camera/lens advice please

I think the main reason I'd go for an FF E-mount camera would be to get low-light pictures with less noise from a camera that is still smaller and lighter than a DSLR/DSLT. Many of the APS-C cameras will take decent pictures at dusk but some of them (the A58 for example) can have so much noise in the EVF you can't actually see what you're taking!
I tried taking a picture of the double-planet conjunction the other day with the A58 and Minolta reflex and couldn't see anything in the VF except coloured snow. But out with the Nex-6 and the Samyang 12mm f2 I took a nice, dusk, seaside view and when I checked the image, there sitting clearly over a building were the two planets!

I've not looked at any of the SLT cameras. Just not my jam.

If I was on for a new dSLR system then it would be safer being Pentax - they are actually committed and also still in production. I like the Pentax KP a LOT. To be fair I do not need fast AF so the Pentax lenses should be part of my consideration. But while the KP body is WR none of the lenses I'm interested in are. Their lens line-up is all over the map (a lot of them are respected optically). They have a lot of gaps in areas I would not expect. Not really wanting a risk at the mo.

Fujifilm is the logical solution for me, but in-the-hand I don't like the cameras and don't take them out when I want. Simple as that. I know people love the fuji system and I can see why - I just don't like the handling - I grab my phone or RX100 instead every single time. The Panasonic G80 (dSLR shape) was fun to use, the Panasonic GX9 doesn't carry well and the flip-up EVF is annoying. Handling means a lot to me.

Next to me are two failed systems (for my needs)
- Fuji X-E3 (love the body design, but fixed LCD and non-WR), my lenses are all WR!
- Fuji X-T3 (buttons/dials are horrible)
- Panasonic GX9 (no/poor grip, EVF flips**) not WR

** this flipping EVF is actually quite smart (when in flip use). I thought I'd never use it but I have done. Shame the lower grade GX85 has 16mp sensor as the body is nearly the same but with fixed EVF. While it stays in normal position well, it moves to flipped when getting it in/out of my bag often and it annoys me. Neither GX9 or GX85 bodies are WR. I have the WR 12-60mm. And need WR.

Reminder - this has very very little to do with rain - it is about sand, wind, dust, spray, fog (and rain). No WR no want.

Since I've been all mirrorless for over 10 years I think I'd struggle in some areas to get a mirror box back (I like mirrorless too much). I have been tempted to just grab a Canon 5D II or Nikon D700 era body and a (non WR) wide prime for 3-6 or 12 months and then sell it if I do really want more pixels.

But I see the A7 II as a longer term move. I'm ending 12 years at m43 and would want a mount that I can see being good (for me) for at least 3 years. Preferably longer. Canon/Nikon FF mirrorless do not interest me at all.

I am only looking for one (or two) main lens(es) - 28 and a macro. So this is pretty simple - but I might grab another couple of optics to play with as temporary things. The bulk of my shooting will be A7 II and 28/2. I've gravitate to this 'wide for me' view point and now doubt I'd use anything that wasn't in the 24-35mm zone.

Samyang do an interesting range of AF 18-35mm primes so I might grab one of them for a few months. The AF 18/2.8 would be a neat addition to 28/2 and 50/macro.

Edited by dCap - 27 December 2020 at 18:59

Yeah, I noticed the Samyang 35/1.8 has a WR note. And looked to be the only one. To be clear - my main camera (a7 II) and main lens (28/2) absolutely must be WR. Because most of my walking is on or along the beach, it takes 2 mins from front door to the sand on the beach and is a daily ritual.

But, I will do some indoor (28-70 studio shots, macro later) and some woodland shoots too (28, macro, ultrawide) - once we're allowed to be more free-range than today. But the beach/walk will still be 80-90% of my shooting. I'd consider the Samyang 18/2.8 (non-WR) as an occasional wide angle (nice price for what to me would be a low usage lens) and I'd take that inland to some woodland and not be concerned about the seaside elements. Would be nice for some woodland scenes in the spring and autumn.

That the Sony 50/Macro is WR is a bonus. I'd aim for a local botanical garden for that (not visited it yet), there is a butterfly park here too (not been to yet). And possible sealife if I walk with the 50 macro for the day. I'd not be carrying a 2nd lens when beach walking as the sand is tiny and gets everywhere.

dCap wrote: Shame they skipped 28mm (even though they have it as an inhouse model number as they skip a model in the 20/24/--/35 set!). After 3-4 months with the Sony 28/2 I'll know if I'd prefer a 24mm or a 35mm view ... and then the Tamron group gets real interesting. I'm not aiming to get my 50/macro for a while, and don't need 1:1 so it depends how well I get on with the 28mm.

I guess if you're walking along the beach you will be looking to get plenty of sky in. I generally find 24mm on FF gives a much more impressive cloudscape than 28mm; I tend to walk around with a 12mm or 16mm prime on APS-C and I can always crop a bit later if there's too much 'nothing' around the edges.
Plus in those kind of scenes the wider angle lens gives much more opportunity to crop into different aspect ratios - 16:9 or 1:1 for example. In my usual one-lens strolls I find I'm more likely to be annoyed I don't have a wide enough lens with me than wishing I'd got a narrower one. Let's face it - for most purposes cropping 30% or so leaves you with plenty of pixels!

dCap wrote: Fujifilm X100V has tilty screen, viewfinder in the corner is nice. No IBIS. WR though (but I've bought and not liked 2x X100 series already). On paper this should be a strong contender but it has cost me a lot twice already.

I haven't read every post in this thread so somebody possibly already mentioned it but if not & you don't already, you may wish to check out Kirk Tuck's blog https://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com. He has recently bought an X100V & is working through an apparently similar itch/process. Initially it didn't seem that he liked it but as he spends more time with it & makes some changes it seems to be growing on him.

QuietOC wrote: I didn't even try the reflex on any night sky stuff. I certainly seemed like it would work well, if it could be focused.

Yes, a big 'If'! My best moon shots were with the Tamron 500mm adaptall mirror on a tripod, using MF in small steps. The 3/4 turn focus is ideal for that.

I'm thinking I might go for the A7II. Jessops here in the UK have it on offer for £1099 UKP including the 28-70 zoom, which is not something I'd buy on its own. Going to FF and staying with an f3.5-5.6 zoom seems pointless even if it is a good all-rounder, except that it seems to be the only option for a small FE zoom?

I'd prefer an f2.8 zoom but all the f2.8 zooms I can find are *far* too big and heavy for me - I'm not weak or feeble, but I really *hate* carrying a camera around my neck with a long lens on it that hangs down like something at a nudist colony. (Apologies for that image! )

I'd much rather take 24mm and 50mm primes & I'm tempted by the little Samyang ones - I can fit several of those in a small shoulder bag and the (APS-C MF) 12mm f2 I have now is great fun. Also I tend to go to the same places a lot so taking a different prime each time helps me to see things differently and avoids the 'been there done that' ennui!

dCap wrote: I'm a terrible landscape photographer, and I'd like to fix that. I've also been shooting with my (now old) phone in 16:9 and 18:9 ...

Just a thought that might, probably not, change your approach. I am a long time landscape and seascape shooter. There is a natural tendency, I believe, to feel that wider is better. Fifteen years ago my constant landscape lens was a Sigma 12-24 on aps-c (Minolta 7D, then a700). Over time, I moved to shooting panoramas when I wanted to shoot very wide for the many obvious benefits (but, extra work no doubt). Today, for landscapes, I shoot a lot of verticals, counter intuitive to many I realize, where the ultra wide accentuates the foreground element. For horizontals it almost always is now a normal range lens because I want to avoid driving the distant landscape elements into being very tiny (given, the classic idea of a landscape with a foreground, mid-ground and background element). For example, shoot a landscape with an ultra-wide lens where the moon is an important element and the moon will be but a tiny dot in the distance. One way around this is to take a second shot of the moon with a normal lens or slightly long lens (I frequently find something in the 70-80 mm lens yields the most realistic moon) and replace the moon in the ultra wide shot with the larger moon in the second shot. This will render the scene in your final image more like what you saw at the time. Enough said, overkill probably; bottom line - maybe an ultra wide lens should not be your first choice. On full frame when shooting landscapes I find my 24-70 used every bit as much as the 16-35.