visitor from lit seeks camera advice

Replies

A

Anon09/20/26, 22:18No.4529282

[/p/thread/4528802#p4528802] - enjoy your stay

1

A

Anon09/20/26, 22:43No.4529293

canon 5d with the 24-105

1

A

Anon09/20/26, 22:49No.4529294

I like how you inserted Mario Giacomelli to pretend it's not some ironic shitpost. "R1000" and (((Gillian Rose))) gives it away though.Mirrorless is cucked in general, but Canon is one of the more locked of them, on top of that. R100 isn't particularly well-built either. And for about 300 to 400 used it's highway robbery. The Canon reflex system, in contrast, is a lot more flexible. The most flexible among reflex in fact. If you want autofocus you're locked to Canon EF lenses, but adapting lets you use Nikon F, M42, Olympus OM, Pentax K among others without losing infinity focus or quality (other brands with longer flange distances require a correcting element that changes your focal length a bit, a mild teleconverter). Moreover, being from /lit/ you're probably familiar with the allegory of the cave. Well, the mirrorless system is exactly that: you see some mangled version of the scene after the sensor and the camera's electronics had their way with it. And it's not even "what you see is what you get" because the dynamic range of the sensor is greater than that of the electronic "viewfinder". Reflex lets you see through the lens, you get the real deal, an optical path from the lens to your eye. There's another benefit to DSLRs: they use the same mount as the film SLRs before them. So if you decide to graduate to film, you only need a camera and can keep using your lenses.

2

A

Anon09/21/26, 06:28No.4529392

The truth is $500 is not nearly enough for a decent camera these days. With this budget you should be able to buy a single decent used lens without a body. To get a full kit you'll need to buy ancient hardware or really low end modern stuff. Both options are gonna suck so keep your expectations low.

1

A

Anon09/21/26, 07:05No.4529394

OP I'm just gonna ignore the faggots itt being faggots and lay out some actual advice:I owned an R50 for a while, which is basically the step up from the R100 you linked. The R100 is really bottom of the barrel in terms of a modern camera. The R50 is somewhat better while still being quite small, but I found myself wishing I bought the R10 (another step up in terms of features) quite quickly. I think you'd do better to look for a used R50 and the kit lens, which in my area is absolutely doable for $500 USD. I know that because I bought my kit used for $480 USD.But, honestly, there's a sweet spot between age and price where you can get a better camera for the same money. A 5D Mk II, which has been mentioned already, is a good camera, but 20 years old. Would do good in the hands of someone who knows what they're sacrificing by buying it, not a complete newcomer. A 6D Mk I is a few years newer with better features but is pretty much the same camera. You could snag one for $350-400 USD or there abouts then slap a decent lens on it for maybe $100-200 USD.That's my input. Ignore these faggots who just want to argue between their favourite sports team brand bullshit.

2

A

Anon09/21/26, 15:31No.4529459

>Recommends actual good cameras for cheap instead of crippled e-waste >Actually posts good photos >Mogs cANON into a whimpering mess

1

A

Anon09/21/26, 15:52No.4529466

If a camera takes CF cards and you don't have one, CF-SD adapters work fine as long as it's a lower end SD card with similar specs to CF instead of a high capacity/high speed one (something to do with voltage requirements)

0

A

Anon09/21/26, 16:03No.4529468

Nikon D200 - $100 CF only 10mp 8 stops of DR ISO 100-800 color, ISO 1600 in B&W Weirdly better everything (but sensor) than a 5DII Built in flash MAXIMUM SOUL

1

A

Anon09/21/26, 16:15No.4529474

>cANON makes a retarded recommendation >is told why it's retarded (cant autofocus with half of the lenses that can mount to it) >copes and says the lenses it cant autofocus with are useless because they don't have a gimmick that's only on zooms, macros, and two overpriced tamron primes

1

A

Anon09/21/26, 17:09No.4529500

>dude asks for advice >the whole thread turns into a shit flinging contest almost immediately >as many completely different recommendations as there are posters >hours later: no consensus reached >bro probably more confused than before asking for advice classic /p/

1

A

Anon09/21/26, 18:27No.4529519

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that even though it's the second worst brand in the market with shit build quality and colors, I'd rather have a Sony a6500 or a6600 over an EOS M5. Just as mirrorlesscucked, but at least there's IBIS. Going mirrorless without IBIS is some hotel room chair shit.

1

A

Anon09/21/26, 19:52No.4529538

>huskyfag literally schooling cANON literally schooled

0

A

Anon09/21/26, 22:41No.4529570

^malding nophotoThread winners: 5DII + 50mm f1.8 STM EOS M5 + 14-45 kit zoom D7200 + Kit zoom and AF-D primesThread losers: All others

1

A

Anon09/22/26, 08:44No.4529643

The very cheapest, fullframe, weather-sealed pro body you can get is the D600. If you're lucky, you can get it for 200-300 USD. The cheapest great prine you can get is the AF-S 50mm f1.8, for about 100 USD (AF-D version can be had even cheaper, but the focus is a bit slower). You'll probably be wanting a zoom, and the 24-120mm f4 is a sharp and nice option, with a good range, from quite wide, to fairly zoomed in. That one is a bit more expensive, though (300-ish?). If you don't have the budget, the are some cheaper but not always as optically great options (Tamron, Sigma, etc.)

1