Is it worth getting a "real" camera if I am interested in outdoor photography? Not so much as in for just the photo's sake itself, but for illustrating stories about where I go. I have an iPhone 15 and its ok, but I think it could be a lot better. I just don't want to lug around a big heavy camera and a zoom lens or something (and I do see people doing that, albeit not for more rugged terrain). From what I have absorbed, it seems like a "mirrorless" camera can offer a more compact size than a traditional DSLR but maybe I'm wrong.It's just nice to use the phone for pics because I use it to navigate and it works well for that, so I don't really want the hassle of having to have a separate device for photos and then having to transfer those photos over to my laptop, but I assume that can be done wirelessly now (I haven't used a digital camera since 2007 maybe). I don't want to spend money I don't have to, can something be had for under 500$ that will take good outdoor photos? Especially if there's better optical zoom, the iphone cannot capture details especially of animals, it's terrible at that.
Cameras become necessary to better frame or do wildlifeMy phone does good pictures but there's no way I can get a proper bird picture with it unless the bird is literally standing one foot away from meAs for landscapes, sure my phone can get a very sharp broad picture of the scenery in front of me but I need my camera to zoom in order to include/exclude elements from the picture and get a better compositionSo a good phone camera is fine if you want beautiful souvenir pictures but a camera is needed to achieve a better standard of photography
>>2790798What camera do you use that isn't your phone?
>>2790780I'd say it depends on your standards. I left my camera charger behind on a recent trip but in the end my phone sufficient as far as recording memories of the trip (pic related).You'll definitely get better control over exposure and colour with a camera. >From what I have absorbed, it seems like a "mirrorless" camera can offer a more compact size than a traditional DSLR but maybe I'm wrong.They're smaller than a DSLR but they're pretty hefty compared to a phone or compact point-and-shoot camera. Especially if you want any sort of zoom capability. You don't want to lug around a heavy camera and a zoom lens but you also want enough optical zoom to capture details of wildlife - the problem with that is that the size of a zoom lens goes up as the size of the camera sensor does. A mirrorless camera might be smaller than a DSLR because they've cut out the prism for the viewfinder but they still tend to have a big-ass sensor and that's great for optical quality but it means zoom lenses (any lenses desu) are going to be much bigger than the equivalent amount of zoom for a compact camera or phone. You might be better off with a compact camera, the lens and sensor won't be as good as a mirrorless, interchangeable lens camera but they'll be a lot smaller and still significantly better than your phone (probably, high-end phone cameras are pretty good now, I don't know if compact cameras have kept up).
>>2790976So what are the pros and cons of mirrorless vs compact point and shoot? I don't want to do a lot of custom stuff with it, I know nothing of cameras other than the basics, but I DO want better photos. Camera photos are grainy and handle bright sun and deep clouds poorly. I want the big ass sensor. I think that's what changes the game, maybe. Do I need a separate zoom lens for a mirrorless?
>>2790977>So what are the pros and cons of mirrorless vs compact point and shoot?Mirrorless is generally used to refer to 'mirrorless, interchangeable lens' cameras, technically everything that isn't a DSLR or SLR is mirrorless. These will generally be more advanced cameras than a compact. They will have more features, a bigger optical sensor (meaning better resolution, better low-light performance and wider dynamic range) and the ability to change your lens out to whatever best suits what you're shooting (do you want a wide-angle for landscape shots, a supertelephoto for distant wildlife, a wide aperture for low-light?). The downside is that they're bigger; both the camera itself and the lenses. This is especially true for telephoto and zoom lenses. A lightweight mirrorless camera with a prime (fixed focal length) pancake lens won't be too much bigger than your average compact camera but it'll be less flexible, fixed focal length means no zoom. What makes me hesitate from recommending a compact camera is that I don't know how much better they are than phone cameras these days. They used to be a lot better but phone companies have thrown a lot of money into closing the gap.>Cameras become necessary to ... do wildlifeAgain, depends on your standards I guess. I'm happy with pic rel.
>>2790987>>2790798
>>2790987>They used to be a lot better but phone companies have thrown a lot of money into closing the gap.I think that's kinda bullshitphones are hamstrung by how tiny the optical sensors are and how they can only be like 1/4 inch of glass extending outSo there's no way to get something mirrorless that could do zoom without changing out lenses? I don't think switching out lenses on the fly in the middle of the woods is realistic.
>>2790994>So there's no way to get something mirrorless that could do zoom without changing out lenses?Nah, that's not what I'm saying. They just tend to be pretty bulky. Check out the fujifilm xc 50-230mm for what I would consider a reasonably compact zoom lens that goes from portrait length to telephoto. >I think that's kinda bullshitYou're probably right but technological trickery can make up for a surprising amount. Maybe check out the Sony RX100 Mark VII.
>>2790996>Check out the fujifilm xc 50-230mm for what I would consider a reasonably compact zoom lens that goes from portrait length to telephoto.So you would buy a mirrorless camera and then a separate lens but the lens itself can zoom in and out? I guess I don't mind bulk if the bulk is the only way to get decent image quality. >Maybe check out the Sony RX100 Mark VII.1200 dollars>!>!>!>!>
>>2790996Wanted to add, thanks for the advice. I guess I am looking for something with one lens that can do wide angle or zoom and not TOO bulky, but also not super expensive and I don't need anything "professional", I have a feeling any real camera is gonna be an upgrade from iphone. My biggest concern is holding it easily when the wind is blowing and I'm at the edge of a cliff and not losing it or damaging it.
>>2790997>>2790999>So you would buy a mirrorless camera and then a separate lens but the lens itself can zoom in and out?Pretty much. > I have a feeling any real camera is gonna be an upgrade from iphone.Also yes> I guess I am looking for something with one lens that can do wide angle or zoom>*Wide angle or telephotoOnce you move to interchangeable lens cameras (whether SLR, DSLR or mirrorless) zoom refers to how much you can change the focal length. A wide-angle lens is one with a short focal length (<35mm on a full-frame sensor or <24mm on an APS-C sensor). They take in a wide view so they can be good for landscape photography but cause some perspective distortion (which can be a good or bad thing) and have a wider depth of field.A normal lens is one with about the same field of view as the human eye, this is about 50mm on a full frame sensor or 35mm on APS-C.A telephoto lens has a long focal length (roughly >70mm on ff or >100mm on APS-C). They are 'zoomed-in' so they're what you'll use for shooting from a distance. They also have a shallower depth of field which can help isolate a subject from the background but requires careful focusing. A prime lens is one with a fixed focal length. They can be wide-angle, normal or telephoto.A zoom lens is one with a variable focal length. You can zoom in or out. Some zoom lenses can go from wide-angle to telephoto (say, 18-135mm), others might be purely telephoto (say, 200-400mm) or purely wide-angle.Zoom lenses tend to be heavier, slightly less sharp, worse in low light and/or more expensive but, yeah, it's convenient not having to carry multiple lenses and change them over a bunch. I've got an 18-135mm lens on my Fujifilm X-T5 and that's pretty much all I need unless I know I'll be shooting in the dark without a tripod or I want a pancake lens so it'll fit in my pocket.
>>2791012>(<35mm on a full-frame sensor or <24mm on an APS-C sensor).wat is aps-c vs full frameuh i think what i need is more a point and shoot one then, cuz mirrorless means u cant look through it and compose ur shot, right?And I don't want to lug a bulky camera everywhere. So maybe there's a nice point and shoot with a non interchangeable lens but that can zoom in and out a lot?
I use my mirrorless camera almost exclusively for wildlife, my phone just can't do it. I think some of the better phones actually have pretty good zoom these days, but my pixel 6 can't do it at all, probably time to upgrade anyway though. only other time I use it is when I want to play around with long exposure, though my phone is actually pretty good at that too.my sensor is kind of fucked now though, I've tried cleaning it but I think I scratched it permanently somehow, still takes pretty good shots bit I have to fix sensor smudges in postI have a Nikon z50 and pretty much always just have my kit 50-250 lens on it. it's actually a pretty good lens, takes much sharper images than the other kit lens it came with, zoom is solid. hardly a "pro" lens or camera though, doesn't do well if the wildlife is moving, certainly not catching many shots of birds in flight. But it's good enough, this camera with two lens cost me like $400 on sale a few years ago and I've put it through the fucking ringer (even ran over it with my car once lmao, had to but a $30 part to fix it but it's pretty much fine). I'm phone posting, if I remember when I get back to my computer I'll post some shots.
>>2790988way overshapened, looks like chinkphone image processing
>>2790780>>>/p/
>>2791355sigh, maybe someone here has a camera they like FOR OUTDOOR STUFFI realize from this thread I don't want anything with a removable lens that's gonna be too clunky but something that zooms in and out would be nice
>>2791055I rememberedI like to think I've gotten some decent wildlife (mostly bird) shots with my pretty cheap camera and lens, it's been a worthy investment for me. my pixel takes great (more than good enough for me at least) landscape shots and I took advantage of some new customer (and then cancelling) deal to get it for like $100, so all together my "photography setup" still costs way less than a flagship phone. flagship phone cameras are pretty damn good nowadays but I still think zoom and wildlife aren't a strong point.But if I had money better photography and birding equipment would be high on my list, as mentioned it's pretty much impossible for me to capture anything in flight and also if the bird is further than maybe 20 yards the zoom isn't really enough, or less for smaller birds. Jays in general are quite bold and often hang around campgrounds, beautiful birds; that said I don't think I've gotten a great shot of a Stellers Jay. If the bird isn't sitting still for a long time it's hard to get the focus right, I'm not sure if that's on me or the camera.
>>2791393easily the best shot I've ever taken of a grizzly. I've spent a lot of time in grizzly bear country and thankfully I've never actually come across one while out and about. I've seen probably a dozen from my car or far in the distance in lamar valley or something, this particular one ran across the road right in front of my vehicle, managed to get my camera out and roll down the window for a couple shots before it ran away.
this one I like because of the intricate and beautiful detail in the feathersthat's probably enough... I want to post more but don't want to spam either. I'd post in /p/ but they're just a bunch of gear fags. maybe /an/ is for me
fuck it one more, sleepy fox
>>2791393way better than iphoneI hate that you can't manually lock the focus on something in the foreground there's just macro mode and you have to be really close
>>2791346Well, it's a Samsung, so gookphone image processing really. I didn't post that photo because of the quality, but so you could get an idea of the distance of the shot in >>2790987. For a phone camera, I'm pretty happy with that one.
>>2791381>>2791355(me)get a bridge cameracanon sx70or nikon p1000canon sx70 does better in low light
>>2791437that looks really nice but bulky, do I need something that big for better photos? Also price seems reasonable.
>>2791438>do i need something that bulky for better photos?no but if you want cinamatic stuff like pics in the thread you will.a lot of outtubers like clay hayes and xander budnick carry full size cameras with them on their out trips.If you want a normal camera that doesnt require a bajillion lenses bridge camera are your best bet because they take good quality photosfuji has some decent ones as well albeit olderfuji finepix s2800hdfuji finepix s1
>>2791439Well, my favorite photos to take are rivers from cliffs high up and what I mainly want is something with better resolution and that can better handle low light (clouds) and bright sunlight without getting totally washed out. I don't doubt that canon sx70 takes nice photos but if im scrambling on my hands and knees up the side of a cliff do I really want that as a liability.
>>2791399I'll post a few landscape shots taken with my phone also. I'm pretty satisfied with their quality, if you zoom in too far the photos do sometimes look over processed but usually they look quite good, especially at a glance.If I can get close enough my phone is not bad at macro type wildlife shots, stuff like insects, lizards, squirrels, and at places like aquariums etc. But for bigger animals like deer or peacocks, animals that let you get real close sometimes, even if I'm more than close enough to take photos with my phone the photos almost always look way overprocessed for some reason
>>2791481
>>2791482
>>2791483
>>2791483anyway, unless you want truly pro tier shots I think most phones are good enough for landscape, good enough to look back on fondly or to impress your friends. I've even gotten a couple shots framed in my house and they look good to me.
Not super knowledgeable with cameras, but my Nikon D3400 does the job and it's an older camera. I bought it around 2018.I have a 300mm lens with some vibration reduction stuff on it which makes it easy to snap clear images of animals fast.You can have an awesome $5,000 camera, but if you are taking a picture with poor lighting or misconfigured settings, it'll look like shit. Buy a cheaper camera first and give it a shot.
>>2791481>>2791487Nice pics. Which pixel is that?
>>27916556a
>>2791690appreciate it, may consider that for my next phone, but in the meantime I guess I am looking at either a compact point and shoot or a bridge camera. Is there anything bridge-y with a zoomy lens that isn't gigantic and heavy?
camera obviously does more... but the main thing to remember is that in order to do more, you have to buy extra lenses. those can be costly. for example a telephoto lense for really good shots of targets far away. so for really nice basic point and shoot landscape/pov pictures, a modern high-end phone is great. for specialized stuff like wildlife photography where you are trying to get pictures of specific targets are varying distances, a camera is the choice, but you will need a telephoto lense for any real serious stuff. the benefit of the phone route is that people buy phones anyways, so it's not really like it's a second investment. tldr, if you are really into photography, get a camera, but expect to also buy add-ons as needed. otherwise, just buy the newest phone every couple of years.
>>2792040yeah i think im fine with a lens than can zoom in and out vs carrying separate lenses, im not doing that on steep cliffs, im mainly interested in landscapes not wildlife anywaysthe phone just kinda sucks
>>2790780i have my grandpa's camera from the late 50s/early 60s. just think it's fun to take pictures using the same thing he did when he got into camping and hunting.
>>2790780To get halfway decent wildlife photography on a phone you need at least a 5x telephoto (for iphone you need the Pro Max) but even then they have to be reasonably close.Picrel was like 10-15ft away and I still needed to crop + 5x telephoto to get this shot. Also I recommend shooting in RAW (dng) and then exporting from Dartktable/lightroom since the photos look processed if using the automatic JPEG export (little or no AI bs is done to RAWs as long as you don't zoom in more than 5x).I will never in a million years get a shot like >>2791393 on my pixel 9 pro because there needs to be a physical distance for better telephoto and phones are just too small (they could build them with popout cameras like portable DSLRs, but that gives women the ick)
Reminder that there are degenerates out there spending $1k a night on hookers while at the same time fatherless cucks on 4chang have to ask random strangers if "it's worth spending money" on a thing they are passionate about kek
>>2792222Cute pic
>>2790780A real camera you say?
>>2792308get that camlet (4x5) outta mein eyes!!! only real cams are ULF (over 8x10")
>>2792309But how are you supposed to take snapshots? Speed Graphics are the perfect street photography camera.
>>2792250I'm not asking if its worth spending money so much as if anyone has experience using a point and shoot camera in rough terrain. I was hiking through the snow yesterday, and I guess I would have to carry the camera on a neck strap, and this was not a technical or steep trail, but I dunno if you want the camera around your neck if you have to do a scramble on all fours. Maybe a "compact" point and shoot is what I should get.
>>2792352Right, but at the end of the day you are still asking fatherless clueless retards most of which are shut-in trannies for their opinion instead of going on an actual knowledgeable photography forum. In fact, you would probably be better off asking this on rebbit.
>>2792355I went on a hike yesterday where I wore yak-trax. I had originally bought micro-spikes (also suggested by 4chan), but they are harder to get on, and clunkier to walk around in, and the steel coil yak trax attachment to my hiking sneakers worked fine in the snow. Yes, 90% of people here are drooling retards, but I also got a recc for>>2791437and the canon sx70 seems reasonable at 650, just a little bulky and I wonder if I can't find something a bit more compact, or if i need that bulk.
>>2792356>and the canon sx70 seems reasonable at 650, just a little bulky and I wonder if I can't find something a bit more compact, or if i need that bulk.yeah, im just making a recommendation based off of cheap and accessible.You could always go cheaper but then you start sacraficing quality. Recently went on a long 4 hour walk through a park with a massive dslr camera a couple weeks ago.i post on /p/ i was exhausted by the time i finished.If you're OP, i recommend the sx70 because it's smaller than a dslr but bigger than a cheapo.If you also just take landscapes you can just keep it in your pack until you wanna take a photoit also has good video quality, a decent sensor 1000mm zoom, good color and differing modes. if you are inexperienced i recommend p mode before learning other modes IIRC p mode does both raw and jpgpic rel is from my hike/walk
>>2792364
>>2792364>>2792365I mean yes, those photos are great, but, do I need that much camera? Could I get away with the dinkier more "compact" point and shoots and still get an upgrade from my phone? My pack is already full of shit I guess I need a bigger one i just want a pack that can accommodate a water bladder AND has lots of pockets on the outside easily reachable and separately zippable and for whatever reason that's hard to find.
>>2792367>those photos are greatshot on my eos6d>can i get a much more compact point and shootsomewhat hard to find nowadays you may need to actually go ask on /p/ in the gear thread. They may end up recommending a bridge camera as well.i know there are other sx cameras like the sx740i am not familiar with it though as i did much more research on the sx70 before my family found the eos6d around the house
>>2792368much smaller camerasame price pointid look up a an analytical review on it
>>2792369> a ansorry for typoshitting at work.
>>2792369Sorry for taking so long to recommend thisi just remembered it right now
>>2792369yeah so I guess that's a good more compact one. It's a little cheaper too. eep some of the reviews tho>grainy video
>>2792368>shot on my eos6dthat's something big expensive and heavy im pretty sureI need "easy to hold in 30 mph gusts on the edge of a 500 foot cliff without dropping or losing it"
these cameras are fucking ancient, most of them, are there any new-ish designs in point and shoot?
>>2792378not recently as the point and shoot market is somewhat dying because a lot of people just run to their phone
>>2792379That's really sad. I mean the annoying thing is navigating with your phone and then having to have a separate device for photos, but really it's just such a huge optical compromise to do it.
>>2791690Damn, did you retouch them or anything? Imagine how good the latest Pixels are.
>>2792400What Pixel are we on now? Apparently I'm told if I buy a fixed lens point and shoot I will get dust stuck in it and it will get ruined.
>>2790780You want a decent telephoto lens if you want to do /out/ photography. An phone camera is only going to take decent pics on the macro level. And even then it's like 90% fake processed stuff and not an actual decent photo.
>>2792410Yeah but I also want wide shots and I don't want to have to change lenses on the fly to get that.
>>2792411I'd say get a camera with a telephoto lens and use your phone for macro shots. If you get serious about photography, then carry two cameras at the same time.
>>2792400I usually do minor curves and color changes and I might sharpen parts or all of the image a bit if I think it looks better. minor stuff usually>>2791481>>2791482these two are the most edited of the ones I posted to make the color pop, nothing crazy thoughthe grizzly I sharpened a lot since it wasn't a great photo to begin with, I just like it because it's a fucking grizzly. all the other pics have minor edits if any.pic here is for sure uneditedI had a cheap xiaomi, under $100 pretty sure, phone about 5 years ago that took just as good, maybe better actually, photos than my current pixel. I lost it innawoods one day and bought the exact same model and the photos were ass. I bought an upgraded model of the same phone and the photos were ass so I returned it and then just bought my pixel since I was tired of gambling with the chinese. or maybe the first one accidentally had a flagship camera installed somehow. anyway, phones are good.
>>2790780I'll tell you my experience, use it to learn from or don't.>be me>go /out/ all the time>take lots of pictures>think photography might be for me>buy a new DSLR>go /out/>take the worst pictures I've ever taken in my life>look like stills from a 1970s serial killer>poor lighting, poor focus, poor colours>the pictures I took on my phone just by pointing and clicking have everything in focus, bright, HDR, beautiful pictures with gorgeous skies and scenerySo it's a skill issue right, that's what people will say. And yeah, they are probably right.>spend weeks learning about shutter speed, ISO, aperture etc>spend minutes framing the perfect shots and adjusting all the settings>the pictures still look worse than ones taken on my Pixel in <1 secAfter those few dozen times, I never used the DSLR again. I tried to sell it repeatedly but nobody wanted it. I tried to sell it for 10% what I bought it new, and still couldn't sell it.About 6 years after that I randomly bought a Nikon P900 second hand. It wasn't expensive, I got it dirt cheap, and it was one of the best purchases I ever made. But what's good about it is the lens. I can get such incredible shots of wildlife or the moon or things that are far away, which would be impossible on my phone.A random hip shot will still be worse than my phone, but that's mainly because it doesn't have that good a sensor, it's just a camera with a massive lens.From some more research I've done, I think a lot of modern digital cameras actually can rival phones in terms of taking good pictures - you still need to choose the right settings, but the presets are good. The tech has come along a long way from when I bought that DSLR, but I would still say 95% of people would be better taking pictures on their phone unless you want a zoom lens.Also it depends on the phone as well, because the pictures I took on my Pixel are stunning and look way better than pictures my friends took on their phones on the same hike
>>2790780Yes, if you ever have to zoom a real camera is EONs beyond any phone.
>>2792418>bought a Nikon P900so that's mainly what you use now? Photo board says if the lens isn't detachable it will get fucked up by dust eventually.
>>2792421How would that happen if its attached and can't get dust inside it?
>>2792419This is basically it for me. Want to take a good picture of landscape? Use your phone. For 95% of people hiking in nature this is the case.Want to zoom in something? (Wildlife etc or have something in focus). You need a lens. Get a camera for the lens(es). That's what phones lack.The actual tech in phones is leaps ahead for making photos look good, but they have pathetic lenses, so you can take a much better picture with a real camera lens if it's some specialist picture based on the focus or zoom.
>>2792423tiny cracks, opening it up to replace battery or memory card, anything stuck obstructing the sensor can't be removed
>>2791398Me if bird.
there are times when googles ai processor bullshit goes bonkers, I remember thinking I got a good shot here then I go in to see it later on my computer and it looks like a watercolor painting. if I notice the phone doing this in the moment I can sometimes take a few shots and magically some are fine and some are fucked but other times something about the scene just does not compute to the camera. it's pretty rare for it to be completely fucky like this pic thoughsomething to be aware of with phone photos
>>2792402>What Pixel are we on now?Pixel 9.Right now I'm still using my Xiaomi Mi 8 from 2018, it refuses to die and takes okay pictures (pic attached is an example).Whenever I'll buy a new smartphone I will use this website to help me make a choice:https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/For every smartphone tested they have a detailed review, see this one for the Pixel 9 Pro : https://www.dxomark.com/google-pixel-9-pro-xl-camera-test/But I don't even need to look the website desu, most of the time Huawei, Pixels and iPhones are on top of the ranking with each release. I don't want an iPhone and Huawei got cucked out of Android so I'll just buy a Pixel.>>2792417Looks great anon, thanks for the info.
>>2792445You can save pictures in RAW on Pixels, right? Can that help, if you know how to retouch them?
>>2792418>>2792364(me)>>2792365(me)i was originally gonna get the p950 for christmas but then my family dug out the ol' eos6d and ive been using it ever since>>2792425sorry that you had this experience on /p/you should really just get what you wanna get alot of stuff is post processed nowadays anyway
>>2792418>spend weeks learning about shutter speed, ISO, aperture etcit took me about a week to learn everything.Post processing a bit longer.my mother grew up doing photography so i guess it rubbed off on me genetically a bit
>>2792528
>>2792508you can but in my experience it's more often just a worse photo, or requires way too much post processing for my liking. it's not a powerful camera/sensor whatever in the first place the reason the photos look good is usually because of google's processor bullshit, sometimes it fucks up but usually it's good.also shooting in both creates a lot more file clutter and takes up a shit ton more space
>>2790780>$500>Better than phoneSony a6000 + 16-50 kit lens and 55-210 lens. It might cost a bit more to get both lenses, but you might be able to find someone who just wants to get rid of them for cheap. Millions of people have bought these, then realized they don't actually like photography, so there are tons for cheap on the used market. Worst case is if you don't like using the camera, you can sell it for around the same price you got it for.You should also consider how you are viewing the photos, and whether or not you want to have to process the photos to make them look nicer. If they just stay on your phone I don't think you'll notice much of a difference. Also, if you don't want to run raw files through software, it's probably best to stick with a phone, which does all of the editing for you when you take the photo. So, I wouldn't bother with picking up a camera unless you want to make a hobby of it.>>2792423Zooming changes the volume inside the camera, so air needs to go in and out. Over time dust will get sucked in and accumulate on the sensor, leaving dark circles in all of your photos. This isn't a problem if you can take off the lens to get easy access to the sensor for cleaning.
>>2792641>16-50 kit lens and 55-210 lensDo you think that would approximate the .5-3x zooming of my iphone?
>>2792769Hopefully this isn't too confusing - camera lens focal lengths (basically a proxy for field of view) are usually expressed in "full-frame equivalent". A shorter focal length gives a wider field of view.The lenses on your iphone are the equivalent of 13, 24, and 120 mm. Since that camera has an apsc sensor, not full frame, the lenses cover 24-77 mm and 84-320 mm. So you lose the ultra-wide, but gain a lot on the telephoto end. I find anything below 24mm isn't very useful for landscape, and you could just take a panorama if you want a wider field of view. Sony also makes an 18-135 mm (28-207 mm full frame eq.) lens that's pretty compact, but it might be a bit much for your budget unless you find a really good deal on a used one.
>>2792782>The lenses on your iphone are the equivalent of 13, 24, and 120 mm. Since that camera has an apsc sensor, not full frame, the lenses cover 24-77 mm and 84-320 mm.The way you wrote that makes it sound like you're saying the iPhone has an APS-C sensor. I assume that's not what you meant, since it obviously does not.
>>2792854"that camera" is in reference to the a6000. The sensors in the phone are much smaller
>>2790780I just got a ZV-E10 and viltrox 28mm f/4.5 for an upcoming hike, the camera weighs 14.3oz with battery and lens attached and easily fits into a jacket pocket. Total comes to $685 before tax with the lens on sale during black friday.This is a video from my nearby lake under gray weather, first time testing the camera.AF is very fast and responsive but I had it set up in a way that it chose to focus on the nearby shrub at the end. I used gyroflow to stabilize the video and horizon afterwards because there is no (physical) stabilization in this body + lens. It can't zoom either, but it's a tiny and cheap lens that performs well in daylight. The field of view is equivalent to 42.8mm on a full frame, nicer for framing than a wide 28mm without being useless for close subjects like 60mm.Like others said, you probably won't notice differences unless you're viewing the image/video on enlarged prints or a TV. Most pictures are being viewed, at best, filling the 5-6" area of a smartphone.I already shoot film as a hobby so to me a $700 mirrorless setup + $300 cheapo phone is better than $1k phone that struggles to do some of the special things a "real" camera can do, but are useless to someone who is not involved.
>>2793567>there is no (physical) stabilizationseems like that's something I need then >It can't zoom eitheruseless
I have been using a fujifilm xt-30ii over the last 6 months of travel and its been great, taking some great quality photos. I am no expert by any means I am still trying to get out of the habit of shooting auto.I think the best thing is that its making me proactively take photos, when I just have my phone I never even think about it, my camera is mirror and quite light also easy to carry around.I made my money back within the first week of having it desu (by the sentimental value of my photos)pros>take a lot more photos then if you had a phone>higher quality photos (depending on the camera)>good hobby to get intom something you can be proud of if you take nice shots>a lot easier to look at photos taken from a camera then if you are scrolling through your phones photo librarycons>expensive>high quality photos take a lot of memory so you will need some good storage and you may need to take storage with you depending on how much you shoot>takes a while to get handy with the cameratl;dr, buy one
>>2794060>seems like that's something I need then it can stabilize at runtime with steadyshot but it crops the image by 30%or if you stabilize in post then you get around 5-15% crop depending on your handsits a tradeoff I prefer in exchange for pretty sharp images and being pocket-size. I've been putting it in my pants pockets if they're baggy or stretchy.>It can't zoom eitherfor $700 it comes as a kit with a 16-50mm zoom + stabilization lens but zoom lenses are generally not as sharp as fixed lenses unless they're super expensive, but are beginner friendly and probably worth it if you're not trying to minmax in some waypicrelated, the kit lens is double in length according to specsbased on my usage of past SLR, DSLRs, if I can't carry it everywhere then it ends up on the shelf or in the glovebox a lot so I wanted to avoid that
What exactly do.you want to photograph? What subjects are you interested in? Landscape, birds, mammels, insects, plants etc. This should guide your decision on gear first and foremost. You dont want to carry around stuff that wouldn't suite your actual use-case.
>>2794858Also think abt when you will be shooting. Do you need stuff for low light or can you get by with smaller sensors and slower lenses?
>>2794858>>2794862waterfalls, vistas, trees, rivers, generally landscapeI often end up taking photos just before dark, so yeah, low light would be helpful
>>2794865Tripod shooting is a different vibe maybe worth trying. You stand there in the beautiful scene a few minutes fiddling knobs and scooting the tripod around instead of snap and move on. And can improve your image quality if your camera is capable (manual controls) and you know what you're doing. You can get away with an older camera (one that was expensive years ago but cheap now) this way. >>2792504See this is why I never want to use a smartphone to take pictures of where I go. I can't bear the thought of taking a picture of such a beautiful scene and have it come out soft muddy shit with blown highlights the moment you zoom in at all. I bet it looks good on the itty bitty phone screen and I'd be fantasizing about printing it and hanging it on the wall all the way home, then devastating disappointment as soon as I look at it on a monitor. Better to have just my memory than that shit. I know phones are better than they used to be but they still all look like shit or AI hallucinations as soon as you zoom in.
>>2794865In that case an older full frame may be suitable. If low light is a priority, you want a bigger sensor which can capture more light. The downside with full frame is that you will have bigger and heavy lenses and camera and higher cost. Also your lens choice may be limited depending on what brand/mount you choose. You can get an entry level full frame, but it may not have some extra features. MfT sensors will have less cost for extra features (5 axis stabilization, water/dust proofing for example, high res shot modes or in camera stacking for example). You can make very acceptable photos at night with MfT and APC sensors however, but it depends on your levels of expectation. In addition you may have a wide choice of lenses, on smaller sensor cameras, especially with MfT.It may be helpful to choose a sensor size or a particular lens first, and then choose the camera body. Lenses are the main investment anyway on the used market. The other thing is, always buy used. If you are starting out, use sites like MPB or something equivalent available in your country. New gear only makes sense if you know exactly what you want and know you will get extensive use out of it.
Optics is one of those things where there's no replacement for displacement. That said, I'm not carrying my lens collection on a weekend backpacking trip where the purpose is to walk up a steep hill and sleep there.
