Quoted By:
Looking to get my first "real" camera. Budget between $600 and $1000.
After some research, I've decided to go mirrorless and I've narrowed to Sony, Fuji and Panasonic. I plan on using it for a good mix of photos and video, with the majority of the shooting handheld. As far shooting conditions go, it would be a mix of indoors and out, and I don't want be too limited insofar as the time of day I'm able to shoot.
The Panasonic G85 looks to offer the most in terms of features with both 4k and IBIS at under $1000, but the m4/3 sensor has me hesitant. Does APS-C offer a significant advantage over m4/3 in terms of low-light/high-iso performance or could it be compensated for with lower F lenses? The money I save going m4/3 will be wasted if I invest in a bunch lenses, only to sell them if I decide later down the line that I should have went with a bigger sensor.
If I go with Sony, in order to get the get the IBIS and 4k like the G85 I would need to go with the a6500 which is outside my budget. Even just to have 4k I would need to stretch my budget for the a6300, and I've heard bad things about rolling shutter and overheating. Finally, the a6000 looks to be an excellent value, but lacks 4k and other features found in more recent cameras. Sony also has a somewhat limited selection of lenses, however I expect that to change in the future as they're leading the market right now.
Then there's the Fuji X-T20. From what I've seen, the IQ is great, and it offers 4k, but lacks in terms of image stabilization with no future for upgrading to IBIS and a limited selection of OIS lenses. It also seems to be geared more towards stills than videos, but I could be wrong on that.
What are your guys' thoughts? Is APS-C noticeably better than m4/3? Is imaging stabilization important for freehand shooting?
