Looking for a new camera under 600$

[Daveeede]

Hey everyone. I'm looking to buy a new (mirrorless?) camera to travel with for a few weeks in September. My budget would be around 600$ (or about 800$ cad). I have some experience with my dad's T5i so I'm not a total noob, but would still like something simple to use. I've been spending some time looking at the Sony A6000, but I'm not convinced since it was released in 2014 and hasn't been refreshed since. 

 

Here's what matters to me:

-Interchangeable lenses

-Articulated screen (selfie, high angle, low angle)

-Good selection of accessories and lenses

-Easy to transport

 

I'm looking for suggestions so that I can start shopping for prices and stuff. I don't wanna buy it a week before I leave and then have to learn to use it over the course of the trip. 

 

Also, do you guys know if Sony has announced or is planning a replacement for their older a5000/a6000 lineup? I know the a6500 is newish but it's really too much for me.

[cc143]

The a6500 is the new addition to the a6x00 lineup and the a5100 is the refresh of the a5000. 

 

Now, none of the cameras you have talked about have an articulating screen suitable for self portraits and tbh, having owned the a6000 I would steer clear. Its battery life is too bad and there are many other issues with it as well. 

 

If the new in your title means you are reluctant to buy used, then a. don't be and b. unfortunately choices are pretty limited at that price range I believe. 

 

I like the fuji lineup, and maybe an x-e2 could possibly be within your budget. 

 

Now the truth of the matter is that a Canon 750d fits all of your needs. Its larger than a csc, but hardly bulky, has one of the most well rounded lens selections out there, if not the most well rounded, has a fully articulating touchscreen and it can get through an intense day on a single charge. 

 

I realise you have experience with a rebel already, so if that is too large not much can be done. If that is the case, a m4/3 camera would probably be best, although I'm not that well informed on the system to tell you if you could get one at the price. 

 

The other option I would look at, although a bit old at this point as well is a used x-t10 or x-t1 if you can find one within your budget. Fuji sell refurbs here in the UK at a significant discount with warranty, I don't know if something similar is available in the US. 

[xQubeZx]

The A6300 is a refresh of the A6000 but its out of your budget sadly. 

 

As tye guy above me has said, look into Fujifilms options and maybe some m4/3 cameras as the Panasonic G7. 

[Daveeede]

On 5/28/2017 at 10:24 AM, xQubeZx said:

The A6300 is a refresh of the A6000 but its out of your budget sadly. 

 

As tye guy above me has said, look into Fujifilms options and maybe some m4/3 cameras as the Panasonic G7. 

If I super stretch the budget, is the extra 600$ worth it for the a6300? 4k is nice and from what I've heard the a6000 EVF is garbage compared to the a6300. I feel like at 1500 CAD for the a6300 I can probably get a used A7 or something.

 

I was hoping that Sony would do a refresh for the a6000 that was around the same price point. Maybe this summer? A man can dream right?

[Daveeede]

@cc143

 

Thanks for your comment. It was extremely helpful. The a6000 is currently the one I'm most interested in. The T6i (750d) also looks interesting and I'd be able to share lenses with my dad's T5i, but it does seem significantly bulkier than the Sony to me. I think that's what attracts me most to Sony's lineup. 

 

I'm not planning to upgrade for a while since I'm far from a professional here. Am I getting more for my money if I jump up to a 1200-1500$ (cad) budget? Should I look at the a6300 over the a6000?

[DWong136]

If you're traveling I would highly recommend something smaller WITHOUT interchangeable lenses or not bring one at all. I've had multiple people get cameras for travel, use them for a day or two then resort back to their phones and eventually leave the camera in the hotel then basically shelve them when they get home. 

 

When you're traveling it's more about the people and the experience than the photos. You're never going to match the brilliance of a professional landscape or location photographer. What you really want is a photo which you can then tell a story with. I'm not saying image quality isn't important but it's not the main focus. 

 

Honestly depending on what phone you have, I would say investing in a new phone will be a much better investment. It's easier to immediately post to social media and it's something that you'll always have on you. Even if it's a small camera, a dedicated camera still need a pocket or a small bag just for itself or it lives on your neck (which becomes painful and uncomfortable after a few hours) or tied to your wrist which hampers your ability to do things. Plus it almost always screams "TOURIST". Another issue is restrictions on what you can bring where. Even a small camera might not be allowed in a club or concert but a phone always will be. 

 

If you don't have a flagship phone with a killer camera, I would upgrade your phone and use that to take photos. Something like the new S8 or Iphone 7 has a cracking good camera. If you already have a flagship with a good camera I would consider accessories like a 3 axis phone gimbal to take amazingly smooth videos to share with friends or maybe a portable printer that fits in your bags so you can share photos with new friends immediately. 

 

My advice is buy something you will use especially on vacation. I recommend finding a friend with a camera similar in size to the one you're going to buy and just living with it for a day.  

 

 

PS. If you do buy an interchagable lens please do not buy the 55-200 and think that plus your kit lens will cover everything. It's a pain in the rear to need to switch lenses back and forth and 6 times out of 10 you'll have the "wrong" one on where you're too tight with the 55-200 or too wide with the 18-55. 

 

 

[Daveeede]

6 minutes ago, DWong136 said:

If you're traveling I would highly recommend something smaller WITHOUT interchangeable lenses or not bring one at all. I've had multiple people get cameras for travel, use them for a day or two then resort back to their phones and eventually leave the camera in the hotel then basically shelve them when they get home. 

 

When you're traveling it's more about the people and the experience than the photos. You're never going to match the brilliance of a professional landscape or location photographer. What you really want is a photo which you can then tell a story with. I'm not saying image quality isn't important but it's not the main focus. 

 

Honestly depending on what phone you have, I would say investing in a new phone will be a much better investment. It's easier to immediately post to social media and it's something that you'll always have on you. Even if it's a small camera, a dedicated camera still need a pocket or a small bag just for itself or it lives on your neck (which becomes painful and uncomfortable after a few hours) or tied to your wrist which hampers your ability to do things. Plus it almost always screams "TOURIST". Another issue is restrictions on what you can bring where. Even a small camera might not be allowed in a club or concert but a phone always will be. 

 

If you don't have a flagship phone with a killer camera, I would upgrade your phone and use that to take photos. Something like the new S8 or Iphone 7 has a cracking good camera. If you already have a flagship with a good camera I would consider accessories like a 3 axis phone gimbal to take amazingly smooth videos to share with friends or maybe a portable printer that fits in your bags so you can share photos with new friends immediately. 

 

My advice is buy something you will use especially on vacation. I recommend finding a friend with a camera similar in size to the one you're going to buy and just living with it for a day.  

 

 

PS. If you do buy an interchagable lens please do not buy the 55-200 and think that plus your kit lens will cover everything. It's a pain in the rear to need to switch lenses back and forth and 6 times out of 10 you'll have the "wrong" one on where you're too tight with the 55-200 or too wide with the 18-55. 

 

 

Thanks for your comment! I already have an iPhone 7 and my girlfriend has a pretty good point and shoot. In terms of size it can't be beat but my hands are huge and I can't even hold it properly (Sony dsc-wx220). Obviously I want to get the camera for my trip, but it would be used for far more than that. I'm not too worried being labelled as a tourist since my Canadian bro accent already give that one away. I already use my dad's T5i quite extensively and I fully understand your comment about not having the right lens at the right time. I aim to use the kit lens 95% of the time but did want to keep a 55-210mm in my bag. I'll also get a 50mm f1.8 eventually but won't travel with it.

 

 

[xQubeZx]

3 hours ago, Daveeede said:

If I super stretch the budget, is the extra 600$ worth it for the a6300? 4k is nice and from what I've heard the a6000 EVF is garbage compared to the a6300. I feel like at 1500 CAD for the a6300 I can probably get a used A7 or something.

 

I was hoping that Sony would do a refresh for the a6000 that was around the same price point. Maybe this summer? A man can dream right?

You can find a used A7 for 500USD body only quite easy. But the lenses will cost you more. And imo the A7 mark ii is a better camera. Now the A7 is not bad, I've tried it and have been thinking of gettin a used onr myself because they run for so little. But I can't decide if I'd like a A6000/A6300 better than an A7

[thekillergazebo]

So I have the a6000 and a6300 and love both, but the imagine quality from both are very similar. The bid differences between them are that the a6300 has a better EVF which is a real big plus if you hate the looking through a screen door feeling which you find on the a600 EVF. The sensor is better in the a6300 and you will be able to push the shadows more and has better recovery. The a6300 can shoot silent but at a cost, it drops to 12 stops dynamic range and in really low light you get some banding from my testing. This is still great for shooting events or if out in the woods shooting animals. You also get a few more shooting modes which are handy and if you want manual lenses it is a little easier to use. Oh and one big big thing on the a6300, you can shoot while charging it over USB. This is super handy if your doing a lot of video. But if your casual battery life to me isn't that big of a deal and you can by some extras for $30. I personally might recommend the a6000 since it's still a solid performer for image quality. Its cheaper so the money you save can go into lenses. It's also a little slimmer so if you got a cargo pocket on your pants then the camera will fit in with no trouble. Also keep in mind the kit lens (16-50) kinda sucks. I mean it's not the worst I've seen, but not great.

[thekillergazebo]

Also want to add that if you really care about video the a6300 does 4K and it does look really good. 

 

Oh and sony lens are crazy expensive. The first lens upgrade would be for me a 50mm f1.8 which is about $250, then to replace the kit lens the 18-105 I would be the best but at $550-$600. And if you wanted a wide angle lens the 10-18 goes for $750-$850. So the lens will be costly. On canon you can get similar lenses for much much les.

[cc143]

Provided you dont care about 4k, the a7ii can be found new bundled with the 28-70 FE lens for around the price of the a6300, or if not, you could still get the body only at that price and get some cheap legacy glass. 

 

The a7ii is substantially better than the a6300 imo, with the exception of 4k. It feels much better in the hand and has a FF sensor. It also has IBIS, which if I'm not mistaken the a6300 does not, the a6000 certainly doesn't. 

 

However,  if you go that high, just get yourself a fuji x-t20 with the 18-55, there are issues, yes, like the limit on 4k recording is at 15 minutes If I'm not mistaken and it can't work while charging over usb, also, there are at the moment no smart adapters for Canon glass, which is sort of a bummer, however, 

 

I find it more ergonomic, better built, more intuitive, and the native glass selection is imo better than sony's at the moment. 

 

In fact, having used the a6000 and sworn off mirrorless for a while, the fuji system might be the only one I would consider investing in. Next generation fuji camera is going to be as close to perfect a csc as it gets, so maybe buy a used x-t10, get yourself a couple of lenses, and upgrade to the x-t30 or x-t3 if you feel like it down the line or buy the x-t20, but if you are going for mirrorless, I think fuji is the best option. 

 

Also, if what you want is to have a camera you can use 1 week every year on holiday and to take a couple of pictures at home, dslrs is where its at, the 750d will be much better at it than any mirrorless out there, and will probably last a lot longer as well. 

[thekillergazebo]

I'm not sure I agree with the a7ii being better then the a6300 for the price. It is larger and will fit the hand better but with the a7ii going for $1500 for body alone it's $550 more then the a6300. You do get IBS but for landscape I never for IBS to be that important unless I'm hand holding at night. I feel like those camera produce very similar images. Yes you get better DOF with the FF but unless you need to shoot at crazy low f-stops crop holds up and will be lighter.

[cc143]

11 minutes ago, thekillergazebo said:

I'm not sure I agree with the a7ii being better then the a6300 for the price. It is larger and will fit the hand better but with the a7ii going for $1500 for body alone it's $550 more then the a6300. You do get IBS but for landscape I never for IBS to be that important unless I'm hand holding at night. I feel like those camera produce very similar images. Yes you get better DOF with the FF but unless you need to shoot at crazy low f-stops crop holds up and will be lighter.

I'm sure if you shop around that difference will get closer to $300, also I'm comparing UK prices, where I suppose they are closer together. 

 

The a6300 being lighter point is moot, the difference is minimal. The a7ii is bulkier, but not to that big an extent, and anyway, at that point, the lens you attach to the body makes more of a difference and the a6000 etc. are just too awkward with longer or heavier lenses. hell my adapted EF 50 1.4 was awkward on the a6000, anything bigger and I was worried the mount would snap in half! 

 

And sure IBIS is important, being able to shoot 3 or 4 stops faster makes a huge difference, that's from 1/160th to 1/20th without blur handheld! Yes it will mostly be noticeable in low light, but also video. 

 

IMO the a6300 is way overpriced today. The a7ii holds up, just because its the cheapest new FF body out there and at $1500 it is indeed ridiculously cheap. Also, apart from the FOV and DOF you have better light performance on a FF sensor and it will be better in IQ terms because you have larger pixels spread over a larger area. I wouldn't hold the same opinion had it been APS-C. 

oh and by the way, I don't consider either to be worthwhile for size and weight alone, simply because the glass attached has to be of a certain size. Look at FE glass, and you will see they have to compensate with some flange distance inside the lens, not even sony's engineers can change the basic laws of physics. I

[xQubeZx]

4 hours ago, cc143 said:

I'm sure if you shop around that difference will get closer to $300, also I'm comparing UK prices, where I suppose they are closer together. 

 

The a6300 being lighter point is moot, the difference is minimal. The a7ii is bulkier, but not to that big an extent, and anyway, at that point, the lens you attach to the body makes more of a difference and the a6000 etc. are just too awkward with longer or heavier lenses. hell my adapted EF 50 1.4 was awkward on the a6000, anything bigger and I was worried the mount would snap in half! 

 

And sure IBIS is important, being able to shoot 3 or 4 stops faster makes a huge difference, that's from 1/160th to 1/20th without blur handheld! Yes it will mostly be noticeable in low light, but also video. 

 

IMO the a6300 is way overpriced today. The a7ii holds up, just because its the cheapest new FF body out there and at $1500 it is indeed ridiculously cheap. Also, apart from the FOV and DOF you have better light performance on a FF sensor and it will be better in IQ terms because you have larger pixels spread over a larger area. I wouldn't hold the same opinion had it been APS-C. 

oh and by the way, I don't consider either to be worthwhile for size and weight alone, simply because the glass attached has to be of a certain size. Look at FE glass, and you will see they have to compensate with some flange distance inside the lens, not even sony's engineers can change the basic laws of physics. I

I don't know if I'd reccomend Fuji anymore after talking with a friend that works at a large camera store that actually have used, tested and tried like, all cameras avaliable now. We disucussed some cameras the other day and in his mind, the Fujis are nice and all ergonomics and build, but the sensor has its troubles but mainly the AF is still pretty bad in his mind. The Sony's are maybe not always perfect ergonomics or super easy to figure out but in my mind, and also his, the IQ you get out of them are very good. 

 

Now, really what camera the OP decides to buy won't really make a differnece I don't think. All suggest produce similar IQ and have similar features. What lenses and how you use it will matter more. 

 

However the A7ii I doubt to be a good option. The same with the A7. They are a little far of tye budget, especially when you start to add lenses. 

[thekillergazebo]

4 hours ago, cc143 said:

I'm sure if you shop around that difference will get closer to $300, also I'm comparing UK prices, where I suppose they are closer together. 

 

The a6300 being lighter point is moot, the difference is minimal. The a7ii is bulkier, but not to that big an extent, and anyway, at that point, the lens you attach to the body makes more of a difference and the a6000 etc. are just too awkward with longer or heavier lenses. hell my adapted EF 50 1.4 was awkward on the a6000, anything bigger and I was worried the mount would snap in half! 

 

And sure IBIS is important, being able to shoot 3 or 4 stops faster makes a huge difference, that's from 1/160th to 1/20th without blur handheld! Yes it will mostly be noticeable in low light, but also video. 

 

IMO the a6300 is way overpriced today. The a7ii holds up, just because its the cheapest new FF body out there and at $1500 it is indeed ridiculously cheap. Also, apart from the FOV and DOF you have better light performance on a FF sensor and it will be better in IQ terms because you have larger pixels spread over a larger area. I wouldn't hold the same opinion had it been APS-C. 

oh and by the way, I don't consider either to be worthwhile for size and weight alone, simply because the glass attached has to be of a certain size. Look at FE glass, and you will see they have to compensate with some flange distance inside the lens, not even sony's engineers can change the basic laws of physics. I

So your recommending the a7ii which for body alone in the US is about $1500 and with kit lens is about $1700. This dudes budget was $600.... 

 

my point of the a6300 being lighter is a point that one should consider if they wish to put a kit lens on and be able to put this camera in a pocket. I don't know if any combination where a FF Sony can fit in any pockets. You may think this is dumb but if your traveling this means you can travel light and also bring a camera into some restricted areas. Sony a6300 isn't really overpriced at all when you compare it to what canon or Nikon are offering for their APSC line of cameras and even to some of their lower end FF. They make a lot of great features in with a good sensor that holds its own even with some older FF cameras. 

 

Sony claims that you get 4 stops with the IBIS but I never found that to be realalistic. I would say at best 1 to 2 stops would be what I've seen. So basically on a FF 50mm you could shoot at 1/50 instead of 1/100 and not worry about blur. Could push it more but I haven't seen reliable results past that. 

 

The only FF that's Sony that could be in his price point is the a7 for $1000, but I belibe the a7 does not put preform the a6300 or the perks it has. Even then it's still pushing this guys budget. 

 

To bring this back back to the original question yes I think the a6000 is a great camera for your budget. If you research what the a6300 has over the a6000 and think it's worth it for you then jump on it. Sony has a sale in the US two times a year where their gear is a bit cheaper so if you can wait or use a price tracking site it could save you some cash on the deal.

 

 

[cc143]

1 hour ago, xQubeZx said:

I don't know if I'd reccomend Fuji anymore after talking with a friend that works at a large camera store that actually have used, tested and tried like, all cameras avaliable now. We disucussed some cameras the other day and in his mind, the Fujis are nice and all ergonomics and build, but the sensor has its troubles but mainly the AF is still pretty bad in his mind. The Sony's are maybe not always perfect ergonomics or super easy to figure out but in my mind, and also his, the IQ you get out of them are very good. 

 

Now, really what camera the OP decides to buy won't really make a differnece I don't think. All suggest produce similar IQ and have similar features. What lenses and how you use it will matter more. 

 

However the A7ii I doubt to be a good option. The same with the A7. They are a little far of tye budget, especially when you start to add lenses. 

From what I have read the AF system on the new Fujis seemed to be quite good, certainly adequate. I have myself tried out the fujis in store and the AF system seemed fine, although admittedly, I haven't tested it out extensively. I wouldn't go shoot a football match, but I wouldn't do that with the sony either. But as you say, the AF system won't matter to the OP.  I have also spoken to an x-t10 owner who said they were pretty happy with the camera, although tbh, I'm not entirely certain the guy was that knowledgeable. 

 

Glass is mostly why I prefer Fuji to sony at this point if you have to absolutely go mirrorless and a dslr is completely out of the question. That and the handling of the camera. 

 

1 hour ago, thekillergazebo said:

So your recommending the a7ii which for body alone in the US is about $1500 and with kit lens is about $1700. This dudes budget was $600.... 

 

my point of the a6300 being lighter is a point that one should consider if they wish to put a kit lens on and be able to put this camera in a pocket. I don't know if any combination where a FF Sony can fit in any pockets. You may think this is dumb but if your traveling this means you can travel light and also bring a camera into some restricted areas. Sony a6300 isn't really overpriced at all when you compare it to what canon or Nikon are offering for their APSC line of cameras and even to some of their lower end FF. They make a lot of great features in with a good sensor that holds its own even with some older FF cameras. 

 

Sony claims that you get 4 stops with the IBIS but I never found that to be realalistic. I would say at best 1 to 2 stops would be what I've seen. So basically on a FF 50mm you could shoot at 1/50 instead of 1/100 and not worry about blur. Could push it more but I haven't seen reliable results past that. 

 

The only FF that's Sony that could be in his price point is the a7 for $1000, but I belibe the a7 does not put preform the a6300 or the perks it has. Even then it's still pushing this guys budget. 

 

To bring this back back to the original question yes I think the a6000 is a great camera for your budget. If you research what the a6300 has over the a6000 and think it's worth it for you then jump on it. Sony has a sale in the US two times a year where their gear is a bit cheaper so if you can wait or use a price tracking site it could save you some cash on the deal.

 

 

No I'm not, I never have recommended the a7ii, I have from the beginning of this thread recommended the sensible solution, which is the 750d. What I said was that the a7ii is better value than an a6500 that was mentioned above. That doesn't mean that I would suggest the OP should spend that sort of money on a camera, but if you are going to anyway, you may as well go with the a7ii over the a6500. 

 

No FF camera can or ever will fit in one's pocket, neither does the a6x00 line for that matter, I had one I know so. I can appreciate the need of lightness and compactness,but if you need a light and compact camera with great IQ to "sneak" into venues, you phone or a high end point and shoot are much easier to use in those instances. As far as carrying it is concerned, if its for travelling you can usually allocate the 0.25litres of space needed to bring a 750d and 18-55mm with you, the weight difference is fairly negligible. The dslr will reward you in the end with better durability and by being more reliable. 

 

As far as comparing the a6x00 with Canon or Nikon bodies, that is inaccurate, a 750d can be had for less money, especially considering the actual, practical cost which includes glass etc. If you want to compare with the likes of the 7d and d500 or even d7500, don't the sony may seem to have the speed, but these are pro bodies, they have a purpose and the sony is plainly not reliable enough to cover them. Now compared to the 80d for instance it is still debateabe. Yes the sonys have more functionality and are indeed more portable, but depending on the situation, either can be recommended. 

 

I haven't put the IBIS to the test myself, but even a 2 stop advantage is still significant (would put you at 1/25th instead of 1/100th!).

 

Again, I'm not recommending OP should go FF, I am saying that it is better to spend the money on the a7ii than the a6500 or even more still the a6300. 

 

And to the point regarding the a6000. I believe the 750d is a much better option than the a6000, having owned the latter, and having shot and handled the former. If you are to step up to a6300 prices, the best option at that point is the x-t20, not the a6300, given photos are more significant to you than video. If it is the other way around I believe panasonic has better offerings, although the micro 4/3 sensor is a bummer to me. 

[xQubeZx]

@cc143 What I heard from my friend about Fuji's AF system was that it was "quick" while going from close focus to infinite focus but that was it, often inaccurate and hunting so the speed didn't really matter because of those. And he actually had the camera to use a day or two. Don't remember if it just were a XT-2 or more models too. 

 

And OP, if you like the Sony I think its a great option. The size does matter, defentivly when flying and you can fit it in a jacket pocket if you have a small lens on. (It doesn't look super pretty if they are too small but it works). But remember that not all lenses will be small. Fast zooms will still be large but there exists quite a few small primes that are good options to keep a light kit. 

 

As someone that brings my camera everywhere the small size is very good. Just 1cm makes a difference because you often carry other things. Or when hiking outdoors your camera gear has last priority really and fitting a large DSLR works, but if you are willing to throw in you camera without to much padding a mirrorless like the A6000 will save you lots of space where you can have clothes, water, food and other essential things. 

 

It's really personal prefference, but if you are someone on the move that likes to travel light the mirrorless do offer a significant size advantage even though the 700d is not huge. 

 

Its purley up to you what you decide. But I don't think you can go wrong with either. 

[Daveeede]

@cc143 @xQubeZx @thekillergazebo

 

Thanks for all your responses. I have a few months to make a decision here so I'm not in too big of a rush. I have to say that I'm still leaning towards the A6000 at this point, but I'll definitely need to do more research into the Fujifilm and Canon offerings. Regardless of what camera body I'll buy, I'll also look into something like a 18-200 mm lens since it might be the most versatile while travelling. (Any thoughts on buying lenses used? I see that I can save 30-40% buying used for lenses)

 

I'll also need to settle on a more specific budget to narrow down my search. It seems there's quite a gap between the 600$ and 1000$ range, and I need to leave some money for a lens or two and accessories. It's not that I can't spend the money, I just need to justify it to myself first. It's going to be a long-term investment for me anyway.

 

Seems like some of my best options are

 

at the low end

Sony a6000 or Canon 750D (T6i) ... (Nikon D5500 comes into picture too if I'm going the DSLR route)

 

at the high end

Sony a6300 or Fujifilm X-T20

 

Love the articulated screen on the 750D and the lens support, especially since I already have a few lenses for Canon. Thing is my dad already has a 700D, so I'm not sure how much of a step up the 750D is over that. Anyways plenty of food for thought here.

[cc143]

1 hour ago, Daveeede said:

@cc143 @xQubeZx @thekillergazebo

 

Thanks for all your responses. I have a few months to make a decision here so I'm not in too big of a rush. I have to say that I'm still leaning towards the A6000 at this point, but I'll definitely need to do more research into the Fujifilm and Canon offerings. Regardless of what camera body I'll buy, I'll also look into something like a 18-200 mm lens since it might be the most versatile while travelling. (Any thoughts on buying lenses used? I see that I can save 30-40% buying used for lenses)

 

I'll also need to settle on a more specific budget to narrow down my search. It seems there's quite a gap between the 600$ and 1000$ range, and I need to leave some money for a lens or two and accessories. It's not that I can't spend the money, I just need to justify it to myself first. It's going to be a long-term investment for me anyway.

 

Seems like some of my best options are

 

at the low end

Sony a6000 or Canon 750D (T6i) ... (Nikon D5500 comes into picture too if I'm going the DSLR route)

 

at the high end

Sony a6300 or Fujifilm X-T20

 

Love the articulated screen on the 750D and the lens support, especially since I already have a few lenses for Canon. Thing is my dad already has a 700D, so I'm not sure how much of a step up the 750D is over that. Anyways plenty of food for thought here.

If you already have access to Canon lenses there is no reason to change systems, especially if you end up going for a dslr. 

 

Regarding the 18-200mm option, I believe it is not worth it. The range over ~100mm (FF equivalent) is very rarely useful, hyperzoom lenses are notoriously bad in terms of IQ, coupling one to a mirrorless camera overcomes the size advantage of the system and they are not exactly inexpensive. The best option is something like a sigma or tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (there's also an excellent Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS if you can afford it) and maybe a fast prime or pancake for travelling. The extreme zoom lenses are very niche in their uses usually. 

 

Also, buying used cameras or glass is very viable. In fact, I would even get the body used if it meant I could get a better camera or have more left over for glass if I were you. I have been buying used gear almost exclusively for the past 10 years and never had an issue. Just try to make sure, as much as possible, the gear hasn't been abused and you are fine. 

 

The 750d is not a substantial enough upgrade from the 700d to warrant an upgrade if you already have the 700d. That is not the case if you want to buy a camera however. If you need a camera because the one you have is unavailable for instance, the 750d is a viable option. If you have unfettered access to the 700d however, don't bother buying another body. Rather spend on some quality glass and you could get a decent camera afterwards. Glass is always way more important. 

 

I buy the size and weight argument, trust me, my camera bag, even when carrying just a body, my standard zoom, wideangle and a prime (+ tripod, never leave home without it anymore) weighs more than my actual suitcase, and that literally has my entire wardrobe in it! However, there are 2 issues with that. 

 

a) does a csc cover all or most of my needs?  

b) how much is the actual difference. If I were to swap all my glass for sony equivalents and my 5d for an a7ii, the overall weight difference would be less than 500g and that is because of the lighter body, and I'd probably have to get that in batteries or power banks anyway! 

 

I looked into it and a fuji system (I imagine a Sony APS-C system as well) would indeed make a substantial difference, as long as I made some sacrifices, like not getting a 16-55 2.8, but rather the 18-55 2.8-4) would weigh as much as my 5d3+ 25-105L, and probably fit in the same space, but it doesn't mean it would be as good. The same probably applies to a sony system, because their system doesn't even include what I'm after, so getting the closest thing would mean compromising much more. 

[xQubeZx]

I'd reccomend you to stay away from super zooms. Especially 18-200's. They are often very large, heavy and has quite bad IQ for what you pay. I'd rather buy 2-3 lenses that will fit all your needs. It could be something like:

 

Wide angle + fast prime

 

Normal Zoom + Fast prime

 

Normal Zoom + Tele 

 

Tele + Fast prime (slighlty wider one) 

 

Wide angle + Fast prime + Tele 

 

Now, for Sony there really is only one option for a tele lens unless you drop 1500 on a 70-200 f/4 and that is the 55-210. On canon there are more options but reallt there I'd buy a used 70-200 f/4 for around 300-400US.

 

Fast primes could be a 35 1.8 or 30 1.4 

 

Wide angles could be a 10-18, 12 2.0 or a 16-35, or 18-35

 

Normal zooms would be a 16-50, 18-55 f/4 or faster