Hi /p/, visitor from /lit/ here. I know nothing about cameras but for years I've really liked looking at pictures. Shoutout Ralph Eugene Meatyard, Vivian Maier, Roger Ballen, Emmet Gowin, Stacy Kranitz, Bruce Gilden, Dawoud Bey, Tseng Kwong Chi, Saul Leiter, Frederick Sommer, Mario Giacomelli, Lucas Samaras, Nan Golding, the Japanese guy who took all those raven pictures, many others. They might be memes, I don't know, I just really like their pictures.I have about 500 bucks to spend and I want to buy a camera. I'm thinking about a used picrel (Canon EOS R1000) with whatever used lens it normally comes with, think it's called a RF-S 18-45mm? I don't really know much about gear, just want to start taking pictures. I'm vaguely aware that once you buy a camera you're "locked into its system" of lenses, etc. I've heard the name Canon before so I figure that buying more lenses at some point in a few years won't be a problem. I want to take digital pictures because I don't want to pay for film right now, learn to develop, all of that. Am I being retarded about this, or is this a good purchase? Thanks in advance. In a form of payment, have a book recommendation -- currently reading "Love's Work" by Gillian Rose, short memoir by a philosopher who wrote it while dying of ovarian cancer. Strongly recommend.
>>4528802 - enjoy your stay
>>4529282Oh shit, didn't see this. Thanks. I'll repost this there.
canon 5d with the 24-105
>>4529281I like how you inserted Mario Giacomelli to pretend it's not some ironic shitpost. "R1000" and (((Gillian Rose))) gives it away though.Mirrorless is cucked in general, but Canon is one of the more locked of them, on top of that. R100 isn't particularly well-built either. And for about 300 to 400 used it's highway robbery. The Canon reflex system, in contrast, is a lot more flexible. The most flexible among reflex in fact.If you want autofocus you're locked to Canon EF lenses, but adapting lets you use Nikon F, M42, Olympus OM, Pentax K among others without losing infinity focus or quality (other brands with longer flange distances require a correcting element that changes your focal length a bit, a mild teleconverter).Moreover, being from /lit/ you're probably familiar with the allegory of the cave. Well, the mirrorless system is exactly that: you see some mangled version of the scene after the sensor and the camera's electronics had their way with it. And it's not even "what you see is what you get" because the dynamic range of the sensor is greater than that of the electronic "viewfinder". Reflex lets you see through the lens, you get the real deal, an optical path from the lens to your eye. There's another benefit to DSLRs: they use the same mount as the film SLRs before them. So if you decide to graduate to film, you only need a camera and can keep using your lenses.
>>4529294Since you're trying to sound like such an expert can we see a few photos to back up this word salad?
>>4529293Don't recommend that dinosaur lol, SL2 is more like what he seems to want (small). For full frame, 6D or 5D3 are better choices than 5D.Even 5D2 is too primitive with bullshit like an auto-ISO function that's locked in ISO 400 if you're in manual mode. 5D3 and 6D are a breeze, it's like having a Pentax with TAv mode. Older Canons are full of shit like that which needlessly frustrates someone new to the system.
>>4529297Why look at photos when it's better illustrated by technical drawings? What are you going to look at in a photo, how far back is the focal plane on top of the body? With differences measured in single digit millimeters it's not like you can notice.Actually, a picture of an adapter is a better explanation. See pic related, the element in it is there because to mount a lens meant for a shorter flange (M42) on a longer flange body (Nikon F) you need to alter the focal length in order to keep infinity focus. They don't even bother making one for Canon EF lenses because their aperture is electronic making the adaptation utterly pointless.
>>4529294I'm not shitposting, isn't "R1000" just what it's called? Copy-pasted from the Ebay listing. I found those photographers through the essayist Guy Davenport. (Strongly recommend picrel if you want something to read.) He was friends with Ralph Eugene Meatyard and wrote an essay about him, and I liked his pictures, so I googled "photographers like Ralph Eugene Meatyard" which led me to Roger Ballen, and then I googled "photographers like Roger Ballen" which led me to Francesca Woodman (not listed but love her), etc etc, repeat repeat repeat. I guess some of those photographers are memes or something, sorry I guess? Didn't know, just like what they do. Gillian Rose is a great writer, /lit/ isn't aware of her because /lit/ doesn't read anything newer than Pynchon + woman + Jewish, their loss but good luck convincing them of that >mirrorless is allegory of the caveLmfao thanks for the analogy, helps me think about it. Heard on DSLR over mirrorless. The /gear/ thread is also in agreement that I shouldn't get the Canon EOS R1000. Someone in the /gear/ thread recommended a Canon 5D Mark II, a DSLR? >autofocusI thought you weren't supposed to use autofocus, that it was a crutch or something. Is that not right?>>4529298Basically I want something digital, something that can take a wide variety of kinds of pictures, ideally small but not necessarily so (will trade size for flexibility easily), something that I can buy relatively cheaply used, something that I can take pictures with for a few years without worrying about getting a new camera or new lenses. Basically flexibility and reliability is what I'm looking for
>>4529298can you read??? he only has $500 budget
>>4529302I didn't waste time actually reading your post I just noticed you post a lot of technical bullshit where somehow the entire world is wrong or psyopped or under control of a grand conspiracy and the cameras everyone uses are "objectively bad", and find this unlikely because cameras aren't spiritual or political, besides all digital cameras producing "fake" images. Some proof you take photos or even own a camera would go a long way towards making your posts worth reading.>>4529303Old DSLRs are well laid out, less likely to break, and have a fun factor that some people enjoy. But they're big The 5D II is easy on the shekel stash and more retro. People who don't know what they're doing benefit from more modern gear like the 5D III/D750. There's also DX DSLRs, which are marginally smaller (ie: canon 80D, Nikon D7200) and pretty cheap.There's also the canon EOS M5, which is like the well made version of the R100 and is the mirrorless version of the canon 80D. I used one for a while. It (and the 80d) has to use its built in flash to keep image quality up indoors and editing raws isn't worth it, but it's alright and it's small. Pic related EOS M5.Consider saving your money. For $800 you could pick up a used Nikon Z6 and a 40mm f2 lense off ebay. It's a more useful camera than most DSLRs.
>>4529306See >>4529307>>4529303>I'm not shitposting, isn't "R1000" just what it's called?It's R100, the listing is wrong.>Lmfao thanks for the analogy, helps me think about it. Heard on DSLR over mirrorless. We have a little war here over it but most of /p/ is allergic to philosophy so it falls on deaf ears. >The /gear/ thread is also in agreement that I shouldn't get the Canon EOS R1000. Someone in the /gear/ thread recommended a Canon 5D Mark II, a DSLR?It's a good camera but in my opinion too primitive and will punish you making you find things the hard way. Also uses expensive CF cards. I made some other recs in the thread, see >>4529307.>I thought you weren't supposed to use autofocus, that it was a crutch or something. Is that not right?It can be thought as such lol but photography isn't a focus skill competition and sometimes AF can be useful. Sometimes it can get in the way by focusing at something you don't want it to focus too.>Basically I want something digital, something that can take a wide variety of kinds of pictures, ideally small but not necessarily so (will trade size for flexibility easily), something that I can buy relatively cheaply used, something that I can take pictures with for a few years without worrying about getting a new camera or new lenses. Basically flexibility and reliability is what I'm looking forIn that case you'll be well served by a Rebel Txi as well (where x is a number, from T6i onwards they're all 24MP), a Nikon D5300, Nikon D3300 (no swivel screen but larger viewfinder, I'd go with 5300 myself) and if you get quirky Pentax K-70 but support is a bit sparse. It's an amazing beast but you get less native lens variety. If you want full frame then Canon 6D is arguably the best to start with. Or Nikon D750. Avoid Pentax K-1 because they recently announced the discontinuation of the mount so everyone is charging insane prices.
>>4529309>lenseI correct myself, /p/ isn't just allergic to philosophy but also to literacy.
>>4529311>>4529310Still waiting on a photo there budPic related Z6 quality for like $300 extra (the shithole western town isn't quality, wouldn't recommend visiting it too often)
>>4529310Why are you recommending nikons that can't even use the most common and cheap nikon lenses (AF-D)? This just further confirms that you probably don't even own a cameraOP, don't listen to anyone who can't post photos they took. There are paid shills and /pol/yps about.
>>4529315G lenses are cheaper, and you can use AF-D on those cameras just with no AF. If you don't see why someone would enjoy a D5300 you don't understand photography.BTW the D5300 isn't an arbitrary choice, it can work with the AF-P lenses whereas the D5200 can't. It's one of the most versatile cameras you can get. D5500 and upwards are gimped so I didn't recommend those, just like the SL-3.
>>4529318You're regurgitating things you don't understand. It's really, really clear you don't even do any photography at all and haven't used anything you recommend.You're like the product of an autistic kid ruminating on random camera factoids. Totally detached from reality.
>>4529322I have. The D5300 is one of the best designed cameras I've ever used, I'd rock one if not for the F-mount. Canon EF allows me to freely use vintage lenses of almost all mounts save for Minolta A, Miranda MD and few other weird ones.
>>4529334Sure nophoto. Sure. That's why you have so many pictures to share.You know what else can use all the vintage lenses? A mirrorless camera!
>>4529341I'm not interested in going back to the times of the camcorder, this time with "computational photography" AI fuckery.Enjoy the shadows of the cave I guess.
>>4529344i hope you realize op has already taken huskyfag's advice and fucked offprobably somewhere around this post>>4529315
>>4529350I hope you realize OP got a wealth of information and is well aware he can get a competent starter setup with the suggestions I gave him. Huskyfag himself admitted DSLR is better on the gear thread.
>>4529351He admitted he tripped and broke his expensive mirrorless hiking
>>4529355Just mirrorlesscuck things. Should have bought a 1DX3 if he wanted a good expensive camera.
>>4529357
>>4529359I can fix her
>>4529281The truth is $500 is not nearly enough for a decent camera these days. With this budget you should be able to buy a single decent used lens without a body. To get a full kit you'll need to buy ancient hardware or really low end modern stuff. Both options are gonna suck so keep your expectations low.
>>4529281OP I'm just gonna ignore the faggots itt being faggots and lay out some actual advice:I owned an R50 for a while, which is basically the step up from the R100 you linked. The R100 is really bottom of the barrel in terms of a modern camera. The R50 is somewhat better while still being quite small, but I found myself wishing I bought the R10 (another step up in terms of features) quite quickly. I think you'd do better to look for a used R50 and the kit lens, which in my area is absolutely doable for $500 USD. I know that because I bought my kit used for $480 USD.But, honestly, there's a sweet spot between age and price where you can get a better camera for the same money. A 5D Mk II, which has been mentioned already, is a good camera, but 20 years old. Would do good in the hands of someone who knows what they're sacrificing by buying it, not a complete newcomer. A 6D Mk I is a few years newer with better features but is pretty much the same camera. You could snag one for $350-400 USD or there abouts then slap a decent lens on it for maybe $100-200 USD.That's my input. Ignore these faggots who just want to argue between their favourite sports team brand bullshit.
>>4529394>6D Mk I is a few years newer with better features but is pretty much the same camera.It's better even in the sensor, the noise is a lot more tolerable. 5D2 has awful fixed pattern noise if you push it in low light. The 6D greatly reduced the problem. 5D2 has its great reputation because it was a breakthrough camera and being the first full frame hybrid it ended up in very knowledgeable hands that knew how to make the best out of it in a controlled evironment. Give it to a newbie shooting with available light and he'll struggle. A crop Nikon with an stabilized lens can be bought for well under $500 and will outperform 5D2 (both handheld) in low light. And when you push it you get an uniform color cast that can be corrected easily, 5D2 gets a grid instead.
>>4529392god I wish I could slaughter all gearfags holy fucking shit with $500 you can get an A7s with a kit zoom which shoots basically in the dark and has enough megapixels to post on the web unless you want to learn photography by spraying photos and cropping everything in post
>>4529426>shoots basically in the dark>with a kit zoom>12MPlol, lmao evenMight as well recommend a Nikon D90 while you're at it. a7S is a glorified camcorder that puts video first.
>>4529309Only good advice itt comes courtesy of a dog
>Recommends actual good cameras for cheap instead of crippled e-waste>Actually posts good photos>Mogs cANON into a whimpering mess
>>4529453>recommending 5D2 to a newbie>good advice>>4529459You should trip up, but then you couldn't pat yourself on the back like this. The samefagging is still transparent to everyone. The only guy other than me that gave non-troll advice is >>4529394Dogcuck advice is the GOMAD+SS of /p/.
>>4529460The 5D2 is piss easy to use. I don't have a problem with mine besides the AF being slow. There's nothing actually wrong with it that impedes its use as a camera, besides being an early DSLR that's best shot in raw by someone who knows how to anticipate dodgy metering and AWB, and taking a $25 CF card that lasts forever (they usually come with one). Good thing canon DPP is free.I also recommended the 5DIII (sovl), D750 (more editing room and features), 80D, D7200, and EOS M5 for a little more money, and saving up and buying an actual good camera (Z6+40/2). You recommended... a canon rebel and a worsened walmart version of the D7200 that can't autofocus with AF-D which are by and large the cheapest, highest quality lenses available for any autofocus SLR period. Idk man I mog you into a whimpering mess. You can't even beat me photographically. I posted the moon shot that mogged you too btw.>tripfag obsessed with reach>has no reach>dogchad that doesn't care about reach>has reach for days
If a camera takes CF cards and you don't have one, CF-SD adapters work fine as long as it's a lower end SD card with similar specs to CF instead of a high capacity/high speed one (something to do with voltage requirements)
>>4529465D5300 has the same sensor as the D7200, has a swivel screen for overhead, ground or side shots (or even selfies and vlogging), is a fraction of the price and about as compact as the one he posted. AF-D lenses tend to not have stabilization which is desirable on any camera, especially a a crop one. 5D2 is full of quirks one finds the hard way. Like the ISO showing auto but actually being 400 in manual mode. It also doesn't take extreme pushing of the files gracefully. >5DIII (sovl), D750 (more editing room and features), 80DAll good but for OP's budget it's stretching it. >Z6+40/2Might as well use an iPhone, unironically better than blowing your budget on a meme prime.
Nikon D200 - $100 CF only10mp8 stops of DRISO 100-800 color, ISO 1600 in B&WWeirdly better everything (but sensor) than a 5DIIBuilt in flashMAXIMUM SOUL
>>4529468>Weirdly better everything (but sensor) than a 5DIIOnly weird to someone who first engaged with DSLRs in the current year
>>4529467>AF-D lenses tend to not have stabilization which is desirable on any camera, especially a a crop one.So if some common cheap primes are missing a gimmick feature they're not needed and you might as well forego the ability to use them with autofocus altogether to save $100?>Like the ISO showing auto but actually being 400 in manual mode.Why are you being misleading? Just say "there's no auto ISO in manual, but that doesn't matter, because using auto ISO in manual on a DSLR is retarded">>Z6+40/2>Might as well use an iPhoneIt's just better than every DSLR listed. Cope, seethe, and spam your retarded conspiracy theories about secret next century AI faking moon landings through the viewfinder.>>4529469It's always been weird that canon, despite having legions of fanboys praising their jpegs and eros, had worse metering, auto white balance, and ergos than nikon.
>cANON makes a retarded recommendation>is told why it's retarded (cant autofocus with half of the lenses that can mount to it)>copes and says the lenses it cant autofocus with are useless because they don't have a gimmick that's only on zooms, macros, and two overpriced tamron primes
>>4529472>It's always been weird that canon, despite having legions of fanboys praising their jpegs and eros, had worse metering, auto white balance, and ergos than nikon.What's weird is that this board is obsessed over minimally-to-moderately important details between brands rather than just taking fucking photos.What photo is impossible with a D800 that you could take with a 5DIV? What makes a T6i Rebel wrong to use because some random faggot online said you should have bought an A6700?I bought a 70D a decade ago after going most of my life never giving a shit about photos or photography, purely because I knew Canon was a brand already and just went "yep that looks good enough".I got an R10 a few years ago because I was used to Canon gear. That's that. My photos are nothing special, as is the case for most of the board, but what the fuck exactly would have buying a Nikon or a Snoy acomplished?
>>4529476>Why care about things?>Just have zero self esteem. I'm nothing special. I'm unimportant. None of you important.Take your SSRIs. I'm not taking ascetism from someone decadent enough to have free time to spend on 4chan.
>>4529476generally if someone is new to photography they should get a camera that isn't going to present a wall to hit and upgrade over earlylike they shouldn't buy some POS because a nophoto tripfag insisted they should, and then find out the prime lenses that are within their budget can't autofocus>but the tripfag said stabilization was all that matters because "equivalence" when photographing brick walls in low light at small apertures without a tripod!and they shouldn't buy ultra low end hardware if their budget already has enough room for something that will keep working for longer and isn't missing featuresand if they can afford a half decent mirrorless, they shouldn't feel obligated to buy a DSLR that's way less portable and less user friendly. and they can. $500 will buy an eos m5 and 22mm f2 and provide literally any retard with years of fun and do anything a more expensive RF mount camera can do, only missing some sports autofocus and the ability to mount the new $$$$ RF lenses.and if they can afford a newer lower end mirrorless, it's often smarter to buy an older high end mirrorless for the same amount of money instead of basically emptying their wallet for canon's brand name and getting junk that's literally designed to result in the eventual purchase of a second cameraor if not buying a second camera, losing interest and engaging in depressive behaviornotice the huge emphasis on avoiding any future motivation to buy another camerafor some people here, the inevitability of buying more cameras is actually what gets them excited. cANON has more than three cameras, and he doesn't use any of them.
>>4529426>12yo>not ancientpick one>12MP>not shitpick one>Snoy kit lens>goodpick oneMy post holds true. $500 camera and lens will be either ancient or low end. Both options will suck.
>>4529490There's not much that sucks about a lot of ancient cameras unless you're really into sports and wildlife photography that typically needs a $500+ lens additionally, or insist upon wedding shit>But can the autofocus do aisle and first dance shots? Does it have the FPS to get the first kiss even if I've been sneaking wine? Does it have a fast zoom lense available?
>>4529492Idk man, I checked out some Canon 5D Mark II RAWs yesterday and they looked worse than my iPhone snaps. I believe cameras released before 2018 are not worth getting unless you explicitly want that "retro" look.
>>4529478Lmao fuck up you nig nog. You didn't even get the point of the post with that crayon eating IQ of yours. Take some photos with your sportsball Funko pops and quit fagging on over your special team.
>dude asks for advice>the whole thread turns into a shit flinging contest almost immediately>as many completely different recommendations as there are posters>hours later: no consensus reached>bro probably more confused than before asking for adviceclassic /p/
>>4529500Don't listen to anyone who can't post their own photography. It's that simple.>b-b-b-but then everyone i disagree with is rightWell.
>>4529472Screw drive AF isn't particularly good AF to begin with, it's why Canon wrecked Nikon's sports photography market back in the 90s and why they had to come up with AF-S to compete. >Why are you being misleading? Just say "there's no auto ISO in manual, but that doesn't matter, because using auto ISO in manual on a DSLR is retarded"Because there is an auto-ISO setting indicated as such. But if you RTFM you learn in M mode, auto ISO is actually fixed to 400. >It's just better than every DSLR listed. Cope, seethe, and spam your retarded conspiracy theories about secret next century AI faking moon landings through the viewfinder.Better at what? Lacking a proper viewfinder?>>4529474>gimmickThat "gimmick" allows a crop Nikon to vastly outperform the 5D2 you recommended when it comes to night photography. >>4529476Watch them lash out at your post lol>>4529486Ironically, many of the recommendations you guys gave are the ones presenting walls to hit. I'm not recommending an EOS 4000D, I'm recommending stuff with good sensors, good price and good functionality. Without memes like CF cards. >ultra low end hardwareThat's not the SL series nor the D5x00>$500 will buy an eos m5 and 22mm f2Again you recommend a single lens from a defunct system that lasted a handful of years in the market. EF is very much alive still. M5 has the same sensor as the SL2, has a worse mount, a worse flash, worse ergos, worse battery life and more. There's no real reason to pick an M5 over an SL2 other than to be a special snowflake with a chip on his shoulder who got triggered by the latest cANON post.
>>4529503That's a lot of cope, but you don't take or post photos. Nothing you say is relevant because you do not do photography in real life. You just theorize about ISO noise in test conditions assuming everyone follows the rules you made up for the test.Someone who actually does photography would never, ever share your opinions. Ever. They're unrealistic. They're based on you ruminating on lots of factoids and theories you acquired from the internet and very little real world experience. The sum of your photographic experience is doing astrophotography very poorly and snapshitting a blurry leaf.Feel free to write a lot of words when you have a lot of photos to back them up.
>>4529503>there's no reason to pick the significantly smaller camera that actually has two control dials, a more useful viewfinder, more accurate autofocus, no mirror slap softness, and a selection of more compact lenses if not using the official EF adapter>why? because uh>the glowies are using the EVF to fake the moon landing there's 5g nanochips in my brain>t. some guy that literally does not know how to use a camerathe more you argue the more you humiliate yourself desu
>>4529505I don't post, that's right.>Nothing you say is relevant because you do not do photography in real life.>They're based on you ruminating on lots of factoids and theories you acquired from the internet and very little real world experience.lol, ironic of you to say that. I've experienced the shortcomings of early Canon full frame cameras myself and that's how I know they do worse than crop Nikons when pushed. Pic related is the achilles heel of the Canon sensor. Skies make it most obvious but say that on a whim you want to do some indoor macro shot of a guitar from the bridge side with the headstock visible, for example. Something the D5300 you disparaged would handle with ease with its kit lens becomes a problem with the Canon full frame. Out comes the tripod if you want a shot that doesn't look like a double exposure of a Burberry piece of fabric, because in that case you need at least f/8 which means too long to handhold.>>4529507>muh dials>more useful viewfinderkek>more accurate autofocusliterally the same autofocus when SL2 is on live view>no mirror slap softnessnon issue>a selection of more compact lensesThey're discontinued, they dropped the mount like hot garbage. It was a DOA baby mount. >if not using the official EF adapterYou mean the adapter that turns its mount into the one the SL2 has? Wow genius. So he can spend more to jump through hoops to get the same thing. Same processor btw, both are DIGIC 7. You're just a fashion victim
>>4529508My photos don't have that problem because I know how to use a camera.Did you know that when handholding, doing a single long exposure at a lower ISO is totally unnecessary? Raising the ISO, doing a handholdable bracketing burst and stacking the raws later results in the same noise/DR levels as a low ISO, long exposure. Sometimes better.>Turn on bracketing>2 stop gap usually, 3 shots>Turn on continuous high>snap snap snap>select all 3 raws later and do an HDR mergeYes it's that easy. Stabilization can make it even better and exceed base ISO long exposure DR sometimes, but with nikon DSLRs, and most DSLRs in general, stabilization is limited to very few lenses, mostly fat ass zooms, and what can be done with basic skills like this and a prime is more than good enough so carrying a fat ass zoom isn't necessary (also, the M5 has access to quite a few very small stabilized zooms).But you don't know a lot about doing photography. ACTUALLLY DOING photography isn't part of your thought process .... you've never done it! You know about out of context technical minutiae and coping with ludicrous shit any time anyone might not want a shitty DSLR because of some retarded character you play.People like you and OP really benefit from mirrorless. Who knows, maybe if (you) got a nice mirrorless you'd have more of your own photos to post since they're much more compact and easier to use. DSLRs are for people who are willing to achieve a certain level of skill and knowledge to get full frame rendering and tonality+the fun factor for fewer shekels.
>>4529516>Did you know that when handholding, doing a single long exposure at a lower ISO is totally unnecessary? Raising the ISO, doing a handholdable bracketing burst and stacking the raws later results in the same noise/DR levels as a low ISO, long exposure. Sometimes better.Ah yes, the toneh method. So you basically do a digishit stabilization in post (like a Samsung digishit from 2005).>But you don't know a lot about doing photography. ACTUALLLY DOING photography isn't part of your thought process .... you've never done it! You know about out of context technical minutiae and coping with ludicrous shit any time anyone might not want a shitty DSLR because of some retarded character you play.Actually someone who doesn't do photography wouldn't mind taking 50x the time for the same photo by stacking RAWs in post. I'm not talking astro, I'm talking a whimsical snap of a guitar here. And the short bursts you talk about will be even more underexposed, exacerbating the electronic noise issue that plagues early Canon sensors. Sure, moving around will help mitigate the fixed part but you'll still have an awful cast.>People like you and OP really benefit from mirrorless. Who knows, maybe if (you) got a nice mirrorless you'd have more of your own photos to post since they're much more compact and easier to use. DSLRs are for people who are willing to achieve a certain level of skill and knowledge to get full frame rendering and tonality+the fun factor for fewer shekels.Absolutely devoured by mumbo jumbo, lol.By all means, enjoy compensating in post for all the things you couldn't get right in camera because you chose to go without stabilization or an OLPF.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that even though it's the second worst brand in the market with shit build quality and colors, I'd rather have a Sony a6500 or a6600 over an EOS M5. Just as mirrorlesscucked, but at least there's IBIS. Going mirrorless without IBIS is some hotel room chair shit.
>>4529518>>4529519That's a lot of cope but you don't have any experience doing photography. Not reading.>a6500 or a6600And you just blew the $500 budget by double while forgetting that the M5 (within OPs budget) has access to multiple compact stabilized zooms.Man you're just dumb.I'm not even going to respond directly to all that shit I'm juts going to keep talking about the usefulness of bracketingHere's a 1/30s exposure at ISO 1600 and a 1/125-1/60-1/30 bracket at ISO 3200. As you can see, the most common problem is minor softening from misalignments but noise is actually reduced over the single exposure and the minor softness is kind of a non issue since static subjects can typically take a little more sharpening. I wouldn't be able to handhold 1/15s ISO 800 or less with a 50mm without stabilization, and yet, the same results are achievable with a little skill and like 2 minutes of extra work.Another option is repeating the same exposure and averaging them for even more noise reduction (astrofags do this).
>>4529520>And you just blew the $500 budget by double while forgetting that the M5 (within OPs budget) has access to multiple compact stabilized zooms.They're the same price as the M5 on mpb, cope.>As you can see, the most common problem is minor softening from misalignmentsA few orders of magnitude larger than what an OLPF causes, hypocrite. You just want to justify toiling in postprocessing.Nikon 18-55 VR solves all this in the flick of a switch and it's a $50 lens.
>>4529520oops. forgot to drop the HDR side's sharpening setting back down. here's a fairer screenshot with all the same settings. I could have also done the bracket itself better. Stable close focus shots at 1/30s with a 50mm have some luck involved. I'd usually keep the slowest shot at 1/45s, do it twice, or not do this within 2 hours of drinking coffee.>>4529522Jesus fucking christ they want $450 for it there? It's $300 off ebay.>Nikon 18-55 VR solves all this in the flick of a switch and it's a $50 lens.Except it's a slow aperture kit zoom and I didn't have to take my based 50mm off to do this. The EF-M has an 18-55 IS too.>bringing up OLPFs out of nowhereThis 2008 mirror flapper has an OLPF and sucks a bit more for it. It's just $150 to replace. That's it.
>>4529524>The EF-M has an 18-55 IS too.Canon crop kit lenses are infamous for their shittiness, Nikon's are sharp.
>>4529525https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=663&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=813&CameraComp=812&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0they look the same (equally bad in different ways) for all non-autistic purposesnon-autistic like not caring about 1 stop of noise and therefore not caring about equivalenceusually i bracket for DR not noise
>>4529526>equally badKen Rockwell has nothing but praise for the Nikon
>>4529526the smaler ef-m 15-45 looks about the same as the 18-55 and the larger ef-s kit zooms look the same as the ef-m kit zoomswell i guess the eos m5 is just a better buy than any comparable DSLR
>>4529524All the cameras being discussed have an OLPF. My point is that you complain about OLPFs supposedly causing blur but are willing to cope with an unstabilized lens by stacking frames when it actually causes noticeable blur. The blur is just an excuse you use, you argue in bad faith and your goal ultimately is to "win" the argument because you got offended that I used "dog" as an insult some time ago. It's all so tiresome.
>>4529530>noticeable blurvery slight blur caused by gambling on 50mm at 1/30s doing a lame tech demo, not blur forced on every photoi already showed you a camera without an OLPF just renders better fine detail than one without one but you're not very smart and don't remember things good. the point was always you're an obvious nophoto retard for thinking a dpreview screenshot proves blur needs to be forced on every camera forever when high end cameras do just fine without it in actual real life photography.which you don't do and have never donewhen do you post a photo btw? never?
>>4529534The textposting will continue until attitude improves
>>4529536>Neverhere's a quick hdr stack where the opposite happened because the slow exposure wasn't fucked upi hope you're learning something about using your camera more effectively
>huskyfag literally schooling cANONliterallyschooled
>>4529496>DUDE trust me, nobody took good photos 10 years ago... like... the world was born yesterday
>>4529545The unprocessed 5dii up here (left) >>4529537 looks more honest and realistic than literally anything that comes out of a phone's AI smears and is roughly equal to a phone's base ISO
>>4529537Your "lame tech demo" was done in support of the idea of getting a 5D2. As I said before, you fags give troll advice to newcomers.
^malding nophotoThread winners:5DII + 50mm f1.8 STMEOS M5 + 14-45 kit zoomD7200 + Kit zoom and AF-D primesThread losers: All others
>>4529570>D7200 + Kit zoom and AF-D primesThe only sensible option of the 3.
>>4529574Pentax K-1 + DA 50/1.8 or FA 43/1.9Pentax KP + DA 35/2.4 or DA 40/2.8
>>4529620>DA lens on the K-1>KP for a price-sensitive buyerNeither of these options fall within OP's budget. A K-3 I with the DA 35 or an F/FA 28 would be actually plausible to get for about 500 bucks, with a 18-55 thrown in there if it comes with the body.
>>4529281The very cheapest, fullframe, weather-sealed pro body you can get is the D600. If you're lucky, you can get it for 200-300 USD.The cheapest great prine you can get is the AF-S 50mm f1.8, for about 100 USD (AF-D version can be had even cheaper, but the focus is a bit slower).You'll probably be wanting a zoom, and the 24-120mm f4 is a sharp and nice option, with a good range, from quite wide, to fairly zoomed in. That one is a bit more expensive, though (300-ish?). If you don't have the budget, the are some cheaper but not always as optically great options (Tamron, Sigma, etc.)
>>4529620I already addressed the K-1, you pay the no longer available tax. I stand by my recs:6D6D25D3D5300D3300D7200D750T7iSL280DK-70I intend this list to cover everything reflex 24MP APS-C that's well under 500 bucks and isn't a gimped replacement of a predecessor, plus some good full frame buys in the same price bracket. If I forgot something feel free to point it out. Some of those models can even be had bundled with a lens for the same price as body only listings.
>>4529643It's a good camera but not far from the price of the D750 which offers a better experience.
>>4529681Sorry canon eos m5 won the threadTheres no reason to use inferior dslr when a mirrorless of equal or greater quality is available
>>4529528>>4529526mirrorless won
>>4529711Still upset that EF-M was discontinued.Faggots should have just kept EF-M alive as the crop mount and RF as the FF mount. Still no RF-S 22mm f/2.
>>4529709>inferior That's the M5, lmao.EF mount is here to stay even if they discontinue all Canon DSLRs in the future, if only because it became an industry standard like Arri PL (which started in 1980, to show you the longevity of these mounts).
>>4529716EF-M was too good. Thankfully it already has every lens you'd ever need for travel/EDC, all of them are smaller than their EF counterparts and just as sharp, and it can use an official EF adapter for edge cases where EF-M doesn't have a native lens.
>>4529537>drops over a stop of ISO noise using shorter exposures>equivalence fags btfo5DII users have wizard level skillsbuy a 5DII if you want to become a skilled photographer
>>4529626Both DA 50 and DA 35 plastic fantastics are fully FF capable as well as the DA 40 Limited and DA* 55 with a very small vignetting in the corner, basically full coverage.
>>4529851Also the DA 35 and DA 50 are cheap as fuck, you can get them for $80 or less a piece. I got my DA 35 for about $65, no outside wear and clear optics.
