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?
I'm not saying I recommend this one, but I've been using a Cannon SL2 since 2017. It was their basic entry level APS-C camera at the time. And I wouldn't immediately discount crop sensors; they have a place in the photography world. I would actually recommend starting with a crop sensor due to the better price and your more beginner status. The biggest benefit of full frame over crop is better low light performance. They have bigger pixels so they by default take in more light. I've been using the crop sensor for 6 years now as a hobbyist and I still don't feel like I've moved beyond what the SL2 can offer me.
I focus on nature photography as well and have taken several awesome shots with it (check my post history if you're curious). The benefit of a crop sensor is it "zooms in" the image for you compared to a full frame. It's not actually zooming in; it's just the crop sensor compacted the pixels into a smaller area, so less of the lens is used. But this allows you to "zoom in" further than a full frame while using the exact same lens. This could be useful for getting a shot of a subject that's really far away.
I agree with the other guy about ergonomics. A reason I went with the SL2 is because it's so small. It's one of the smallest DSLR's around and is literally just a few grams under a pound. That makes it significantly easier and more comfortable to hold for long periods of time. I have a big chungus 150-600mm lens for getting close ups of birds from far away. That alone is 4 lbs. Pair that with my camera's body and I'm holding around 5 lbs of equipment. That gets heavy quick. If I had an even heavier body, it'd be even more cumbersome. I know a monopod is best for that situation, but sometimes you need to free hand it.
Another thing to look for, ergonomically, is how the body fits in your hand. I remember an old review for an older Sony camera. It was one of their smaller bodies and the reviewer mentioned that the handle's bump was too close to the lens mount. So they could never get a good grip on it (I'm sure it's been fixed since then). If you rock bigger hands, you may want to go for a slightly bigger body for comfort.
Another thing to consider is lens support. A big reason I went with Canon/SL2 is because of their wide lens library. Canon have just about everything I could need or want. And if they don't, I can always look to third parties. My crop sensor is also able to use Canon's full frame lenses. I don't think Sony or Nikon do that.
My last bit of consideration is to focus on mirrorless cameras instead of DSLR (I didn't look at the cameras, this is just general advice). It's looking like that will be the future of interchangeable lens cameras. Canon made an SL3 in 2019 to replace my model, but they haven't updated it since in 4 years. And no rumors of an SL4, either. It would stand to reason Nikon is moving away from DSLR, too.
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).