fiat76 Loc: PA, MD, and SC

Need some, no lots, of advice. I bought my first film camera, a Minolta, in 1979. In 2011 I bought a Sony a55v only because I could use my Minolta lens on the Sony; the lenses, all but the Tamron 10-24mm and the Maxxum70-210mm, are kit lenses that I won't be able to use on an e-mount camera, since Sony appears to be going in the e-mount direction. Having side-lined some other pursuits for photography, I am ready for a new camera. (I should add the impetus to purchase a new camera was when a friend and I shot the same scene with the same settings, different camera brands [hers being newer], and her images were superior in terms of sharpness and resolution.) I don't do much action or low-light photography, mainly landscapes, macro (flowers), birds, nature (sunrises, sunsets), B & W...grandbaby on the way, so you know what that means; most of the year I am floating around on a boat on the Chesapeake and the ICW (though not this year, thanks to Irma). I do print and frame some of my more memorable (in MHO) images; and I make note cards using my images. Since I won't be able to use my lenses on an e-mount camera (the lenses are not that great anyhow, and when I invest in a new camera , I am going to invest in good glass), I am leaning toward a Nikon. I have a fat file folder to show for my research, so purchasing a new camera is not on a whim/G.A.S attack. My dilemma: APS-C or full frame? I am aware of the pro's and con's of each. Am considering: APS-C: Sony a6500, a7r, a7, a7s. Full frame: Nikon D610, D750, D500. I am leaning toward the Nikon 750, maybe a refurb, since several posts ago many of you indicated you have been completely satisfied with a refurbished camera. The next question then will be lenses, another question for another day. I saw that back in the day, there were several UHHers who used the Sony a55. I am wondering to what you transitioned. I am 70-years-old, so this could very well be the last camera in which I invest! I followed the advice of the members of UHH: I have talked to the people at the local camera store, watched YouTube videos, read articles/reviews. I don't want to make a lateral move, I want a camera into which I can grow. Any advice will be greatly appreciated. Finding UHH was serendipitous, and what a discovery!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The D750 is a great choice as a top notch, grow into, general purpose, full-frame camera. Make sure you're comfortable with weight along with your candidate lens(es).

warrior Loc: Paso Robles CA

I am 86 and the Fujifilm XT-2 fits me just fine . 16mm f/1.4 and the 18-135 is all I need

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

For what you shoot, the D750 would be my choice. I would couple it with the 24-120mm kit lens for general use, a 35mm or 50mm lens for landscapes, and a micro 105mm for macro and portraits.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I wouldn’t turn my nose up at “kit” lenses. At the amounts of money I’m willing to spend, roughly $1K for a camera, I still have at least one Pentax kit lens from thirty years ago that is as sharp as any other lens I use today.

AndyT Loc: Hampstead, New Hampshire

The X-T2 is great isn't it! I have the 18-135 also.

fiat76 Loc: PA, MD, and SC

Thanks for your prompt reply. I will check into the weight issue! Hadn't really considered it, but it could be an issue at some point in time!
You have given me good advice in the past, and I appreciate your taking time to respond!

fiat76 Loc: PA, MD, and SC

Thanks, Orrie! I appreciate the prompt response. The fog is lifting....

fiat76 Loc: PA, MD, and SC

rehess,
Thanks for the reminder: not all "kit" lenses are necessarily inferior!

fiat76 Loc: PA, MD, and SC

AndyT,
The Fujifilm X-T2, a camera that most recently came across my radar, was a serious choice. I read a good review by Ken Rockwell, and he had some negatives that made me cross it off my list (two of which were not important to me: no GPS and no touch screen). Maybe I need to revisit....

fiat76 Loc: PA, MD, and SC

AndyT,
The Fujifilm X-T2, a camera that most recently came across my radar, was a serious choice. I read a good review by Ken Rockwell, and he had some negatives that made me cross it off my list (two of which were not important to me: no GPS and no touch screen). Maybe I need to revisit....

AndyT Loc: Hampstead, New Hampshire

One of the many good things about the X-T2 is the way it's designed. Reminiscent of the cameras from the 70's. Large dial on top for shutter speed, another for iso, third for exposure compensation. It has a toggle switch on the back separate from the 4way selector that let's you move your focus point around the screen. All of these are easily done without removing your eye from the viewfinder, making at least in my case, a touchscreen unnecessary.

SS319

Everyone here has wonderful ideas of what THEY think is the best solution for you, yet, we barely know you. It appears that you have a decent grip on what you believe is important to you, so I would suggest you invoke the use of a weighted decision matrix to assist you in choosing the camera, lenses, and important accessories. If you are unfamiliar with this technique, PrivMessage me and we can discuss it outside the group.

AndyT Loc: Hampstead, New Hampshire

Weighted decision matrix..seriously?

whwiden

Unless u shoot a lot of sports or wildlife for which a d500 might be good, I would consider the Nikon d7200 as an alternative to the D750 which is great. I have both. The D7200 can be had for under $1000 and is a fine camera. You could get 3 dx lenses for bargain prices and have great flexibility. A 10-20mm, a 35mm dx, and a 55-200mm, all for less than the D750.