What's your preference

What's your preference.

And WHY.

Other urls found in this thread:

alphauniverse.com/prosupport/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>they can't shoot 4k 60 FPS video
>meanwhile a smartphone can (S9, iPhone 8/X)
really makes you think

>he thinks resolution = image quality
neck yourself

sony alpha are great value mirrorless cameras. 100% would go for that in the hobbyist price range. Otherwise you can't really beat Canon and Nikon's highest end DSLRs.

I shot mirrorless before it was cool

This
Point and shoots are Dead unless you want 10x optical zoom but at that point you may a well be investing in lenses.
Actually the sensors and processing they put into phones now is still impressive. They can do neat stuff with dual cameras and lasers

MILC. Because Sony has really nice lenses and overall good features.

The A7 III can do 4k 120fps, and that isn't even a video camera.

this is correct. mirrorless offers the best value in the entry-to-mid range, but for more serious cameras mirrorless can't compete with the lens selection and other nice things that the DSLRs from the "big two" offer

>Point and shoots are Dead
goPro and waterproof point and shoots are still going to have place because you try using a fucking touch screen phone underwater even if it is waterproof.

Yeah but it logically doesn't even make sense. If anything could shoot high quality 4k video wouldn't you see it in a camera rather than a phone? You pay for image quality or processing power the way I see it.

Yeah, but you can't shoot in ungraded formats on smartphones either.
Also, smartphones have godawful video quality at 4k, unless you are just going to convert down to 1080. Then it had some benefit.

>Otherwise you can't really beat Canon and Nikon's highest end DSLRs.
Sony has generally matched these and then delivered a beatdown to Canon and Nikon with their better lens lineup.

Basically it's more like you can't match Sony lenses with Canon or Nikon lenses at this point, though it depends on the situation.

My usualy carry are my 5dmkiii with a f2.8 70-200 along with a A6300 and 16mm f2.8 which I use to shoot over smartphone crowds in front of me.

>more serious camera[...] lens selection
Sony has the better high-end lens lineup by far now, except in the telephoto range.

Maybe wildlife and sports photographers will feel like sticking with Canon / Nikon. But the architecture, product, portrait, ... photographers? I think they're behind a lot of those e-mount lens sales.

You better not be counting their partnership with Zeiss lenses in that statement.

Is there much change in the a5000 or the older nex5 series? I want to get into mirrorless without spending a stupid amount

I'm counting the ecosystem, Zeiss, Voightlander and everyone else included.

More important than what Sony, Canon, Nikon individually did in this context. Even though Sony alone actually also almost serially nailed new reference top-of-the-line lenses.

You can count the Sigma absences on Canon's / Nikon's side too, though that seems to get resolved and they can be adapted on Sony anyhow.

Yup, there is. Just about everything got rapidly better.

Spending stupid amounts is the best thing to do if you have money.

Else, make compromises and go for, like, the old A6000 or A7 maybe? Or a Panasonic perhaps, they have interesting video features on cheaper models.

Yeah, through a shit lens and image processing that makes it barely better looking than properly shot 1080p.

Want to shoot good video? Get a video camera, not a still camera. Get a still camera to take photos that are significantly better than a phone can shoot.

thoughts on this camera?

Resolution is one of the least important aspects of quality video, why the resolution used in the vast majority of cinemas is 2K (only a tiny bit more than 1080p) Much rather have raw 14bpp 24fps video on a FF sensor with interchangable lenses (with variable aperture) than mushy compressed 120fps 4k at a 1.5 crop on a 1/2.6" sensor whose effective resolution is hardly 1080p.

Get a sony RX100 III or IV. I don't like Sony, and they made some weird decisions with the A7 (sensor stack, pursuing barmy data throughput ideals instead of anything that actually matters) but the RX100 IV is a fantastic piece of engineering, basically equivalent to a standard kit lens on APS-C in effective aperture but sharper and it fits in your jeans pocket along with lots of great modern features including IS and an excellent pop up viewfinder.

what about the V? i saw it at best buy but the price scared me. is it advisable to look at refurbished options for cameras?

i'm definitely leaning towards mirrorless because i love the compact size.

and it's dslr.

What's with all the camera threads on Sup Forums lately?
is that way.

Anyways, DSLRs deliver ruggedness and ergonomics, while point and shoots are compact and convenient. Mirrorless is currently the worst of both worlds.

gear threads are frowned upon on /p/ and are confined to shitty generals and generals are garbage

> weird decisions with the A7 (sensor stack, pursuing barmy data throughput ideals instead of anything that actually matters)
They approached it from the angle where they were superior to Canon / Nikon already (sensors... they're the ones that make the best ones on both cameras and phones) and rapidly iterated on the flaws from there.

It VERY rapidly (by camera market standards especially) got to the point where Canon / Nikon are now almost in the defensive. Sony's taking that market share.

>Mirrorless is currently the worst of both worlds.
If the only thing that mattered was ruggedness, perhaps.

Turns out that's a lesser concern, since generally banging front optics of lenses on the ground and walls or such is still less safe than even doing it with "not rugged" MILC, and this is not how most people treat cameras anyhow.

The ergonomics are now fine on most MILC. And they also are smaller and lighter than corresponding DSLR, and usually have a nice overall set of features.

>gear threads are frowned upon on /p/
I wish that was true -- it's kind of cyclical, but right now, about half of the threads on /p/ are gear-related.
Actually I think they belong in Sup Forums, was just surprised.

When you are shooting, you don't want to worry about babying your gear. Water, sand, ice, mud, it don't care about it when I shoot a DSLR, I can always wash it off later. Maybe it's just a prejudice of mine, but my brother's NEX and my roomates's A7 felt so fragile in comparison.
And the ergonomics are not even close. It's not a limitation of the tech, of course, it's just that no manufacturer has come out with a camera that is on par with a pro DSLR in either ergonomics or ruggedness -- maybe there's no market for it, yet.

>great value mirrorless cameras
>uses lossy compression on their ''RAW'' format

what is focal length?

>When you are shooting, you don't want to worry about babying your gear.
I don't. I've handed my camera to a stranger's kids to play around with before unattended [merely didn't let them have the >$1k lenses that were actually too heavy for these small kids anyhow].

I've had it in rain [no, not a monsoon for hours, just a few times as long as I could be arsed to stay out without umbrella myself; also multiple times with umbrella because rain drops near the lens tend to suck anyhow.].
I've had it in snow. Can't say I exposed it to any particular amounts mud or sand beyond some artificial beaches, though, and I didn't drop it IIRC.

Either way, not worth much worry unless you're actually somehow likely to actually get hit by a lot of mud / sand and so on.

> And the ergonomics are not even close.
The NEX and A7 still sucked, agreed.

That one is definitely more about "now". There isn't really much to complain about on the recent models; the average Olympus Sony Panasonic feels just fine.

>uses lossy compression on their ''RAW'' format
Except they had lossless since like late 2015, not long after they even started making more enthusiast / professional cameras.

Even once uncompressed RAW happened, pixel peeping and fudging with editors and even statistical SNR and other analysis essentially showed that Sony's RAW compression is really solid, doesn't really have much effect at all on workflow or visual quality.

Well, the range of mirrorlesses is huge, so maybe a general comparison or critique does not make that much sense -- after all, even some medium format cameras qualify. That said, I was shooting casually in a city, I think I'd prefer the inconspicuousness and compactness point and shoot, and if I was in a monsoon as you say, or at shooting sports, or any kind of more demanding environment, I'd take out the DSLR.

Buy used, and get the III or IV. The III was when they introduced the new lens design and pop up viewfinder which are the two best features of the camera, the IV increased the viewfinder resolution to 1024x768 (2.46mdot) from something like 800x600 (1.44mdot), which is a huge quality of life improvement.

Don't be a scrub and pay stupid prices for new cameras, taking good photographs and enjoying it is about features and ergonomics first (including battery life and weight) and specifications second. The Mark V can take something like 10 pictures a second, but who the fuck cares (especially on a short zoom compact.) That's generally why Sony piss me off, because what they pursue and market is completely tangential to what photography is about apart from a very small section of the market (sports photography) but they're sticking these features into cameras and jacking the prices up.

>And they also are smaller and lighter than corresponding DSLR
That may be fine if you are using light lenses.

Mirrorless allows me to take pictures on vampires and capture the souls of the Amish and primitives.

>And they also are smaller and lighter than corresponding DSLR, and usually have a nice overall set of features.
Yeah, lighter perhaps, but not smaller. And I don't know what MILC you shoot, but I've yet to see a mirrorless that equals the set of features of the corresponding DSLR.

Always liked the Olympus mirrorless system from the Pen series to the OM-D series. I'm not an expert or anything. Pic related.

Choosing and buying a camera is too stressful. Just pick one for me and tell me why I should like it Sup Forums.

I guess I'd also consider a fully sealed camera if I went into a desert to shoot storms or just wanted to really have those raindrops run over the camera lens in a monsoon... not that I will do that any time soon, so the actual cameras as they are are pretty much just fine.

The bodies are simply lighter too, not just the lenses.

Smaller too. You can also have large lenses for the MILC and then the fractional difference between the bodies matters a whole lot less; but it doesn't just disappear.

Of course, with anyslightly more compact lenses [which also often aren't bad] you do get a pretty significant difference in size.

> I've yet to see a mirrorless that equals the set of features of the corresponding DSLR.
Well yea. It's not like MILC are a strict superset of DSLR.

Instead of having a some mixed AF system with maybe 150 mixed normal + high quality measurement points that do generally not nearly reach the edges and corners, MILC have on-sensor AF with hundreds more (>600 is where the newest ones are at) normal quality AF points just about everywhere in the frame.

Instead of an OVF (basically no battery consumption), there's almost always an EVF (battery power consumption but visibility even in very low light and full display capability).

And so on.

nikon d850

Dslr, optical viewfinder, decades of glass (nikkor master race)

I don't know shit about cameras, like at all. What would be the best camera under 300? I'm deploying to the sand pit in like 4 weeks and i'd like to take some videos and pictures before i get bombed to death.

>That's generally why Sony piss me off, because what they pursue and market is completely tangential to what photography is about apart from a very small section of the market
Burst rates, buffer sizes, AF system and so on also apply to portrait, journalism, event and family group shots and the like.

It's not tangential. It's the thing that for a long time (that is, even in the DSLR only age) has strongly sold the "better" cameras, and for good reason. Also always has upset people with less money as far as I can tell, heh.

You could say it's the smaller section of "the market" if you included P&S back when. But this market segment belongs to smartphones (and maybe action cameras) now.

sony makes disposable consumer electronics that take pictures. nikon and canon make real cameras

Chinese GoPro clone or maybe original GoPro. Or your smartphone.

DSLR has better glass and better ergonomics
Mirrorless have nice sensors and are small... that's about it.

I wish mirrorless didn't have to rely on adapters for decent glass, and didn't look like a fucking joke when you put a flash on them.

>nikon and canon make real cameras
Technological fossils that try to hang on to their monopoly stagnant part of the market with the last, almost gone, fraction of their AF superiority, while Sony fucks them up badly with their sensor near-monopoly and much better hardware engineers.

As much as I like the sony exmor sensor. Their cameras are a usability nightmare. Sony has taken a prosumer quality product and tried to boil down the complexity of a dedicated camera to something you'd find on an iphone.
Try making meaingful & quick changes to your camera's settings when you have one faggoty jog wheel.

>I wish mirrorless didn't have to rely on adapters for decent glass
Wish fulfilled, the very best glass in most focal lengths is on the E-mount now.

It follows the Canon L pricing model, but it's there.

> and didn't look like a fucking joke when you put a flash on them
It looks like a camera.

Mirrorless cannot have a nice gigantic flash on it without being weighted to constantly fall out of your hands.

And I know the glass is there, but as you said, it's priced like gold plated dog shit.

>Try making meaingful & quick changes to your camera's settings when you have one faggoty jog wheel.
Maybe on the RX100s?

Even the A6000 has three wheels, the A9 has five and a joystick IIRC.

I have a Panasonic g7, I’m not a pro but I care about photography and the micro four thirds ecosystem has been a great way for me not to break the bank as well as have lots of options.
It also takes really nice video.

it's literally just their sensor technology dragging them along. as actual cameras they are a nightmare, the interface is terrible, they are unreliable (overheating cameras lol), and have no real pro service infrastructure like nikon and canon do.

I’m also a fan of its smaller size.

>A6000
Holy shit that thing dropped in price... fugg..

> it's priced like gold plated dog shit.
The high end glass always is priced that way. Since like 1980 or when I started paying attention to this. Remember Minolta APO? Already forgot all the recent-ish Canon L and Nikkor high end glass?

Or rather, it's actually cheaper. There actually rarely were so many pieces of glass happening so quickly - like the 90mm macro, 55mm f/1.8, 50mm macro and so on appearing for $1k and under (correct for inflation, obviously, and make sure it's some record beating industry best glass).

Not to say Sigma isn't also doing a really good job... but yea, good times, actually.

I'm spoiled by high quality cheap canon glass ;\
That and I'm fucking tired of buying flashes. I already got a $500 metz flash I stopped using because Pentax decided to take a fucking shit on their "enthusiast" photography lineup.

> as actual cameras they are a nightmare, the interface is terrible
No, you're just stuck with your system, apparently.

> they are unreliable (overheating cameras lol)
Older cameras (fixed...), in video modes that the CaNikons didn't have and that they often even to date don't even have on pricier models?

Oh yea.

> have no real pro service infrastructure like nikon and canon do
They do. But it's certainly a worse, less dense network so far:
alphauniverse.com/prosupport/

Do you actually qualify for Nikon's / Canon's service in the "tier" that is worth a fuck (less than two days downtime guaranteed)? Otherwise there isn't much of an argument.

Maybe there isn't THAT much of an argument anyways unless your computer and maybe printer are also covered the same way. You know, otherwise the mitigation tactic is anyhow to have a fallback / option to rent.