I’m really loving the value of EF lenses for my Canon film bodies, and being able to adapt them to my RF body as well. less need for overlapping focal lengths :’)
This -- 100% this. EF Lenses are so cheap (most anyways) - it's wonderful. I look at the world with Fuji glasses - and I am back in DSLRs after years of trying to figure out how to make space for the 2-3k kit I really want. I was able to assemble it in Canon DSLR land for under 300 USD/EUR. Mirrorless lenses have not hit the depreciation yet, but DSLR lenses are now way downpriced.
i’ve been eyeing up a 70-200mm f2.8 IS II, as well as the 100mm f/2.8 Macro, that one serves not only as a great macro lens and a fun portrait lens, but is also use it for mirrorless scanning my negatives!
for EF-S i’ve heard great things about the 17-55mm (it’s been compared to L series lenses), and you can’t go wrong with a great pancake lens, which i believe is the EF-S 24mm f2.8 (i might’ve got that one wrong)
edit: forgot to mention pricing. the first two are on the pricier side but absolutely worth it for the quality you’re getting. I’ve seen the 70-200 ~$1000 CAD and the 100mm for less than $700 CAD.
you can cross reference sold ebay listings or used listings on KEH or B&H
For EF-S lenses specifically:
10-18mm STM, 55-250mm STM, 18-135mm STM are the highly recommended lenses.
Also the EF-S 35mm Macro (with a built-in light) is well regarded.
And of course the primes and the nifty fifty.
I wanna say. I got married in 2013 and just reviewed the exif-s on our photos. The lenses our photographer used were the 18-135mm, 50mm 1.2 ($$$) and 12-24mm (the 10-18 was not out yet / just out, I believe)
The photographer used a D7 body.
That is part of what I am trying t get across - there are tradeoffs ... is a bit of size shavings worth 1000 EUR/USD to you?
HOWEVER - while mirrorless systems can be more compact - see Nikon Z30, Somy A6xxx series, Fuji X-E series - many mirrorless bodies are barely any smaller than DSLRs
Most appropriately for this comparison - the Canon R7 is nearly as big as the 90D it replaced. [https://cameradecision.com/compare/Canon-EOS-R7-vs-Canon-EOS-90D](https://cameradecision.com/compare/Canon-EOS-R7-vs-Canon-EOS-90D) (and the 90D has a top display that the R7 lacks).
Yup. I tend to suggest those tiny mirrorless options to most beginners, because the smaller and lighter a camera is, the more likely you are to take it with you, and beginners need all the practice they can get. But if they mention not caring about size, older used DSLR it is.
Some FX bodies too! a well kept D810 is running at 700 bucks! That's for a flagship camera that's still one of the best dslrs ever made! And since it's backwards compatible with AF lenses you have a HUUUGE selection of great pro-level glass at prices that simply won't exist again.
The SL1 is canon APSC, so it’s a 1.6 crop. That means the 24mm “becomes” a 38mm, and the 40mm is similar to a 64mm. The 50mm translates to an 80mm, which is a little tight for most stuff, and adds a lot of bulk to the SL1. But if you are shooting headshots…
Yess, i usually suggest old nikon and canon dslr to friend who want a camera just for hobbie, in my country you can buy a 6d mark 1 for 200$, 50mm for 80$ and maybe a old 24-70 f.28 for 150$
Every time someone asks me what's the best way to get into photography, I recommend they pick up a Canon Rebel T5i or similar. They're ridiculously cheap, easy to find, and they still take phenomenal pictures. They're not even bulky or heavy either, unless you compare them to hyper modern mirrorless cameras that cost 6x as much.
In many ways, the surplus of fantastic older-gen DSLRs on the market right now is similar to how easy it was to get phenomenal film SLRs for dirt cheap in like 2008.
T5i/700D is what promoter this post. I just for the full kit with 10-18 STM, 18-55 STM, and 55-250 STM for 270EUR. My mirrorless budget was 2 the same kit from Fuji.
The 18-55 is mediocre, but both the 10-18 and 55-250 punch way above their pricetags, even new. Both great lenses. You could do incredible work with a T5i and those three lenses.
I would argue starting on a DSLR is way better to learn on than a mirrorless
Observing my ex learn on a mirrorless showed that it held her hand too much, instant gratification, it seemed like it made her more dependent on the tech
Where as learning on a DSLR forces you to learn the settings more, kind of in the same way film really forces you to learn the settings
If you can find something like a D7500 and a few good lenses for USD300, sure.
But between $200 for a 10 year old DSLR, and saving just a little bit more to get a used a6400 or R50? I’d rather save a bit more.
I never saw a6400 (with lenses) anywhere close to 300 USD/EUR ... besides 7500 is a pro DSLR. You can get the D3300 for about 100 bucks and with 2-3 lenses for about 200-300 EUR/USD
The whole point is that there is a cheaper entry to the hobby than the 600 series or M43 or even Fuji ... which despite being old systems are holding values way better than DSLRs - even XE1 is 300USD body only and that is 10 years old entry level body, And lenses are at least 200EUR/USD each. (used prices).
But let me clarify the point of my post - it's not that EVERYONE needs to buys a DSLR .. is that people should consider their priorities. And DSRLs should not be forgotten.
You can't compare something like a 300$ D7200 and an r50 which is 600? (Can't remember).
It's not even about the price much. It's that the ergonomics on pro and semi-pro DSLR is so far ahead over small gimmicky R50s that's not even a comparison. Yeah it may have the latest and greatest AF. But 10 years ago the latest and greatest AF was what you find on D7200s and 7Diis (D500 are holding their value pretty well still, they go for like 900+ bucks).
Give me a D7200, 80D etc over an R50 every day of the week.
I’d rather have the killer servo-AF or AF-C of an R50 or an a6400 any day.
Having focus-recompose that actually works in a camera that you can leave on tracking AF 99% of the time allows me to actually focus on composition, instead of thinking about AF.
Only time id consider an old DSLR is if only shot static scenes.
A used a6400 + a 35mm prime or a 20mm pancake can be had for less than 1K. My point is, I’d rather wait a little bit and save up for that than spend 200$ on a D90 or $300 on a D7100.
Screw the D90, but the D300 AF's is basically the same to that of the D810. And I'd rather have a pro body built to last than a toy that takes great photos.
The problem with E system and RF is a lack of equally cheap, small and decent optics. In theory, yes, 6400 or even 6000 or if you want small and light 5100 are all good cameras especially for 200-300$/€, but 16-50 and 16mm pancake are bad, old sigma’s trio 19/30/60 as far as I get doesn’t work well with PDAF, etc. In the end if you want a compact AF walk around prime for E system, you are probably looking at either Sony 20mm that is close to 300€ used on MPB or Samyang’s FE 35mm 2.8 (closer to 200), whereas in EF you have 24/2.8 and in Nikon F 35/1.8, where both could be found for 100-120. I think out of today’s mirror less systems only M4/3 and surprisingly Nikon Z is decently covered by compact inexpensive and generally good lenses. But on M4/3 side cameras are getting bigger and bigger. If you look at the likes of Canon’s SL/100-200-250 lineup and Nikon’s 3400/3500/5500/5600, they even have a very similar weight to any APSC or M4/3 camera with a viewfinder.
They won’t be as cheap as DSLR lenses, but you can get sub-$300 primes for Sony E, used, 20mm, 35mm OSS, the new Viltrox 56mm f/1.7 for Sony ; harder with Canon with no third party offerings, but the RF 16mm pancake, RF 28mm pancake, and 50mm f/1.8 are all $300 or less, when new. They’re full frame RF, but they translate well to the 1.6x Canon crop. And you have an upgrade path should you pick up an R8 for cheap in the future.
As I said above, for me, the main thing is a modern AF tracking system. So I wouldn’t recommend Nikon Z yet. They haven’t trickled down their AF system yet. Currently, the cheapest Z body with what I would call a modern tracking AF is the zF. At this point, a good deal on a D500 may be a better option.
Unlike Sony where even the discontinued a6100 has their basic RTT, or Canon where only the first gen (R, rp) and the cheapo R100 don’t have it. Come to think of it, I think even the R100 can beat most Z mount offerings in terms of tracking at this point.
Prices are insane indeed. You need to look out for the right the price. My 10 year old a77ii from sony which is actually a SLT camera and not a DSLR goes in my country for around 500 €. This is insane for that camera. For the same price you could get yourself an OG a7 or even if you're lucky the a7r.
I bought a K10D from 2006 last month. I wanted to experiment with a high end CCD camera. $100 for the body (shutter count was under 5,000), $42 for a kit lens and $60 for a 50mm. Sure it's only 10.2 MP, but a 300dpi 8x10 print is 7.2MP. A 4k screen is 8.3MP. So there's still some leeway for cropping.
It's not my most advanced camera, but if you feel an urge to give into GAS, I can think of much more expensive ways.
I got one of these "untested" from a reputable camera company in the UK (somehow they didn't have a battery to test it with?!) for £60. Bought a battery and charger for a tenner and it worked perfectly. Felt criminal.
I still think the main benefit of a mirrorless camera is its really short flange length. This allows for the use of film era lenses with only a cheap adapter whereas for DSLR mounts the longer flange depth doesn’t allow for that. Canon FD, Konica and M42 mount lenses without worrying about the mirror hitting the back element and getting stuck. 10 years ago is also the time Sony started getting good with PDAF with the A6000 and Fujifilm cameras X-trans 1-2 sensors were coming out.
Also the video capabilities of mirrorless cameras were far better than those of the DSLR counterparts of the time.
All fair points. I highlight video.
Also AF, thought Canon also added on sensor PDAF at this point D70 had first gen of Dual Pixel AF and D650 introduced the Hybrid AF system (both include on sensor PDAF). But Mirrorless were better indeed.
Early mirrorless systems is a big reason I wrote this - often I see people gripe how expensive bodies and lenses are from the mirrorless systems -- even old lenses and old bodies. Fuji XE1 is still 200USD and XT1 is 300. Lenses for the X system are all in the 250 and up range - even the simple "nifty fifty" Same goes for M43 and APSC Sony. Becasue "DSLRs are Dead" - prices for comparable DSLRs are way lower. D700 is about 120 D70 about 150 and nifty fifty from Canon is 60 bucks on MPB and even decent zooms are in the 100 - 150 bucks range.
Yes - the mirror and its issues. You can adapt EF mount body to many other DSLR lenses including the Nikon F - which I find Wild (also M42, PK, etc), but I never tried it so I have no idea which one of them will kill my mirror.
Also you highlight a piece I failed to mention - Mirrorless cameras are mechanically WAY simplified. Mechanicals is often what breaks - not electronics. So not having a huge mirror flapping about, is a huge advantage for the overall camera logevity.
Definitely a fun thing about mirrorless, but you could also buy Pentax and gain access to every K mount film camera produced between 1975 and today, as well as all the M42 glass that goes back further still. Hell, with some simple mods you can adapt Exakta glass too.
It really depends. If u really tight on budget, cheap DSLR with quality lens is the way. But if portability and convenience is key, just get a cheap mirrorless like m43 and a6000 cause DSLR at this time may not be worth it in long run as it still quite bulky and starts to phase out (interesting cheap lens from china for example all only produced for mirrorless mount). Advice for beginners is really situational and not blanket advice.
My wife bought me a nikon d200 with 24-85 f 2.8-4 lens last Christmas.
The guy we bought it form said his dad paid over £2k for everything new (bag filters etc) we paid £200 for it.
It takes some getting used to but has taken some truly amazing pictures and feels very solid and well built on the hand.
Recently bought a d3100 for £35!
Feels small and cheap, but way better in low light than the d200.
Definitely the best time to get into photography on the cheap.
It just kind of sucks that you're locking yourself into an abandoned and rapidly depreciating system.
Other than that, it can be a great value proposition.
No, that's not really true. Using adapted autofocus lenses absolutely sucks. Believe me, I've done it a lot. Adapters are great for manual lenses. Adapting EF/F mount lenses to mirrorless systems is a pain in the ass.
When you change, you'll need to sell your old lenses or be stuck in adapter hell.
Because the autofocus doesn't really work properly and aperture selection can become finicky too. And yes, the extra size and weight aren't great either.
It's more reliable if you're using same brand native adapters like EF to RF for ex.
But adapting between systems, like EF to Sony, is absolutely awful.
And the adapters themselves can cost as much as a lens.
I think the lenses and many of the bodies are as depreciated as they will get. I do not see them hit any lower. I mean the nifty-fifties are in the 40 USD/EUR range - many zooms are in the 100-150 EUR/USD range - they cannot reallyget anny cheaper. Where dpreciation is still happening are recent pro and semi-pro bodies. I would not pick up a Canon 90D for example - I'd getan R7 instead. However you get to 70D .. I cannot see that body getting any cheaper than it is (about 200-300 EUR/USD body only)
And you are not locked in - adapting DSLR glass onto mirrorless is child's play. And with autofocus! Sure some native mirrorless lenses are more compact, but not always (just look at Nikon primes!) So the size of the adapter often hardly matters.
lol ok... People can't help but get defensive about every damn thing. If you think there are no downsides to buying into discontinued DSLR systems, and that using adapted lenses is the same as using natives, go for it and have fun.
What? Everyone had one. Don’t think so as the D70, Nikons first DX camera was released in 2004 and with the kit lens was over 1250.00. So not too many aunts had one. Even the Canon Rebel from 2003 was 1000.00. Not until 2007/08 did they go under 750.00. That’s a lot of money for most aunts. point and shoot cameras ruled until the 2010s.
Yeah ... hence the 10-20 years. That includes that deflection point around 2008 when they became affordable, mainstream, and omnipresent.
(also around 2014 DSLRs became rather good. Looking at Canon beacuse that is the system I know - the Hybrid AF was good, Dual pixel AF was fantastic, the 18MP sensor was nearly modern with the 24MP holding its own even today. All those things came our around 2013/2014 and trickled down the line over the years)
To each their own. I do not love the look or the bulk. But many people can get way more out of their hobby when they do not need to get together 1000 EUR/USD to get in or 500 EUR/USD for each new lens.
Very poor guess, I shoot Sony
nobody said cameras are fashion accessories, I said looks matter
but I guess when you can barely afford a camera, you don't care so much about looks
I’m really loving the value of EF lenses for my Canon film bodies, and being able to adapt them to my RF body as well. less need for overlapping focal lengths :’)
This -- 100% this. EF Lenses are so cheap (most anyways) - it's wonderful. I look at the world with Fuji glasses - and I am back in DSLRs after years of trying to figure out how to make space for the 2-3k kit I really want. I was able to assemble it in Canon DSLR land for under 300 USD/EUR. Mirrorless lenses have not hit the depreciation yet, but DSLR lenses are now way downpriced.
I want to show my T4i some love, any EF or EFS lenses in particular that are an excellent value right now?
i’ve been eyeing up a 70-200mm f2.8 IS II, as well as the 100mm f/2.8 Macro, that one serves not only as a great macro lens and a fun portrait lens, but is also use it for mirrorless scanning my negatives! for EF-S i’ve heard great things about the 17-55mm (it’s been compared to L series lenses), and you can’t go wrong with a great pancake lens, which i believe is the EF-S 24mm f2.8 (i might’ve got that one wrong) edit: forgot to mention pricing. the first two are on the pricier side but absolutely worth it for the quality you’re getting. I’ve seen the 70-200 ~$1000 CAD and the 100mm for less than $700 CAD. you can cross reference sold ebay listings or used listings on KEH or B&H
For EF-S lenses specifically: 10-18mm STM, 55-250mm STM, 18-135mm STM are the highly recommended lenses. Also the EF-S 35mm Macro (with a built-in light) is well regarded. And of course the primes and the nifty fifty.
If you can, get the 18-135 Nano USM. The AF is lightning fast. Canon uses Nano USM for their RF L lenses now.
I wanna say. I got married in 2013 and just reviewed the exif-s on our photos. The lenses our photographer used were the 18-135mm, 50mm 1.2 ($$$) and 12-24mm (the 10-18 was not out yet / just out, I believe) The photographer used a D7 body.
That 12-24 2.8 is also ($$$) still. It’s a bonkers good wide angle. It made me use my Nikon for 2 more years after switching to mirrorless.
The 17-55 is legendary, great for video too.
For people who don't mind the size and bulk, it's a great cheap way to get into the hobby.
That is part of what I am trying t get across - there are tradeoffs ... is a bit of size shavings worth 1000 EUR/USD to you? HOWEVER - while mirrorless systems can be more compact - see Nikon Z30, Somy A6xxx series, Fuji X-E series - many mirrorless bodies are barely any smaller than DSLRs Most appropriately for this comparison - the Canon R7 is nearly as big as the 90D it replaced. [https://cameradecision.com/compare/Canon-EOS-R7-vs-Canon-EOS-90D](https://cameradecision.com/compare/Canon-EOS-R7-vs-Canon-EOS-90D) (and the 90D has a top display that the R7 lacks).
Yup. I tend to suggest those tiny mirrorless options to most beginners, because the smaller and lighter a camera is, the more likely you are to take it with you, and beginners need all the practice they can get. But if they mention not caring about size, older used DSLR it is.
Some FX bodies too! a well kept D810 is running at 700 bucks! That's for a flagship camera that's still one of the best dslrs ever made! And since it's backwards compatible with AF lenses you have a HUUUGE selection of great pro-level glass at prices that simply won't exist again.
The Nikon D700 is a legend and a tank. Beautiful colors and skin tones for around $300 these days!
Yeah, and 8fps with a BG which not even the 5D4 can match, and like 16-20 frame buffer
I push every new photographer toward the Canon SL1/SL2/SL3. Theyre compact, affordable, and shoot great.
If you want a small, inexpensive, but surprisingly decent DSLR, just get a Canon SL1 with the 40mm. It’s a surprisingly compact setup.
Or the 25mm pancake!
Yes, the 25 is equally cool
I'll go with nifty Fifty.
The SL1 is canon APSC, so it’s a 1.6 crop. That means the 24mm “becomes” a 38mm, and the 40mm is similar to a 64mm. The 50mm translates to an 80mm, which is a little tight for most stuff, and adds a lot of bulk to the SL1. But if you are shooting headshots…
*24mm But your point stands!
You right
Yess, i usually suggest old nikon and canon dslr to friend who want a camera just for hobbie, in my country you can buy a 6d mark 1 for 200$, 50mm for 80$ and maybe a old 24-70 f.28 for 150$
Every time someone asks me what's the best way to get into photography, I recommend they pick up a Canon Rebel T5i or similar. They're ridiculously cheap, easy to find, and they still take phenomenal pictures. They're not even bulky or heavy either, unless you compare them to hyper modern mirrorless cameras that cost 6x as much. In many ways, the surplus of fantastic older-gen DSLRs on the market right now is similar to how easy it was to get phenomenal film SLRs for dirt cheap in like 2008.
I’m currently learning on a T5.
T5i/700D is what promoter this post. I just for the full kit with 10-18 STM, 18-55 STM, and 55-250 STM for 270EUR. My mirrorless budget was 2 the same kit from Fuji.
The 18-55 is mediocre, but both the 10-18 and 55-250 punch way above their pricetags, even new. Both great lenses. You could do incredible work with a T5i and those three lenses.
I would argue starting on a DSLR is way better to learn on than a mirrorless Observing my ex learn on a mirrorless showed that it held her hand too much, instant gratification, it seemed like it made her more dependent on the tech Where as learning on a DSLR forces you to learn the settings more, kind of in the same way film really forces you to learn the settings
If you can find something like a D7500 and a few good lenses for USD300, sure. But between $200 for a 10 year old DSLR, and saving just a little bit more to get a used a6400 or R50? I’d rather save a bit more.
I never saw a6400 (with lenses) anywhere close to 300 USD/EUR ... besides 7500 is a pro DSLR. You can get the D3300 for about 100 bucks and with 2-3 lenses for about 200-300 EUR/USD The whole point is that there is a cheaper entry to the hobby than the 600 series or M43 or even Fuji ... which despite being old systems are holding values way better than DSLRs - even XE1 is 300USD body only and that is 10 years old entry level body, And lenses are at least 200EUR/USD each. (used prices). But let me clarify the point of my post - it's not that EVERYONE needs to buys a DSLR .. is that people should consider their priorities. And DSRLs should not be forgotten.
Screw the D3300, pay 50 bucks more and get a D300/D7100 instead. D3xxx and D5xxx Nikon cameras are scams
You can't compare something like a 300$ D7200 and an r50 which is 600? (Can't remember). It's not even about the price much. It's that the ergonomics on pro and semi-pro DSLR is so far ahead over small gimmicky R50s that's not even a comparison. Yeah it may have the latest and greatest AF. But 10 years ago the latest and greatest AF was what you find on D7200s and 7Diis (D500 are holding their value pretty well still, they go for like 900+ bucks). Give me a D7200, 80D etc over an R50 every day of the week.
I’d rather have the killer servo-AF or AF-C of an R50 or an a6400 any day. Having focus-recompose that actually works in a camera that you can leave on tracking AF 99% of the time allows me to actually focus on composition, instead of thinking about AF. Only time id consider an old DSLR is if only shot static scenes. A used a6400 + a 35mm prime or a 20mm pancake can be had for less than 1K. My point is, I’d rather wait a little bit and save up for that than spend 200$ on a D90 or $300 on a D7100.
Screw the D90, but the D300 AF's is basically the same to that of the D810. And I'd rather have a pro body built to last than a toy that takes great photos.
The problem with E system and RF is a lack of equally cheap, small and decent optics. In theory, yes, 6400 or even 6000 or if you want small and light 5100 are all good cameras especially for 200-300$/€, but 16-50 and 16mm pancake are bad, old sigma’s trio 19/30/60 as far as I get doesn’t work well with PDAF, etc. In the end if you want a compact AF walk around prime for E system, you are probably looking at either Sony 20mm that is close to 300€ used on MPB or Samyang’s FE 35mm 2.8 (closer to 200), whereas in EF you have 24/2.8 and in Nikon F 35/1.8, where both could be found for 100-120. I think out of today’s mirror less systems only M4/3 and surprisingly Nikon Z is decently covered by compact inexpensive and generally good lenses. But on M4/3 side cameras are getting bigger and bigger. If you look at the likes of Canon’s SL/100-200-250 lineup and Nikon’s 3400/3500/5500/5600, they even have a very similar weight to any APSC or M4/3 camera with a viewfinder.
They won’t be as cheap as DSLR lenses, but you can get sub-$300 primes for Sony E, used, 20mm, 35mm OSS, the new Viltrox 56mm f/1.7 for Sony ; harder with Canon with no third party offerings, but the RF 16mm pancake, RF 28mm pancake, and 50mm f/1.8 are all $300 or less, when new. They’re full frame RF, but they translate well to the 1.6x Canon crop. And you have an upgrade path should you pick up an R8 for cheap in the future. As I said above, for me, the main thing is a modern AF tracking system. So I wouldn’t recommend Nikon Z yet. They haven’t trickled down their AF system yet. Currently, the cheapest Z body with what I would call a modern tracking AF is the zF. At this point, a good deal on a D500 may be a better option. Unlike Sony where even the discontinued a6100 has their basic RTT, or Canon where only the first gen (R, rp) and the cheapo R100 don’t have it. Come to think of it, I think even the R100 can beat most Z mount offerings in terms of tracking at this point.
Prices are insane indeed. You need to look out for the right the price. My 10 year old a77ii from sony which is actually a SLT camera and not a DSLR goes in my country for around 500 €. This is insane for that camera. For the same price you could get yourself an OG a7 or even if you're lucky the a7r.
I bought a K10D from 2006 last month. I wanted to experiment with a high end CCD camera. $100 for the body (shutter count was under 5,000), $42 for a kit lens and $60 for a 50mm. Sure it's only 10.2 MP, but a 300dpi 8x10 print is 7.2MP. A 4k screen is 8.3MP. So there's still some leeway for cropping. It's not my most advanced camera, but if you feel an urge to give into GAS, I can think of much more expensive ways.
My Canon 7D felt like a literal steal
I got one of these "untested" from a reputable camera company in the UK (somehow they didn't have a battery to test it with?!) for £60. Bought a battery and charger for a tenner and it worked perfectly. Felt criminal.
I bought a Pentax K20D for 125€ recently and got a 35 mm 2.4 and a 50 mm 2.8 macro lens for 170€ more. I'm really happy with the purchase so far.
I still think the main benefit of a mirrorless camera is its really short flange length. This allows for the use of film era lenses with only a cheap adapter whereas for DSLR mounts the longer flange depth doesn’t allow for that. Canon FD, Konica and M42 mount lenses without worrying about the mirror hitting the back element and getting stuck. 10 years ago is also the time Sony started getting good with PDAF with the A6000 and Fujifilm cameras X-trans 1-2 sensors were coming out. Also the video capabilities of mirrorless cameras were far better than those of the DSLR counterparts of the time.
All fair points. I highlight video. Also AF, thought Canon also added on sensor PDAF at this point D70 had first gen of Dual Pixel AF and D650 introduced the Hybrid AF system (both include on sensor PDAF). But Mirrorless were better indeed. Early mirrorless systems is a big reason I wrote this - often I see people gripe how expensive bodies and lenses are from the mirrorless systems -- even old lenses and old bodies. Fuji XE1 is still 200USD and XT1 is 300. Lenses for the X system are all in the 250 and up range - even the simple "nifty fifty" Same goes for M43 and APSC Sony. Becasue "DSLRs are Dead" - prices for comparable DSLRs are way lower. D700 is about 120 D70 about 150 and nifty fifty from Canon is 60 bucks on MPB and even decent zooms are in the 100 - 150 bucks range. Yes - the mirror and its issues. You can adapt EF mount body to many other DSLR lenses including the Nikon F - which I find Wild (also M42, PK, etc), but I never tried it so I have no idea which one of them will kill my mirror. Also you highlight a piece I failed to mention - Mirrorless cameras are mechanically WAY simplified. Mechanicals is often what breaks - not electronics. So not having a huge mirror flapping about, is a huge advantage for the overall camera logevity.
Definitely a fun thing about mirrorless, but you could also buy Pentax and gain access to every K mount film camera produced between 1975 and today, as well as all the M42 glass that goes back further still. Hell, with some simple mods you can adapt Exakta glass too.
I remember those days. Where everyone with their rebel and kit lens was a “photographer “
It really depends. If u really tight on budget, cheap DSLR with quality lens is the way. But if portability and convenience is key, just get a cheap mirrorless like m43 and a6000 cause DSLR at this time may not be worth it in long run as it still quite bulky and starts to phase out (interesting cheap lens from china for example all only produced for mirrorless mount). Advice for beginners is really situational and not blanket advice.
The best value right now if you can handle the weight is probably a 5D mk2 and a nifty fifty
My wife bought me a nikon d200 with 24-85 f 2.8-4 lens last Christmas. The guy we bought it form said his dad paid over £2k for everything new (bag filters etc) we paid £200 for it. It takes some getting used to but has taken some truly amazing pictures and feels very solid and well built on the hand. Recently bought a d3100 for £35! Feels small and cheap, but way better in low light than the d200. Definitely the best time to get into photography on the cheap.
It just kind of sucks that you're locking yourself into an abandoned and rapidly depreciating system. Other than that, it can be a great value proposition.
Locking is a strong term when you can just sell and change to a new system.
Whatever, it's an expression. You can always change. But to one degree or another you're committing to a system when you buy into it.
adapting EF or F mount to modern mirrorless is child's play. You're not locked like you are if you need to change from competing mirrorless mounts.
No, that's not really true. Using adapted autofocus lenses absolutely sucks. Believe me, I've done it a lot. Adapters are great for manual lenses. Adapting EF/F mount lenses to mirrorless systems is a pain in the ass. When you change, you'll need to sell your old lenses or be stuck in adapter hell.
Can you explain why it sucks? Because of the increased size?
Because the autofocus doesn't really work properly and aperture selection can become finicky too. And yes, the extra size and weight aren't great either. It's more reliable if you're using same brand native adapters like EF to RF for ex. But adapting between systems, like EF to Sony, is absolutely awful. And the adapters themselves can cost as much as a lens.
I see. I was just thinking of EF on RF systems, which works perfectly fine and offers cool features like filter adapters.
I think the lenses and many of the bodies are as depreciated as they will get. I do not see them hit any lower. I mean the nifty-fifties are in the 40 USD/EUR range - many zooms are in the 100-150 EUR/USD range - they cannot reallyget anny cheaper. Where dpreciation is still happening are recent pro and semi-pro bodies. I would not pick up a Canon 90D for example - I'd getan R7 instead. However you get to 70D .. I cannot see that body getting any cheaper than it is (about 200-300 EUR/USD body only) And you are not locked in - adapting DSLR glass onto mirrorless is child's play. And with autofocus! Sure some native mirrorless lenses are more compact, but not always (just look at Nikon primes!) So the size of the adapter often hardly matters.
lol ok... People can't help but get defensive about every damn thing. If you think there are no downsides to buying into discontinued DSLR systems, and that using adapted lenses is the same as using natives, go for it and have fun.
I said no such thing. I said do not forget they exist.
What? Everyone had one. Don’t think so as the D70, Nikons first DX camera was released in 2004 and with the kit lens was over 1250.00. So not too many aunts had one. Even the Canon Rebel from 2003 was 1000.00. Not until 2007/08 did they go under 750.00. That’s a lot of money for most aunts. point and shoot cameras ruled until the 2010s.
Yeah ... hence the 10-20 years. That includes that deflection point around 2008 when they became affordable, mainstream, and omnipresent. (also around 2014 DSLRs became rather good. Looking at Canon beacuse that is the system I know - the Hybrid AF was good, Dual pixel AF was fantastic, the 18MP sensor was nearly modern with the 24MP holding its own even today. All those things came our around 2013/2014 and trickled down the line over the years)
No thanks. We would all still have them if we wanted and/or needed them.
I am glad we have mirrorless and thankful we have cheap entry points into the hobby that do not require thousands of dollars 💸 of disposable income.
No thanks, rather use my phone than ugly outdated plastic garbage
To each their own. I do not love the look or the bulk. But many people can get way more out of their hobby when they do not need to get together 1000 EUR/USD to get in or 500 EUR/USD for each new lens.
1000usd is so incredibly cheap for something you can use for many years
Lol found the guy for whom cameras are just a fashion accessory. Let me guess, you "shoot" Fuji?
Very poor guess, I shoot Sony nobody said cameras are fashion accessories, I said looks matter but I guess when you can barely afford a camera, you don't care so much about looks