My first buy ever

[HiImYann]

Good morning/evening people !
I really want to buy a camera body and lens but the choice is very tough since I'll probably stick to the brand I choose. I have a budget around 1000-1150 CHF for my body and lens, I'll mostly do portrait photography and when I travel landscapes but a tripod isn't a first choice at the moment. I don't want a kit lens, the maximum aperture is generally bad, unless it's the Fuji 18-55, this lens seems pretty good.

I already looked around the Fujifilm X-T20 with the 18-55 kit lens but I don't know if it's safe to go with Fujfilm instead of Sony, Canon or Nikon. I never used a Sony, Canon is very easy use for me even the pro bodies I had the chance to try and Nikon is very weird but with time I can learn how to use it.

So in conclusion, I need your help for choosing a body and a lens, I'll do portrait and landscapes, I have a budget around 1000-1150 for the body and the lens.
Thank you so much for your answers, have a good day.

[cc143]

If you want to go used, you could probably get a 6d (mk1) or a 5d2 with an 85mm f/1.8, which is a great setup for portraiture, but rather poor for landscape photography. That is easily fixed with an ultrawide or standard zoom lens afterwards though. 

 

Honestly, I believe the Nikon side may be more worth it at that point, since the d750 or d800E could probably be found for similar prices and you can always find some very nice used d series lenses, such as the 105mm f/2 d etc. which will autofocus with these Cameras. That is the route I'd probably go if I wanted a camera, without video capability though, mostly due to their having no AA filter, dual card slots and admittedly better dynamic range for landscapes. I prefer the colour rendition of Canon glass and sensors (especially skin tones), but if you are editing raw files anyway, that is a small point, and a matter of personal preference anyway. 

 

If those end up being too expensive, since used markets vary, I usually recommend a Canon 800d, which is a great all purpose camera. 

 

On the fuji issue, I actually do own a second fuji system and do love it for travel etc. The 18-55mm is the best kit lens around by far (well the 24-105mm Canon is technically also a kit lens, but lets disregard it for a moment.) The issue is that although it has a wider aperture than most, it is still variable, so at 55mm, you are shooting at f/4. That is not terrible, but its also not ideal for portraiture. 

 

As far as Sony is concerned, unless you have enough money to get an a7rii/a7riii, I wouldn't go that route over Nikon or Canon for the usecases you have described. You have to also account for lens cost, and although they are decreasing, they are still waaay to expensive compared to used Canon or Nikon glass. An a7riii with a couple of lightweight primes might be easier to travel with, but, the moment you put a good zoom lens on it, the size advantage disappears. 

[HiImYann]

16 hours ago, cc143 said:

If you want to go used, you could probably get a 6d (mk1) or a 5d2 with an 85mm f/1.8, which is a great setup for portraiture, but rather poor for landscape photography. That is easily fixed with an ultrawide or standard zoom lens afterwards though. 

 

Honestly, I believe the Nikon side may be more worth it at that point, since the d750 or d800E could probably be found for similar prices and you can always find some very nice used d series lenses, such as the 105mm f/2 d etc. which will autofocus with these Cameras. That is the route I'd probably go if I wanted a camera, without video capability though, mostly due to their having no AA filter, dual card slots and admittedly better dynamic range for landscapes. I prefer the colour rendition of Canon glass and sensors (especially skin tones), but if you are editing raw files anyway, that is a small point, and a matter of personal preference anyway. 

 

If those end up being too expensive, since used markets vary, I usually recommend a Canon 800d, which is a great all purpose camera. 

 

On the fuji issue, I actually do own a second fuji system and do love it for travel etc. The 18-55mm is the best kit lens around by far (well the 24-105mm Canon is technically also a kit lens, but lets disregard it for a moment.) The issue is that although it has a wider aperture than most, it is still variable, so at 55mm, you are shooting at f/4. That is not terrible, but its also not ideal for portraiture. 

 

As far as Sony is concerned, unless you have enough money to get an a7rii/a7riii, I wouldn't go that route over Nikon or Canon for the usecases you have described. You have to also account for lens cost, and although they are decreasing, they are still waaay to expensive compared to used Canon or Nikon glass. An a7riii with a couple of lightweight primes might be easier to travel with, but, the moment you put a good zoom lens on it, the size advantage disappears. 

All the Nikon gear you listed is too expensive for me even used.
And I know the 18-55 isn't an excellent portrait lens but I have planned to buy the  Fuji 35 F/2 if I go with the Fuji system.

[EsaT]

15 hours ago, HiImYann said:

I'll mostly do portrait photography and when I travel landscapes but a tripod isn't a first choice at the moment.

If you want traveling friendly package DSLRs aren't really compact or light unless having some smallest possible lens.

And while Canon makes those Ixus unergonomics tiny bodies requirements of sensor limit lenses to pretty much same as in DSLR, just like in Sonys.
 

Also despite of basically religious hype DSLR or some fashionable brand camera isn't needed for good photographs.

Skilled photographers have taken award winning photos even with ordinary compacts.

Most of photography is about being in the right place at right time (with camera), looking for right things and knowing how to take photo in that particular situation.

 

And you mighty need two lenses, because standard zooms usually aren't good for portraits, at least if more compact.

So that means easily growing bulk and weight of camera equipment.

And because of every lens being somekind compromise, if your photography hobby actually continues you'll eventually easily end up with multiple lenses.

Which returns to that bulk/weight easily starting to kill fun and easily putting hobby into decline.

 

Every single camera/system is simply always compromise...

And like you might guess technically the most capable camera isn't any good if you keep it sitting in bookshelf/cabinet because of its bulk/weight.

That convenient carrying is why cellphones with camera have pretty much killed compact digicams.

 

 

M4/3 of Olympus/Panasonic would give plenty of flexiblity in that bulk/weigth aspect.

Also for general travel photography/landscapes having stabilization in body gives it to every lens.

For landscapes you don't even usually want shallow depth of field and always having flexibility for using longer than usual handheld exposure time lowers need for tripod.

And if you still carry also tripod overal weight of package stays smaller and more traveling friendly.

[cc143]

21 minutes ago, HiImYann said:

All the Nikon gear you listed is too expensive for me even used.
And I know the 18-55 isn't an excellent portrait lens but I have planned to buy the  Fuji 35 F/2 if I go with the Fuji system.

What about the Canons? I would expect that prices would be within the range of the xt20 with a couple of lenses for both. 

 

Regardless, the Fuji is a great camera, as I said, I myself do own an xt10 and the 16mm f/1.4, 23mm f/2 and 50mm f/2. 

 

The reason I am suggesting that you go with one of the two is mostly the FF sensor, and nikon especially the lack of an AA filter. 

 

So, about the fuji, a couple of pieces of advise: 

 

1. Try the camera in a store before you buy. I love the ergonomics of fuji cameras, but between the xt10 and the xt2,the xt2 is the clear winner in that regard, so try it out, and see if it ends up being a big deal. 

2. The 18-55mm lens is excellent, best kit lens around, but if you know you mostly will be doing portraiture and landscapes I wouldn't buy it even as a first lens, but rather maybe at a future point in time as a general purpose lens. 

 

So here's what I would buy in terms of lenses, probably in this order, given your stated uses of the Camera: 

1. 35mm f/2 or 50mm f/2. That is clearly for portraiture. The 35mm f/2 is wider, so it gives you more flexibility to shoot other stuff as well, but it really depends on the portraiture you do. I prefer the 50mm f/2 (i.e. ~85mm equiv) for posed shots, or candids at a distance, but if that isn't always the case, the 35mm is probably the way to go. 

2. 10-24mm f/4. A good ultrawide is much more important to a landscape and cityscape photographer at the beginning that a standard focal lens. That is why I think that is a better thing to get. 

3. If you end up going for the 50mm f/2 rather than the 35mm f/2, I would substitute the latter for a 27mm f/2.8. The reason is that that lens gives you portability unmatched by any other in the fuji lineup and is great for travelling. It is wide enough for a lot of situations and close up enough to still allow you to take decent portraits, and also makes the camera truly pocketable. 

12 minutes ago, EsaT said:

M4/3 of Olympus/Panasonic would give plenty of flexiblity in that bulk/weigth aspect.

Also for general travel photography/landscapes having stabilization in body gives it to every lens.

For landscapes you don't even usually want shallow depth of field and always having flexibility for using longer than usual handheld exposure time lowers need for tripod.

And if you still carry also tripod overal weight of package stays smaller and more traveling friendly.

The issue with M4/3 is mostly dynamic range and resolution. The fact that it is a smaller sensor, means that to cram more mps on it you are really messing up with dynamic range. Also, for photography, unless you are doing event or night stuff, in normal focals stabilisation isn't that important. it sure helps, but not that dramatic. I would rather be able to use ISO capability and post to be able to compensate. 

 

If you think you can shoot a 3 sec exposure because you have ibis, you are mistaken, you cant, and for most landscapes, you are already shooting at very low shutter speeds, so a tripod is always worth it my book. 

 

The depth of field point is moot also, even if sensor size had a significant effect on dof, the fact that the guy also does portraiture would render your point moot. 

 

The fujis are very small and light as well, so are most lenses, so I don't see why you'd go with the smaller sensor size, unless you want video, in which department fuji is also catching up. 

[xQubeZx]

6 hours ago, cc143 said:

What about the Canons? I would expect that prices would be within the range of the xt20 with a couple of lenses for both. 

 

Regardless, the Fuji is a great camera, as I said, I myself do own an xt10 and the 16mm f/1.4, 23mm f/2 and 50mm f/2. 

 

The reason I am suggesting that you go with one of the two is mostly the FF sensor, and nikon especially the lack of an AA filter. 

 

So, about the fuji, a couple of pieces of advise: 

 

1. Try the camera in a store before you buy. I love the ergonomics of fuji cameras, but between the xt10 and the xt2,the xt2 is the clear winner in that regard, so try it out, and see if it ends up being a big deal. 

2. The 18-55mm lens is excellent, best kit lens around, but if you know you mostly will be doing portraiture and landscapes I wouldn't buy it even as a first lens, but rather maybe at a future point in time as a general purpose lens. 

 

So here's what I would buy in terms of lenses, probably in this order, given your stated uses of the Camera: 

1. 35mm f/2 or 50mm f/2. That is clearly for portraiture. The 35mm f/2 is wider, so it gives you more flexibility to shoot other stuff as well, but it really depends on the portraiture you do. I prefer the 50mm f/2 (i.e. ~85mm equiv) for posed shots, or candids at a distance, but if that isn't always the case, the 35mm is probably the way to go. 

2. 10-24mm f/4. A good ultrawide is much more important to a landscape and cityscape photographer at the beginning that a standard focal lens. That is why I think that is a better thing to get. 

3. If you end up going for the 50mm f/2 rather than the 35mm f/2, I would substitute the latter for a 27mm f/2.8. The reason is that that lens gives you portability unmatched by any other in the fuji lineup and is great for travelling. It is wide enough for a lot of situations and close up enough to still allow you to take decent portraits, and also makes the camera truly pocketable. 

The issue with M4/3 is mostly dynamic range and resolution. The fact that it is a smaller sensor, means that to cram more mps on it you are really messing up with dynamic range. Also, for photography, unless you are doing event or night stuff, in normal focals stabilisation isn't that important. it sure helps, but not that dramatic. I would rather be able to use ISO capability and post to be able to compensate. 

 

If you think you can shoot a 3 sec exposure because you have ibis, you are mistaken, you cant, and for most landscapes, you are already shooting at very low shutter speeds, so a tripod is always worth it my book. 

 

The depth of field point is moot also, even if sensor size had a significant effect on dof, the fact that the guy also does portraiture would render your point moot. 

 

The fujis are very small and light as well, so are most lenses, so I don't see why you'd go with the smaller sensor size, unless you want video, in which department fuji is also catching up. 

I think he should go with the fuji system. Sounds like it will suit him best. A FF system does not fit his budget really. The XT-20 is a great starter camera that is easily travled with and provides very good images if you know how to use it. There is a lot of good portrait lenses to chose from too. 

[HiImYann]

So maybe should I go with the X-t20 + 35 f/2 ?

 

Or is nikon really that good even If i don’t really like them ?

[cc143]

1 hour ago, HiImYann said:

So maybe should I go with the X-t20 + 35 f/2 ?

 

Or is nikon really that good even If i don’t really like them ?

As I said above, the fuji is an excellent system backed by a great ecosystem. 

 

The reason why I would consider nikon is that they currently offer a cheap and good path into FF which gives you more creative freedom for what you are looking for. 

 

that being said, if its not without its drawbacks. Therefore the fuji will serve you just fine.

[EsaT]

18 hours ago, HiImYann said:

So maybe should I go with the X-t20 + 35 f/2 ?

 

Or is nikon really that good even If i don’t really like them ?

That lens would give that classical "normal lens" equal field of view. (~50mm for 135 or 35mm format)

Typical use for such field of view lens would be "street photography", taking images of small groups of people (also inside) etc.

Unless wanting most of/whole body of individual person into image portraits are usually taken with narrower field of view to avoid perspective distortion of face from short range.

 

And neither that normal lens gives any wide field of view needed for say architecture or those landscapes...

Unless really liking stitching together separate photos into panoramas.

While it can be possible to move farther from building, with landscape that's very rarely possible...

(there might be drop behind you or some obstacle all the way to whole mountain side)

 

[cc143]

5 hours ago, EsaT said:

That lens would give that classical "normal lens" equal field of view. (~50mm for 135 or 35mm format)

Typical use for such field of view lens would be "street photography", taking images of small groups of people (also inside) etc.

Unless wanting most of/whole body of individual person into image portraits are usually taken with narrower field of view to avoid perspective distortion of face from short range.

 

And neither that normal lens gives any wide field of view needed for say architecture or those landscapes...

Unless really liking stitching together separate photos into panoramas.

While it can be possible to move farther from building, with landscape that's very rarely possible...

(there might be drop behind you or some obstacle all the way to whole mountain side)

 

OP did say they'll mostly be doing portraiture and only landscape etc. when travelling, so a good portrait lens may be a more useful first purchase, and they may buy an ultrawide rather than a standard zoom after that. 

[m4n14c]

Hi, I have an X-E2 with the 27mm f2.8 and I'm very satisfied with it, it is a very compact combination. In general fuji's video is not as good as the competition, Fujifilm's pros are it's built quality and the dials, those are thy ones I count the most. The lenses are very good in general and you have plenty to choose from, in comparison with canon mirrorless. For portrait photography, the lens choice is the 50mm f2, 56mm f1.2 and 90mm f2 that are a bit pricey, you can get an old manual lens with a cheap adapter if it fits you, the Helios 58mm f2 m42 mount is a cheap and easy to find well known for portrait photography,  ~$50 on eBay and $5-$25 adapter. For travel and landscapes the 23mm f2 it is very good for the price next is the 16mm f1.4 and the 10mm-24mm f4 that it's flexible. I don't know the prices that you can find the camera and lens, here are pricier, it's difficult to buy a camera and lens in other than the kit lens to cover all your needs.

My recommendation is to buy a camera like the X-T20 or an older used one with the 23mm f2 or the 27mm f2.8 for the portability if this is in your budget and an old lens for portraits. Also, there are a lot of good new manual lenses from Samyang and Kamla you can choose.

P.S. I use Canon FD lenses with an adapter with my camera.