mirrorless actually sucks for low light. the viewfinder gets laggy, noisy, and low resolution. if you spend enough money it gets better but you don't want to do that.

i recommend a cheap shit indestructible DSLR with image stabilization and a movable screen, like a pentax KP (worse autofocus, stabilizes with any lens) or a canon 6d (better autofocus, only stabilizes with lenses labeled "IS")

File: PXL_20231122_203008046.jpg (2.23 MB, 4080x3072)

2.23 MB JPG

>>4350990
Is there a huge difference between the mk1/2/etc? what one should I be aiming for?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Google
Camera Model	Pixel 6 Pro
Camera Software	HDR+ 1.0.520435816zd
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.9
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4080
Image Height	3072
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2023:11:22 14:30:08
Exposure Time	41997/1000000 sec
F-Number	f/1.9
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	576
Lens Aperture	f/1.9
Brightness	-1.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	0.93 m
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	6.81 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4080
Image Height	3072
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Macro

>>4350991
I forgot, the 6dii is the one with the flippy screen, not the 6d

>>4350989
Which fuckin youtube chimp is claiming mirrorless somehow gives you better low light performance? I swear I keep seeing this argument. You want the biggest sensor and the fastest lenses you can afford for that shit.

Anon, every other anon here will have a different opinion on specific bodies and lenses to buy. I'm a Canon shill, but a Snoy would be fine as well. It doesn't really matter that much unless you want to brandfag more than you take photos. What you actually want is a Full-Frame sensor camera. Mirrorless or DSLR, doesn't fuckin' matter that much. Mirrorless cameras get nicer QoL shit and better AF on top of generally better video performance. Pair whatever body you have with a decently fast (read: wide max aperture like f/2) lens that preferably has Image Stabilisation, and a tripod. Tripod only helps for static images where shit doesn't move, or if you want motion blur etc.

Actual gear rec for under $1000 USD:
Canon 5D MkIII
EF 24-135 f/3.5 USM IS (kinda old, but helps stay in budget)

There's a thousand EF lenses to pick from and a large used market where you can get cheap as fuck deals, which I think is a strong point of going Canon. Nikon has good options like the D800 etc.
>I will be breaking them decently often
What the fuck. I mean, are you actually prepared to just break $1000 worth of gear on a regular basis?

>>4350989
>will be breaking them decently often and don't want to be buying top of the line to destroy them.
What did he mean by this?

>>4350998
Nigga is taking photos in caves

If they are getting destroyed that often may as well churn through olympus em10s+some <$200 lens like the lumix 20mm, olympus 17mm, etc since they are cheap garbage and have a built in flash

File: IMG_2448.jpg (1.46 MB, 4032x3024)

1.46 MB JPG

>>4350998
Exactly what >>4351001 said. All my buddies that use actual cameras break them once or twice a year


>>4350996
You're the best. I appreciate the input and specifics.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 13 Pro Max
Camera Software	15.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	26 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2022:07:13 11:16:47
Exposure Time	1/34 sec
F-Number	f/1.5
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/1.5
Brightness	-1.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	5.70 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	4032
Image Height	3024
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Unique Image ID	a3d07f5c342e15e60000000000000000

>>4351001
Yeah unfortuately it sounds like an old pro-tier m43 might be most suitable. Which is shit for low light, but yeah, use the flash. Otherwise OP is going to be spending thousands on a regular basis

>>4351003
There are no pro-tier m43.

I thought he was taking pics at basement black metal concerts. If it's vacation snaps in caves well, just buy the cheapest m43 with a built in flash you can find, like an em10ii, panasonic 12-32 f3.5-5.6 and put some scotch tape over the flash so it looks less shit.

Who knows, maybe it wont actually break

File: PXL_20220625_191741436.MP.jpg (2.63 MB, 4032x3024)

2.63 MB JPG

>>4351003
Yea $1000/year in gear is kind of what I had imagined and am expecting. That is a sunk cost that is worth it to be to be able to capture and share what I want to and not have fucked up photos all the time like the cell phones produce a lot.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Google
Camera Model	Pixel 3
Camera Software	HDR+ 1.0.440402506zd
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4032
Image Height	3024
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2022:06:25 13:17:41
Exposure Time	42353/1000000 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	367
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Brightness	-0.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	Infinity
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.44 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4032
Image Height	3024
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>4351007
>$1000/yr
with micro four thirds its more like $500 a year

The E-P5 would even slide into a pocket better

>and the winner of the "camera you dont mind throwing away" award goes to

>>4351011
Unironically a PEN like an E-PL8 should be a valid buy since I can't imagine a viewfinder being used heaps while cavediving. No weather sealing though, but you get IBIS, small, and decent IQ for a pretty cheap buy in.

>>4351054
>"weather sealing"
ill believe it when they warranty against water damage.

i have seen countless olympus cameras come and go on ebay with one electronic part or another (ie: button, evf, port) inoperational. the only people telling you how good the weather sealing is are the lucky ones and also the gearfags. the rest, the majority, are fairly normal people who dont know what a "dpreview" is, got their camera wet while snapping poolside and sold it to a recycling center.

File: 000383960036-3.jpg (4.94 MB, 6713x4452)

4.94 MB JPG

>>4350996
I generally agree with this anon, but would change things slightly.

I think you would be much better off with the EF 28mm f1.8 USM. it will give you a nice wide field of view but it is a much faster lens, while still having stabilization. If this lens plus body is going to stretch your budget, drop down to the 5d mkII. I had a 5d2 before switching to an A7R and I still miss that camera.

I use the 24-135 on one of my film bodies (pic related) and the image quality is a bit of a shit show, especially "wide open". shutter speeds in the evening are extremely long and the image stabilization is just okay.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4352211
That's a pretty nice photo

>>4352211
>while still having stabilization
?

>>4350996
>EF 24-135 f/3.5 USM IS
?

>>4352435
>>4352434
I guess I confused the stabilized f2.8 with the f1.8. Thank goodness you showed up to save the day, namefriend

>>4352435
They are obviously talking about the 28-135 you fucking donkey, no need to act confused

>>4352828
It can be hard to tell when you fuck up both the focal length and the aperture range or even the fact that it has a variable aperture.

>>4352829
It really wasn't very difficult to tell, you just feel like you need to prove your le epic canon knowledge

>>4352833
Yeah, I really dabbed on you, didn't I?