I know I am asking the equivalent of "what's the best oil" but I would like to get a digital camera that takes excellent quality pictures. I tend to like taking macro shots of plants, but would also like to be able to get good shots of birds in my area.

I am an old 35mm film camera guy, so all of my thinking in terms of what a fast lens is or a long telephoto is based on the 35mm camera world. Also image sharpness. It has to be good.

A recent GF got me a Panasonic Lumix camera with an amazing zoom lens, but the image quality really sucks, so I don't use it much.

Full frame?

What do you guys recommend I look at? I always wanted a Nikon F (Photomic FTN)...

Budget? I just upgraded to mirrorless (Canon R6) and have been extremely impressed with it. I have been shooting macro with an EF100mm f2/8L macro lens for a long time with excellent results, and the new RF version of that lens has increased maximum magnification over the EF version.

Birds are going to be a bit more difficult without the right gear. Canon's came out with some budget oriented super telephoto lenses (600 and 800 f/11) and the photos I have seen from those have been very impressive, although the narrow aperture is going to limit you to near-ideal lighting conditions and will not give you as much background separation. But, they're super cheap compared to the 600 f/4. I shoot some backyard birds with a 400mm f/5.6L that I got pretty cheap and have good results with, but without a teleconverter I'm usually cropping pretty heavily unless I can attract them close with a feeder.

Macro is super fun. Literally everything can make for an interesting subject.

@Blob

Not really sure on the budget. I am not an Arfcom millionaire, so it won't be something extravagant. How far must I go to get really sharp images with excellent fine detail that approaches 35mm film quality?

As far as mirrorless or SLR, I am not particularly attached to either because I don't know much about current camera technology, beyond a little reading at dpreview.

I'd say 90% of your image quality is going to come from the lens so it would be worth it to invest in good quality glass from the start. I've been shooting my 100mm macro for almost 10 years and it still performs flawlessly even on my new camera with a different mounting system. From what I gather from the OP, you are not going to be satisfied with low quality or budget level glass so spend the extra here from the start. Buy used to save some money.

As far as the body goes, get the best you can afford after you pick the lenses. A good body will help you take good photos more easily, but you can still take amazing photos on a cheap body (just as you can take crap photos on a pro body). It all comes down to the photographer's skill.

As far as mirrored vs mirrorless, it again comes down to how much you want to spend. You can pick up a bunch of mirrored gear on the used market for pretty cheap as people transition to mirrorless and the stuff will still perform well, or spend more and get the latest technology. I will say that I have been extremely impressed with the R6's autofocus, image quality, and speed, but it was not cheap.

You make a good point about the glass.

I googled your R6 after you mentioned it above, and I think I can get into that approximate price range.

I had not thought to look used until you just mentioned it. Am a little afraid of getting something partially broken that I would not detect until it was too late.

@Blob would you mind emailing me a photo taken with your camera? Full resolution. If you can't do that through the site let me know and I'll pm you my email address. I just want to see an undoctored image from a camera like yours. Preferably one with some fine detail in it?

Email sent.

BTW I highly recommend this website for photography gear reviews: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/

He does the most thorough and meticulous reviews on the web with both laboratory and real world tests.

Cool. I'll check it out! The images you sent to me were very high quality. Definitely in the ballpark of what I think I am looking for.

So, I spent a lot of time looking at the Nikon Z 7ii mirrorless and D850 DSLR. The consensus from multiple sources was that for something like catching a bird in flight (BiF), which is definitely something I intend to do, the D850, a platform from 2017, would do a better job than the Z 7ii, in terms of auto focus (AF). Nikon is already discontinuing lenses for the D850, so it being an old platform is starting to look problematic, and the Z 7ii being not as good with AF for BiF as a 5 year old platform kind of removes it from consideration.

In my attempts to research the AF on those two, I happened across information on the Canon R5 (plain, not "C"inema) and it looks like the AF for things like BiF might be about the best there is, without going to bodies with nosebleed, i.e., $5k for just the body, prices.

Any thoughts appreciated.

The R5 and R6 both have the exact same autofocus system so their performance in that regard will be equal. The R5 has a much higher megapixel count which will help considerably in keeping the images sharp after cropping which is going to be nearly unavoidable with BIF unless they are very close or you have a very long lens.

The R6's lower megapixel count will have a less noisy image when shooting at higher ISO which will help keep the images looking good when shooting with narrower apertures and if using a teleconverter.

As far as other brands are concerned I can't comment because I've been shooting canon forever, and as your research uncovered the R5/R6 autofocus system is simply the best.

Trying to understand your statement about noise. It is tied to megapixels, so if oyu have more megapixels you have more noise or something? At what sort of ISO does noise become an issue for you on your R6? Do you use any tools to clean up the noise, or is that not really workable?

The R5 and R6 sensors are physically the same size, but since the R6 has a lower megapixel count the actual photo- receptors are larger which makes them more sensitive to light. So less noise as a result.

I haven't done a lot of low light shooting but even ISO6400 image quality is very good. I took some photos of my son at ISO1600 and the noise is basically imperceptible. At 2000 I can see the image quality degrading but really not noticable unless you're cropping heavily or pixel-peeping at a 100% crop.

I will do some slight noise reduction occasionally but you will begin to lose sharpness when you do it.

I have a D850 I use for Sports and wildlife.  

I’m not sure which lenses are being discontinued that work for those. My two most used lenses are the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR and Sigma 60-600.

Good info! I didn't know about noise reduction affecting sharpness. I guess there is a cost for everything, eh?

BTW, I bought the R5 and they had a kit with the body and a RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM Lens that saved a little over buying them separately, and should be a good walking around lens, even though it isn't very fast.

There's a lot to learn on this thing.

Damn you went all out! Good choice though, you will be happy. I got the same lens with my R6 and I have been very happy with it

Yeah, I'm super excited about it. Haven't had time to do much with it, and there a huge number of controls to understand. Fun!

Eventually I'll be able to pickup more lenses.