MikeMc wrote:
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
I'm getting back into hobby photography and shoppi... (
show quote)
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.