billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

A friend I shoot with everyday in Florida with shoots the Canon 5D MIV. I have seen her shots with my most discussing (IMHO)(no snarky comments please) Sigma 150-600 lens, she gets eyeball popping results, I am amazed, she also shots that camera with the Canon 100-400 II with a Canon 1.4 teleconverter, again, amazing results.
I shoot the Nikon D850 with either the Nikon 200-500 5.6 or the new 500 5.6 lenses. I equal her in results. So, pick your poison, both will deliver.

lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

Umh, if one ultimately decides to purchase either a camera or lens that one tried out at a particular bricks-and-mortar store (renting such excluded,) then in my opinion, should that person not buy it from that store instead of via the internet, regardless of the savings?

Forgive me if this sounds supercilious (and no slight of xt2 whatsoever intended,) but I believe one should keep the preceding in mind, particularly when making recommendations to someone new to photography.

BlueMorel Loc: Southwest Michigan

Regardless on what equipment you choose, my vote goes to refurb or lightly used from a trusted vendor. That way you can get a bigger bang for your buck. I'd suggest holding back some after your initial purchases to pay for additional equipment you are likely to discover urgent needs for as you develop your craft.

BARRY COWAN

I am not a Canon guy but it seem to me that if your lenses are compatible with the new Canon's you should look at them first. New equipment is expensive and if your glass is good why replace them. I and many photographers I know use glass we've had for years.

On the other hand, I really really like my Nikon Z7. Fantastic.

ELNikkor

For your foundational camera/lens which would be perfect for those "grandkids over" or daily life photos, a great combination for you would be the Canon 5D MkIV with the 24-70 f4L lens (for $3550 at B&H). You won't miss the 2.8 speed of the other 24-70, as much as you would mind lugging around all the extra weight for the seldom used 2.8 speed, not to mention the high cost! That lens will also be perfect for 95% or even all of the occasional weddings and group shots you will shoot. So, that is half your budget, plain and simple. The next lens should be Tamron's 70-200 2.8 G2. This will be excellent for HS sports either inside a gym, or soccer/baseball even at night. My friend used one of these for that purpose, all jpeg, no post process except for crop and got all the quality he needed. It can also be used for portraits, indoor events, candids etc. The last, for your BIF or airplanes would be the Tamron 150-600 f6.3 G2. Together, those Tamron lenses will add up to around $2500 + the $3550 = $6,050. Best to come in under budget so you'll have room for things like maybe a 50 1.8, tripod, flash, storage media, post programs etc. Let us know what you decide!

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I did not take the time to read 100% of the replies before mine, but just in case, here are some thoughts that I did not see.

If you possibly can, get to Oshkosh at the end of this month for AirVenture. You probably already know about it. If not, look it up on the 'net.

I see everyone else is saying Canon or Nikon. If you are interested in mirrorless, consider Sony. Since I am a Sony fanboy, that advice may be ignored, but you should make an informed choice. If cost is not a barrier, consider the A9. Also consider the A7Rm3. Sony lenses are costly but many will agree that the top ones are worth it. Many, myself included, rank Sony #1 in mirrorless and that may be because they are a few years ahead of Nikon and Canon, etc. in that area.

And I support the commenters who say it should feel right to you. Your personal ergonomics are a huge factor in your final results.

Lastly, if it has not already been said, RENT FIRST.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The easiest camera to just pick up and start using would be another Canon.

And, based on most of what you want shoot, I'd recommend a crop camera, rather than a full frame such as the 5DIV or D850. Aircraft in flight, deer, wildlife, grandkids, and high school sports are all "telephoto" work. Check the focal length you're using for those with your current kit. I bet it's close to 300mm a lot of the time. If that's the case, to get the same "reach" with a full frame camera will require a 500mm lens. Are you prepared to buy and carry around one of those? About the smallest, lightest of those is a reasonably affordable Tamron 150-600mm VC USD G2 for roughly $1500. With full frame camera, you'll also not be able to use lenses designed for crop sensor cameras, which in the case of Canon means that you'll not be able to use about 1/3 of the lenses they currently offer. Conversely, crop sensor cameras can use both crop-design lenses and full frame lenses equally well... so in the case of Canon you have choice of approx. 90 lenses, as well as many third party options. (Yes, some crop design lenses can be used on full frame cameras... but you end up cropping the image so much that it's not advisable... with many FF cameras, you'd end up back where you started from, close to the same 10MP of your 40D, making the entire effort sort of a waste.)

Portraits, weddings, and landscapes generally don't require hefty telephotos and can be done with either full frame or crop camera. If you were shooting professionally, I might recommend getting a full frame camera to use for these purposes, possibly alongside a crop sensor camera for the other purposes (best of both worlds). Portraits and weddings often means using large apertures to render shallow depth of field and make for strong background blur effects, which are more easily done with full frame. Landscape photography can mean very large prints, which are best done with a larger format, higher resolution camera (in fact, "full frame" may not be enough... the most serious landscape pros shoot with medium format).

But, if you have been shooting portraits, weddings and landscapes with a 40D, you'll be blown away by the current models.

Another argument in favor of a more affordable camera... You would probably benefit a great deal more from upgrading lenses, along with an updated camera... the 10MP 40D was a decent camera in it's day, but there have been many improvements in the years since. In fact, I'm going to recommend several lenses instead of spending upwards of $2500 on a camera. I'm also going to stick with Canon because that's what I know best.

Canon 80D ($1000) would be an excellent choice:

- 24MP CMOS APS-C sensor (same format as your 40D).
- 7 frames per second continuous shooting... good for sports, airshows, etc.
- ISO 100 to 16000 native range (expands to 25600)
- 45-point AF system... all higher performance "cross type"
- "f/8 capable" AF... can use more lens/teleconverter combos than your 40D, which is "f/5.6 limited"
- -3EV AF, able to focus in much lower light conditions than your 40D (which probably has -1EV or -0.5EV AF)
- Large, bright optical viewfinder... 100% with 0.95X magnification.
- 3", 1 million pixel, articulated rear LCD.
- Canon's "Dual Pixel AF" in Live View and video (much faster focusing in Live View)
- HD video at up to 60 fps.
- LP-E6N battery rated to give 960 shots per charge
- BG-E17 Battery Grip ($169) avail. to double battery capacity, as well as provide vertical controls
- Uses inexpensive SD memory cards.
... and more.

80D is sold in kit with the EF-S 18-135mm IS USM lens... a very good, fast focusing kit lens that's a serious step up from the 18-55mm that's sold in kit with many other cameras. When bought in kit with the camera, the lens costs an additional $400. (If bought separately, it costs $600.) The EW-73D lens hood for the 18-135mm is sold separately for $35, highly recommended. It's one of Canon's new design hoods that have a latching mechanism to keep them firmly attached, yet make them easy to remove. These are a bit more complex and a little more expensive than the older style of hood, but IMO they're worth it.

In other words, the 80D would be quite a step up from your 12-year-old 40D. The control layout is slightly different, but nothing major. With controls more similar to your 40D, as well as even higher performance frame rate (10 fps) and faster autofocus (65-point), more robust build and other enhancements, the Canon 7D Mark II is in many respects a step up from the 80D. Selling for $1400 for the body alone or $1800 with EF-S 18-135mm IS USM lens, the 7DII is Canon's top-of-the-line APS-C model. It matches or beats the 80D in almost all respects, except that it uses a bit lower resolution 20MP sensor.

As I've already mentioned, I really think lenses are where you'd see the most improvement. The EF-S 18-135mm IS USM would be a good starter to build a system around. But if you want even higher performance "standard" zoom ("walk-around" lens), you have choice of EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM with it's faster aperture or EF-S 15-85mm IS USM with it's wider-than-most capabilities (which might make a separate wide angle lens unnecessary). Each of these lenses sell new for approx. $800 (lens hoods sold separately).

For landscape photography, in particular.... as well as other things... you appear to currently be lacking a truly wide lens (28mm, your widest mentioned, is only very slightly wide on an APS-C camera). Here again, Canon has a couple excellent options. Their EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (about $600) has been around for a number of years, but is still one of the best ultrawide zooms anyone makes. My only complaint is that the matched lens hood is rather large, but it works, so I use it on mine. A more recently introduced alternative is the EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM lens that Canon shocked the world by offering at half the cost, under $300. (The other manufacturers have all had to lower their prices, as a result. And Nikon came out with a similar lens of their own.) The EF-S 10-18mm is also the smallest and lightest of the ultrawides, and was the first lens of this type offered with Image Stabilization. It's a bit plasticky, but has excellent image quality... and a bargain price.

For your sports, airshow and wildlife photography you might continue using the Canon EF 75-300mm IS lens.... but there are some better options. The 75-300mm IS USM was Canon's very first Image Stabilized lens, introduced in 1995. It was long ago replaced by the EF 70-300mm IS USM (and now the "II" version of that lens), which has MUCH better image quality. (The non-IS, non-USM version of your lens, the EF 75-300 "III" is currently Canon's cheapest telephoto zoom at $200... The $100 more expensive EF-S 55-250mm IS STM lens blows it away in EVERY possible way! Faster focus, closer focus, image stabilized AND much better image quality.)

The EF 70-300mm IS USM the newer "II" would be an excellent upgrade at around $500. The earlier version is also very good and can still be bought new for under $400.

But if the larger size, greater weight and higher price don't intimidate you, the EF 100-400mm L IS USM "II" would be even better. On and APS-C camera like 80D or 7DII the 100-400 II is truly a superb, high performance "super telephoto" zoom. It has robust "L-series" build quality and is well sealed for dust and weather resistance, has extremely good image quality from one end of the zoom to the other... and the price has come down considerably. It's currently selling for $1800 (was $2200). One thing I'd suggest is replacing the foot supplied with the tripod mounting ring with one of the custom ones from Kirk, RRS, Hejnar Photo or some others. Those cost $70 or a little more, but attach more securely and incorporate an Arca-Swiss style dovetail for easy use on tripods and monopods.

Both Sigma and Tamron offer 100-400mm lenses, too. They're about half the price of the Canon and weigh about a half lb. less... But they don't have the superb image quality of the Canon. The tripod ring for the Tamron is sold separately (about $129)... while the Sigma doesn't have any means for one. (Personally I wouldn't use a 100-400mm lens without a tripod mounting ring!)

You could probably put together relatively similar system from Nikon or Pentax (both of which offer both APS-C and full frame DSLRs). I'm using Canon examples above because that's the system I know best and those are products I know from experience and am most comfortable recommending.

You mention mirrorless cameras as an option, too. There are some good ones to consider, but you will find they tend to be more expensive than DSLRs with the most similar specs and that there is less lens and accessory selection for mirrorless. Still, you could build a good kit around a mirrorless camera, too.

Same as with DSLRs, I'd recommend an APS-C mirrorless camera. They are available full frame, APS-C and slightly smaller micro 4/3 formats, all of which are good in their own ways. But with full frame you'll run into the same problem as with a full frame DSLR... big, heavy, expensive telephotos that would be required for a lot of what you like to shoot. In addition, there's not a lot of size and weight savings with full frame mirrorless. One of the top reasons people turn to mirrorless is because they are looking for something smaller and lighter than DSLRs. Full frame mirrorless cameras can be slightly smaller and lighter than equivalent DSLRs... but their lenses are at least as large and heavy, sometimes are even bigger. Limited lens selection available also can mean having to adapt a DSLR lens, adding size and weight which pretty much negates any savings with the camera itself.

Nikon only makes mirrorless with full frame format now, with their Z-series (and in the past, their first mirrorless series - now discontinued - used a 1" sensor smaller than anyone else's mirrorless).

Canon offers APS-C and full frame mirrorless. But their APS-C M-series is slower focusing, not really up to shooting sports, fast moving wildlife or air show action. They also have very limited lens selection, despite the M-series being offered for around 6 years now. Their full frame R-series are wonderful new cameras, but both these and Nikon's Z-series are relatively new and have very limited lens selection so far... in addition to the previously mentioned shortcomings of full frame in general for your purposes .

If you're interested in mirrorless, I'd recommend the Fujifilm system or the Sony system. All the Fuji are APS-C... while Sony offers both APS-C and full frame. They also both have fairly well developed systems of lenses and accessories (although not nearly as extensive as what's available for Canon or Nikon DSLRs). Olympus and Panasonic share the same mount to be able to have a fairly good selection of lenses, too, for their micro 4/3 mirrorless cameras. (Panasonic has just recently announced they too will be offering a full frame mirrorless.... not much in stores yet, though.)

There are pluses and minuses to mirrorless versus DSLRs. Look into and compare those very carefully, before deciding what's best for you. Mirrorless are quite likely the "camera of the future"... While DSLRs are merely "holding steady" in sales. Eventually mirrorless sales will match DSLRs.... and then surpass them. But DSLRs aren't going away any time soon... And there's still a lot of development needed with mirrorless.

Have fun shopping. I hope this helps!

motionbymarvin

Take a hard look at Nikon's D750 refurbished from Adorama with the 24-120 f4 and 80-400g 4.5-5.6 lenses. If needed add 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8.
Nikon just rebuild my 1st D750 including new Sutter, free of charge. I use two 750 bodies with 24-120 and 80-400 lenses. D810 is used basically for people and events using f2.8 lenes.

assman Loc: Grand Rapids, MI

I have the Pentax K-3ii. I would highly suggest looking at Pentax. You can use just about any lens they ever made.

BebuLamar

You should first decide whether DSLR or Mirrorless is better for you.

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

I should disclose that I'm a Sony guy and have been since getting my first digital ILC (interchangeable lens camera) seven years ago, currently with an a7Riii.

I would go mirrorless for sure. I've long said mirrorless is the future, and now it's becoming more apparent than ever. A solid rumor just appeared that Nikon is dropping three, and probably four, of its eight DSLR cameras to focus on its fledgling mirrorless line to try to stay relevant. Canon is not producing any new DSLR lenses for a year while it tries to catch up to competition with its mirrorless line. And of course the newest tech comes with Sony on its mirrorless line.

I suggest making a list of features important to you and which lines/models have them. I did this. I used an Excel spreadsheet as I read & researched and was surprised when Sony models ended up at the top, as I expected Canon but wanted Nikon (again, this was seven years ago). Good luck.

tiphareth51 Loc: Somewhere near North Pole, Alaska

Hello. Others have given you terrific suggestions and brand recommendations. Imho, the experience of others also is a factor. Having been in a similar situation as you, the switch from crop sensor to full-frame was made. Although I learned on Canon film cameras in the 70's, and my first digital was a Nikon, a Nikon D810 was purchased. This was before the release of the D850. In terms of glass, the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 has served me well. This is a top of the line Nikon lens. For a long zoom, the Nikon 200-500 f5.6 has been fantastic. However, due to its weight, I cannot hand hold it and always need to use a tripod. The Sigma Art series lenses are also impressive in terms of glass. Their 14-24 f2.8 and 24 to 70 f2.8 have yielded spectacular aurora and portraits. The lens that is my daily use is the Nikon 70-200. Unfortunately, due to the progression of arthritis in my hands, I am seriously considering replacing it all with a bridge camera. So don't wait, make your purchase soon so that you can enjoy it before old age sets in. Good luck with your decision.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

As the happy owner of the 80D I will recommend it, but mention it is slightly bigger than some Rebel models.

But rather than recommend a particular camera let me suggest a decision process.

1) Since a full complement of equipment can get rather expensive, if you don't have a driving reason to change, consider what you save by keeping it Canon so you can continue to use the lenses (and possibly batteries, flash, etc) you already have.

2) Are you best served with FF or crop? If you do a lot of work in low light, FF should be your choice. Furthermore, you can get more MegaPixels in a FF, if that is important to you. On the other hand, if birds, wildlife and other objects in the distance are what you shoot most, a crop camera should be considered. You can get wider angle lenses for crop only if you are concerned about that.

3) Which feel the easiest to hold. Will they be too heavy for long shoots?

4) Which have menus that are more intuitive?

5) Mirroless or DSLR? Mirrorless from Canon and Nikon are relatively new so there is a less extensive a list of lenses made for them. However, the DSLR lenses can be adapted, but you lose some of the weight advantage because of the adapter.

I'm sure if I think about it more, I can come up with more questions.

If, after asking yourself these questions, I would suggest renting at least 2 at a time to better compare.

Finally, after choosing, consider purchasing reconditioned from one of the recommended companies like one of the ABCs (Adorama, B&H, Cameta) or KEH.

Chris981 Loc: Pacific Palisades

Gray,
I shot with Canon in my film days and when I entered the digital age I switched to Nikon. Why, because two of my very good friends and photogs shot Nikon. The Canon glass I had was obsolete FD mount. So, I could make a clean start with either companies cameras and lenses. I felt my friends could help me get a faster start with Nikon because they knew the systems, features and menus of Nikon gear. I don't think you could go wrong with either manufacturer. Which controls, features and menus do you like the best should be the deciding factor. Get the best glass and speed lights from the company you chose. I find, generally, that third party lenses and speed lights disappoint in the long run.
Mirrorless is the future but I think it is still, at this time, for early adopters, which I am not. I hear that sports, birds in flight and other fast action shooting with mirrorless does have some latency. That would be a problem for me.
Do your research, pull the trigger and go shoot.
My $.02

bleirer

I have one of the lenses he mentioned, the 75-300, it will not keep up with a high end sensor. In my opinion he should not base a system decision on trying to use some old lens. The world is your oyster at this point, photographically speaking.

Full frame will get you the best dynamic range, the least diffraction, the least noise, relatively more control if narrower depth of field is wanted, and many megapixels. Crop will get you many megapixels too, good dynamic range, broader depth of field relatively speaking, more reach in a relative sense, lighter and smaller lenses to paint a broad picture.