>>3369561It always feels as if buying a camera for photography will mean sacrificing on the video side, with the opposite being true too. I'm wondering if nowadays there's an exception to the rule. I'm saying this because i'm trying to upgrade from my D7100 that i've had for 5 years and am looking for a neat camera that can prove to be competent in both aspects for around the same price i originally bought my D7100 ($829).
Many suggested the Panasonic G85 and i must admit it looks spectacular in the video department, but i feel like it lacks a lot in the Photo department (though i might be wrong).
Others suggested to go for the direct upgrade Nikon D7500, but i feel that, even if it IS better than the G85 for photography, it's not good enough to justify the price difference, and the video lacks a bit too.
Other options at my price range were Sony's Old A7 series that i can probably get at a relatively cheap price, but even then i am still hesitant because they're so old.
What would /g/ say is the best camera at ~$1000 dollars if i take just as much video as i do photography?