Help finding the best camera for me :)

[ThatGeekMatt]

Hey there!

So I have been into photography/film for a fairly long time now. However, I have never truly owned a good camera.

Now, I've been doing the occasional piece research on certain cameras over the past month now and I'm still now sure what camera I should buy.

Here's what I'm interested in when it comes to buying a camera:
-High resolution filming (would love to have a camera capable of 3840 x 2160 @ 24/30 fps)
-Good quality stills
-A body LIKE the a6300 (I also don't mind bodies like the GH4's)
-Interchangeable-lenses
-Up to £600-£700 inc. a lens

I had first planned on buying the GH7 from Panasonic, but after reading about the small diagonal view of mirrorless sensors I unfortunately put off of that camera...

("A Micro Four Thirds sensor (green) shows a narrower view of a scene than an APS-C sensor (red). The full image area is what you would see with a full-frame 35mm sensor.")

A camera I was attracted too was the a6300 from Sony, but the price point just wasn't for me.

I don't mind whether the camera is DSLR/mirrorless or whatever, I would just like a camera that meets what I would like to see in one

Thank you to anyone who's able to respond

 

[Solandri]

For most purposes, the sensor size is largely immaterial. You just compensate for the smaller sensor size by using a shorter focal length (which actually allows you to use smaller lenses to capture the same scene). The three things the sensor size affects are:

• 
  ■ As mentioned, focal length required to capture the same angle of view. Most four-thirds camera lenses are labeled with 35mm-equivalent focal lengths (roughly 2:1) to make it easier to directly comparison shop.
  ■ Light gathering capability. A smaller sensor means the pixels (at the same resolution) are smaller, so less light falls on them at the same f/ stop and shutter speed. This will increase sensor noise, and limit the highest ISO the camera is capable of achieving before the image turns into noisy mush. There isn't much difference between APS-C and four-thirds (1.5-1.6x different in area). Full frame (35mm) on the other hand is substantially bigger (and more expensive). 2.3-2.6x bigger than APS-C, 3.84x bigger than four-thirds.
  ■ Depth of field. A larger sensor results in shallower depth of field at the same angle of view and f/ stop.

So unless you shoot a lot of low-light or action photography (sports), or do a lot of portraiture with shallow depth of field, I wouldn't dismiss the four thirds systems out of hand (I use Canon, so no bias here). If you shoot macro photography, the smaller sensor actually helps, as it increases your depth of field allowing you to have more of your subject in focus.

Also, don't look at the cameras. Look at the lenses. You're probably going to replace the camera body in 3-7 years as technology advances and bodies with better sensors and newer features come to the market. On the other hand, optical design is a pretty mature field with very little year-to-year advancements. So you're probably going to keep your lenses for 20+ years if not your entire life. So don't think of this as buying a camera, think of it as buying into a lens system.

Think of the lenses you'd be using for the type of subject you normally like to shoot, and compare what's available with each system (four-thirds, Canon, Nikon). That should be your primary criteria, not which camera body is currently available. Pick a lens (or lenses) first, then decide on a body to go with that lens. If you're short on money right now, you're usually better off getting a good lens with a cheap body, and later when you have more money (and sensor technology has advanced) you replace the body with a better one.

And micro four-thirds = four-thirds except without the requirement of a mirror box. That allows the lens to sit closer to the sensor, allowing you to use a shorter focal length lens without having to make it a retrofocus design. Other than that, from the perspective of the lens, the two are identical.

 

[ThatGeekMatt]

Solandri, thank you so very much for taking time out of your day to write this very helpful message. You've passed on a lot of new information to me and I am now a lot more comfortable with my future shopping plans
I appreciate all the help you've given, thank you!

For most purposes, the sensor size is largely immaterial. You just compensate for the smaller sensor size by using a shorter focal length (which actually allows you to use smaller lenses to capture the same scene). The three things the sensor size affects are:

• 
  ■ As mentioned, focal length required to capture the same angle of view. Most four-thirds camera lenses are labeled with 35mm-equivalent focal lengths (roughly 2:1) to make it easier to directly comparison shop.
  ■ Light gathering capability. A smaller sensor means the pixels (at the same resolution) are smaller, so less light falls on them at the same f/ stop and shutter speed. This will increase sensor noise, and limit the highest ISO the camera is capable of achieving before the image turns into noisy mush. There isn't much difference between APS-C and four-thirds (1.5-1.6x different in area). Full frame (35mm) on the other hand is substantially bigger (and more expensive). 2.3-2.6x bigger than APS-C, 3.84x bigger than four-thirds.
  ■ Depth of field. A larger sensor results in shallower depth of field at the same angle of view and f/ stop.

So unless you shoot a lot of low-light or action photography (sports), or do a lot of portraiture with shallow depth of field, I wouldn't dismiss the four thirds systems out of hand (I use Canon, so no bias here). If you shoot macro photography, the smaller sensor actually helps, as it increases your depth of field allowing you to have more of your subject in focus.

Also, don't look at the cameras. Look at the lenses. You're probably going to replace the camera body in 3-7 years as technology advances and bodies with better sensors and newer features come to the market. On the other hand, optical design is a pretty mature field with very little year-to-year advancements. So you're probably going to keep your lenses for 20+ years if not your entire life. So don't think of this as buying a camera, think of it as buying into a lens system.

Think of the lenses you'd be using for the type of subject you normally like to shoot, and compare what's available with each system (four-thirds, Canon, Nikon). That should be your primary criteria, not which camera body is currently available. Pick a lens (or lenses) first, then decide on a body to go with that lens. If you're short on money right now, you're usually better off getting a good lens with a cheap body, and later when you have more money (and sensor technology has advanced) you replace the body with a better one.

And micro four-thirds = four-thirds except without the requirement of a mirror box. That allows the lens to sit closer to the sensor, allowing you to use a shorter focal length lens without having to make it a retrofocus design. Other than that, from the perspective of the lens, the two are identical.