3k budget for a new body and lens. What do you buy and why?

I'll answer your question anyway but use the gear thread next time you fucking cuck.

Really we need to know what you plan on shooting but if I had 3k to blow I would get an a7ii and 55 1.8. You really cannot go wrong with this setup. 55mm is good for nearly anything and the a7ii is more than adequate for anything other than sports.

Canon t3i and a kit lens

>>3017246
I just don't know if I'd be happy with the autofocus coming from an a6500

>>3017246

>$3000
>entry level body and a 1.8 normal

Sony, stop blasting my sides into orbit, please

>>3017254
Is Sony really that bad of a system? Genuinely asking because I've never used anything else.

>>3017255
It's not a bad system at all, people just pick their brands and bash on any that aren't theirs. If you're good, you can take a good picture with any camera. Simple as that.

>>3017252
In 2014 or 2012... maybe.
In 2017, absolutely fucking not.

>>3017258
If you're into the hobby long enough you will know exactly what you need without having to ask people on the internet. If you need your hand held then you should just stick to a cheap rabble because you're not ready for a $3000 setup.

>>3017260
K

>>3017255
Sony bashing is just a meme on here.

If you want the honest answer, Sony is a fantastic brand and it truly is leading in pushing new tech to consumers out there, like the 5 axis stabilizer, full frame for under $1k, Full frame 4k without external recorders, great sensors. However, they push out the tech before I would say it's 100% ready. For example, I have an a6300, and the 4k will overheat if it records too long, which is really bad in a lot of situations, the battery life is really short, and people complain about the small size of the bodies. Canon would never think about putting out a camera that would overheat using one of its prime functions, but at least sony did it and is actually pushing camera tech. Canon and Nikon haven't done shit since the d800 and the 5dmk2.

>>3017296

>5 axis stabilization

Several manufacturers did it first

>full frame under 1k

lol wut

>4k

Panasonic did it first

>full frame 4k

8 bit, rolling shutter, overheating.

Sony doesn't even have the most advanced sensor fab on the market. Sony is truly fucked if Samsung decides to get serious about the photography market again.

>>3017308
>Several manufacturers did it first

Wasn't it only olympus? Olympus is a meme camera any way, nobody uses it.

>full frame under 1k

>lol wut

You can get a sony a7 right now for under $1k

>Panasonic did it first

Thats why I said full frame 4k

>8 bit, rolling shutter, overheating.

refer to the rest of my fucking post, you idiot.

>Sony is truly fucked if Samsung decides to get serious about the photography market again.

IF

>>3017314

Olympus, Pentax, Panasonic. Canon and Nikon don't do it because lens stabilization is more effective.

>Sony a7
>under 1k

Selling a discontinued, deprecated body counts as innovation now?

>that's why I said full frame 4K?

I don't think you can name one benefit for it being full frame video when it comes with all of those massive drawbacks. Just because it's a bullet point on the brochure by your bed doesn't mean it had any real world application my man. The gh5 does a much better job with video despite being "only 4/3".

I get it. You're excited because you bought into a promising system and you're eager to defend, even proselytize that choice. That doesn't mean the rest of us who have been around the block and know a little more are idiots when we disagree with you. Quite the opposite. ;)

>>3017317
>Olympus, Pentax, Panasonic. Canon and Nikon don't do it because lens stabilization is more effective.


HAHAHHA!! WHAT???? In no way is it more effective!

>Selling a discontinued, deprecated body counts as innovation now?

It was certainly inovative even when it came out. Even brand new it was only $1,300. When canons equivalent 5d was $3500. So yeah, that's a pretty big fucking deal.

>I don't think you can name one benefit for it being full frame video
Better low light performance, sharper image from lenses, shallower depth of field.

>The gh5 does a much better job with video despite being "only 4/3".

HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! I get it. You're excited because you bought into a promising system and you're eager to defend, even proselytize that choice.

>That doesn't mean the rest of us who have been around the block

O.K. Kid. I'm sure your gh5 is fantastic.

>>3017327
>HAHAHHA!! WHAT???? In no way is it more effective!
Depens.

While lens stabilisation can never compesate for rotation or tilt, the effectiveness of in-body stabilization decreases as the focal length of the lens increases. This because the longer the focal length, the larger shifts/distance you have to move the sensor to counteract the motion, and there is only so much space inside the camera.

In-lens stabilization does not have this issue, making it much superior to body stabilization in long tele lenses.

>>3017246
pentax k-1 and literally any 24-70 K mount lens, and then literally any k mount 50mm prime.

File: A7rii-vs-rx1rii-size-comparison.jpg (429KB, 1080x718px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 1080x718px

RX1RII
It's an A7RII but fits in my purse

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5.1 (Macintosh)
Photographer	www.TravelShaun.com
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:05 19:11:27
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	12800
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Partial
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	142.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3017349
>purse
homussensual or female

File: Capture.png (479KB, 2205x387px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 2205x387px

>>3017349
>"""compact"""
>lens doesn't retract
Might as well just get something mirrorless instead if it's the size of a damn A7 minus the EVF hump.

>>3017351
t. fragile masculinity.

>>3017327
>canon don't do ibis because lens ois is better
70-200 f2.8 - £1350
70-200 f2.8 is - £2000

Are you sure they don't just do it to massively up their profit? Extra £650 for £10 worth of parts.

Sony a7ii and 24 70 gm would be my call.

>>3017357
im a girl

>>3017351
Female
>>3017356
Nothing else is full frame BSI 42mp
A Sigma Merrill would actually work too, but they're too slow for me.
I'm not sure why you would recommend zoom point and shoots, mft and 1" cameras as a replacement for RX1RII but it doesn't show a very detailed knowledge of photography.

File: maus.jpg (44KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 640x480px

>>3017246
this

>>3017341
Thank you for being informative. I hadn't thought about the telephoto lenses. I was thinking more in terms of standard lenses. Makes sense

>>3017527
He's wrong tho, lens stabilisation has the same issue.

>>3017528
But he is correct that the ibis works better for wider lenses because the amount of adjustment needed for a 4 degree shift (for example) isn't as much shift needed for a 400mm lens that shifts 4 degrees. It will still work. I
'd like to see a good telephoto lens comparison between the two functions

>>3017529
Olympus, primary holder of the 5 axis ibis technology, now just started putting lens IS in their telephoto lenses