reach and much nicer Bokeh for non panning shots.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
If you’re really concerned about weight, then an MFT system is the way to go.

But anyone saying that there’s ‘no difference’ between MFT and crop or FF is simply denying physics. It’s literally flat earth levels of ‘anti science’.

But back to your choices, I don’t understand some of your remarks on Canon v Sony, the fact that Sony’s AF system is older than Canon’s is really irrelevant, it would be relevant if it meant the canon AF system is 2nd rate. But it isn’t.

2ndly the EF lenses don’t ‘adapt without too much trouble’. They fit via an adaptor, and in many cases actually work better on the R cameras than they do on DSLR’s.

If I was buying a camera just for motorsport, then AF would be my primary concern, and I really don’t know how good the AF is on the latest Fuji or MFT contenders. And that would be my question to other users.

Cos it really doesn’t matter if a hobby landscape shooter or a wedding photographer is happy with their Fuji or MFT kit, what’s it like for motorsport compared to Sony and Canon (or indeed Nikon).
Click to expand...
This...
 
IIRC there's a motorsport photography business owner on the forum and his team use Fujis. Maybe @G.K.Jnr. could help?
 
sphexx said:
I guess you should qualify that. Too small for what purpose. You may be entirely correct but who knows?

It was almost inevitable people would start recommending m43 after that ;).
Click to expand...

As I was the first I feel the need to say that I didn't suggest MFT for devilment, I did it with the genuine suspicion that the newer MFT kit might actually offer better IQ than a rather old Canon APS-C DSLR as Canon were arguably behind the curve for quite some time.

Phils comment about focus ability is very relevant and I can't comment on what's needed for motorsport.
 
Look I use a olympus 1-mkiii and do wildlife with it if it can keep up with b.i.f and give pin sharp images then it’s not a problem .i do feel your biase is about 10 years behind the times and current products . I can even get b.i.f with a manual focus 300mm Nikon lens on the camera .
Price wise your looking at the same body as mine for just over 1K new and there are tons of lenses all light and cheap to and even if you go for the latest OM1 body it’s only 2k with 5 year warranty and that’s as fast to AF as a Sony A1 .

Weight wise my camera and a 100-400 lens (2x crop ) so double the reach weights in all up at exactly 2kg . Fully weather/water resistant , so no covers needed and with up to 7 stops of i.b.I.s ,not used my tripod in three years
 
I know I'm going to be shot down in flames, but ... looking through your Flickr album and the level of photography you are at, will thousands of pounds spent on another set up actually improve the high level already achieved? Think it's called GAS.
Awaits angry responses.
 
Mozziephotography said:
I know I'm going to be shot down in flames, but ... looking through your Flickr album and the level of photography you are at, will thousands of pounds spent on another set up actually improve the high level already achieved? Think it's called GAS.
Awaits angry responses.
Click to expand...
It’s a puzzle. But I’m not sure he said the change was to improve his motorsport snaps but to encourage him to do other work. I guess the answer to that is to splash out on some other camera or system for the other stuff, whatever it is is — it wasn’t specified.
 
RichardC27 said:
... I'm not willing to carry around a big camera all day for mediocre results I'm not happy with.
Click to expand...

This was the problem that I was faced with. I have a slipped disk and cannot carry heavy weights for very far.


RichardC27 said:
I'm not interested in Micro 4/3rds, the sensors are too small
Click to expand...

I felt exactly the same. However, I came to the conclusion that potentially inferior results were going to be better than no results at all.

I know that the smaller pixels must have a poorer s/n ratio than a full frame sensor where each pixel collects 4 times as many photons, However I am collecting about 100 times more photos.

The weight difference is not in the camera, it is in the lenses.
 
The important thing to remember about sensor size is that, for several years, design and fabrication has been at a level where only very specialised applications are going to stress most sensors.

There will always be people who claim that such and such is technically impossible but the history of technology is littered with the bodies of such foolish claims.
 
I have been a little confused about MFT as some of the replies here didn't make any sense...then I looked it up and now find that MFT stands for Micro Four Thirds, not medium format. Oops, silly me
 
yzfmike said:
What on Earth does this mean?
Click to expand...
I think he means that you will not see a pro togger using a micro 2/3rds camera. Look at all the cameras behind the goals at Footy matches / Rugby / Golf and so on, they all use Canon or Nikon bodies and lenses.
 
yzfmike said:
What on Earth does this mean?
Click to expand...
It’s bovine excrement.

If we’re using the same physical process, with the same generation of light gathering media, then any 13 yr old can explain how larger amount of data = a more accurate recording.
 
@RichardC27 great pics with your current kit, so why not keep that for motorsport? That leaves something smaller / better for days out or holidays. MFT might well be a good option for that? If it was me, I would keep the 80D rather than sell and add the R6 with the 24-105 you mention (or maybe the 24-240?).
 
Nikon f1.8 said:
I think he means that you will not see a pro togger using a micro 2/3rds camera. Look at all the cameras behind the goals at Footy matches / Rugby / Golf and so on, they all use Canon or Nikon bodies and lenses.
Click to expand...
If I were a pro photographer doing football matches, then I would definitely go full frame. On dull days where there isn't a lot of light, then there would be a discernable difference. In this scenario, the weight and size of the equipment isn't that important. If you are getting paid to do a job, then you have to do it whatever the weather.

However, if I am going out for a walk in the countryside and I don't know what I am going to see, then the FF system would stay in the car. The MFT camera is around my neck with the equivalent of a 300mm F5.5 lens. The combination is less than 1Kg, and I can hang it off my neck all afternoon.

The OP said that carrying around a heavy camera all day wasn't an option. That is exactly the same position that I was in.
Sure, I *could* probably take higher quality images with a FF, but the reality is that I wouldn't take any images at all.
 
the Sony 200-600 isn't a light Lens if weight is a concern the canon rf 100-500 is lighter
I had a quick try of the Sony a74 last night its a very nice camera af is very fast . low light performance was very good
if low light performance is a requirement then full Frame is the way to go, the Sony lens is a cracking Lens as is the canon and no difference in sharpness if YouTube videos are to trusted.
 
yzfmike said:
What on Earth does this mean?
Click to expand...
Almost any job can be done with almost any current sensor.

My guess is that there are more than a billion pictures made every day now. A vanishingly small minority of those anyone comes across will be made on a sensor larger than 8,8mm x 6.6mm (1/2.3). Given that most of those images will be made using a phone camera, it's likely that they'll be made on 7.6mm x 5.7mm (1/1.7) sensors.
 
I thought this would generate an interesting discussion and I wasn't wrong, thank you for all your replies.

Weight isn't really an issue either, especially for motorsport. I do handhold my current 120-400 lens, the Sony 200-600 would require a monopod, but that's fine and not something I'd have a problem with. The point about weight I was (badly) trying to make in my first post is that the IQ delivered by my current setup doesn't make it worth carrying a DSLR around on days out, or taking it on holiday for example. A more modern camera with better lenses would lead to better IQ, and I'd be more willing to take it as the images would be worth it. The Sony and Fuji bodies are somewhat smaller than my Canon 80D, although once an f/2.8 zoom lens has been mounted I doubt there's much in it for real world use. The R6 is about the same size as an 80D, give or take.

Interesting that a couple of you have said the motorsport stuff I'm getting with my current setup is fine, which is very kind, but I can pick holes in most of my images all day long. There is a lot of heavy lifting done in LR to get the shots to look ok for web use, but look at them full screen on a monitor and there are all sorts of issues with sharpness, clarity and contrast. The Sigma 120-400 wasn't noted for its outstanding sharpness when it was new back in 2008, and nearly 14 years of use have done nothing to help with that. It also doesn't have some nice to have things like a focus limiter, which makes shooting through the fence at race circuits much easier.

There is definitely an element of GAS to this, I'll freely admit that. I will have the cash to invest in a new system, and nothing else the money is desperately needed for so why not? I've had my current camera body for over 5 years and put almost 70k images through it in that time, and as above I've had my big lens since 2008.

Now, many people would say spending several thousand pounds to get images with a bit better sharpness and contrast is a bit silly, which I suppose it is in the grand scheme of things, but we're all here because we enjoy photography and investing in your hobby isn't a bad thing.
 
RichardC27 said:
Now, many people would say spending several thousand pounds to get images with a bit better sharpness and contrast is a bit silly, which I suppose it is in the grand scheme of things, but we're all here because we enjoy photography and investing in your hobby isn't a bad thing.
Click to expand...

It's interesting that you say this as these things very likely wouldn't cross my mind. I'd would care about DR and noise though.

Initially, one big attraction for me for mirrorless was the saving in bulk and weight as mirrorless can offer real reductions in size and weight for me. After buying into mirrorless I then found other advantages over DSLR's such as being able to see the exposure and DoF before taking the picture, being able to accurately and consistently focus anywhere in the frame, the ease and accuracy of manual focus (if you have the time) and then the advantages of face or eye detect which are IMO real game changers when taking pictures of people as you can concentrate on composing the picture and capturing the moment with your subjects face anywhere in the frame. With a DSLR you'd have to move the focus point and have your subjects face in the central area where the focus point are or focus and recompose. I'd never go back to a DSLR now and I really value the extra things that mirrorless brings.

Just something more to think about. Good luck choosing :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
It's interesting that you say this as these things very likely wouldn't cross my mind. I'd would care about DR and noise though.

Initially, one big attraction for me for mirrorless was the saving in bulk and weight as mirrorless can offer real reductions in size and weight for me. After buying into mirrorless I then found other advantages over DSLR's such as being able to see the exposure and DoF before taking the picture, being able to accurately and consistently focus anywhere in the frame, the ease and accuracy of manual focus (if you have the time) and then the advantages of face or eye detect which are IMO real game changers when taking pictures of people as you can concentrate on composing the picture and capturing the moment with your subjects face anywhere in the frame. With a DSLR you'd have to move the focus point and have your subjects face in the central area where the focus point are or focus and recompose. I'd never go back to a DSLR now and I really value the extra things that mirrorless brings.

Just something more to think about. Good luck choosing :D
Click to expand...

Well yes, these are all valid points also. The Eye AF and tracking I know will be a huge jump in capabilities from what I have now, and again make it likely for me to use the camera in more situations and take it with me for more than just motorsport shooting.
 
RichardC27 said:
Well yes, these are all valid points also. The Eye AF and tracking I know will be a huge jump in capabilities from what I have now, and again make it likely for me to use the camera in more situations and take it with me for more than just motorsport shooting.
Click to expand...
If you want to spend your money on a particular camera, then in my opinion you should do so. If nothing else it means that you'll keep the dealer in business, which is generally a good thing for us all. :naughty:
 
RichardC27 said:
I thought this would generate an interesting discussion and I wasn't wrong, thank you for all your replies.

Weight isn't really an issue either, especially for motorsport. I do handhold my current 120-400 lens, the Sony 200-600 would require a monopod, but that's fine and not something I'd have a problem with. The point about weight I was (badly) trying to make in my first post is that the IQ delivered by my current setup doesn't make it worth carrying a DSLR around on days out, or taking it on holiday for example. A more modern camera with better lenses would lead to better IQ, and I'd be more willing to take it as the images would be worth it. The Sony and Fuji bodies are somewhat smaller than my Canon 80D, although once an f/2.8 zoom lens has been mounted I doubt there's much in it for real world use. The R6 is about the same size as an 80D, give or take.

Interesting that a couple of you have said the motorsport stuff I'm getting with my current setup is fine, which is very kind, but I can pick holes in most of my images all day long. There is a lot of heavy lifting done in LR to get the shots to look ok for web use, but look at them full screen on a monitor and there are all sorts of issues with sharpness, clarity and contrast. The Sigma 120-400 wasn't noted for its outstanding sharpness when it was new back in 2008, and nearly 14 years of use have done nothing to help with that. It also doesn't have some nice to have things like a focus limiter, which makes shooting through the fence at race circuits much easier.

There is definitely an element of GAS to this, I'll freely admit that. I will have the cash to invest in a new system, and nothing else the money is desperately needed for so why not? I've had my current camera body for over 5 years and put almost 70k images through it in that time, and as above I've had my big lens since 2008.

Now, many people would say spending several thousand pounds to get images with a bit better sharpness and contrast is a bit silly, which I suppose it is in the grand scheme of things, but we're all here because we enjoy photography and investing in your hobby isn't a bad thing.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the extra info. I've stuck with canon for events and sports due to familiarity with the controls so I would go for the R6 with the lenses you picked, possibly R5 if you want to print big. They have the same AF system including "vehicle" for motorsports. As elsewhere, Canon have a try before you buy offer. I'm sure they others will work well too, it will just take longer to learn the menus and controls.
 
Here's my ha'porth. You obviously have some pretty strong prejudices based on reading about MFT, the level of strongly held views shows that you are far from alone, and as Phil points out and you seem to know there is some basic physics underpinning the difference. But notice that there seem to be very few who say "I tried MFT and everything I'd imagined was true", although obviously not everyone gets on with it.

Those basic physics differences? If weight and bulk is important, then MFT is an obvious front runner.

How about this. Buy yourself an MFT, maybe even secondhand, EM5 II ? Add a couple of lenses depending on what you want, I'd say the 12-45 pro for a walkabout, maybe the 17 1.8 if you wanted to try street, and the basic 75-300 (150-600 equivalent) for the lols, the whole lot would be less than £1K Try it, if you don't like it you can sell on for not much loss, if you like it you can keep them as back up for the start of a system. Of course, that won't give you the kit to get the results you are looking for but using it for a few months will give you a good idea of capabilities and whether you like it.

What have you got to lose except your prejudices?
 
Ham said:
How about this. Buy yourself an MFT, maybe even secondhand, EM5 II ? Add a couple of lenses depending on what you want, I'd say the 12-45 pro for a walkabout, maybe the 17 1.8 if you wanted to try street, and the basic 75-300 (150-600 equivalent) for the lols, the whole lot would be less than £1K Try it, if you don't like it you can sell on for not much loss, if you like it you can keep them as back up for the start of a system. Of course, that won't give you the kit to get the results you are looking for but using it for a few months will give you a good idea of capabilities and whether you like it.
Click to expand...

I like your thought process and I use a OMD 5MkII (will be at Oulton this weekend, with it) however I think by spending a couple of more quid and getting a OMD 1 MkII especially with the V3 firmware would be a better choice (currently thinking about one myself) because the software update added most of what the OMD M1X has in AF department including object detection for vehicles etc. :)

If it was me looking to change then I would stick with the Canon system (I use a very old one of these as well) least you have the lens and with an adaptor can use the ones you have with the newer mirrorless body.
 
Last edited:
Ham said:
Here's my ha'porth. You obviously have some pretty strong prejudices based on reading about MFT, the level of strongly held views shows that you are far from alone, and as Phil points out and you seem to know there is some basic physics underpinning the difference. But notice that there seem to be very few who say "I tried MFT and everything I'd imagined was true", although obviously not everyone gets on with it.
Click to expand...

My first post above was a serious one and I do think that anyone using an older Canon could possibly be happy with the image quality of one of the newer MFT cameras but I could be wrong and as Phil pointed out above other non IQ factors such as focusing ability could matter.
 
Ham said:
What have you got to lose except your prejudices?
Click to expand...
It's unfortunate that there are always one or two people who want to impose their prejudices on others. It's even more unfortunate that they can turn very nasty when the views of others conflict with their prejudices. ;)

As you say, buying second hand means that Richard would have a good chance of recouping his money if he chooses carefully. Of course, this applies to all his options.
 
Threads like these beat actually buying cameras I think -- a partial cure for GAS :LOL:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top