I'm looking at getting into photography and I'm trying to decide on what camera would be best for me. One of the primary things I'm interested in is nature photography when I'm out on hikes.
I spoke with someone I know into photography and he seemed to be pushing me towards full frame cameras. Given the prices for these cameras (I'm fine with used) it seems like I have to make a bit of a choice between older full frame and newer aps-c.
After doing some research here are the cameras I am currently considering:
Sony a7
Sony a7R II
Sony a6400 (or maybe a6500)
Nikon D800
Canon EOS 5D Mk III
Canon M50 Mk II
These are sort of organized by how interested in them I am. The pricing varies a bit for them, but with the cheaper ones I'd be able to get more lenses sooner and/or feel less bad about upgrading it in 2 years if I get really into it. So would the a7 or a7r be a good way to go to get a good balance of things or is something like a D800 still worth it today? Or is it just that worth it to have something like the a6400/6500 today to have newer features?
The sony E-mount works for both APS-C and Full-frame. You can even mount an APS-C lens onto a full-frame, but you are down to 10-12mpx on the a7, I think.
My a6100 grip is serviceable with my medium hands. Some fancier a6x00 cameras use the newer and bigger battery, which improves the grip size.
I also have an a5100 and the grip is way too small, but you can hold it like a waist-level TLR camera and it's okay. It's missing a viewfinder, which is absolutely terrible. It's my e-mount backup camera that came as a lens cap for a lens I bought.
For reference, I use my a6100 with a 70-350mm or with the 18-135mm. I sometimes slap on the sigma 30mm for low-light.
I'm happy with it, and I think even a a6000 would have been perfect for me (the a6100 is my starter camera from 3 years ago).