What if you didn't care that much about frame rate, bird eye af, battery life, etc.

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

bleirer

Well-known member
Supporting Member
If you really really cared about image quality under good light and shooting conditions, really liked mirrorless, and didn't worry that much about bird eye AF, frame rate, buffers, battery life, high speed memory cards, etc. would some non-flagship cameras be just as good as flagship cameras?

I shoot Canon but I'm interested in every brand you want to bring up. I'm hoping for something like the EOS R mark ii, if it ever becomes reality. Something around $2500 that I'd hope would be tops in IQ with around 30 megapixels but not necessarily other features. Would/could a camera at this level equal the image quality of a flagship?
 

Venkatesh VT

Love nature & nature loves you back
Supporting Member
I feel A7IV may fit your needs though i have seen only the specs & not tried it since it is yet to come to my country.I am also actually looking into buying it for my wife with 100-400 after reading more reviews by the experts
 

abc123brian

Well-known member
The Nikon Z7 is really a great camera if you don’t need the second card slot, amazing AF tracking, or other things you mentioned and would be my top choice. It matches the best out there in IQ. Another option would be a Sony A7Riii though I think the Z7 is better. I’m not sure on the IQ of the canons, but I think in that price range you might lose out on some DR.
 

bleirer

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Thread starter
I feel A7IV may fit your needs though i have seen only the specs & not tried it since it is yet to come to my country.I am also actually looking into buying it for my wife with 100-400 after reading more reviews by the experts
That does look as if it will be one heck of a camera.
 

bleirer

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Thread starter
In Canon world I’d say R5, Nikon Z7, Sony a7R4.
To me the R5 has gee whiz features, while desirable, I don't necessarily want to pay for them unless the core image quality is that much better. I guess we can call them 2nd tier cameras, not top tier but not too far from it. R5 to me is top tier. I guess it's all relative.
 

StefanSC

Active member
If you really really cared about image quality under good light and shooting conditions, really liked mirrorless, and didn't worry that much about bird eye AF, frame rate, buffers, battery life, high speed memory cards, etc. would some non-flagship cameras be just as good as flagship cameras?
If you take those things out of the equation, even the original Nikon Z7 is an outstanding camera.
If you aren't set on mirrorless, even the 5DIV and Nikon D850 will net you stunning images with little difference to modern flagships in regards to image quality...
Heck, if I shoot it right, I am still amazed of what images can come out of my 7 years old, used and abused D810...

These days, you are paying a lot for features, ease of use and perhaps for image quality in very specific corner cases.

If used with proper discipline and technique, you shouldn't see much difference in image quality in regular prints or for web use between most cameras (m43/APS-C/FF), be them flagships or entry level, that have come out since 2014...
 

dtibbals

Well-known member
Supporting Member
To me the R5 has gee whiz features, while desirable, I don't necessarily want to pay for them unless the core image quality is that much better. I guess we can call them 2nd tier cameras, not top tier but not too far from it. R5 to me is top tier. I guess it's all relative.
It does have those extra features but is a higher MP camera that is priced well and can adapt lenses you already likely own.

For pure image output the Sony a7R4 with lower ISO is hard to beat and is a high MP camera. For an all around good camera that has beautiful files the z7 is pretty tough to beat.

If you want lower cost and don't need mirrorless than the Nikon D850 is still the best camera you can buy.
 

John Woodworth

Active member
Supporting Member
A Sony RX1R2! Has the (watered down) guts of an A7R2, a terrific lens, 42 MPix, terrific dynamic range, quiet, small like a pack of cigarettes, small enough to carry everywhere. (Or maybe a Leica Q2 which is a bit more modern with IBIS.)

It certainly qualifies when it comes to having lousy battery life. :unsure:
 

grossidm

Active member
Unless you go to the lower end of cameras, they're all essentially the same regarding IQ in flagship vs non-flagship. Flagships often have "better quality" noise at higher ISO's, but that's about the only IQ edge they'll have. Even that's minimal in the real world. What do you like to photograph?
 

bleirer

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Thread starter
Unless you go to the lower end of cameras, they're all essentially the same regarding IQ in flagship vs non-flagship. Flagships often have "better quality" noise at higher ISO's, but that's about the only IQ edge they'll have. Even that's minimal in the real world. What do you like to photograph?
Myself I go for pretty much anything outdoors. Landscape, scenes of nature, botanical, macro flowers. Not so into birds as most here seem to be. I paint on (digitally), composite, or manipulate into more abstract or idealized/simplified forms. Going through a digital watercolor jag now, had been doing intentional camera movement and abstracts.
 

Palmor

Well-known member
Supporting Member
If you really really cared about image quality under good light and shooting conditions,....
Just about any modern camera with the right lens will do the job in my opinion. Sensor tech hasn't change that much in terms of IQ in a while and it's the lenses and lighting that are going get you the best IQ.
 

dtibbals

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Myself I go for pretty much anything outdoors. Landscape, scenes of nature, botanical, macro flowers. Not so into birds as most here seem to be. I paint on (digitally), composite, or manipulate into more abstract or idealized/simplified forms. Going through a digital watercolor jag now, had been doing intentional camera movement and abstracts.
Well the Z7 is a pretty solid choice. You don't need the Z7II so even cheaper. I will say the one advantage going into Sony will be the lens choices by Sony, Sigma, Tamron.
 

Steve

Admin
Staff member
Supporting Member
The first camera I thought of when I read your post was the Z7. If you're not doing heavy action work, it's a heck of a good choice. In fact, if tomorrow I decided to go out and do some macros or landscapes, I'd reach for the Z7 (the MKii in my case since I don't have the original Z7 anymore) and be done with it. Small, light, effective.
 

Snapshot2020

Well-known member
Supporting Member
I’m taking delivery of the Z9 today and yesterday I had the Z7ii 100-400 S out for a photo walk. If the majority of my photography wasn’t Raptors or Waterfowl in flight my choice would be the Z7ii.
 

grossidm

Active member
Myself I go for pretty much anything outdoors. Landscape, scenes of nature, botanical, macro flowers. Not so into birds as most here seem to be. I paint on (digitally), composite, or manipulate into more abstract or idealized/simplified forms. Going through a digital watercolor jag now, had been doing intentional camera movement and abstracts.
I can only really speak on the Nikon stuff and Fuji digital rangefinders. Definitely don't waste money on a flagship. I do a bit of everything (used to be exclusively birds and wildlife) and own both a Z9 and D6. They don't see 1/4 of the stuff I do. The D850 is still my workhorse camera. In the Nikon world, the Z7 sounds like something you should try. Maybe rent that and the 50mm f/1.8z and see what you think.
 

bleirer

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Thread starter
I can only really speak on the Nikon stuff and Fuji digital rangefinders. Definitely don't waste money on a flagship. I do a bit of everything (used to be exclusively birds and wildlife) and own both a Z9 and D6. They don't see 1/4 of the stuff I do. The D850 is still my workhorse camera. In the Nikon world, the Z7 sounds like something you should try. Maybe rent that and the 50mm f/1.8z and see what you think.
Interesting how much support there is for the z7. With Canon I'd only need a body as I have enough reasonable quality Canon 'L' lenses, none top of the line but solid, but a fair hurdle to overcome if I weigh starting from scratch with another brand.
 

Steve

Admin
Staff member
Supporting Member
Interesting how much support there is for the z7. With Canon I'd only need a body as I have enough reasonable quality Canon 'L' lenses, none top of the line but solid, but a fair hurdle to overcome if I weigh starting from scratch with another brand.
Honestly, if you have that much Canon, the R5 is the way to go IMO. despite the price. It would be nice if they did an R MKii, but I have a feeling that's not happening. Although, to be fair, although I own Canon gear, I don't stay on top of the Canon rumor mill as much as I do with Nikon and Sony.

FWIW, my wife shoots the R5 all the time and we've found it's a very versatile, all around great camera. (y)
 

arbitrage

Well-known member
I think then you would start looking at the best image quality, DR, color science. And certainly you don't need (or even want) the flagships for that. Cameras like Z7 or A7RIII come to mind if you want MPs. Even A7III if you don't. R6 and Z6 probably just as good.
 

grossidm

Active member
Interesting how much support there is for the z7. With Canon I'd only need a body as I have enough reasonable quality Canon 'L' lenses, none top of the line but solid, but a fair hurdle to overcome if I weigh starting from scratch with another brand.
Like I said, my experience is limited to Nikon and Fuji. My last Canon was the Elan 7. That's not a knock on Canon, I truly think they're all the same at this point. Like most I've stuck with a brand because that's what I have the lenses for. They all produce the same end results.
 

Thern

Well-known member
The Z7 is a very nice camera, my wife shoots the Z7II nowadays. (We had the Mk1 some years and she didn’t still doesn’t want to switch like I did)
There’s not much of a difference besides a secnd cardslot and dedicated Pet eye AF so in your case ‘just’ the Z7 would absolutely do for your needs.
However it either means a switch or using a second system with their own disadvantages)
So if I had to choose I’d opt for an R5 with high pixelcount aso and certainly some overkill in some regards but still nice to have.
A R6 is allso a very nice offering but it has a lower pixelcount.
Personally I favour high pixelcount for macro and scenery.

Btw when you’d buy a R5 be sure to buy the right CFe cards with a high sustained writespeed and low operating temperature

 

Rassie

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Don't throw away the Z6 or Z6II. Only 24MP, but that means larger photoreceptors an less noise. Few Nikon cameras have less noise and better dynamic range. I have found IQ of my previous Z6 and newer Z6II to be just excellent. And they are almost $1,000 less than a Z7 or Z7II.
 
Top