I'm starting out in photography. I'm interested in

>>3083204
Yeah, it's a pretty good deal. However, I'd say see if you can find a used sony a6000. I would reccomend a canon t3i with a kit lens and a 50mm if you're open to getting something that's not mirrorless. Reason being, olympus isn't a very big brand, which means there wont be a lot of third party support in terms of lens selection.

Be wary, you're going to get memed hard against Sony on this board.

>>3083208
Thanks for the response. Sony and Fuji have peaked my interest on this board so far.

>>3083210
Fuji seems to have some good stuff, I've seen nothing but good stuff from them. Sony has just seemed to be on a streak lately.

But yeah, I'd check out the sony a6000, it's sonys best selling camera of all time

>>3083208
>wont be a lot of third party support in terms of lens selection
not really necessary as Olympus and Panasonic together have a great lens lineup for MFT, though Sigma, Rokinon, and Voightlander have a few well regarded lenses for that systen

>micro four turds
>anything other than Full Frame

top kek

Micro four thirds is a great choice.

Only reason to go for a Sony A6000 is if you love carrying heavy lenses around, need fast C-AF (for sports/wildlife etc.) or if you shoot in low light a lot.

M4/3 has a very good selection of lenses that are lightweight, so perfect for travelling.
Sony either has shit quality lenses that are cheap, or very good quality lenses that are heavy and expensive (which defeats the purpose of mirrorless IMHO).

This board is obsessed with Sony and will have you believe that you can't take decent pictures if you don't shoot with APSC or FF.

>>3083204
The 35mm photographers handbook

Find it in any thrift store.

The technical aspects of photography haven't changed in a century, this book has been in print for half that time. It goes over the basics and various scenarios and how they were shot in a very clear and concise manner. And each edition has photos from that era, the early 80's one is fabulously camp.

The exposure triangle and stops are your first things to learn.

>>3083329
M43 is a shit choice, with the tiny sensor you get wank low light performance,soft shots due to the super demanding sensor and very little bokeh that is usually super crunchy. It's also dying quicker than an Indian with a new blanket. Sony have overtaken nikon in sales, upped their sales 25% in the last year and become an industry standard in cine, they're a very strong choice with the best hardware on the market from a technical standpoint.

>>3083332
Sony haven't released a single E mount lens in the past few years.
>enjoy shooting heavy/expensive FE lenses m8

>>3083204
I'll be honest with you OP, Sony is a better choice that M4/3 if you shoot in low light a lot or shoot fast moving subjects.

If the above don't apply to you then the E-M10 will be great.
Has cheaper lenses, lightweight, has IBIS meaning any lens will be stabilised, wider lens selection.

>>3083204
If you can find a good deal on a Fujifilm X-T10 with kit lens 16-50mm, I would highly recommend it. Try not to get caught up in the sea of gearhead bullshit on this forum though. If you can, just go to the store and try it out. The a6000 is dated now and most of their super-streak has been from the a6500 onwards into their higher end offerings. Fuji and Olympus do have wonderful cameras though for mirrorless, but the only reason I'd tell you to avoid M4/3 is so you don't have to deal with the social bullshit of people who measure their dicks based on sensor sizes and capabilities.

If you have a good eye for composition, then it really doesn't matter what you use to be totally honest. Your eye will take you to the means with whatever tool is in your hands.

>>3083334
I would only ever recommend getting ff lenses, crop sales are falling and taking lens prices with it. A good full frame lens holds it's value, the sony 55 1.8 costs more 2nd hand than it cost new at release. The only people that ever think lenses are "too expensive" are those that can't afford money to be tied up in assets.

Heavy? Lol, 200g for 28 f2, thats half the weight of canikon. The new 12-24 f4 and a7rii body combined weighs the same as just the sigma 12-24 f4, yet has far better image quality.

>>3083334

>Sony haven't released a single e-mount lens in the past few years.

That is flat out wrong.

They released 8 lenses last year, and have released 6 so far this year. Two more on on the roadmap. Numerous third party lenses have also been released.

Fuji on the other hand has released 2 last year and 1 this year. With one more on the roadmap.

I assume you meant to say crop e-mount lenses, but that is a retarded comment. That is like complaining there is only 12 lenses available for the 7dii.

>>3083363
What's the point of buying a lightweight APSC mirrorless if you have to use heavy and expensive FF lenses on it?

File: 21504749275_a337b03003_b.jpg (110KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1024x683px

>>3083367

>What's the point of buying a lightweight APSC mirrorless if you have to use heavy and expensive FF lenses on it?

So you are not allowed to sometimes use big lenses?

And just because it is cheaper than a FF body is not a good enough reason? Or because you like crop factor?

And sure, some of the FF lenses are huge, especially the G and GM lenses, but there are some small ones too. Especially the Zeiss primes.

>>3083369
The OP obviously doesn't want to buy professional level stuff, so why is everyone pushing Sony on them, when Sony have very few worthwhile cheap lenses?

Sony make fantastic FF and APSC bodies, they make great quality FF lenses and a couple of decent APSC lenses, but is a system where the best lenses are aimed at the high end of the market the best choice?

The answer is no.

>>3083372

So what are you recommending? Fuji? Where their lenses are priced similar to FF Sony lenses, but are mediocre crop lenses instead?

The only other viable mirrorless option is really m43, if you can put up with the tiny sensor that is.

>>3083373
Yeah, I'm reccommending M4/3.

'Tiny crop sensor'?

Compared to the A6000, the E-M10 loses 1/2 a stop at low ISO and 1 stop at high ISOs, which can be made up by Oly's excellent IBIS and faster M4/3 lenses for the same price as a slower Sony/Fuji one.

Sony does have it's place, but unless the OP needs C-AF, shoots in low light a lot, or needs to crop loads, then they'll get more with M4/3 for their money.

>>3083376
The 0.5-1 stop noise difference only applies in print, if the OP only views online there is no discernible difference.

See for yourself here:

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A6000-versus-Olympus-OM-D-E-M10___942_937

>>3083373
I'm just fed up on Sonyfags on this board harping on that you need FF or APSC otherwise you can't take a decent image.

Comments like this idiot are completely untrue:
>M43 is a shit choice, with the tiny sensor you get wank low light performance,soft shots due to the super demanding sensor and very little bokeh that is usually super crunchy. It's also dying quicker than an Indian with a new blanket. Sony have overtaken nikon in sales, upped their sales 25% in the last year and become an industry standard in cine, they're a very strong choice with the best hardware on the market from a technical standpoint.

I've only said the truth - Sony/FF/APSC has its place for certain applications but if they don't apply to you then you won't get any noticeable drop in image quality by going M4/3, whilst getting more gear for your money.

>>3083367
Seems like you missed
>>3083353

And what has price got to do with anything, sony have plenty of affordable lenses, not cheap but definitely affordable. They also have the big, pro lenses so they can outdo canikon at their own game too. Optics are limited in physics and the short flange distance gives much more versatility.

>>3083376
Compared to full frame your losing around 3 stops in iso noise, your lenses need to be able to resolve 400% as much detail for pics to come out equally sharp, it's a dying system and most of the lenses that are half decent are wayyyyy overpriced.

>>3083379
You're arguing that a standard definition tv is just as good and relevant as a full hd tv. There is no escaping physics, m43 is gimped af even compared to crop.

Sony us a much better choice when.it comes to value as it's a system that can grow and expand with it's user, in limitless ways. There will never be a moment when you realise you need a whole new system to achieve a certain aesthetic.

>>3083382
I think you're wrong. You need medium format to take any decent picture.

Anything else is just useless.

>>3083379
Sensor size doesn't matter unless you're looking for bigger pixel pitch. Quality of a modern 1/1.7" sensor rivals any APS-C sensor.

>>3083437
Sensor size is the only thing that matters

1. Signal to noise ratio, this is the baseline for quality in any medium, the larger the sensor, the better the snr, you can't beat physics. My iso 6400 looks like iso 800 on m43.

2. Sharpness, take 2 sensors, one ff, one m43, both 20mp, the lens on the m43 would have to be able to resolve 400% more detail than the one on ff to get an equivalent sharpness. This level of disparity doesn't exist. Your resolution is limited by your lens, not the mp count.

3. Bokeh, the longer the focal length, the smoother the bokeh and the easier the optical design, larger sensors use longer focal lengths for equivalent photos.

With full frame cameras available under $500, there's no reason to limit yourself in sensor size.

Pixel pitch is a meme, it used to be a factor when the space inbetween pixels was more significant, but that gap is irrelevantly small now, the 42mp a7rii produces much cleaner stills than the 12mp a7sii once both are exported at the same size.

>>3083350
>but the only reason I'd tell you to avoid M4/3 is so you don't have to deal with the social bullshit of people who measure their dicks based on sensor sizes and capabilities.
Literally only /p/ does this

>>3083208
dude it's a micro four thirds camera. there are plenty of lenses.

maybe have a look at the M-10 mark 2, OP. The stabilizer got better, better buttons and so on. Don't know about the M-10 I, but the mark 2 is superior to the a6000 imo. it feels way better in my hands and the viewfinder is underwhelming on the a6000. IQ is fine on both (or even every modern camera in that price range).

>>3083449

Then how do you explain those Red and Arri 65mm movie cameras looking barely better than the normal ones, Mr smarty?

>>3083839
Quantify
>barely better

And would anyone spend $150k on a body if they didn't think it was pretty neat?

File: The_Master_67.jpg (148KB, 1456x1030px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1456x1030px

>>3084029

being able to use it's footage interchangeably with the regular shit and it only being noticeable if you're looking really hard cuz the plot is boring whereas actual 65mm shimmers like a gosh darn diamond

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>3083350
I found a good deal for a xt10+ f2 35 mm lens.

I don't want to change lenses when I'm travelling. I found the x100t for about the same price (maybe a bit more) and the x70 for about 200 euros less. What's the best option? I'm kinda wary of having something fragile in my bag.