MikeMc

I'm getting back into hobby photography and shopping for a new camera. I mostly shoot landscape, sunsets, moonshots, family pictures, etc. No sports or fast moving subjects. I don't need high frames/sec. But I do want the highest image quality I can get in my price range. I'm considering a Nikon D750, Cannon EOS D6, Sony mirrorless (their model #'s totally confuse me but either a 7Rll or one of their other full frame models) I bought a Sony RX100V but returned it because the pictures I took were not any better than my I phone for those particular landscape pictures, plus it just seemed to tiny.
I appreciate any inputs about which ones I should consider and DSLR vs Mirrorless. Thanks

copladocus

I have the Canon 6D MkII and love it. The technowags will steer you away from it because it has less than optimal dynamic range - something I have yet to discern. The bad press it got is to your advantage as the price has dropped on them and providers are now including the otherwise optional battery grip as a part of the deal. It will be heavy, especially with the battery grip, so beware.

I find that the 6D does great for my level of expertise and works well in my professional work (off figure products). I can control it via my smartphone and I love the articulated touch screen. If you go that route I suggest the 24-105L lens and you will have a set up that will take you years to outgrow.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Sony would be my choice and I don’t think anyone would dispute that the A7rII produces the highest image quality out of the 3 choices. GL with your choice.

PS: As a mirrorless user, I could never ever go back to an OVF. Seeing what my exposer will look like is priceless.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

A Nikon D750 would be an excellent choice. A Sony a7r2 is a good choice too. You will need extra batteries for the Sony, if you shoot for long sessions. It has 42 megapixels, as compared to the 24 megapixels D750. You can get a Nikon refurbished D750 for $1400 from B&H Photo.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

What feels better in your hands, and how does it look through the viewfinder?

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Start your search at the output end. i.e. If you only view prints on your 50"HDTV then why would one chose a [to say the extreme] 40mpx camera. A 50"HDTV requires perhaps 10 mp image to be fine. That same 10 mp will give you a great 8x10. In the following pages people will follow the Danny De Vito OPM [other peoples money] approach, spending your money freely. You did not state price range, but the RX100V is about $1,000!
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-rx100-v/sony-rx100-vA.HTM

In reading a review of the small in you pocket 24/7 camera it gets good ratings; your saying "[no]better than my I phone for those particular landscape pictures, plus it just seemed to tiny.
I appreciate any inputs aboutwhich ones I should consider and DSLR vs Mirrorless. " The whole Idea of the pocket, small camera is that it is with you 24/7 in your pocket. Have you lugged around a DSLR along with an extra lens... hangs heavy on your neck after an hour of hiking. RX100 only weighs 10.5 oz including batteries.

Perhaps you had the RX100 set wrong ... yes iPhones can be great, but the RX100 has a 1" sensor. vs the small one in the phone. Too often people buy big DSLRs because it gives them the look of wearing "big boy pants." EGO thing.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

I get incredible images with a Sony RX100M4, it is my 24/7 carry camera when I do not have the Nikon D850 out. Besides being small, it does not scream million dollar camera when I am doing street photography.

That being said, going into a Sony A7R anything is a major investment, the A7RII body is $3200. The Nikon D750 is $1800. Coupled with a Tamron 24-70 Di, or the Nikon 28-300, you've about equaled the cost of the Sony body without lenses.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

But the OP is asking for best image quality. Not best price.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

I agree with tdekany. Of the full frames and APS-Cs, I would look at Sony. Three other cameras that many like are Fuji X-T2, Olympus E-M1 mrII, and Panasonic GH5. These are all mirrorless. These tend to be smaller, lighter, and less costly without giving up much in image quality compared to the cameras you have mention. Since you are just getting into to photography again, you might as well look at the full gamut of cameras and their formats. You should spend a little time at the nearest camera store familiarizing yourself as to a what is available.

Leicaflex Loc: Cymru

Olympus OMD EM 1 Mark II a very impressive specification and superb optics.

CO

From now on, I'm only going to purchase cameras that don't have an anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor. Cameras that I own and have rented that don't have an anti-aliasing filter have an edge in sharpness. When I purchased my D500 (no AA filter), I did comparison shots with a D750 (has AA filter). The images were processed the same way for consistency. The photos from the D500 were clearly sharper. I've noticed the difference with other cameras also.

As far as Nikon goes I would recommend looking at these models: D7200, D7500, D500, D810, D850.

You might want to rent both DSLR and mirrorless cameras. LensRentals.com is great place to rent. I've rented from them numerous times.

JPL

Of those cameras you mention here the Sony A7rII is by far the best choice. I have a full frame Nikon D600 and Sony A7r and some other cameras as well. In the full frame category the Sony is a much better choice for landscape photography than the Nikon. The A7rII has more resolution and in camera stabilizing which makes it even better than my camera. The Nikon D750 and Canon 6D have far less resolution and no in camera stabilizing and are generally a class behind the Sony for landscape photography.

As a user of both dslr and mirrorless cameras I find the mirrorless better for my needs. The only situation where dslr is still as good as mirrorless cameras or maybe better is for shooting sports and fast moving objects, which is not what you are shooting. Some new mirrorless cameras like the Sony A9 and Sony A7rIII have made the gap between dslr and mirrorless for shooting fast moving subjects almost invisible. One more generation of cameras and dslr will be obsolete, so to say.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

I shoot sony but I only use the a-mounts, and the aps-c format. the slt mirror less models have features the dslr's don't. compare features then make your choice.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Higher MP count will let you record images with amazing detail. As opposed to someone else's advice that does not recognize that viewing distance, not output size, is what determines how many pixels you need. For example, a Sony 4K projection screen at the local multiplex only uses images that are 8.8 mp. That being said, you really don't need 42 mp for a 50" tv screen.

What a camera with 36 or more mp offers, as I already said, better detail rendition. Also, if your lenses are top quality, you can crop a lot more before you start to see a loss of image quality.

With that in mind, you can get a used 36 mp D800, with a low shutter count, for under $800.

You can see some images I've taken with a D800 and D810 here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gene_lugo/

What I said about cropping is absolutely true;

Here are two images of a cat, taken with a D800 and a Sigma 150-600 Sport. One is the crop, the other before cropping. The second pair of images is of a smaller, twitchier subject, crop and un-cropped.

If these images were to be printed SMALLER, and viewed at 12" then you'd need 300 ppi or more but at greater distances the amount of detail you can see diminishes, to the point that an 8 mp iPhone 6 image looks amazing on a billboard, even though it is only about 25 ppi.

As far as mirrorless is concerned, the biggest problem I have found is the limited options for lenses. While there are quite a few available in the wide to short tele range, some of them offering outstanding quality, and with adapters like the MC11 you can adapt any Sigma lens for use on a Sony E-Mount camera, the performance is pretty substandard. Metabones also makes an adapter with even worse performance. You'd be frustrated trying to shoot wildlife or sports with a long lens that requires an adapter. If you don't need that, then the Sony cameras and their native lenses may be all you need. Mirrorless will use more battery, of course, but they are solid products that work well. I would not suggest a smaller sensor, though there are many that would, if optimum image quality is what you are after.

A word on the Sony RX10M4. I picked one up in December, and I just came back from a 3 week trip to Europe where it was the only camera gear I brought with me, and after 1500 images I can say it is quite a versatile little camera. Not great for landscape, because of the tiny sensor and the clumping of fine details in the distance, but it is super fast for sports, with the fastest and most accurate autofocus I have ever seen on a camera. It is amazing for what it is - a super zoom (Zeiss 8.8-220mm for a field of view equal to 24-600mm F2.4-F4), with a one inch sensor, but it is still a "bridge" or compromise camera. The image quality is quite good, but does not compare with what I get with a D800/D810.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

repleo Loc: Boston

The A7Rii is a great choice for what you want to shoot. I mostly shoot the same stuff as you. Mirrorless is great for sunsets, night shots etc. The A7Rii is available new for about $2200 at the moment or $1100 used on eBay. The extra refinements on the latest A7Riii won't be of much benefit to you. I think you would find the new Sony 24-105mm F4 G OSS a great lens for what you want to shoot and may be the only lens you will need.