0

At the moment I have a Canon 5D Mk II which I am very satisfied with. The only problem: it's too big. I use it more rarely nowadays when my smartphone is taking relatively good photos these days. Also I do a lot of hiking and carrying the 5D including some lenses is heavy!

I also shoot video now and then. Short videos when sporting (nordic ice skating etc) and using the 5D for it is good for the quality but it's complicated getting the picture stable (obviously).

Therefor I'm looking for a great still camera which also has good video capabilities and is small enough so that I want to bring it with me. Also I'm planning to use it on a hand held gimbal.

I borrowed a Sony A7s from a friend last summer and it was pretty decent. I guess I'm looking for something in that category.

Wish list:

  • At least 1080p
  • Full frame
  • exchangeable lens
  • small camera house
  • same image quality/resolution as my old 5D

Price range: I guess up to around $2000 if it's new.

Will I find something or do I have to go down in quality in order to afford similar specs? How good are the smaller cameras compared to my 5D?

closed as off-topic by scottbb, null, mattdm, dpollitt, MikeW Nov 20 '16 at 8:21

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Questions seeking specific product or service recommendations, where the answer is likely to be either entirely personal or short-lived as a result of changing markets, are off topic here. Please rephrase your question to describe the problem you're trying to solve or what you do not understand that prevents you from determining the answer yourself." – scottbb, null, mattdm, dpollitt, MikeW
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

2

If full frame is an absolutely fixed requirement, this question is pretty much answered for you: Sony, as they're the only people in the full frame mirrorless game, with the exception of Leica. While you may be able to find a full-frame SLR a bit smaller than your 5D, the difference isn't going to be much, particularly when you start considering lenses as well.

You'll want one of the A7 models - choose between the base version, the "R" version (extra resolution) or the "S" version (extra sensitivity, lower resolution), and whether you want the original version (unsuffixed) or the newer, improved "II" version.

  • Well, it doesn't have to be full frame. Actually I'm not sure how much better a full frame sensor is compared to smaller ones. I just presumed a smaller frame wouldn't be as good as my old 5D. Am I right? – oskarlin Nov 18 '16 at 23:07
  • 2
    We've got a very good question on all that already. – Philip Kendall Nov 18 '16 at 23:13
  • Thanks! So I guess it's not end of the world with smaller sensor then. One vote for full frame is that I easier could get use of my old lenses? I mean they are made for full frame (ie 5D, and of course i need an adaptor). – oskarlin Nov 18 '16 at 23:28
  • 1
    In general, full frame lenses will be usable on a smaller sensor - but they'll still be big and heavy. If you do go to a crop sensor, then moving to crop lenses might make sense for you as you care about size/weight. – Philip Kendall Nov 18 '16 at 23:35
  • the Sony A7 line is used by several micro 4/3 fans to show that their M43 is as good, or better, than a FF sensor, and if you look at the images, indeed they are....note that they don't compare it to other cameras, not even an apc-s mirroless, just the Sony...MPs are not everything, else an iphone would be the end of large sensors... – Reed Nov 19 '16 at 21:52

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.