cmaxi

I have very similar tastes.
This combination works great:
Canon 7d II
24-105 f/4 L
70-200 f/4 L
Canon 300 f/4 L
Canon 1.4 teleconverter
Ultimate (affordable) airshow kit!
Great af, speed and iq.
The 70-200 with the 1.4 tc will get the job done 90% for the flying displays. No detectable loss in iq, so don’t obsess about that. Good luck.

bweber Loc: Newton, MA

Let me tell you what I used to tell customers many years ago when I sold cameras. Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Fuji, and Sony all make very good full frame cameras with quality lenses. Read the reviews, etc. Check dpreview.com for reviews. BUT. Before you purchase anything go some place where you handle each model and brand you are thinking about buying. They all have different buttons, shapes, function, etc. You want the one that is most comfortable for you, and is something you want to carry around and use on a regular basis. You will read all sorts of opinion about this one having faster focusing speed, or greater latitude, blah, blah, blah. I the end those differences have a minimal effect on your images. You want a camera you will be happy to use.
Good luck.

Idaho

You will only be hopelessly confused by a question like this but I'll try something difference.

Think in terms of being a two camera photographer. One is small, light, and less expensive - say under $1000. It will come in very handy for snapshot type stuff and anytime you want minimal weight and bulk. Work with this one first before making a decision on the second one. It doesn't have to be an SLR. Maybe a bridge camera.

Your second camera can then be a full frame. You will have to do your own research (sorry - I don't it takes time) because if you don't someone else will and you will be buying their camera - not yours.

You will want to stay with the same system to make learning easier and maybe share a flash or whatever else. Nikon, Canon, etc.

People ask for the perfect or ideal camera. The answer to that is simply - buy two since you have the money.

BDHender

I am retired and 72 years old. I shoot very simularly to you with a bit more travel and sports car racing in lieu of air shows. I recently went from my D810 to the Z7 to go with my D500. On a recent vacation both the D810 and the D500 were a load to carry separately of course. The Z7 is a great deal easier to carry around.

The Z7 is interesting as the initial reviews were terrible but the later reviews are much more favorable. The only issue that would effec me is the complaints about auto focus. However, I think many reviewers did not take time to review the manual closely and tried to make the AF work just like the D850 which is the closest relative to the Z7. The AF is not the same. I found that if I use Dynamic area and AFC the AF works very well shooting race cars which are not sitting still. I don't see much difference between the Z7 and the D500 in that situation. The IQ however is noticeably better on the Z7.

The other thing that doesn't get mentioned enough is the inbody stabilization. It is amazing. I can now hand hold down to 1/20 with the Z7's 24-70 f4 S lens which does not have stabilization in the lens.

With the adapter, other than the screw drive focus lenses you may have, your Nikon F lenses will likely work just fine.

Bryan

jaycoffman Loc: San Diego

I advise keeping your eye on the ball. Your statement, "I am primarily a landscape (80%), car show(15%), air show (5%) shooter. My primary goals with this purchase are superb image quality and outstanding auto focus that ultimately produce tack sharp images." really should spell out how you want to analyze which camera to get.

If I were in your position I'd be thinking that "landscape" and "car shows" plus "tack sharp" would lead me to one of the high end full frame cameras. Neither of these subjects requires you to carry around a zillion pounds of gear for long distances so that need not be a consideration. In this forum the Nikon D850 and D810 are both very favored full frame cameras and I don't think you'd be disappointed with either (although as someone stated--the learning curve is a bit steep). Again, if I were you I'd attach much less significance to the air shows because you don't shoot that many. I suspect either of the full frame cameras would do very well with those specially since you may be shooting some of the planes on the ground. However, if that is a very important 5% then you may consider the D500 which would probably be the best for that use.

Also, you should try holding these cameras in your hands to see what feels comfortable to you. Since you have a Nikon you'll probably find the Nikons easier to understand and adapt to just as I did. But don't be too set on one make until you try a few. You may look at the mirrorless but right now and with your preferences I'm not sure they would suit you best right now.

As everyone else says, welcome to the club (UHH) and the club of old retired farts. Many of us are finding this to be the most fun period of our whole lives so hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

pappleg

(Download)

pappleg

Oops John, I embedded my comments in the center of your original post so you will need to open that to see it. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Pat

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

One of the worst things you can do when photographing a landscape is to use too small an aperture for the format and sensor density in use. For instance, the average full frame sensor begins to show diffraction when you stop down past f/11. An APS-C camera of the same MP count will begin to show diffraction around f/8. A Micro 4/3 camera of the same MP count will begin to show diffraction when you stop down past f/5.6.

Yet... I still hear old photographers moaning about how they can't set f/32 or f/64 or f/128, like they did in their 8x10-using view camera days! They don't understand that there is more to choosing f/stops and focal lengths than depth of field, perspective, working distance, angle of view, and exposure...

All my Micro 4/3 lenses are fine when used wide open at f/2.8. They are at their very best when used at f/4, and still perform quite well at f/5.6. By f/8, I'm seeing a tiny amount of diffraction. At f/11, the diffraction is noticeable and annoying. At f/16 and smaller, I won't use them unless absolutely necessary.

When I used Canon APS-C cameras, my lenses were soft wide open, at f/2.8. They were much better at f/4, at their best at f/5.6, still good at f/8, and diffraction set in at smaller apertures and got worse.

I was a school portrait company training program developer. We had over 350 Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 zoom lenses on our school portrait cameras (Canon 50D and earlier 40D, 30D, 20D). Unfortunately, they had f/22 and f/32 options on them! We had this old guy who had used 8x10s for group photos for 20 years. When he used a 50D for class groups, he would set the damned lens on f/32! The diffraction was so bad, the photos looked like they were taken through a couple layers of panty hose. He didn't want to listen when I told him he could have used f/8 from his 20 foot working distance and 35mm focal length, and still have 70+ feet of depth of field to get everything plenty sharp. Then I had him download a decent depth of field calculator for his smartphone... and he finally got it. Even at f/5.6, he could have had 29 feet of DOF.

If you buy a full frame camera, you can use smaller apertures. That can be a good thing, because full frame lenses are big and heavy. But with Micro 4/3, you WANT f/2.8 or faster lenses, because you have the equivalent of two stops greater depth of field for a given field of view, due to the 2x crop factor. For roughly equivalent shallow depth of field, you can compare a 25mm f/1.4 lens used wide open on Micro 4/3 to a 35mm lens used at f/2 on APS-C, to a 50mm lens used at f/2.8 on full frame.

Any format you mention will work for stationary subjects like landscapes. If money, size, bulk, and weight were not considerations, I would prefer a full frame, high megapixel count camera like the Nikon D850 for landscapes, to capture maximum detail. But I'm not one to lug around a lot of weight these days. I get by with my Micro 4/3 kit.

For sports and wildlife, things get much trickier. Many folks prefer 20 to 24MP dSLRs for those subjects. The full frame Nikon D5 and APS-C D500 sort of own that space, although recent innovations from some of the mirrorless providers can challenge them under certain circumstances. The full frame Sony A9 and A7III, the APS-C Fujifilm XT-3, and the Micro 4/3 Lumix DC-G9 and Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II are all worth a try. They are vastly different from one another, and each is strong in some ways, lacking in others.

Any of the cameras I've mentioned will make images that can create large prints, if you do your part to use it correctly. dSLRs are still the strongest contenders for a steady diet of sports action photography. Full frame bodies are best for low light action, while APS-C bodies are going to "reach" farther at the same focal lengths, to lighten your lens load and expense. Mirrorless cameras are least known for sports action, until you look at the high frame rates of the latest bodies from Panasonic and Olympus.

You can find plenty of commentaries on mirrorless gear here, if you search. Canon and Nikon have just introduced their first *serious* and full frame mirrorless bodies. Each has some very strong points and some weak points. On the whole, they are first efforts, despite the Canon EOS M System and Nikon 1 System efforts before them. It will probably take Canikon at least one more try to catch up to what the pros really want in a full frame mirrorless that Sony already has. I hope they get there, but I've been hoping since 2012. That's why I switched from Canikon to Lumix. Hope yielded to pragmatism.

If camera ergonomics, handling, physical controls, and clear, readable, UNDERSTANDABLE menus mean something to you, look at Lumix, Fujifilm, and Canon. Their use of buttons, dials, and "flat" menu structures is great. Sony and Olympus cameras DO a lot, but their menus and controls can be frustrating.

Whatever you buy, I hope you'll rent first. Camera systems are very personal choices.

I was lucky to work where I had access to many different cameras over the years. Some fit my hands, others didn't. Some made sense, intuitively, while others got in the way of my work. I don't like to think about my gear, I like to use it!

I want to think about the visual "message" and composition. I don't like to have to stop and think about where a control is. I want a camera that gives me dials and buttons for the things I do most often. Let me re-program some buttons for functions that I use, but put the universal ones like ISO, Exposure Compensation, White Balance, Shutter, Aperture, Exposure Mode, AF Mode, etc. in obvious places. BUT, I don't want buttons anywhere I'm going to grip the camera.

Good luck, welcome to the 'hog, and let us know what you do!

fetzler Loc: North West PA

In choosing a camera think of the lenses that are available. Are the lenses appropriate for you?

As for Nikon there is a lot of glass the Nikon. The d7200 and d500 would be excellent choices. The Nikon 16-80 is an excellent general purpose lens. Super wide 10-24mm for car shows would be nice. For air shows a long telephoto zoom 100 -400 or 150 600 would be great.

I might also consider micro 4/3 for telephoto side this would greatly reduce weight. Wide angle selection is is a bit sparse but there is some The Panasonic 12-60mm (both Pro and regular versions approximate) approximate the Nikon 16-80 and 16-85mm lenses.

You could try a rentals to see what you like. Just remember the glass.

gsnelson Loc: Western Maryland

I own the Nikon D750 and the D850, as well as the Sony A7ii and the A7rii (and a Leica).
I shoot essentially the same things you do. I use the Nikons for studio portraits (and yes there is a difference in the two), but for my all-day and short-time photo trips I always grab a Sony. They are not inferior in any way to the Nikons. And the weight difference is significant (don't fall for the "...by the time you add lenses..." argument). The weight difference has to be multiplied by every minute you carry the camera and lens. The new Sony A7iii would be a happy choice. I had a Fuji XT2, but gave it to my son.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

The Z7 and Z6 Nikon electronic shutter mirrorless cameras produce very sharp images, even when hand held at very low shutter speeds. They are lighter than the regular Nikon gear so can depend less on a tripod. You can get an adapter to use any Nikon lenses you keep. I just got the Nikon Z7 and I am amazed at what it can do, although I am still learning it. I do not plan to use it for wildlife shots, I will use my Nikon D500 and longer lenses for that subject. I got it with the 24-70 f/4 lens and love what the shots look like. Check it out. I know people love the Sony mirrorless cameras so you should probably check out those, too.

pins

I was in a similar situation several years ago. I owned a D90 and wanted something better but wasn't sure if I wanted to go full frame due to weight. I chose to go 4/3 and found the menus very cumbersome and the pics weren't as sharp as I had hoped. I used it for a couple of years but just didn't enjoy it as I found it frustrating to use. I started the search again, looking at the newer crop sensor nikon and full frame as well. But I still liked the weight of the 4/3 and so my search expanded. I made the decision to buy a Leica Q. It's menu is very simple, fast auto focus, as well as excellent manual focus, and it produces extremely sharp photos. It's so easy to use that it has helped me to become a better photographer as I'm not so fixated on working with the complicated menus. The only thing it won't be good at, is your need for shooting air shows, unless the planes are on the ground. It's a super walk around and landscape camera. Good luck!

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Just to clarify for newbies... The 4/3 is an old dSLR format that is now defunct. It has been supplanted over the last ten years by Micro 4/3, which uses the same size Sony sensors, but ten years better. Old 4/3 format lenses, some of which are quite good, can be adapted to Olympus and Panasonic Micro 4/3 cameras.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

John, mirrorless is the future and the future is NOW ! I, like you, am looking for superb landscape image quality. Today. I just saw the imatest numbers for the new Nikon S lenses - 24-70 and 35mm f1.8 and they are the highest numbers I have ever seen ! ( and I do look at these things for the past 2 years) The promise of unrestricted lens design is now being realized by Nikon with its larger lens mount and shorter back-focus ! - especially for lens focal lengths 50mm and shorter. Say goodby to the mirror box and flopping mirror ! ......( I am not a Nikon user - and NEVER shot Nikon)......

..

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

John, I just wrote an article, with shots included, on the Nikonian website about my experience with my new Nikon D7. You might find it interesting reading in your research efforts. Here is the web site: https://www.nikonians.org.