Camera for College Graduate Wife

>>2920782
>we could use for the next decade or so
no digital camera ever is going to match your requirements.

>>2920782
>I'd like to save up to buy her an excellent camera we could use for the next decade or so
>I can't afford anything over $500ish


Is this a joke ?

File: nikon D5.jpg (6KB, 244x207px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 244x207px

>>2920782

Even this camera (for example) which is like about 6000$ will be outdated in what, 5 years ?

Let me give you an example. The nokia 3310 is a 16 years old phone. And there is the (shitty) iPhone 7 incoming, you don't even realise what has changed during those years.

>>2920792
>>2920793
>>2920804
Well, it's not like their needs might significantly change over time, today's 10 year old cameras are still fully capable of taking excellent images that you can print A4 size or show off on Facebook or whatever. They didn't stop magically working just because something new is out, and the types of images people used to be able to shoot on them you still can now.

It's a whole other deal if you actually expect the camera to survive that long without repairs, which no $500 camera will, unless you baby it and keep it in it's case all the time, in which case you may as well take those $500 and burn them right now.

This has to be a troll thread but I'm going to reply anyway.
First of all Nikon is way ahead of Canon APS-C cameras in terms of sensors and autofocus, so if you want to shoot in the dark, moving subjects and landscapes, Nikon is the way to go. Mirrorless cameras are behind SLRs in terms of autofocus, so I'd leave them out. Pentax Q-S1 is a toy camera.

Whatever you end up doing, you won't get an "excellent" camera at that price, especially for the shooting you want to do. You're literally trying to buy a Lada for Formula 1 racing.

>>2920837
ok I see what you guise are saying
But >>2920808 was close to what I meant.

I found a white Canon which I know is her style, can't find a white Nikon, damn.

>>2920845
you serious ? Troll thread confirmed

>I don't give a shit of my photos quality, but i want hella beautiful camera.

>>2920782
Buy a little used Pentax K5/3 if you want a DSLR

Or a6000 if you really want the mirrorless meme


And forget the non-compact canon stuff in that price range.

>>2920849
Dude, it's for a woman.

It might not make sense to you, but for many stuff like color and looks is the most important feature of what ever object or gadget they're going to use. Actual technical features are of secondary importance, because they don't make you "feel" anything.

>>2920782
>Listen
No! You listen! Use the gear thread!

>>2920882

but this is a gear thread

>>2920849
Dude, telling you what i feel she'd like, otherwise I would go for purely specs/price.
Not trolling.
>>2920882
Seen that a minute too late. Can I still crosspost?

File: sonoma_county_fair_frozen_banana.jpg (42KB, 380x534px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 380x534px

>digital camera
>for a woman
>must be stilish
>around 500$
>for a woman
>around 500$
>srsly?
>lasting a decade
>digital
>for a woman
>decade
>not like, 2 or 3 months
>stilish
>lasting a decade
>around 500$
>for a woman

I'm sorry, there are too many redundant failures in this thread

>house on the rock

good taste OP

Since it's almost all about looks:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/982532-REG/pentax_10961_k_50_digital_slr_camera.html

Not that the camera is bad, but I picked it 'cause it's fucking white.

>>2920921
Woops, discontinued. Well, you can still find it on Amazon and other places.

File: images.jpg (16KB, 330x218px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 330x218px

I agree with everyone else. A 10 year old camera is useless and the images it takes are worthless.

>2026
>not shooting at 160megapickles

>>2920782
Get her the Sony or the Pentax

>>2920782
m8, for ~400 USD you should be getting a Pentax Q-S1 with 5-15mm -AND- the 15-45mm f/2.8
Anything less and you're not getting a good deal. If possible, I would just got for the body and the 8.5mm standard prime if available.

Q-S1 was marketed as a sort of toy by Pentax, even releasing toy lenses named as such, but it's much more than a toy. While the standard and telephoto zoom lenses have typical zoom coverage, the lens that turns this camera into a tiny street beast that rivals APS-C systems is the 8.5mm f/1.9 standard prime lens. No other system will let you shoot with flash in daylight with up to 1/2000 flash sync at f/1.9 with angle-of-view and depth-of-field equivalence of a 40mm lens at f/8.0

Shooting from the hip never felt this good. Q-S1 is my tiny, take-everywhere camera. Just imagine how ridiculous it is to pull out a DSLR-looking blob out of your bag to take a quick snap of your dinner (bitches love food pics). I would definitely go for one of the mirrorless options.

>>2920782
Canon sl1 is a great little camera, but the sensor inside it is a bit outdated. Out of all the ones you listed it has the best selection of very affordable lenses. Maybe we will see SL2 very soon.

M10 just sucks. I'm one of the crazy people who shoot EOS M, but i got it when it was on a heavy discount which was the best value for money available, and before sony was compatible with ef-s lenses.

Sony A5000 is not the best choice too. You should save up a bit more and get a sony a6000 instead. I think that for the price, its the best jack of all trades master of none camera you can get. The problem with this system is that cheapest sony lenses are worse then what other manufacturers offer in the same price range, and decent sony lenses are overpriced. You can adapt canon glass, but that impacts autofocus speed greatly.

Pentax q is a toy camera, by far the worst choice out of the ones you mentioned.

I would buy a sony A6000, unless Canon SL2 appears very soon.

Keep in mind that if you get a white SL1 you will not be able to buy white lenses for it(they don't exist) , except the kit lens that comes with the camera.

>>2921618

I have a SL1, I can't really say how it compares to other cameras since the only other camera I have is an old Canon XT. It's a generation behind the T6/i/s but that was what I was looking for to save money to get a telephoto lens. It had the features I was looking for including a microphone input jack.

It's been good enough for wildlife photos, low-light concert photos, and I've made prints as large as 13"x19". It seems to be more than enough camera for a hobbyist.

og x100 daawwggg

the most stylish digital out

>>2920792
D700, D3, 5D2 - some of the cameras that will last at least another 3 years before they physically fuck up, otherwise could go longer. Easy 10 year mark. Any digital camera with a good build and 8MP< will last the next 10 years

>>2921689
I just got a 5D classic because i wanted to bokeh whore on the cheap. Dynamic range is not great, but high Iso performance and sharpness are identical to the modern APS-C cameras. Btw viewfinder size on most aps-c cameras seems comical compared to this one.