lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

Dear amfoto1,

I have included only the first four paragraphs of your reply (and merged the 2nd with the 1st.) I applaud your opinion as to discouraging someone who doesn't know too much about cameras from buying one for an individual who clearly knows more. However, I must disagree with your recommendation as it currently reads, even though it would appear to be the most cost-effective approach, to purchase gift certificates to stores that predominantly do their business via the internet! I acknowledge that I purchase from B&H Photo-Video more frequently than any other internet photo equipment supplier (and have also purchased from Adorama, Amazon, & KEH via the internet.) But all of these purchases were from my days living in Louisiana or now in Massachusetts.

I did then and I still do stick to the principle that IF a salesman in a real bricks-and-mortar store spends any time showing me any piece of photo, electronic, or other kind of equipment and then IF I decide to purchase said equipment, I buy it from that store, NOT from an internet merchant! YES, it costs more that way. OR DOES IT? Aside from salesmen at, say, a general department store or a store chain like Best Buy, those salesmen at camera shops (or A/V "Hi Fi" shops,) know more than I do about the products they sell ... and as I'm certain at least some Hogs know, those shops from whom one buys equipment tend to be far more receptive to helping one with equipment difficulties than some guy who just walks in with a unit purchased off the internet (especially if it's not still in warranty.)

While the internet has been a boon to business in general, it has also resulted, at least where I have lived, in making such brick-and-mortar camera stores and their knowledgable personnel extinct! Yes, I know that both B&H and Adorama do have stores in NYC, but I don't live anywhere near there and JRowe, the OP of this topic, hasn't specified where she or her wonderful daughter-in-law live. Maybe the latter does have access to real brick-and-mortar stores where she lives. Under that circumstance, she might be better off not feeling "trapped" by gift certificates from Store X or Store Y.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

If she's worn out cameras, I'd never try to buy a camera for this person. They know what they would like. You don't!! I've been there, done that... And you'll simply be returning a camera for refund.

Let her make the decision and put up the cash.

I would, however, suggest taking a serious look at the Sony RX10 III or IV. I have both and they are excellent!!

bwa

WayneL Loc: Baltimore Md

Fuji X-T3

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Equivalent lenses across formats can be very different.

Medium Format = VERY heavy
Full Frame Format = heavy weight and large size
APS-C Format = medium weight/medium size (native) or heavy weight/large size (if you use full frame lenses)
Micro 4/3 = light weight/small size

Some Micro 4/3 cameras are almost the same size and weight as APS-C bodies and the lighter full frame bodies, but the lenses are as much as 80% lighter. If size, bulk and weight are serious considerations, look at the smaller formats. The trade-offs of noise vs high ISO performance and depth of field equivalence are worth considering.

Here is a comparison I did a few years ago when deciding which format I wanted to use. It was just one of many deciding factors in my choice. I compared only full frame professional lenses with Micro 4/3, because that is what I would have used. I considered only the "professional's holy trinity" of fast zooms. I actually bought the GH4 and the two longer zooms, plus a 30mm f/2.8 Lumix Macro. I may add the newer 8-18mm f/2.8-f/4 zoom at some point, but haven't needed an extreme wide angle zoom just yet.

Panasonic Holy Trinity of lenses weighs 2.13 lb. or 965g

7-14mm f/4 10.58 oz. or 300g

12-35mm f/2.8 10.76 oz. or 305g

35-100mm f/2.8 12.7 oz. or 360g

That's not quite 33% of the Canon Holy Trinity and just 28.3% of the Nikon Holy Trinity of pro zoom lenses.

Panasonic Lumix GH4: Weight (inc. batteries): 560 g (1.24 lb / 19.75 oz)
132.9 x 93.4 x 83.9mm / 5.23 x 3.68 x 3.30 in (excluding protrusions)

Canon Holy Trinity of lenses weighs 6.45 lb. or 2.928 kg

16-35mm f/2.8 1.4 lb. or 635g

24-70mm f/2.8 1.77 lb. or 803g

70-200mm f/2.8 3.28 lb. or 1.490 kg

70D: Weight (inc. batteries): 755 g (1.66 lb / 26.63 oz)
Dimensions: 139 x 104 x 79 mm (5.47 x 4.11 x 3.09″)

Canon 6D: Weight (inc. batteries): 770 g (1.70 lb / 27.16 oz)
Dimensions: 145 x 111 x 71 mm (5.71 x 4.37 x 2.8″)

5D Mark III: Weight (inc. batteries): 950 g (2.09 lb / 33.51 oz)
Dimensions: 152 x 116 x 76 mm (5.98 x 4.57 x 2.99″)


Nikon Holy Trinity weighs 7.5 lb. or 3.409 kg

14-24mm f/2.8 2.13 lb. or 969g

24-70mm f/2.8 1.98 lb. or 900g

70-200mm f/2.8 3.39 lb. or 1.540 kg

D7100: Weight (inc. batteries): 765 g (1.69 lb / 26.98 oz)
Dimensions: 136 x 107 x 76 mm (5.35 x 4.21 x 2.99″)

D600: Weight (inc. batteries): 850 g (1.87 lb / 29.98 oz)
Dimensions: 141 x 113 x 82 mm (5.55 x 4.45 x 3.23″)

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

I just got the new Nikon Z7 mirrorless and so far I like it a lot. I'm still getting used to it. Incredibly sharp images, which is one of the reasons that I chose mirrorless. It replaces a worn-out D800 and I will still use my D500 for wildlife/action shots, but all else will be taken with the Z7.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

The Internet did not make camera stores extinct, we did, the buyer.

papa Loc: Rio Dell, CA

How about a gift certificate? Then she could choose what she wants, instead of what some hogger wants.

Bob Locher Loc: Southwest Oregon

I quite agree she should make the final determination.
I do urge you take her to Best Buy and check out the Sony A6000 and the A6500, and the new 18-135 mm zoom from Sony. Way inside you budget and capable of tremendous results.

Fred Haider

The new Nikon Mirrorless has an adaptor that allows use of existing Nikon lens. There are two the lesser priced one saves $1400 and still has an insane high pixel count. It also knocks out more images per second. There are two shortcomings. 1 does not have dual slots 2 the required SD card is extremely expensive. But if you are comfortable with the egonomics / feel of your Nikon it should be strongly considered. Happy shooting whatever you decide.

User ID

Not really much connection as a "Nikon User".

A person using a DX sized Nikon has little to
no reason to choose a Z-series Nikon, unless
Nikon is rumoring a DX format model for the
Z-series. ATM there's not even a rumor altho
it seems obvious that someday there will be
a DX sized 'Z' model. Likewise with Canon.

The ultimate travel camera, for an advanced
user, at this time, would be an m-4/3 model.


`

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

Tangential question, but how do you define "worn out"? I am curious because one of my cameras is a D5300.
Thank you.

Bill P

[quote=DaveyDitzer]Tangential question, but how do you define "worn out"?

This is the best question/comment asked yet.

gwilliams6

Love them or loathe them, an interesting new podcast from Tony Northrup (Chelsea Northrup injured herself playing soccer and was absent here). (1.1 million subscribers and growing) What do you think about what Tony says here ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjXSnNMZ0PU

Micro Four-Thirds is DEAD (Picture This! Podcast)

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Although there are some acturate business points, Tony has also made some assumptions that I don't think will play out the way he thinks. I think he could be right that the 4/3rds systems may play less of a factor in the mirrorless market in the future, and may become more of a niche system in the matket, but I seriously doubt it will be killed off. And I believe Panasonic will stay in the 4/3rds market because they will not have to spread themselves as thin as Tony believes. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

markjay

no.
its dead.
there will be no room for all these systems now that Canon and Nikon will give up on DSLRs.
It mirrorless FF and mirrorless APSC and thats it going forward.