I want to get into photography. I notice some "higher end"

I forgot to add but I've never used a DSLR or ILC; most of my want out of getting a camera is to find a new hobby. P&S don't let you adjust aperture, shutter speed, etc and it's something I'd like to fool around with because it seems interesting.

Even the most basic DSLR will give me a good introduction to photography but I'd like something with some staying power:

>long term support for a lens mount so in five years I don't find my gear redundant if I were to upgrade
>easy/fast autofocus (I guess I want lots of AF points, or dual-pixel AF?)
>something good in lower light conditions (but I guess this is more lens specific than body specific)
>something with a viewfinder, either optical or digital (but in lieu of a viewfinder, something with support for a field monitor)

Any help or guides you'd suggest would be appreciated.

Canon 200d, easily the best beginners dslr out right now

>Does fps matter
That depends on what type of photography you intend on shooting, do you see yourself in situations that require continuous shooting?
>Does MP really matter
The a7s has a lower MP count for the sake of its great low light performance, it's generally seen more as a camera for video work.
>is it practical to shoot at 1/8000s
There's been plenty of times that I've had to stop down my aperture more than I'd like because my shots were still getting over exposed at 1/4000s on 100 iso, but shooting at 1/8000s isn't important to me personally.
>Do some features/perks of a camera matter more than others?
That's a loaded question, it mostly boils down to preference. For example, size, lens compatibility and sensor performance was my priorities when I went out to buy a camera, that's why I have a Sony with lame menus and UI.
You should stop by a camera store and test out some of the models you're considering, not that you can get an in depth experience at the sales counter but it gives you a general feel of it

>>3138821
Lots of point and shoots have advanced controls like shutter speed, aperture adjust, exposure comp. The majority of p&s cams are just marketed and optimized for the average consumer.
You should look at some of Lumix p&s cams

>>3138824

Just curious, but what kind of lens are you using where even 1/4000s at 100ISO is overexposed?

>>3138831
the sun, not the original poster tho

>>3138819
My rule of thumb is that if you can't explain clearly why you need a new iPhone/tv/computer/console over what you're currently using then you probably don't need it.

For example a camera with a very fast shutter speed is mostly used by people who shoot a lot of sports photography. If you have to ask if you need the ability to shoot at 1/8000 then odds are you probably aren't a sports photographer and you probably don't need it. My advice is to get something cheap and entry level until you figure out what exactly you want in a camera and if there's a certain genre of photography you want to focus on.

If you already have some idea of what you want to focus on shooting then we could probably be a lot more helpful narrowing things down.

>>3138819
It's of course personal thing, but if you are just starting and want to go into higher models look for:

- fitting ergonomics - best way is to grab and hold. It won't tell you all, but at least will indicate what do you like and show you the sense of scale

- good low light performance - from body's side it's how it handles high ISO, from lense's it's the aperture

- lens environment - how good the less expensive ones are?


And your question from the general photography point of view:

I wouldn't be concerned about burst rate, 6 fps is more than enough if you are not shooting sports more professionally. MP matter to some extent.
You can make big prints (more than A4, 300dpi) with 12 MP, but if you have more, you can crop. a7s has insane low light performance (lower MP coiunt is the price you have to pay), but it's more geared towards videography work.
Shutter speed is useful if you want to shoot fast lens wide open in sunny day or freeze very fast things, but I can't think of any good example now. With 1/8000 you can get away with more light before you'll have to use ND filter.

As you'll go deeper, various things might be more imporant to you.

Get a Nikon D90.

>>3138883

Honestly, I've never really shot a photo outside of family gatherings and etc, and it's more for storing the moment than composition or what goes into a photo. They're dreadful from an artistic point of view, but they serve a different purpose.

I guess what I'd want out of a camera is ease-of-use while maintaining the interchangeable in ILC. Something that focuses fast and as reasonably accurate as you can expect. If it works well at higher ISOs (my understanding is different cameras can handle higher ISOs differently), then that's a big bonus.

The Sony a6000 seems to fit most of my bill but the a6300 has a few benefits over it for not much more money. The a6500 doesn't seem like as large of an upgrade, so I'm at a6300 for now. Why crop? I'm not particularly well off and FF lenses are very expensive.

I'm thinking the a6300 as well because Sony e-mount is very adaptable: AFAIK it can use many Canon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc lenses with a simple adapter.

>mfw people who don't know how to operate a camera on manual and just take photos for documentation purposes without any care about composition and other artistic aspects buy mid-range cameras which are even used by professionals
I feel so sorry about those poor little cameras who get mistreated.

>>3139046
Just to be clear and not to be seen as a dick - sure, go with the A6300 or whatever if you want and have the money for it, it sure is a nice camera. I'm just looking at it from a super-jewy economical standpoint and even I, who know what I'll be shooting with my A6300 and am probably going to shoot at least a hundred photos per day, have a feeling I bought a too expensive camera for my needs and feel a bit bad about it.

If you don't even care about learning how to use it to at least 20% of its' full potential, that's fine, but IMHO, that's a waste of money.

>>3139051

I'm sorry, I guess what I said is easy to misinterpret. _In the past_ I've only ever shot for documentation and without care for composition. Photography is a hobby I'm interested in getting into, so I will consider composition, framing, etc for this new camera purchase.

Why not get one of the Sony point and shoot cameras? RXsomething or other; they let you control aperture, shutter speed, etc.

So, it's a Ford tranny that's about to shit itself? Sounds about right.

>>3139168
it's a riff on trans people being in male/female bathrooms

What you should be looking at is the dpsi (dust per square inch) that this camera is going to accumulate when it sits in your closet until you sell it on craigslist.
Gearfag

File: 1503459605823.jpg (187KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 720x720px

A good camera must allow you to control the aperture, shutter speed, sensitivity, and focus. A better camera is able to reliably control some of these depending on variables you chose, in a predictable and reliable way, while still allowing you to take immediate control when you want to.

If you can control the focus and exposure variables with a blindfold on, it has good controls.

Size and weight are factors to consider.

If you will be shooting in low light, a good sensor is helpful, but anything made in the past 10 years or so is perfectly adequate.

>>3139062
Oh, sorry then. Yeah, I bought A6300 a couple of days ago, you can't really go wrong with it, but you definitely don't need anything more expensive, either. Also think about A6000 if you don't care about 4k and HD at 120FPS, and some smaller improved features. Fuji film X-T20 is at a similar price, and that's another good option. It will get you prettier jpegs right out from the camera because of its' special filters. That's the only thing I'd like to have on Sony since standard images are pretty dull, but that's what Lightroom is for, and I shoot RAW anyway. I bet you'll prefer smaller mirrorless cameras like those, but a new Canon 200D is also nice if you want a DSLR. These are all a high end of entry level cameras, some even mid-range.

>>3139041
I don't have any experience with Sony cameras so I can't really give a recommendation on those specific cameras one way or the other. What I will say is that I think you're over analyzing things a little too much. I get that you're trying to futureproof your set up, you don't want to spend money on something that will be completely obsolete in a few years. But if someone showed you a photo taken with an a6000 and one with an a6300, odds are you'd be hard pressed to tell which photo was taken by which camera.

My advice is get whatever body you want. Get a 50mm 1.8 because it's a cheap babby's first lens. And most importantly get Lightroom. The minimal difference between the specs of two different cameras means next to nothing compared to the difference you'll see when you learn to post process your photos in Lightroom. Spend the rest of your money on photography books. Lightroom and photography books will help you take better photos in the long run than a cabinet full of shiny new lenses.

I shot with a 16mp camera made in 2010 until 2016, selling prints of it in 2017. Before that I was shooting on 6mp and 12mp cameras. I make my living through photography. The latest and greatest specs aren't vital in the least. There were people salivating for 12mp professional dslrs just 10 years ago, and people who paid big money for the pros that owned one (talking the d2x here.)

>Sony a6k line can shoot 11fps, but their fullframes can only shoot 5fps despite being 2-4x the cost; does fps really matter?
If you're a professional sports photographer, fps matters. How much? 5 fps was $3,000 territory ten years ago, and professional sports shooters did fine with it. No, it doesn't matter too much for anyone outside a certain niche, and I'm 100% willing to bet it won't be very important for you to have 11fps over 5fps.
>Sony a7s is 12MP but is double the cost of the Sony a7ii which is 24MP; does MP really matter?
What size are you trying to print at? I used to print acceptable canvas prints at 24x30" at 12mp. Do you plan on printing 2 1/2 wide prints any time soon? Go with what's more affordable, and invest the money in glass.
>some cameras can shoot up to 1/8000s and some up to 1/4000s, some up to 1/2500s; is it even practical to shoot at 1/8000s?
Unless you're shooting portraits in broad daylight - no clouds and harsh a.f. shadows on your sitter's face, who demanded the lowest depth of field possible - you're fine. It's an uncommon scenario.

>>3139232
>long term support for a lens mount so in five years I don't find my gear redundant if I were to upgrade
Idk about Sony's dslr mount, but I'm willing to bet they're going to stick with it for a while. Canon and NIkon's latest cameras accept lenses from the early 90's and earlier. I'm willing to bet Sony will follow suit.
>easy/fast autofocus (I guess I want lots of AF points, or dual-pixel AF?)
Trust me, compared to 2010 tech, anything you choose will be adequate.
>something good in lower light conditions (but I guess this is more lens specific than body specific)
Refer to my last answer to the last question.
>something with a viewfinder, either optical or digital (but in lieu of a viewfinder, something with support for a field monitor)
-every- dslr or mirrorless has an EVF/OVF.

>>3139233
>Canon and NIkon's latest cameras accept lenses from the early 90's and earlier. I'm willing to bet Sony will follow suit.

Sony's cameras, both mirrored and mirrorless, accept lens from as far back as 1985.

It was really the first successful autofocus mount. People seem to forget how big Minolta once was.

If I was just starting out and wanted to make decent images right out of the gate I would go for a Fujifilm camera like the x100s. Their in-camera color profiles are beautiful if dialed in right (there is a lot of good info out there) and don't need much if any post work in Photoshop or Lightroom.

Either of those Sony cameras will require extensive work in Lightroom to get a decent looking image, which can be a daunting task for someone just getting into it.

>>3139233
Nikon cameras starting from the D7200 range can pretty much use all F mount lenses since the 70s. Downside with Nikon is inability to adapt other lens due to flange and mount diameter.

>tfw have a ton of OM glass that I use for film
>can't adapt to F mount for digital

>>3139237
>cant buy into a lens ecosystem
>single focal length (no zoom is noob repellent)
>easy to outgrow in a few months

I'd say just get the entry level Canon/Nikon DSLRs and work from there. Secondhand lenses are pretty cheap for those platforms compared to native Sony/Fuji glass. If OP were to move to mirrorless, they could just take their lenses with them.

>>3138819
there's a tranny in the toilet.

>>3138819
what you want is sensor size, iso performance and dynamic range.
head on to dxomark for numbers.

fps is for shooting sports.
1/4000s is fast enough.

>>3139246
Implying 1/8000 isn't useful for being able to open aperture up on a sunny day

Thank you all for the help. I still think the a6300 is better for me for a couple of reasons: many say adapted Canon and Sigma lenses work better on it (on the a6000 there's hunting issues), and tied into that is the better AF performance in general. It's about $300 more over here which is inconsequential if it's that much better.

As for lenses, I figure the included kit lens and a 50mm 1.8 is a good place to start. A lot of reviewers (Jared Polin, Chris Frost, Northrups, etc) are really enamored with the Sigma art lenses, so I might get the 50-100mm 1.8 sometime down the line: this cover a good range of focal lengths with the only notable exception being wide angle. Some Tokina lenses start at 11mm and go up to 16, 19, 24mm, so I'll keep an eye out for BF deals for those in the future.