Help me choose a new camera system!

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...

Seems to me that one picture of a race car is very nice, 10 pictures of race cars is, er, ok; two or three thousand pictures of race cars borders more on an obsession that buying a new camera system probably won't cure.
 
ShinySideUp said:
Seems to me that one picture of a race car is very nice, 10 pictures of race cars is, er, ok; two or three thousand pictures of race cars borders more on an obsession that buying a new camera system probably won't cure.
Click to expand...

Arh! but a new machine would make more of my images in focus, pan at slower speeds to give more a feeling of speed plus if I go to endurance raceing (24hour over night) or rally racing (some of the wood land stages can be suprisingly poorly lit) then the ability to use high ISO and still get good images has its attractions. :giggle:
And whats wrong with a bit of GAS? :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 
ShinySideUp said:
Seems to me that one picture of a race car is very nice, 10 pictures of race cars is, er, ok; two or three thousand pictures of race cars borders more on an obsession that buying a new camera system probably won't cure.
Click to expand...

I think the OP publishes in motor mags so they are news pictures probably. You could say much the same about footballer pictures etc.
 
ShinySideUp said:
Seems to me that one picture of a race car is very nice, 10 pictures of race cars is, er, ok; two or three thousand pictures of race cars borders more on an obsession that buying a new camera system probably won't cure.
Click to expand...
Some people take loads of photos of birds. For some its landscapes, others macro insect photography. For me it's motorsport.

sphexx said:
I think the OP publishes in motor mags so they are news pictures probably. You could say much the same about footballer pictures etc.
Click to expand...
I did shoot for a website which sadly closed down in late 2019. A few of the photographers from that website, myself included, got together to launch a replacement, with great timing, in March 2020.

So I was shooting with media accreditation for good few years, although I haven't been trackside for 2 seasons now and I'm unsure if I will again or not as the rules are much stricter at most tracks post-covid.

Something I really keep coming back to is the net cost of the Sony system, minus the MPB trade in value for my current setup, is £3,500. The net cost for the Fuji system is £2,060. That's a lot of cash for what I'd imagine isn't too much difference in the final image.
 
Last edited:
Ergonomics was raised as a concern.

If you feel the Sony is too small - the M43 and Fuji APSC will definitely be too small.

The R6 is a fine camera with class leading AF abilities - and yes the RF lenses are expensive - but you can use EF lenses on them and they will work very well. If the RF 100-500 is out of reach - the EF 100-400 probably isn't and is a nice more solid construction.

Plus there will be some familiarity with the menu's etc from your Canon DSLR - again pointing me to advising the R6.
 
SFTPhotography said:
Ergonomics was raised as a concern.

If you feel the Sony is too small - the M43 and Fuji APSC will definitely be too small.

The R6 is a fine camera with class leading AF abilities - and yes the RF lenses are expensive - but you can use EF lenses on them and they will work very well. If the RF 100-500 is out of reach - the EF 100-400 probably isn't and is a nice more solid construction.

Plus there will be some familiarity with the menu's etc from your Canon DSLR - again pointing me to advising the R6.
Click to expand...

All things being equal I would probably stay with Canon, purely from a familiarity stand point. I know how a Canon camera works, I know the menu system etc. But comparing like with like with an RF 100-500 lens (and yes the EF 100-400 is cheaper by about £600, but it's adapted and losing significant reach on an FF body), the Canon system is over double the price of the Fuji, and knocking on £1000 more than Sony. Sadly I think I've got to discount Canon on price alone, as they are much more expensive than the other options. Shame, I've always liked their cameras and lenses and as I said in the OP, it's all I've ever shot even going back to the film days.
 
RichardC27 said:
All things being equal I would probably stay with Canon, purely from a familiarity stand point. I know how a Canon camera works, I know the menu system etc. But comparing like with like with an RF 100-500 lens (and yes the EF 100-400 is cheaper by about £600, but it's adapted and losing significant reach on an FF body), the Canon system is over double the price of the Fuji, and knocking on £1000 more than Sony. Sadly I think I've got to discount Canon on price alone, as they are much more expensive than the other options. Shame, I've always liked their cameras and lenses and as I said in the OP, it's all I've ever shot even going back to the film days.
Click to expand...
Yes - but the Fuji isn't full frame and probably not as capable in AF speed.

If you'd rather spend less - great - but I think you'll regret it only to sell up and buy the Canon layer down the line.

Sony full frame is a viable option but the layout is different - but they're fine enough.

You can adapt Canon EF lenses to them well enough
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top