Reddit mentions: The best mirrorless cameras

First post here, I've basicly spent the last couple of days researching/buying gear around your price point. I already possessed a Zoom H1, but since you can use your phone for that purpose, I'd say we're about in the same boat.

I'd personally recommend you to check out four primary options. If the newest model is too pricey, it might be worthwhile to check out the older versions.

1. Panasonic FZ300: Great Zoom, 4k video at the lowest possible price point afaik, great usability, decent stabilization, external mic input, flipable screen in all directions, decent built in mic, DSLR.
   Downside: Bulky.
   Honestly, I'm confident that this is probably the best camera out there for video right now, at least at its price point. However, if portability is a must, this one simply doesn't cut it.
   
2. Panasonic G7: Similar deal to the FZ300. I didn't find too many differences overall though. 4K, external mic, decent stabilization etc. Less zoom capabilities though. Also, it is more compact than the FZ300. It's a mirrorless camera, but it's also a bit more pricey than the FZ300. If size is a factor, this is a better choice. Also stills will be better with this one.
   
3. Sony RX100 ii: Great camera which does everything you wouldn't expect from this size. Very good image and video quality for its price point and unbeatable portability. However, no interchangeable lenses and due to its size, lacking duration on video due to overheating hazards. If you're looking to shoot for extended periods, the larger the better and panasonic is definitely your go-to. However if you prefer ease of use and a compact feel. This is the way to go.
   
4. Sony A5100: My personal choice at the end of the day. It's a very similar story to the RX100ii, but as opposed to the RX, this one has all the latest from sony. Massive sensor which means great low light performance and overall very high quality footage. New XAVC S codec for higher quality video. Both of these at a reasonable price point while enabling the use of interchangable lenses. Also, I just think this baby is way more charming than the RX series. However, it's definitely known to overheat over longer duration video shooting, it has no external mic input, no in built stabilization, no EVF and no shoe to mount stuff on. I didn't find these to be capable of weighing up to its potential though, especially with a pancake lens. I've got great portability, one of the best low light and video cameras at the price point. I actually figured out that I can bypass all of the problems it faces by buying myself an external recording device. Sure, this costs as much as the camera itself, but the benefits the camera offers are unbeatable at the price point, and if I enjoy myself enough up to a point where I want to invest more, I can just remove all the negatives and stay at the top in terms of quality AND portability, since the external recorder is equally portable.
   
   I haven't gone over the full details for all of them, but if any of them interest you in particular, just find some reviews and you'll get a good idea of what they're all about. Also, some are a bit over your budget, but I don't know how tight your finances are so I figured I'd just give you my take.
   
   Lastly, definitely don't forget audio as mentioned in the thread already. A lav mic will get your far since you can use it with the panasonics or your phone.
   
   Hope this has been more than just a rant. Good luck!
   

Hi /u/rbg003 - I started with a T2i and now own a BMPCC ([$993.93 brand new from BigValue via eBay] (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?icep_ff3=2&pub=5575034783&toolid=10001&campid=5337235943&customid=&icep_item=360972404907&ipn=psmain&icep_vectorid=229466&kwid=902099&mtid=824&kw=lg) [Referral Link]), in addition to several other large sensor, interchangeable lens video cameras - so I have experience with the camera you're coming from, the camera you're looking at and I also have a few ideas about other cameras you might want to consider.

I agree with the other folks you've heard from in this thread, the BMPCC is indeed more challenging to shoot with and edit than a DSLR - but there are also a lot of positives.

This camera has absolutely the best dynamic range below $1000 - and, straight out of the box, its footage holds up to grading a lot better than any other camera in this price class. This means results like this:

Music Video:

http://vimeo.com/88103618

Commercial:

http://vimeo.com/81148562

Narrative:

http://vimeo.com/89563847

Documentary:

http://vimeo.com/83284391

There are many more examples in the Pocket Cinema Camera group I moderate over on Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/groups/pocketcamera

This is a great camera. If you can deal with its challenges, it will produce amazing images for you.

That said, if you want something easier to use that will give you the best 8-bit images you can get in this price range, you may want to consider the [$998 (as of this post) Panasonic GH3] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009B0WREM/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B009B0WREM&linkCode=as2&tag=battleforthew-20) [Referral Link].

I own this camera as well - and it would be a significant upgrade over your T2i. It has a headphone jack, records at up to 1080/60p, records continously for hours, has a viewfinder that works while you're shooting video (instead of blanking out), it has an articulated LCD, fast and silent autofocus while you're shooting video, and high bitrate recording up to 72mbps.

Here is what the GH3 can do:

Music Video:

http://vimeo.com/53834993

Narrative:

http://vimeo.com/49420579

Documentary:

http://vimeo.com/66940018

There are many more examples on Andrew Reid's GH3 channel over on Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/groups/gh3

It's a pretty good still camera too:

https://www.flickr.com/groups/gh3/pool/

https://www.flickr.com/groups/2042242@N25/pool/

Here are the BMPCC and the GH3 side-by-side (flanked by the GH1 and GH2): https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-gVr8wdjjVyU/UpnGGaj0IfI/AAAAAAAAIS0/dHBNsFcCxGs/w815-h543-no/S1030005.JPG

(for me, these cameras are a lot easier to handle with pistol grips).

In my view, the GH3 is the best still/video camera you can buy below $1500.

Hope this is helpful and good luck with your decision!

Bill

> im not filming full length films but short scenes and sketches.

You've gotten some good advice here, but it sounds like you already have a camera and want to upgrade to something that will give you better image quality and will last for a few years?

If so, here are the two best video capable cameras in your price range (in my view) [Referral Links]:

1. The [<$800 Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CWLSHUK/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00CWLSHUK&linkCode=as2&tag=battleforthew-20) and
   
   
2. The [similarly priced Panasonic GH3] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009B0WREM/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B009B0WREM&linkCode=as2&tag=battleforthew-20).
   
   I own both of these cameras, and both produce awesome video images - but each has its advantages and disadvantages.
   
   If you really want to learn cinematography - and you don't need a still camera, I recommend the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera. It is the least expensive interchangeable lens camera you can buy that records to RAW or 10-bit ProRes with 13+ stops of dynamic range - straight out of the box. Like Pro cinema cameras, it sets the shutter in degrees rather than fractions of a second and has a built-in headphone jack so you can monitor your audio track (only one other interchangeable lens camera below $1000 has a built-in headphone jack - the Panasonic GH3).
   
   With a [$10 cold shoe] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HJFBUCQ/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00HJFBUCQ&linkCode=as2&tag=battleforthew-20), a [$24 pistol grip w trigger] (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?icep_ff3=2&pub=5575034783&toolid=10001&campid=5337235943&customid=&icep_item=221603818145&ipn=psmain&icep_vectorid=229466&kwid=902099&mtid=824&kw=lg), a [$159 LCD viewfinder] (http://www.adorama.com/LCDVFBM.html?KBID=66297), a [$70 external battery adapter] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00LPJ1FJ0/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00LPJ1FJ0&linkCode=as2&tag=battleforthew-20), a couple of [$10 batteries] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007Q9PWQ/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0007Q9PWQ&linkCode=as2&tag=battleforthew-20) and a [$17.50 dual battery charger] (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?icep_ff3=2&pub=5575034783&toolid=10001&campid=5337235943&customid=&icep_item=321347920244&ipn=psmain&icep_vectorid=229466&kwid=902099&mtid=824&kw=lg) [Referral Links] - you'll have the best cinema camera in its class.
   
   Here's what my setup looks like, ready to shoot: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-f3hbYYV_y8o/VHDp77GMxoI/AAAAAAAAJF8/xnHRvNcCm5o/w724-h543-no/P1020575.JPG
   
   Here is what this little powerhouse cinema camera can do:
   
   Narrative
   
   http://vimeo.com/89563847
   
   http://vimeo.com/94798326
   
   http://vimeo.com/101576471
   
   Documentary
   
   http://vimeo.com/83284391
   
   Music Video
   
   http://vimeo.com/88103618
   
   Travel/Low Light
   
   http://vimeo.com/79531723
   
   There are lots more examples in the [Pocket Cinema Camera group] (https://vimeo.com/groups/pocketcamera) I moderate over on Vimeo.
   
   Although it has a steeper learning curve than a consumer camera, and color grading in post is pretty much mandatory - this is absolutely the best filmmakers' camera in this price range.
   
   Second choice:
   
   If you want something that is a little easier to use, the GH3 might be a better choice. With its built-in electronic viewfinder that continues to work while you're shooting video, 1080/60p frame rate for slow motion, up to 72mbps recording and all metal splash resistant body - this is a great video/still camera for the price.
   
   Here is what the GH3 can do:
   
   Narrative
   
   http://vimeo.com/49420579
   
   http://vimeo.com/59543338
   
   Music Video
   
   http://vimeo.com/53834993
   
   http://vimeo.com/96861718
   
   Documentary
   
   http://vimeo.com/66940018
   
   http://vimeo.com/54076272
   
   There are many more examples on Andrew Reid's GH3 channel over on Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/groups/gh3
   
   And, unlike the BMPCC, it can produce still photography results like these: https://www.flickr.com/groups/gh3/pool/
   
   Hope this is helpful and good luck with your filmmaking career!

A few assumptions need to be made to make this post not 10 pages long. I assume you have approximately $500+ dollars to get started. If you don't it'll be clear where you can cut back, but lose out on quality.


In order to do what Duncan does, you need a few items:

1. Camera: The best bang for the buck "no" budget camera right now for solo shooters who film themselves is the a5100. The a6000 is also nice but doesn't have a flip out monitor which helps when making sure you're in focus and also filming yourself, and also loses out on some other video features. This camera depletes our budget immediately but starting out strong is good. You can always save up money for more stuff later down the road. If that's too expensive you can look into a used a5100, or a Sony NEX-5N. You lose out on fast auto focus, a higher quality codec, and a flip out monitor. Could you get a DSLR? Sure. But anything that would come close to competing with the a5100 in terms of video specs would be well over $1,000.
   
   
   
2. Tripod: You don't really need a tripod. You could stack up a bunch of books and put your camera on that. Unfortunately you wouldn't have pan/tilt capabilities but it'd work. However, filming "b-roll" of your completed minis to add supplementary footage may be difficult handheld. So, if I were to buy a "no" budget tripod, it'd be this one. I personally used this. It's great for beginners, pretty rigid, but suffers when exposed to elements like water/sand. It also only has 2 axes of motion as opposed to all 3 (not the biggest deal for video, more so photography).
   
   
   
3. SD Card: Your camera probably comes with one (unless you buy used or some other deal). If you need one, seeing as how you'll be filming to a 50 mbit codec (XAVC, higher the number, better the quality of the footage), you'll need a card with at least a 50 mbit read/write rate to keep up with that codec. Here's one.
   
   
   
4. Microphone: Duncan's voice is nice and clear. The mic on your camera is absolutely terrible. You will sound like you're talking into a tin can. This isn't a problem with the camera either, it's a problem with all on-camera microphones. There's a few solutions to this. You could pick up a lavaliere system. One interesting one is the Rode Smart Lav. You plug it into your smart phone, click record on your smart phone, record on your camera, sync it with a clap, and you're off. Most cameras come with a 3.5mm jack to plug in an external microphone, but this one does not (kind of good and bad, bad for "no" budget film making). This forces us to look for an external recorder to capture our audio (in the case of the smart lav, your phone acts as the external recorder). A good external recorder and mic combo with be a Tascam DR-05 and a Rode VideoMic Go plus some accessories like a cold shoe mount + mic stand. Out of these set ups, I prefer the smart lav. When/if you look into getting a recorder/microphone solution, spending more money garnishes much better equipment to a certain degree.
   
   
   Bonus 5: Lenses. As usual, lenses that come with the camera are not the best in terms of sharpness. So I have 2 recommendations to supplement your camera. An incredibly sharp (in terms of detail) lens but it only can take advantage of Sony's slower auto focus, or a less sharp lens that can auto focus very quickly. Combining sharpness + capability to utilize Sony's new fast auto focus features costs $$$. It does exist, but I'm hesitant to link it.
   
   
   My recommendation: If you know you want to get into this, buy the a5100 and an SD card (if you need it). Play around with the camera, its settings, different set ups, etc. Once you're familiar, buy the tripod, film test tutorial of you painting something, edit it and render/publish it. Once you're certain you are enjoying the process or the outcome, buy a better mic set up, and then finally a better lens.
   /u/RamenProfitable

Last moon pic for a while, promise. This is a composite image that used the color and cloud data from the 2019 lunar eclipse, AKA the Blood "Wolf" moon, and the detail data from both the February Super "Snow" Moon (the closest full moon to the lunar perigree) and the Super "Worm" Moon (that coincided with the vernal equinox.) The atmospheric seeing was far too poor during the blood moon to capture the level of detail that I would have liked, which is why I felt I should create this composite. Due to slight libration, the 3 moons do not perfectly align, so I did my best to stay true to how the blood moon was positioned that night. While obviously not straight-out-of-camera, this is exactly what I saw through my telescope as it broke through the clouds, and did my best using the hundreds of thousands of pictures I took during these 3 events to replicate the incredible fidelity that our eyes are capable of. This is a 225 megapixel image (nearly 7x the resolution of 8k) but the direct load to reddit is only 100MP. I had to downscale it so it wouldn't freeze up/crash the app as people scrolled past. Full size images are linked below. Frankly, its not an appreciable difference in my opinion.

​

For more astro shots, you can find me on instagram @cosmic_background. I give live updates during my astronomy projects and offer processing tips in my stories.

​

Equipment I used for this shot:

Orion Dobsonian Telescope

Skywatcher Mount

ZWO planetary camera

Sony a7ii

While the above equipment was used for these shots, much of it isn't necessary. You can create incredible images using a $100 camera and a $250 scope with a bit of practice. Feel free to DM me if you want some tips on how to get the best images with equipment you already have. The best astrophotographers learn by pushing their equipment to the limits before buying anything new.

​

A rough outline of my process:

After collimating, aligning, and focusing my scope, I take pictures of the "details" of the moon, using the planetary camera. The sensor is only 1.3 megapixels, and is heavily cropped (and barlowed), so it only covers a small portion of the moon. One frame covers less than the sea of tranquility. I take usually 2000 frames of a section, sometimes more and sometimes less depending on seeing conditions and my goals for final resolution. The camera tops out at 150 fps at that resolution, so it goes quickly. I then reposition my scope, leaving enough overlap so the software has an easier time, and take another batch of images. Covering the full moon takes anywhere between 75-100 individual tiles, and each tile usually has 2000 frames, so I take hundreds of thousands of shots minimum. So many shots are necessary to average out the atmospheric turbulence, which can be corrected for in post-processing with enough shots. This gives you a sharper image than would otherwise be possible.

Next I switch to the sony camera, and take long exposures of the moon that capture the surrounding stars. The moon will be completely blown out, the atmosphere has sufficient visibility, the stars will faintly come through over the glare. If necessary I switch to a 300mm lens to capture stars, but not alwayy, as the telescope tends to do a better job masking the glare. I take hundreds or sometimes thousands of shots of the stars, as is necessary to make them stand out over the sensor noise of the camera.

Once I am confident I have taken enough pictures (anywhere between 300gb to 1.5TB worth) I take it in and begin processing

I upload the raw images to a program called PiPP to debayer the images (there is a bayer matrix associated with color digital cameras, something that is processed automatically by internal software in digital cameras, but dedicated astro cameras require it be done manually). Once debayered, I upload them to software called autostakkert to align and stack each batch. This process is completely automatic.

Meanwhile, I convert all my .ARW files I took with the Sony and convert them to .TIF files so they can be read by more software. Once the detail lunar images are done processing, I upload my sony data to autostakkert and stack them all.

Next I use software called Registax to sharpen the stacked images from Autostakkert. This has to be done manually for each of the 75-100 stacks I took, and is probably the most tedious part of this whole process. I could also use the unsharp mask over the finished image in photoshop, but registax has better sharpening tools (referred to as wavelet adjustments) that gives you much more control, to prevent artifacts and ringing in the image.

Next, I bring in my tiles into photoshop in small batches to allow photoshop to attempt to auto-align/autoblend them without crashing. More than about 10 images and the system hangs, but it can do a few at a time, no problem. These images are 32 bit, and even though they are generally smaller than 1.3MP each, they are huge files because of the image depth.

Once the images are all aligned and blended in photoshop, I add the stars as an HDR layer (unnecessary for the blood moon shot) and do some final contrast and curves adjustments until the image feels right.

Here are links to the higher-quality files:

65MB HQ JPG: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-KMFTmn89U0qo0A6m07nXomWJMhBXxaI/view?usp=sharing

137MB PNG: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zOOHybhMx0iAupxjmdToHGfSEAbm_FVY/view?usp=sharing

You have my blessing to use as a wallpaper, for any other use DM me.

I would have recommend the GF1 with 20mm f1.7 lens.

It is the reason for this: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/dont-be-ugly-by-accident/

Photos taken by a Panasonic camera were by far the most attractive. This is because they sold the camera with a prime lens as the "kit lens" (the first lens you get with the camera).

Prime lenses usually have a smaller f-number, which means they have a larger physical aperture.

The largeness of your aperture is directly proportional to what is in focus. The larger the aperture... the less stuff is in focus. Which is what you want in the photos that you described.

You can still buy a Panasonic or Olympus camera, and throw on the 20mm f1.7 lens, but none of their new cameras does not come pre-packaged with that lens anymore, and I don't think they're making any more GF1s.

The new kit lens is a 14mm f2.5 lens, which is still good, but won't have as blurry a background.

You can also get a compact camera to do it... but it will be more fiddly for you to do. (Whereas with the Lumix GF1 setup, almost all your photos will have that nice blurred background, without any fuss).

This is the successor to the GF1 - the GX1. It is the camera that I use to take photos like this.

The lens that you want is the 20mm f1.7 - The price fluctuates, but the cheapest you'll find it is for $300 used. It is a very popular lens because it is small, sharp, and fast (it lets light more light in).

If you can't find a cheap 20mm f1.7, the Leica 25mm f1.4 would be even better, and for not much more money. Leica is the Porsche of cameras. They're expensive, well made, and you don't see them on the street. (Nikon and Canon would be more like ford and toyota)

If you don't plan on processing your photos on your computer, Olympus Pens are better to use. They have better in-camera JPG processing. (I process my photos on my computer, so in-body processing does not matter to me)

There are wide variety of olympus micro four thirds cameras, from the cheapest interchangeable lens camera on the market - the E-PL1 ($270) to the semi-professional OMD EM-5 ($1300). I say semi-professional because it is not supported by professional services. (Canon and Nikon let you pay money for a service to get your lenses repaired faster and have loaner cameras etc. if you break your camera just before a job)

I recommend you get the E-PL1 with the kit zoom, and a 20mm f1.7 lens, or 25mm f1.4 lens. It is good to spend more money on your lenses than on your body, because after a few years, the body gets old and superseded by newer ones, but the lenses will always be good to use on your new cameras and can often be sold for close to the price you bought them for. The 20mm f1.7 lens was $300 a few years ago when it first came out, and it is still that price on the second hand market.

TL;DR, the features you're looking for is a large mm and low f-number. (25mm is better than 20mm AND f1.4 is better than f1.7).

Compact cameras are usually about 8mm f3.5

You could also get a canon or nikon dslr and throw on a 50mm f1.8 (costs about $120 for this lens)

I think the A6000 has some limitations, but if you're doing mostly still photography, it's a great way to get into mirrorless if you can get it at a deal. Some of the limitations of the A6000 are with video - it doesn't do 4K video, and even non-4k, it can overheat when you record videos for a long time. Battery life may not be so great compared to the newer Sony cameras, but you can get spare/3rd party batteries for like $10.

There's a nice video in r/a6000 that discusses if it's still relevant in 2019 - https://www.reddit.com/r/a6000/comments/ad1xjn/sony_a6000_is_it_worth_buying_in_2019/

​

I would recommend getting it from Amazon - they've had it on sale a couple of times over the past year. I got mine for about $335 (new with 16-50 kit lens) during Black Friday. They also have 20% off amazon warehouse items, I think once or twice a year. I'm not sure I'd still recommend it at it's retail price of $650.

​

Right now, Amazon warehouse has a used body only (like new condition) for $353 - https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00I8BICCG/ref=olp_twister_child?ie=UTF8&mv_color_name=0&mv_configuration=0&mv_style_name=0

​

I'd wait for to see if the product goes on sale during prime day sale on July 15/16. Right after that on the 17th, Sony is rumored to announce a new body - https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-this-is-it-folks-sony-will-have-a-big-announcement-on-july-17/

​

The kit lens (16-50mm) is decent all-round lens and I'd use it if it's included in the deal, but I wouldn't buy it or recommend it separately. I think this lens goes for less than $100 on r/photomarket.

​

The kit zoom lens (55-210mm) is actually a pretty good/usable zoom lens at a good price point. I'd buy this separately if its not included - I got this it on massdrop for about $200 (new).

​

You can also use other non-sony/non e-mount lenses with an adapter. For example, you can use a sigma MC-11 adapter ($130-$150 on sale) to mount canon lenses. It's not as great as on a native canon body - the autofocus may hunt, but it allows you to try use/try other options.

​

I tried some Sigma E-mount lenses for low-light photography, and at f/1.4, they're fantastic. These lenses are : Sigma 16mm 1.4 ($400) ; Sigma 30mm 1.4 ($300) ; Sigma 56mm 1.4 ($430). Sigma also has f/2.8 primes that are much cheaper as well.

​

Also, have a look at /r/photomarket as well, they have some good deals on used lenses, but I find amazon much easier to deal with if there's any issues with the body/lens - you get 30 days to return the product if any issues, even with amazon warehouse.

m43 shooter here.

Fuji makes great stills cameras. They have notoriously bad video. It's ok for personal use, but not usable in a professional context. Here is a short sample.

Even old fuji models get feature upgrades via firmware updates - the X-E2 is nearly identical to the X-E2S due to a firmware update. Fuji glass is all good. "Fuji’s 18-55mm is regularly viewed as the non-kit lens kit lens. People rave about it’s sharpness, the quality of its bokeh."

Sony makes computers that can take pictures and video. They probably take the best pictures for a given intro price, but I personally dislike their usability. I prefer physical controls to ones on a screen.

----------------------------------

I know you didn't ask, but if you want the most compact option, m43 is the way to go. Yes, the sensor is smaller, but that means the lenses require less glass.

Olympus makes stills-oriented cameras that have ok video. Their newest camera is a rangefinder style as well, but it's $1200 without a lens.

Panasonic and Sony are competitors for the best video. The GX85 might be of interest. It is the first camera with in-body stabilized 4k video, which you might like.

----------------------------------

• X-E2S - $1000 with lens
  
• A6000 - $700 with lens
  
• GX85 - $800 with lens
  
  Size comparison
  
  With both the Panasonic and the Sony, you will need another lens to get the best iq. The Fuji's kit lens doesn't have that problem.
  
  If you want stills, go with the Fuji. If you want a smaller camera, Panasonic. Between these options I wouldn't get the Sony.
  
  Good luck :)

Around $400 brand new you can probably get like a T5 with a kit lens, 18-55mm. Pretty good camera, not the best, but for a starter camera its good, way better than any point and shoot.

I know its a gift so keeping it new is probably best, but you could get like a refurbished one from cannon site.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/eos-rebel-t5-ef-s-18-55mm-is-ii-lens-kit-refurbished


http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/rebel-sl1-ef-s-18-55mm-is-stm-ef-75-300mm-stm-kit-refurbished

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/eos-rebel-t5-ef-s-18-55mm-is-ii-ef-50mm-1-8-ii-kit-refurbished

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/eos-rebel-t3i-ef-s-18-55mm-is-ii-lens-kit-refurbished

Those all would be pretty sweet for a beginner. She can buy some better lenses later on.

Or you could go the Sony mirror less route with a a6000. I know she wanted a cannon, but the sony a6000 is a way better camera from the get go for the money. Better processor better sensor, the ability to use tons of cheap legacy lenses of all types, wi-fi capability to sync with her phone and download pictures, even control her camera with her phone.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00I8BICB2/ref=s9_simh_gw_g421_i2_r?ie=UTF8&fpl=fresh&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=desktop-1&pf_rd_r=0GV0B9C4XN0ZPMEE6F0B&pf_rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=2079475242&pf_rd_i=desktop

You could probably snag a used one of these or refurbished for about $450-$500.

If you're just getting into it, I would consider a camera body that costs $500 USD or less. My own personal recommendation is the Sony A6000. The body and kit lens is small and compact compared to a traditional DSLR like the Canon T6i and performs just as well. It also has the option of being able to mount vintage lenses on it due to it's smaller form factor and the lens mount being closer to the sensor. This means you can get good but cheap manual lenses from back in the day for often times $100 USD or less plus a $18 USD converter mount.

If you have any questions about this camera system (i own the A6000) or in general, please feel free to ask either through comments or pm me. Shameless plug (https://instagram.com/snappedbyandy for example photos)

Also. It sounds like you want to take a lot of landscapes, and for that you want a lens with a low focal length. Now, the kit lens that comes with cameras is nice and all, but if you want some real stunning pictures, you'll get a better quality prime wide-angle lens. "Prime" meaning the lens can't zoom and "wide-angle" meaning you have a wider field of view. Since it doesn't need to move, there's less glass needed, and the quality of the picture is better. Something that's 12mm to 20mm should do the trick. I'll link a personal recommendation below should you choose to go with the A6000.

Again, i want to emphasize to buy used if possible. Especially on lenses. You'll get severe discounts compared to buying something brand new. Typically people take good care of their lenses, and if you can meet the person before buying, a little legwork can save you a bundle of money.

Camera with kit lens (i recommend buying used/refurb locally if possible)

https://www.amazon.com/Sony-Mirrorless-Digitial-3-0-Inch-16-50mm/dp/B00I8BICB2/ref=sr_1_5?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1539180473&sr=1-5&keywords=a6000&dpID=41AEqhgdLtL&preST=_SX300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch

Recommended wide angle lens for landscape with the A6000:

https://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-Ultra-Angle-Mount-RK12M/dp/B00JD4TAWI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1539180938&sr=8-1&keywords=rokinon+12+e+mount

an example of a good vintage lens:

https://www.amazon.com/Minolta-MD-50mm-Japan-Mount/dp/B008QFXYYU/ref=sr_1_16?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1539180558&sr=1-16&keywords=minolta+rokkor

an example of a converter to convert the mount of a vintage lens to the Sony E-mount

https://www.amazon.com/Fotasy-NEX-VG30-NEX-VG900-NEX-FS100-NEX-FS700/dp/B00E5T5BJW/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1539180630&sr=1-3&keywords=md+to+e+mount&dpID=41RFJ6J3P1L&preST=_SX300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch


Guy with a dedicated blog to attaching vintage lenses to the Sony E mount system (he uses a Sony A7, which is more expensive, but the A6000 uses the same mount system, so it still all applies):

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/affordable-manual-lenses-for-the-sony-alpha-77r7ii7rii-and-7s/

For under $1000, I would say go with a mirrorless camera instead of an actual camcorder. They're made for photos, but Panasonic has done a fantastic job with their cameras in this price range and they shoot really high quality video. The advantage with these is they're light and portable, plus you can change your lenses either using a zoom lens or a prime lens, and there's room to increase your video quality and sharpness in the future somewhat with better lenses, whereas with a camcorder you get what you get and there's no upgrading it.

To answer your question, yes, anything you buy now will be digital, typically the consumer cards save everything on an SD card. As far as the versatility to get a vintage look and still do short films, you can do a lot with post-processing as long as your camera takes good quality video. By that I mean look into color grading.

A good camera at this price range is the Panasonic G85. This camera shoots at 4k resolution (3840x2160) at 30 frames per second, and can do HD video at 60 frames per second. It also has fairly good image stabilization, plus you can always film 60fps and slow the footage down for more cinematic shots. Another great feature is that it's weather sealed, so you can use it outside in less than ideal situations without completely destroying the camera.
This camera is my top choice for under $1000. If you want to see a good review of this camera, check out this one my DSLR Video Shooter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv2OWv6pWVM

As a Youtuber who's invested in the wrong gear before the right gear, here's a quality list that I've found works for my needs and will likely be great for you.


Camera

Panasonic GH4: This is a great camera that shoots 4K. If you are shoot in 4K, downscale to 1080p, you have the option to reframe and zoom into a closer shot without losing quality. It has a flip out screen so you can see yourself, focus peaking to show you on screen if you're in focus, and can record longer clips (in select modes) than the Canon T3i to make syncing easier. This camera is also great for when you want to deliver in 4K one day.
$1699


AC Power adapter: No worrying about batteries for the indoor shooting. $20


Lens

Panasonic 12-35mm: Versatile lens that gives you great range. $1000


14-42 kit lens: Cheaper alternative. $120


Audio

Zoom H4N: Great recorder for your mics. Monitor each mic's level independently. $250


Rode NTG-2: Shotgun mic. $270


Sennheiser Wireless Lav: Expensive, but great quality. $640


Audio Technica ATR-3350s: Cheap corded lavs with long wires. $30


You'll need one long XLR cable, a light stand to use for the boom, and some kind of shotgun mic shock mount. $60 for all.


Lighting

3-light softbox kit: Great kit, been using it for a year with no issues. I don't use the over head light, as I don't have the space. I can use the light stand to boom or for another light. $170


Neewer CN-160: Small LED light to help light certain situations or to use as a hair light. $30


Tripod

Manfrotto Tripod w/Fluid Head: Great set up, worth the investment, but there are cheaper alternatives. $350


Memory Card

64GB Sandisk Extreme Pro: Great card which will allow for smooth 4K recording. $100


____



If you have any questions about any of this gear, let me know and good luck with everything!

Definitely talk to your fiance about what she wants to do. A lot of people want to get into photography cause they see the image quality and the pretty bokeh and/or blurry backgrounds but the reality of it is, not everyone wants to lug around a hefty piece of equipment everywhere.

Does she just want some better quality pictures to put on social media sites (FB, instagram, etc..)? Or does she really want to go around and look for nice angles and composition?

If you can borrow someone's camera for a week that'll be a great way to start. If not, and she just wants better quality pictures, maybe start off with Canon S series or the G series. Very solid cameras and small form factor make them ideal to carry around.

For a beginner dslr, as others have stated, thats a good bundle to start. Or go up to the t5i.

Or for a little more, you can get her Sony a6000. Very solid camera with good image quality and small as well so its easier to carry around.

There are a few other options I would recommend, but they cost more [Referral Links]:

Panasonic GH3, the G6's "big brother" - this camera adds a headphone jack, an all-metal splashproof body and higher quality, higher bit rate recording up to 72mbps (but loses focus peaking and NFC) - [on sale for <$700 body-only] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009B0WREM/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B009B0WREM&linkCode=as2&tag=battleforthew-20) right now.

Here is what this camera can do:

Narrative

http://vimeo.com/49420579

http://vimeo.com/59543338

Music Video

http://vimeo.com/53834993

http://vimeo.com/96861718

Documentary

http://vimeo.com/66940018

http://vimeo.com/54076272

There are many more examples on Andrew Reid's GH3 channel over on Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/groups/gh3

And it can produce still photography results like these: https://www.flickr.com/groups/gh3/pool/

Next step up for filmmakers, in my view, would be the [$800 body-only Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera (BMPCC)] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CWLSHUK/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00CWLSHUK&linkCode=as2&tag=battleforthew-20).

You would lose the Panasonics' electronic viewfinder and ability to take still photographs - but you would gain the widest dynamic range (13+ stops) and highest recording quality (220 mbps bit rate, 10-bit color for ProRes, higher for RAW) that you can get below $1000.

Like the Panasonic GH3, this camera has a headphone jack. But the battery life is horrible and the LCD screen is dim, so it absolutely requires an external battery and LCD viewfinder to make it usable - but the images are so good, the workarounds are worth it.

Here is what this camera can do:

Narrative

http://vimeo.com/89563847

http://vimeo.com/94798326

http://vimeo.com/101576471

Documentary

http://vimeo.com/83284391

Music Video

http://vimeo.com/88103618

Travel/Low Light

http://vimeo.com/79531723

There are lots more examples in the [Pocket Cinema Camera group] (https://vimeo.com/groups/pocketcamera) I moderate over on Vimeo.

Although the BMPCC has a steeper learning curve than a consumer camera, and color grading in the editing suite is pretty much mandatory - this is absolutely the best filmmakers' camera in this price range.

I own the GH3 and the BMPCC and recommend them both, depending on whether you need to be able to:

• shoot stills as well as video (GH3) or
  
  
• subject your footage to extensive grading in the editing suite (BMPCC).
  
  Hope this is helpful and best of the holidays!
  
  
  

I've worked at a theater for a number of years, and still do occasionally.

I wouldn't go with the A6300. Theater lighting is generally pretty bright so you don't need a good low light camera. Additionally, you want something with longer battery life if you filming long plays. I think you'll be happier with a GH5 or a GH4.

For years, I've been using the the GH4 with this metabones speedbooster and the Canon 24-105 for stage plays. I usually throw a gopro up in the rafters for my wideshot. I actually was able to get away with one camera shoots for awhile now as long as I operated it safely, but lately I've been using the GH5 with the 24-105 as my A-Cam and the GH4 with the 12-35 as my B-Cam.

The 24-105 is an absolute joy to use when filming plays. It's par-focal which is incredibly handy, and you don't really need something faster than f/4 with stage lighting.

As far as audio, I have two cheap condensor mics like these mounted above the stage with cables running into the booth. When I come in to record, I plug in a tascam recorder like this one.

I wouldn't get the NTG-2. It's only useful if you can get it really close to your subjects. If you want a shotgun mic I would really reccomend getting the MKE 600

The theater I have a client has numerous fresnels laying all over the place, so I have ample lighting if needed. I usually just use whatever is installed currently.

This Tripod has been my #1 choice for a long time now, and has filmed many plays. I prefer it to ones that cost 4 times as much. I upgraded the fluid head to a Manfrotto 502 which is a huge improvement.

Hope this helps, feel free to message me about anything in particular.

I haven't personally ever bought a camera used but I know there are a lot of good places to get a solid deal on an a6000 as it has been out for a while and one of the more popular mirrorless cameras. Sounds like you have a good eye on eBay.

I would check out /r/photomarket as you can get an a6000 for $300-400 depending on amount of shutter count, overall condition, and if it comes with the kit lens. You also might search your local Craigslist and Facebook marketplace for an a6000, might not have any luck but it is worth a shot. You also might check Adorama or B&H as they occasionally have them as well. Your best bet would probably be /r/photomarket thought.

If you want new Amazon usually has it on sale every few months around $400 for the body only. You can check the camelcamelcamel here. If you want the kit lens with it they usually go for $500, again you can check here regarding the historic prices on Amazon. Usually if it goes on sale through Amazon it will be on sale on other sites like Adorama, B&H, etc. If you can hold off I would personally go for a new one via Amazon the next time it goes down to $400.

some say the sony a7sii "makes light", rather it is just great at low light capture and has amazingly clean images/video at a high iso. That combined with a lens with a wide aperture and you get great performance. I would recommend you get a sony a7s mk1 or mk2 or a sony a6300 or a6500, depending on your budgets as all have fairly good low-light performance with the a7sii being the best of them. As for a lens, you could go for an adapter to use your canon lenses but if you do not have a canon lens with a nice wide aperture like f/1.8 or better, it would be good to pick up a lens like that. If you choose to move entirely to sony as so many people have recently, you will want a good all around lens too. Let me know if you need more help!

> I am a leather maker and take horrible pictures of my stuff (maybe it's my skill)

It may be your skill but you're also most likely not using a good lens for it. You need a macro lens that can do 1:1 or 1:2 magnification. Here's a nice video that gives a cool introduction to macro photography and the most common gotchas.

Product photography is not hard once you got a decent lens, you can do it at home and you mostly need a white sheet of paper as background and some natural light coming in through the window. You can of course add artificial lights and all kinds of tricks as well as post-processing, but those are the basics for getting some decent shots straight out of camera.

Now the Tamron SP 90mm mentioned in the above video is a very nice macro lens but a manual focus version is about $200 and an autofocus version is more so it's not a good fit for your budget. Perhaps something to keep in mind for later on. Manual focus is fine for your needs, the leather I presume is not going anywhere so no need for autofocus. The focal length (90mm) is also not a versatile length for travel.

So for now focus on your travel needs. The Sony A6000 with a 16-50mm zoom is about $400-425 used.

The A6000 is a mirrorless camera and can easily adapt macro lenses from most other camera mounts, so it would not be a problem later to get a macro lens plus a $20 adapter and it will work fine. I recommend looking for older manual focus macro lenses because like I said you don't need autofocus, and older lenses are cheaper but just as good as long as the glass is in good condition.

I’m gonna go against the grain here and say that there are plenty of cameras you could’ve gotten that are better for video than the t7i. Not to say that you shouldn’t have bought it, but I will say that you should’ve done your homework. Don’t be spontaneous with your purchases. I did the same thing as you and bought a cheap camera, because I just wanted anything to get myself started.

Here’s a list of cameras I would buy before buying a t7i:

Panasonic G85 - $700

Panasonic G7 w/kit lens - <$500

Sony A6300 - <$800

Used Panasonic Gh4 - $600? Maybe

If you could save a little, I’d go for the GH5 or the BMPCC 4K or the XT-1, or maybe a used Sony.

There’s so many options out there. I’m not trying to get you down or anything. I just think you can do better for the money. You can probably get great footage from the rebel. It is true that you have to have a good eye for film. But it doesn’t hurt to have some nice machines to help along the way. Good luck, friend.

Edit: I like what one of the people in the comments said. Go shoot your videos. It’s only a waste if you don’t use it.

While still a good camera, a g16 is quite a downgrade from a DSLR because the d3200 has a much larger sensor. one of the most influential parts of a camera on the image quality is the sensor. here is a scale model of the sensors in the g16, an olympus pen, and a d3200. bigger is better!

If you want smaller than a DSLR but better than a compact, try a mirrorless camera, like the olympus pen I put in that comparison. this one in particular is quite a good deal- you'll get most of the quality of a DSLR in a package about the size of a g16. and it takes interchangeable lenses like a DSLR if you ever wanted those! it's also great for street photography because it is discreet and has good low-light lenses available. highly recommended.

> it was my understanding that with a low aperture, you can take pictures that has a blurry background and a strong focus on an object in front

I'd say "wide aperture" because really you're talking about the size of that opening inside the lens. The f-number is the denominator in a fraction, so it runs inverse to the size of the aperture and gets confusing when you're saying low/high/small/large in reference to that number when it's opposite of what's happening to the aperture size itself.

And what a wide aperture does is decrease the depth of field, or range of distances around the focus point that also appear within acceptable focus. So yes, if you use a shallow depth of field and focus on a foreground subject, it's more likely for the subject to be sharp with a blurred background. But you could also shoot with a shallow depth of field and focus on the background, in which case that part of the background will be sharp with a potentially blurred foreground subject.

> the first picture is much more zoomed in. Why is this?

Focal length tells you about field of view. A longer focal length gives you a narrower field of view; a shorter focal length gives you a larger field of view.

Zoom is the ability of a lens to change focal length, and therefore change field of view.

Your 18-55mm is a zoom lens. It can zoom from a short focal length of 18mm to a long-ish focal length of 55mm or anything in between. If you got a larger field of view with it from a particular distance, it's because you were zoomed out to a shorter focal length. Again, a shorter focal length gives a larger field of view.

Your 50mm is not a zoom lens. It's stuck at a 50mm focal length. 50mm is a longer focal length than most of the focal lengths available with the 18-55mm, so it will give you a narrower field of view than most of the zoom positions with the 18-55mm. And indeed 50mm is close to all the way zoomed in with the 18-55mm.

> Is there a camera that has the ability to take a picture with a blurry background that is not so zoomed in? If so, which one would you recommend?

It seemed you understood that we were talking about lens properties. Why do you think a camera body is the answer to a lens issue?

A camera shooting with a larger format digital sensor or film will have shallower depth of field for a given field of view and aperture, but only because it would require a closer distance and/or longer focal length (again, lens issues), which would make depth of field shallower. A larger format camera would give you a larger field of view for a given focal length as well. But also, a larger format camera is going to cost you way more for the effect than an appropriate lens. Don't you want the most effective solution for your money?

> I was looking into getting the Sony a5100 16-50mm Mirrorless Digital Camera. Would this camera be capable of doing what I want with the blurry background?

No.

The maximum aperture range on that lens is f/3.5 to f/5.6. Just like your 18-55mm lens and still far away from f/1.8. So no improvement for what you want in that regard.

The a5100 uses the same format size as the D5200 you have now. So no improvement for what you want in that regard either.

Were there any particular reasons you thought that combination would work better?

> if you have any helpful words or advice

You want a larger field of view and a shallow depth of field, right?

So as we discussed, that would mean you want a shorter focal length for the larger field of view, and also a wider aperture for the shallower depth of field.

Here's some options that I like, if you don't mind buying used you'll have more room to buy more lenses and any other gear you'll like, but these are all new and all kits which includes the body and a lens. 

If you want to stick with Nikon the D5600 is an amazing camera, the image quality and usability are awesome. 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07VW3KC9X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_M-GNDb4BPTVEJ

If your willing to spend a little more the D7100 is a great camera I can only find the body and not a kit but you could just get a lens separately.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/927106-GREY

You could also buy a Used D600 for around $600-$650 with a low shutter count if you are interested in full frame, then spend the rest on a lens.

For Canon If your on a budget I'd recommend something like the rebel 7ti 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07P15K8Q7/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_IgHNDb2YN44GR

If you're willing to spend more the 77D is a great option, the first link the the 77D with a 18-55 and the second is a 18-55mm + 55-250mm

 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07KVS93ZF/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_KhHNDbV4SY44F
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06Y1YVWLH/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_vFHNDbWGFF6GX

As for mirrorless I recommend these cameras.

Canon EOS M50

 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TWB61Z2/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_kxHNDb2NM14RY

Sony a6300

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B007GK50X4/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_xAHNDbN04X71G

Fujifilm X-T20 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01NCVN74T/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_pCHNDb74CQ8X6

Hi everyone!


I'm looking to get back into photography after having a run with a dslr years ago. This time I'm looking in to trying mirrorless and wanted some help picking a camera.


What would I use it for? mainly portrait work but I would like to take urban landscape type shots and nature landscape shots when I travel.


Budget? max 700 (i know, one link is above that amount) but would prefer to keep it max 500

I have looked at the buying guide and some of the posts on here with recommended cameras and in all honesty I'm even more confused now.


So far these are the options I am looking at:


http://www.futureshop.ca/en-ca/product/panasonic-panasonic-wi-fi-16mp-mirrorless-camera-with-14-42mm-lens-dmcgx7kk-black-dmcgx7kk/10346786.aspx?path=c88579247bc746b15e9e4930c7f4c47een02


http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-GF3KK-Compact-Touchscreen-14-42mm/dp/B0056ENTVC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1418962995&sr=8-1&keywords=panasonic+lumix+g&pebp=1418962999409


http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-Interchangeable-Lens-14-42mm-Silver/dp/B002CGSYKS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1418963114&sr=8-1&keywords=olympus+pen


http://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-X-A1-16-50mm-Lens-Black/dp/B00EYTM3FS


http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Alpha-Interchangeable-Camera-16-50mm/dp/B00I8BICB2/?tag=bom_tomsguide-20


(Is this a worthwhile deal for the alpha 6000+lens? http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/product/-/b0004019.aspx?path=543f449878b99212fa12583307247c80en02&SearchPageIndex=1)



I am planning on buying more lenses farther down the line (and possibly flash if required... clearly I'm new at this) so any recommendations for that as well would be great.


Thanks in advance ☺



*edit: I'm in Canada if that matters in terms of pricing.

Micro FourThirds is a great system for the situation you're in. Small and compact. Priced affordably. Good video and still image performance. Some pros even use M43 gear.

You can still get the Panasonic GX85 with a lens for under $500 from Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/PANASONIC-12-32mm-Stabilization-Display-DMC-GX85KK/dp/B01DOKHSH0

There's another bundle with that camera which has another lens for another $100, highly recommended. I don't have this camera personally, but I have been told it is a great camera for beginners and enthusiasts alike and has great video and still performance.

You certainly don't need a DSLR or even a standalone camera, especially just for posting to social media...but you will get FAR better photos and have FAR more control over a standalone camera.

As a semi-pro photographer who owns like 6 dSLR's, I'm going to second the recommendation for a Sony NEX/a-series for a hiking camera. I had an F3 but ruined it in a crash with my drone, soon to be replaced with a NEX6, but if I was willing to spend $800 on a hiking camera it'd be the a6000 (they've dropped the NEX name in the current models). I use them with adapters so I can use my good Nikon glass but it looks like the Sony lenses aren't bad. I still carry my Nikon D610 in the pack when backpacking but it's awkward dangling around my neck.

For $500-$600, this

For $800, this

NEX/a-series main advantage is that it uses an APS-C sized sensor rather than a micro 4/3s. A bigger sensor generally has better noise and color characteristics and nicer depth of field. If you want entry or mid level dSLR quality in a compact package, these cameras will do it. My Nikon D7000 is only superior in ergonomics.

If the zoom you're talking about was 'digital zoom', it's exactly the same thing as taking a picture without zoom and cropping the image later on your computer. Don't let that be a selling point. There are optical zoom lenses for the NEX/a-series line and you can use a really wide variety of lenses with adapters since the cameras are thin enough to give the proper backfocal distance even with an adapter and the sensor is the larger size that dSLR lenses are intended to work with.

Short version, the NEX/Alpha line has good image quality, is simple enough to start with, and is expandable enough with lens adapters if you decide you need more in the future.

You will need to learn composition and exposure if you want good results no matter what you get. It's not true what people say that the camera doesn't matter, but a nice camera won't make a bad photo good.

I bought a Sony a6000 about a year ago and really love it. It's a really capable camera, and quite a bit smaller than your average DSLR. The lens ecosystem isn't as robust (especially on the low end) as Canon or Nikon, but you can fill gaps with adapted legacy lenses for not a lot of money. I have used an old manual focus 100mm Canon FD-mount lens for macro and it works pretty well on the a6000 with focus peaking and magnification. The a6000 is mirrorless so there is less noise than a DSLR, (you just hear the shutter not the mirror and shutter) but it doesn't have silent shooting mode like some of the nicer sonys. It sounds like if you can swing it one of the A7 series of cameras might work well, as they provide better low light performance and some have silent shooting, but I'm not sure which ones.

When I was in the market for my first "nice" camera without breaking the bank six months ago, the consensus seemed to be that the Sony NEX-3N is the best value in the under-$500 range. Having owned that camera since then, I can say it was worth every penny. With an APS-C sensor (same size as the pricier entry-level dSLRs) and a decent kit lens, I think camera takes pretty respectable pictures (here's one of my favorites, with a bit of RAW editing) and offers as much manual control as you want.

The low price comes at the expense of a few features found on more expensive cameras, perhaps most notably a viewfinder and hot shoe, though this has never really bothered me. I can tell that I'm going to enjoy these sorts of features when I'm willing to spend more on a camera, but in the meantime, I'm satisfied with the control and image quality I have now.

I know Sony has been revamping/replacing the NEX line recently—Amazon reports that the NEX-3N has been upgraded to the a5000, which offers a few more features for a bit more money—so it'd certainly worth doing some research to find the version that fits your budget and your needs. At any rate, I think the Sony mirrorless cameras fit the bill quite well in this price range.

> A 90 second exposure of the sky is gonna give you streaky stars no matter what the focal length.

Whatever the number is. I'm not an astrophotographer, just trying to impart the importance of shooting longer than the pre-programmed exposure lengths.

As far as your suggestion of the T7i... I can't help but feel like that's a lateral upgrade at best. Marginally better video features and another kit lens for $1000; could sell the T5, get a used body and a $600 lens and be off to the races. Or a GX85 with a kit lens for $600 that has dual image stabilization and 4K video AND have $400 left over for a sexier lens.

I dunno; t2i was my first camera, t3i was my second camera, then GH3, then GH5, and then a Fuji to add into the mix. The Fuji is my favorite by a wide margin. APS-C sensor trumps the MFT sensors of the GH series, with better image quality and color science than the Canons, and a small form factor for street photography or low key videography. One of my favorite low-fi DP's shot on a t2i and a 30mm Sigma f/1.4; I don't see a reason to get a T7i over that combo.

Not trying to be Cathy Contrarian, just my two cents.

SECTION | CONTENT

--|:--
Title | G85 vs A6500 - Best option for film making? Max Talks EP#4
Description | Which camera is the right fit for you? Filmmaking, Vlogging, and Videography G85 Amazon➡ http://geni.us/jEyA76A A6500 Amazon➡ http://geni.us/bffB4nA If you enjoy our content please consider supporting us on Patreon. Even $2 a month helps us make more and better content for you! https://www.patreon.com/MaxYuryev -------------------------------------------------------------------- This Review was Shot using: Camera on Amazon➡ http://geni.us/bffB4nA Lens on Amazon➡ http://geni.us/dmcMpa Mic on...
Length | 0:10:14


SECTION | CONTENT

--|:--
Title | Panasonic G85 OWNS the Sony a6500 in almost every way...except one
Description | This is just a quick update after shooting my first ever video on the Sony a6500 since deciding to try and switch to it from my Panasonic G85/G7/GH4. I'll just keep walking you guys through what I'm learning as it happens if that's cool with you! New Sony camera & lens: http://amzn.to/2owhmEU Must-have other lens for new camera: http://amzn.to/2pJlBiv Mic I use on my vlogging rig: http://amzn.to/2oQcvBU My bendy-tripod: http://amzn.to/2pkAJ8R Old main Panasonic camera: http://amzn.to/2pJl5AU F...
Length | 0:07:41






****

^(I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | )^Info ^| ^Feedback ^| ^(Reply STOP to opt out permanently)

• You aren't going to be able to buy all of this gear with $2000-3000.
  
  
• Watch this video. This is the mother of all travel videos.
  
  • This video was shot with a Lumix GH3, a 12-35 f/2.8, a cheap telephoto zoom (14-140 I think?) and a Nocticron 42.5mm. No Ronin, no drone, no IBIS, etc.
    
    
• A Ronin is a hassle to set up, really cumbersome, and not suitable for the run and gun type of style that Kolder and Alveraz make. The closest thing that I can think of which would be run and gun-ish (but you still don't need) is the Zhiyun Crane which goes for around $600.
  
  
• Personally: I see that you have $3000 available, so my first inclination is to say get the GH5 with a 12-35 f/2.8 I (the $600 version). The dual-IS doesn't make a huge difference, the GH5's IBIS is good enough. Then buy a nice Tiffen variable ND filter, step-up ring, maybe one of those Tascam audio recorders for nat sound, and save up for the 35-100 f/2.8.
  
  Broken down:
  
  
• GH5 - $1997.99
  
  
• Lumix 12-35 f/2.8 I - $699
  
  
• Tiffen ND filter - $129.99
  
  
• Step up ring - $9.95
  
  
• Tascam portable audio recorder - $99
  
  
• Total: $2935.93
  
  I will end on this note: You like these videos because they are well shot, well composed, and well edited. I could hand you the best camera system in the world and you're going to make a shitty video if you don't know how to use it. Whereas I could hand a great cinematographer a crappy camera and he'd make something awesome. It's more about what you shoot than what you shoot with. With that in mind, the GH5 is fucking awesome (I just got mine) and it's a great tool to learn on and grow with.

Think DSLR but smaller. I highly recommend the Sony A6000 with the stock 16-50mm lens. You can pick one up less than $600 brand new on Amazon, stick in auto mode and get some fantastic shots. It's also a great camera to learn on if you do decide to keep it and want to go beyond the auto setting. Here's something I took a few months ago on auto (very lightly retouched).

The other option is something like the Sony RX100 point and shoot. Again, it's a tiny camera and on auto you will get great shots.

Hey Peter, thanks for the chance to improve all of us here on reddit in our photography skills!

​

Most of the online gaming community calls me Zaerr, but my real name is Christian. I live in New Hampshire right now, but I was born and raised in New Jersey. I work sales for a plumbing supply company right now, and I've had this a6000 mirror less camera for a while now, and really want to do something with it. I recently went to PAX EAST in Boston, and decided to bring my camera to take photos of cosplayers and my friends and really had such a great time. My photos were not the best, but I feel like this is something I can really learn and pursue. I have never been particularly good at many things in my life, but I had so much fun that it sparked a fire in my soul.

​

I really enjoy macro shots, and portrait shots.

​

This is my favorite shot : https://imgur.com/uubGB9y

​

I posted awhile back about upgrading from a point and shoot to a used four thirds for food photography. You all were super helpful, and I'm looking to make a decision in the next few days, so I thought I'd ask again about the options I'm looking at. I'm basically looking for under $200, with a lens included in that. Amazon would be ideal, because I have a gift card.

I have a few different PENs in my cart (E-PM1, E-PL1, E-PL2, E-PL3) as well as a Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 and a Sony Alpha Nex-3.

I'm not married to those models, they're just the ones I found in the price range. I'm especially wondering: would the increased resolution of the NEX be noticeable? And even though they're all four thirds, do some have bigger/better sensors than others? Any advice or alternate recommendations much appreciated.

Edit: I do care about it being able to do video.

My recommendations

All of these meet your resolution and frame rate requirements.


Rx100
this camera is very conveniently sized. it has a non interchangeable 24-70 lens but it is a really good lens. In your case it would be great since its small, light, and takes really nice photos and video. It also has image stabilization and insane auto-focus. One of the reasons this camera is so popular is the slow motion capabilities. If you want interchangeable lens the a6300-and a6500 carry the same sony auto focus that is just rediculous.


G85
Finally this camera is geared more towards video people. It has the least mega pixel count of the two but with the no low pass filter it still can go head to head in pic quality with the other above. One of the biggest features of this camera is the image stabilization, it will blow you away. In addition to IBIS it also has great auto focus and the best touch screen available of a camera, its also sealed and can with stand a "camping" environment.

Honestly, for the price, look into mirrorless cameras like the current Sony alpha series or Panasonic lumix. They’re great cameras, I’ll link a few in a minute here.

Brands like Rokinon make fairly affordable lenses too.

Edit:

$500

$650

$1000

$1050

Seconding what the other commenter said about buying used. I have a Sony A7s ii that I picked up used for just under a grand and it’s been a great camera for both video and photo purposes. Saving up for a Panasonic GH5s next.

Just make sure you research the the camera best suited for what you’d like to do (video, photography) and make sure the lenses you get fit your camera body or you have an adapter (Sony uses E mount lenses and the Lumix cameras take G or micro 4/3s, for example). Get the right speed SD card (if you get a 4k camera - the write speed should preferably be higher than 95mbps) and figure out the kind of lenses best suited to you (zoom lenses are versatile, but prime lenses tend to have better aperture ranges and depth of field).

There are also tons of blogs and videos that can explain everything you need to know.