I don't know anything about photography, but I'm looking

>>2984482
bump for waiting

bump yo, cause I'm still waiting for a response fo my question dot.com fo sho mo go no lo bo fro yo

File: 1477004341755.jpg (108KB, 300x449px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 300x449px

nobody has responded yet so feel free to ignore this bump as it serves no purpose.

>>2984482
Does your cell-phone have a camera? Use that for 10 years, and then come back to us for actual advice.

>>2984482
Sony a7ii, it's the most affordable full frame body, and has all of the best features, like ibis, focus peaking, focus magnifying, etc. But if you want to avoid that nagging "my photos aren't as good as they could be" feeling, the a7rii has the best sensor in any camera.

The 24-70 f2.8 GM is a good lens to start off with too. If you prefer primes (better image quality, better in low light) the sony 35 1.4, 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 are a pretty good starter trio.

File: oh shit.gif (393KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 640x360px

>>2984503

Buy a Leica.

>>2984503
>my photos aren't as good as they could be
That has nothing to do with image quality

What's your price range?

>>2984482
>>2984484
>>2984485
>>2984486
it's a slow board you retard. No one help this idiot.

Buy a dslr in your price ranger. Doesn't really matter which one they are all good. I'd recommend to buy a Canon though, because of an extremely powerful firmware hack that all Canon cameras have called "Magic Lantern". If you're ever doing something "more advanced", such as a time lapse, Magic Lantern is going to be irreplaceable.

Also don't buy a kit lens, buy an ultra wide angle. They are way more fun and suitable in most situations. A cheap 50mm f/1.8 is also a good idea. It's a lens with very shallow depth of field, iow it gives you a blurry background.