Whats a good starter camera

Sony a6000 and the Sony 50mm f1.8

It'll run you around 600 and you can spend the savings on new lenses. The 28mm f2 is nice.

>>3046761
If you're just getting into photography, I'd recommend shooting film. You can find many great camera+lens kits for under $100, and your pictures will always look better than anything taken digitally. In order to shoot digital 35mm, you need to spend thousands of dollars. And, even then, the sensor cannot ever quite capture the life that film injects into pictures. Invest the rest of the money into a development kit, scanner, and film and you'll be golden. Once you've made the investment, you'll have your photos in a physical format that will last a lifetime.

Yashica Electro 35 GSN

>>3046795
Good advice
>>3046805
Terrible advice

>anon wants to get into photography
>first post suggests Sony
>second one suggests film

>>3046761
Sony a6000 is a decent choice,
The evf will make learning the exposure triangle and getting the photos you want exponentially faster.
It's compact and won't make you look like an autist.
It has the largest viewfinder of any aps-c camera.
Image quality is as good as crop gets.
There's plenty of upgrade path, with each upgrade offering very tangible benefits.

You could get the a6000 and trio of sigma dn lenses in under budget, personally I'd say skip them, get the 28 f2, it's an awesome lens.

>>3046761
Why would you spend so much on gear if you don't even know if you have any talent or if you'll even enjoy taking photos. Buy some old used dslr or even a film camera and just shoot for a few months before spending 1k on a piece of chink plastic.

>>3046933
Pretty sure that OP can just use his cameraphone instead of succumbing to gearfaggotory.

>>3046805
Unless you're taking a film photo course, don't do this

Go get a T3i for $300ish and a 50mm prime for another $60-120
Play with that and make a few bucks until you git gud

If you have to ask what else should you buy after that, you haven't shot/read enough

>>3046805
ignore this guy

>>3046761

Any of the apsc (crop frame) cameras from Canon, then get a solid lens from like tamron, or get a pancake 50mm from Canon.

If you do it right you'll spend 500 bucks and have a camera that can take enough cool shots you'll be happy.

It's about the lenses. Can't stress that enough.

File: conditions suboptimal.jpg (48KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x376px

>>3046868

>>3046795
Ffs. Why the actual fuck would you recommend a short tele as a first lens.

Also good luck finding a native apsc lens for Sony that isn't shit or totally overpriced.

This faggot will try and tell you sigma make all the lenses you need, but they cannot af to save their lives, so ignore. It's a fucking shame because their existence would almost make for a decent system.

Buy a Fuji xt20 and the 18-55 zoom and you'll be all set. Properly specced for processor speed and really advanced af in this model. Better than anything Sony until new models come out, unless you buy an a6500, but then you're fucked for lenses.

No, buying their ff lenses is not an alternative, as you just end up with completely gimped focal lengths and a load of wasted image circle.

Top of the line Sony is worth it, but not their midrange shit until the a7iii comes out.

>>3046761
5Dinosaur

Not even trolling.

File: ektar (1).jpg (542KB, 1002x1512px) Image search: [Google]

542KB, 1002x1512px

>>3046805
The only true answer. You will be able to start by getting a $30 slr and bunch of film that expired 5 years ago for around $10. You just get it developed at the cheapest lab and then you look for a used scanner which is like $100. But it is worth it since photolabs are doing shit scan and getting prints every single time also eats up some money.
After all you still have it far cheaper than getting just one digital camera body. You will find whole sets with flashes, multiple lenses and more for 20-40 bucks easily for analog cameras.

Even if you decide you don't like photography, you can easily sell your stuff for the same price you got it for, if not more.

Digital only is more convenient, which you pay alot extra for. There is a reason basically everyone post processes their digital shots to look like film.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:06 15:09:01
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1002
Image Height	1512

I'd suggest starting with film if you're just starting out with photography. It'll force you to be more mindful of what you're shooting as opposed to just clicking away.

I got my Nikon F80 for about $30 used for just the body. You can snag an AF Nikkor 50mm 1.8D for about $110 new. It's a solid way to get started, my dude.

>>3046761
Just buy literally anything thats cheap and has manual controls. Use that for a month or 2 then come back to us with an idea of what you want and enjoy.

>>3046944
I completely agree. The t3i was my starter camera. It taught me aperture/shutter mode well and helped transition me to manual mode, all without breaking the bank.

An iphone

>>3048517
t3i was my first 'real' camera. Pick up a nifty fifty or a 50-250 to go with kit lens, away you go.
I moved on to Fujifilm, but a t3i is cheap and a great way to learn basic foto.

>>3046761
Just get a second hand digital camera from Craigslist or whatever the equivalent is in your country, preferably with some lenses included or just buy into a cheaper system. You can be done for under $200 and see of you like it. As soon as you feel that the camera is your limiting factor instead of your proficiency, buy a better one. You can sell the old camera for around the same price as you bought it, since prices tend to flatten out after a while.

Don't make the mistake of buying new, expensive stuff for a hobby you 'want to get into'

>>3046795
Pick this if you want the less ergonomic mirrorless camera on the market.

Just pick a mirrorless Fuji

>>3046761
Nikon D3300 with two lens kit at Wal-Mart for around $600. It's what I got my kid, and I've played with it a bit. Definitely entry-level, but good bang for the buck.

where is a good place to start with photography? I mean tutorials, youtube channels, everything.

>>3050824
There's a billion resources out there for anything you could want to learn about. Just search up some of the basic stuff like the exposure triangle, basic photo editing (curves, histograms, etc), colour theory, and composition. Most important is just learning exposure triangle, even if you're shooting aperture priority or automatic you'll want to get to grips with why your camera is doing what it's doing.

>>3046805
I started with film because there only was film when I started. I would not advise you to do that today: the instant feedback from digital cameras is a great advantage when starting out.
Once you mastered the basics, having some exposure to film can help you learn, simply because you have to think ahead and the cost of failure isn't zero, so you will have an incentive to get a shot right the first time.
If you want to try both, one cheapish way of doing this is to get an entry level or used Canon dslr and an old eos film slr. The eos lenses for the EF mount (not the EF-S mount) are interchangeable between analogue eos as well as full frame and crop sensor dslrs, so two cheap bodies and some basic lenses give you a versatile kit. This is one way to do it. If it is the best one I don't know.

>>3047718
>Buy a film camera. Then buy a scanner and print digitally

>>3046805
Fuck off. Unless you have a darkroom and printing equipment like schools have, film is NOT a beginner option.

These days I would only suggest film to people who are well versed with the usage of photographic equipment and are looking for something different because while the shit film camera and lens might be cheap, everything else requires huge investment.

>>3050881
Yeah. My wife fell for the film meme because the initial investment seems cheap. She used to use her parent's dslr and she didn't want to be borrowing mine all the time + she's a unreformed hipster at heart.

Her photos look really nice, but $8 per roll and $10 film processing fees mean she has to think about her shots and can't really mess around.

She'll be getting a mirrorless soon enough.

Trying to get into film shooting and I'm trying to pick a first camera. There's a Olympus om1 with lens in good condition for 60 on Craigslist. Should I get it?

>>3051613
The OM-1 is inoffensive enough.
I'd rather a Nikon EM

>>3051617
Yeah I definitely don't know anything about manual photography so I'm not sure if jumping right in with the Olympus would be a good idea. I'll check out the Nikon EM.

>>3051625
That said, jumping right in is one way to learn. Tbh it may be more worthwhile picking up that OM if only for the fact that it seems a good price judging by eBay listings

>>3051639
That's what I thought as well. There's also a Pentax k1000 for the same price. Know which would be better as a first?

>>3051666
My first was a K1000 back in the 90s. They're probably a bit overpriced now though since it became a thing that everyone should start with the K1000. Decent camera though if you can get one cheap.

>>3051668
It's 50 bucks for lens and cap. Should I go for it?

>>3051675

I've heard that a ME or ME Super is a beter option tan a K1000, but it's up to you

>>3046761
a6000 or k-50

pentax lenses are gud

I might as well just post this here rather than starting a new thread. I recently just got into photography and I am starting with an old Canon PhoTura. Is this a good camera to start with? I feel like for just starting I don't need anything too expensive or high tech just yet. And I like using film rather than a digital camera.

>>3050895
>mirrorless
Like, I mean it's great you guys are wanting to be counterculture and all that but this is definitely a mistake

>>3051675
Keep your OM-1 they're great cameras with a massive viewfinder you'll miss. Zuiko lenses are vet undervalued in price, and frankly that's where the investment should be.

Nikon is great too but don't sell yourself short. K1000 is decent but overpriced. ME Super vastly superior