What camera & lens would be ideal for my situation?

Question

First of all, I am an absolute beginner. Does not have much knowledge in photography. I was thinking to get an ILS camera for traveling due to the fact I heard from many different people, how good images it produces including blurred background etc. etc..

Here is what I think might be useful for me

• Medium sized body
• some Zoom capabilities like the focal length of at least 100/200mm ish ( I prefer not to change lenses often)
• a touch screen would be very convenient
• Reason for going for the ILS is to keep the IQ better and an option to upgradeability in future (if I have enough cash to spend after buying the first system)
• Good video capability
• I can spend upto £1500 - £1800, but obviously would like to keep it to "best bang for the buck".

An example What I thought is Sony a6500 with 18-200mm or similar package. or Going for an all in one Bridge camera like FZ2500.

Now my question is if I stick to a single lens with a6500 in the long run, would I see any difference in IQ compared to FZ2500 or similar budget cameras? Would it be wise to choose an ILS over Point & shoot/ bridge camera?

Any suggestions/thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

Answer 1

The entire point of an interchangeable lens system camera is to allow you to use different lenses that are better or even great at one thing but unsuitable for other things. Fixed lens cameras force you to use a single lens that is mediocre or worse at a lot of things but better at nothing. Insisting on using a single lens for everything on an interchangeable lens camera is not much different than using a fixed lens camera. In some cases the fixed lens camera may meet your needs better than an ILC with only one lens.

The best lenses are all prime lenses. That means a single focal length. No.Zoom.At.All. They're really good when they provide the field of view and other characteristics you need. This is because they can be optimized to do one thing at one focal length. A good flat field 100mm macro lens is different from a good 85mm, 105mm, or 135mm portrait lens. But they are not very flexible, so you need a lot of them for various different things. Some are pretty good for not much money (e.g. EF 50mm f/1.8 STM @ $120). Others are incredibly good for a boatload of cash (e.g. EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS II @ $10K). Most fall somewhere in between.

Compared to their zoom lens counterparts, in addition to equal or better optical quality at a lower price prime lenses can also be smaller/lighter, have wider maximum apertures, and often still be much cheaper.

Short ratio zoom lenses, that is zoom lenses with a less than 3X difference between their longest and shortest focal length, can also be very good. But the best ones cost a lot.

When you move outside of the 3x limit is when image quality really starts to noticeably go down. Some 4-5X zoom lenses that fall entirely in the telephoto range can be pretty good. But when you start trying to design a lens that goes from wide angle to telephoto and covers a 5X-10X or more zoom range, that is when it really starts getting difficult to keep it affordable and manageable with regard to size and weight and still provide excellent image quality. You'll usually get better image quality and spend less buying something like an 18-55mm and a 55-250mm pair of zoom lenses than you would get with an 18-200mm 'all-in-one'.

Answer 2

It seems like you're somewhat focused with going towards a mirrorless build, to that regard I believe the sony a6500 would be more than enough for what you're looking for, with your leftover budget i'd recommend something like this which would suit your zoom requirements.

In requests to your point about "blurry backgrounds" or "bokeh" this is also something that is achieved from having very low depth of field aka a very high aperture (2.8/1.4) however to get to these ranges you'll be sacrificing how much you're able to zoom or bumping up how much you'll be paying but for a prime lens you could do with something like this.

Answer 3

The bridge camera simply removed the whole hassle factor. You get one thing, it does a lot, you never miss a shot because you are changing lenses and the quality if fairly good. This is the simple and very easy option. If you just capture shots and are not interested into growing photographically, get a RX10 II+ or FZ2500.

The some that can grow, the Sony A6500 is a good idea, although I would strongly recommend not going for a very dim lens just to get more range. One option if you want to keep it simple though is to get a Micro Four Thirds camera. Something like a Olympus OM-D E-M10 II/III plus their 12-100mm F/4 lens. This is equivalent to a 24-200mm lens with excellent stabilization and the quality is much better than on the FZ2500/RX10, although it does not match the Sony A6500. What it gives you though are access to smaller and lighter lenses with bright apertures, the 12-40mm F/2.8 from Olympus or 12-35mm F/2.8 from Panasonic are extremely light. Same for the 35-100mm F/2.8 which you can add to get longer reach, assuming you want something brighter than the 12-100mm or that it is out of your budget.