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?
Find a camera that you like to use.
35mm isn't the be-all and end-all like some like to say. I really wish this mentality would go away.
Your budget needs to include some lenses; the other comment about lenses is pretty much spot on. No point spending so much on the camera when you can't do what you want because you're now stuck with limited lenses. You didn't say what you want to shoot, so that could cover very broad subjects, from insects to birds to landscapes (a full high end kit to set that up at the 35mm end can easily be 4-6kg).
As sensor tech hasn't advanced that much in the last 10 years or so, it's better to get an older higher-end camera than a budget new camera; the controls and UI tend to be better, which will be better for you to learn photography with. Budget cameras tend to cheap out on controls, so having to menu dive to make basic setting changes will get old very quick.