Hello all,

I am nearing retirement and have decided to get more serious about my photography hobby. I am a serious amateur who has been dabbling in photography for many years. I have been shooting a Nikon D90 since 2009 with the kit 18-105, 3.5-5.6 lens. I am ready to upgrade.

I have been saving for this upgrade for a long time and now have a budget of $5,000. However, spending less than that amount would certainly be acceptable. What is more important is that I end up with the right camera/lens system that works for me without buying more technology than my skill level can utilize. I recently began my post processing career with Photoshop Elements. I may want to enlarge a photo from time to time to a "hang it on the wall" size, but nothing outrageous.

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. I am working on the tack sharp part with practice, local college classes, tripod, reading, talking, Internet, UHH, etc..


My current D90 has no value as a trade in and I am willing to consider another brand besides Nikon. I am leaning towards a full-frame camera such as the Nikon Z6, Z7 and D850. But, I am attracted to the Sony A7 III, as well as the Olympus OMD series and the Fuji XT-3 with the smaller sensors. I am on the fence regarding mirrorless vs. regular DSLR technology.


Lastly, for landscapes, are 2.8 f-stop lenses really necessary when 6 or 11 f stops offer the best sharpness? 2.8 lenses are much more expensive, as you know. If you needed background blur I would think that a 1.4 or 1.8 prime lens would be better.


Thank you all for your help.

John T.

Let me preface my comments by saying, I have been a victim, I have had a close relative shot and I think Bipod is one of the worst trolls on this site.

But any one who thinks they are at increased risk of being murdered in a national park and concludes that a good idea is being armed with weapons meant only for use on fellow humans while in a park intended for the pleasurable use of all including children, has got something seriously wrong with them and should seek immediate help. That kind of bent thinking is shared by perpetrators of mass killings.

Two things puzzle me:

1. Why would any adult male think that srtangers in a park want to kill him?
Rob? Sure. But kill? Why? Motiveless crimes do occur, but they are quite rare.

2. How did we get from this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

to this:

people wanting to carry a concealed pistol in a park order to shoot "dirtbags" under the pretext
of self-defense?

And clearly, it is a pretext: a robbery attempt does not justify a homicide.

There is another term for these "dirtbags": fellow Americans. Human beings.

Uh, I didn't say that.

Architect1776, it's pretty obvious that you're walking around with that .45 (Glock?) looking for
an excuse to use it. Eventually you will find one. You'll commit that homicide you've been
dreaming about. Seem quite likely, doesn't it?

And then you'll assigned be a case number, and your name will be run though the computer.
I wonder what will turn up on your rap sheet?

Routinely, your name will br run though the FBI computer. And what will pop up there?
All these tough-guy paramilitary-style posts at UHH. Oh yes. And any ones you made at
Gab, Eagle Forum, RightNation, etc. You think Homeland Security and the FBI don't
watch these forums? Assuredly, they do.

If you'll say these things on a photography forum, one can only imagine what you might say
on Gab--where all the gun-fondlers, survivalists, doomsdayers, Neo-Nazis, etc. hang out.
Maybe you're just an advocate for Second Amendment--but you don't come across that way.
Now with talk about "dirtbags" etc.

Whatever psychological thrill you get out of this, you should be aware that it could make you
the subject of a National Security Letter--if you aren't already. So you might want to tone it down.
Just a word to the wise.

I respectfully disagree here burkphoto, I personally have used the best of top DSLRs fron Nikon and Canon to shoot sports and have also used the best of fullframe Sony mirrorless to shoot sports and wildlife. The Sony A9, and A7III far outperform the best of the FF DSLRs from Nikon and Canon in daylight AND Low light in autofocusing and tracking moving subjects. I enjoy much better capture and focus rate with my top mirrorless gear now. If you haven't use the best of both FF DSLRs and top FF mirrorless you will not know the facts here.

Tony's test of mirrorless sports shooting was completely valid and scientific. There are fanboys here that won't accept any verdict but one that favors their own favorite brand. The reality is there is NO camera on the planet that can touch the A9 for fastest reading sensor (A Sony exclusive, stacked front-illuminated sensor) which coupled with their super-fast processor allows the A9 to shoot a TRUE 20fps with full autofocus and exposure control,AND no viewfinder blackouts. No other FF camera can do this, none. The Sony can make 60 autofocus and 60 exposure calculations and changes per second, which NO other Fullframe camera on the planet can match, none. The A7III shares the same 93% frame coverage focusing system as the A9 with 693 phase detection and 435 contrast detection focus spots across the frame for edge to edge acquisition and tracking of subjects , essential for sports. None of the top FF DSLRs from Nikon and Canon can match this, none. That is one of the reason I switched from Nikon and Canon after 40 years. Cheers

Hi Photo Brain,
I search this site and only show this topic from a few years back.
Currently shooting a D500 for sports. Indoor, outdoor, low light, all of it.
Thinking of going full frame for the night games but wondering if I should hold off for the new cameras.

Has anyone made the switch from their sport DSLR to a mirrorless one?
If so, which one and what pros and cons do you find?

I would like real examples, not theoretical from someone that has only read about them.
Thanks!

I found the Sigma Sport preferable to the 200-500 on my camera. In fact, it was close enough to my 600mm F4 that I have rarely used the 600 since I got the Sigma Sport. I have two friends that got G2s and found them to be just as sharp as the Sigma and 2 lbs lighter. I shoot Nikon, have mostly Nikon lenses, but I am also a pragmatist - if the lens is sharper I will use it, regardless of what brand name is on the barrel. I could have gotten a bad copy of the 200-500, but it good, but not great, on my D810. Funny thing is, after I bought my Sigma I came across this in depth review - which validated my own experience:

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-200-500mm-f5-6e-vr

It's hard to argue with MTF charts, though I will say that I though that the 200-500 seemed a little better that it scored. But I did find it to be not as strong at 500mm as the Sigma was at 600mm. Honestly, I did not check the Sigma at 500mm, which would have been the fair thing to do.

And it did make it onto the Nikon list of recommended lenses for the D850 - how's your Japanese?

http://www.nikon-image.com/products/slr/lineup/d850/system_lens.html#a1