cc143

I stand corrected, I'm stil not sure about this though. The cost seems similar but sacrifing upgradeability (as much as possible there ofc) and some significant chunk of performance. I will take the dual channel advice though. I'm aware of the risks of using such psus. But, the power draw is well below cap and its an 80+ bronze unit. I have a 1000W Coolermaster I bought a while back that was in my previous build, but its not currently in the country and if that were not an issue, this would be much less difficult (I could easily salvage gpu, psu ssd from that system and end up paying £300, but getting these up here is not as easy and this is getting kinda urgent). But, my rationale is that if its being exchanged for an sfx unit in 3-4 months, I may as well go cheap here. I wouldn't go with something at the price point if it weren't 80+ certified and from a relatively well known and reputable brand.

CPU is not available in the UK https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/products/cpu/#sort=price&page=1 Mobo allows for future upgrade to r7 How much difference is the dual channel here? I was thinking of adding another stick in 3-4 months. Is it still worth it to go for dual sticks now?

Budget (including currency): GBP - As low as possible hopefully under 650 Country: UK Games, programs or workloads that it will be used for: AAdobe photoshop/lightroom Other details (existing parts lists, whether any peripherals are needed, what you're upgrading from, when you're going to buy, what resolution and refresh rate you want to play at, etc): PCPartPicker Part List Type Item Price CPU AMD Ryzen 5 3600 3.6 GHz 6-Core Processor £165.00 @ Amazon UK Motherboard ASRock B550M-ITX/ac Mini ITX AM4 Motherboard £117.15 @ Amazon UK Memory Corsair Vengeance LPX 32 GB (1 x 32 GB) DDR4-2666 CL16 Memory £125.99 @ Amazon UK Storage Western Digital Blue 500 GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive £52.49 @ Amazon UK Case Silverstone SG13 Mini ITX Tower Case £39.95 @ Amazon UK Power Supply Aerocool Integrator 500 W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply £36.49 @ Amazon UK Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts Total £537.07 Generated by PCPartPicker 2020-08-13 18:21 BST+0100 So here's the deal,I currently have an xps9560 (i7, 16gb ram, gtx1050 etc), and all peripherals for it (BENQ 4k IPS primary and Samsung 1080p secondary displays, kb mice, everything). I also have a dock for it. The thing is that, I got this thing because I was on the go a lot for work etc in 2018, but due to the pandemic,I've been saddled at home working 12-14 hour days, and this thing is screaming! The network solution isn't great, the fans are spinning at 100% all day etc. (I'm even getting this from people when hgoing on calls.) So at this point, it's not fit for purpose and I need to do something. I thought about liquid metal, adding ram, ssd etc, but, I can't really be bothered and b, I've been thinking of building an SFF thing for a while. My inital thought was a r7 3700x in a coolermaster n200p an okish sff psu and a 1660super or something like that, but that's too much and its not the best time. What I'm thinking is, the above gives me a clear upgrade path to a ryzen 7 4700x when they come out, I will be adding a second 32gb ram stick eventually, and upgrading psu and case eventually, so for something cheap for those and take care of it later. Same thing with SSD, probably adding a 1-2 tb thing down the line. As I said, I work long hours, we are running virtual machines, with very little on local stuff, I don't game any longer and god knows, I won't have time to for a while, so I'd rather not have the option. I use some statistical stuff, photography programs, hence the huge ram and it will have to perform adequately for long periods every day going forward. I am missing a GPU. This is the I need help bit. (Of course, any improvements to the above, with cost in mind are welcome). It may need to drive dual 4k screens down the line, but the 1 4k screen is the important bit for now. Apart from that, I don't really need much horsepower, I just need it to be as cheap as possible. So, options: Strix RX570: This is the cheapest thing new: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/product/GzpmP6/asus-radeon-rx-570-8-gb-strix-gaming-oc-video-card-rog-strix-rx570-o8g-gaming I could also go for a used gtx970 or something like that. Ideally, I'd like this thing to be less than £600 because it's not a great time and its sort of a necessary purchase I'd rather have made 6-12 months down the line. So I'm trying to ride the fence between going almost all out and keeping a tight budget. Any recommendations are welcome here. Thank you all in advance.

The 6dII is criticised for being crappy in low light. I haven't seen examples my self, but the 80d is a pretty new sensor and processor, so unless you for a Sony a7s or something I'm not sure if you can get something at a reasonable price in the Canon lineup. The 1dx2 is obviously great in low light, but 5K at least is not worth it. I'd expect the 5d4 would be an improvement, and a used one would probably be comparable in price to the 6d2, or you could always go for an EOS R...

I wouldn't buy a Sony FF either, in fact holding one in my hands, I decided to go for a 4 year old used 5d3 instead. Maybe if Canon or Nikon get their act together, but still, I'm very happy with my dslr, I'd much rather just buy used 5d4s till I can't anymore, will save me money overall in the long run as well, dslr lenses are way too much cheaper now.

My previous reply seems to have fallen on deaf ears, so let me reiterate, I have been into photography for the past 15 years, I have owned an a6000, a number of Canon dslrs and currently maintain a full Canon system with a secondary fuji xt2 system, after buying into it with the xt10 a couple of years ago, which would definitely be the only mirrorless system currently available I would ever buy, despite what the specs may suggest. The m50 is a great little camera, don't get me wrong, but, the value proposition offered by an entry level dslr, especially the 800d, which punches way above its weightclass, is not one to ignore. The 800d is more reliable, has more features than most will ever need, is more robust, its battery lasts longer and has native compatibility with the most extensive lens system ever created, working with all lenses made since 1987. The used market is littered with great options, going for much cheaper than the systems you are talking about. Whatsmore, it is really not that bigger than a mirrorless system. It is definitely what you should go with for those reasons.

I remember the sony sending pictures to a phone through an app, but Sony has stopped servicing them as far as a I recall. For a beginner I'd recommend neither, for 95% of people looking for their first camera, the answer is either don't buy one or get a used Canon 800d with the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6IS off ebay.

Just use your phone. Even if you got something in the used market the only advantage would be interchangeable lenses due to how well phone cameras handle now in comparison with what's available from about 10 years ago. Also, shooting on your phone is easy, using a proper camera takes much more knowledge. Not enough you can't learn in the mean time, but just enough for it to make the cost benefit tilt towards the phone.

Buy some 3rd party batteries and a charger that fits 2 of them. I only owned the thing briefly, but I remember the battery life was completely awful.

A 50mm prime lens should give you better results for portraiture. A 35mm is a bit too wide and will result in distortion of the face's proportions etc. (Nose will appear bigger, face fatter etc. ) depending on where you are standing in relation to the subject. The best thing would probably be an 85mm, but at that point you might run into issues with getting the required framing given the effect of the camera's crop factor on the FOV. Be advised, while older D series lenses are great and will be much cheaper, you will have no AF functionality on your d3400 due to its lack of an in body AF motor.

Those look like manual lenses so they would have no AF or electronic aperture control to lose. However there is another element to it, that is flange distance. You can adapt nikon glass to Canon bodies because the distance between the sensor and the lens is shorter for Canon than Nikon. You could fix the lens in front of the camera but the focus would be all wrong if at all useable. With mirrorless cameras that is possible because the lack of a mirror means they have much less distance between the sensor and lens rear element. I am not sure about this whatsoever, but if I were to hazzard a guess, given Nikon's F mount is of the ones that have a larger flange distance, I doubt you could adapt anything to it.

I for the life of me can't figure why you'd go for the rx10 over the xt3!

Yes I am Greek, I forgot my flickr was linked and was wondering how you realised, I was even reviewing what I wrote to determine if something gave me away, and Greeks do have quite big communities around the world that is true. Back to the subject at hand, a DSLR will certainly provide better value, and an m100 is not something I would consider really, very outdated hardware and very dinky as a camera, not at all nice to shoot with. The issue is that a DSLR is considerably larger than an m100.

However did you come to that conclusion?

The short answer is yes, optics on mobile phones are quite limited, and so are the capabilities of the sensors which are quite smaller than most dedicated cameras. So in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing, even a 10 year old camera can get better results than most modern phones. But, on the other hand, if you don't know what you are doing, it won't. Modern camera phones employ software to get better quality pictures than a normal camera, frankly even a professional camera won't be that much better than a smartphone if at all. If you are willing put in the time and learn how to use a camera and edit photos, you will certainly get better results. Finally, a phone is something you always come with you, a camera is something extra you have to carry, and most people just don't. So Its entirely dependent on you.

A used lens designed for aps-c of considerable quality will cost up to $300 depending on what you are looking for. A used 17-55mm 2.8 or 10-22 3.5-4.5 will be around $250 for instance, while a used tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 will cost well under $200. With the exception of the EF 40mm 2.8 panny and 50mm 1.8, there's a very small amount of EF glass that will cost similar money, and its damn near impossible to get equivalent FOVs given the crop factor or even a constant aperture. In short, a 17-50mm and 11-22mm, both very good lenses btw, will run you considerably less than even a used 16-35mm f/4, and will depreciate very little if at all over your ownership of them. In short, if you are buying good primes, it often makes sense to go for the FF glass, but FF zooms are not s practical for aps-c users, except the longer glass. So just buy a used 17-50mm or what not and if you ever do upgrade to a FF body, you can deal with it at that point. So long as you don't go crazy and buy 5-10 aps-c lenses you'll end up better in both the long and short run.

Well you don't really need a 4k display, but do try to get soemthing with an i7 and 16gb of ram. The xps 15 is a great choice, the 9570 is a beast, but I would actually look at the lenovo x1 extreme instead. If you want something cheaper, look at asus or dell's g3/g5 line.

5 years is not that long in camera terms, especially between those 2, since they are techincally quite similar, although the d3500 is clearly the choice to make. OP at that market segment I tend to recommend people look at Canon, specifically for a used 800d due to its ability to use the entire EF lens lneup, unlike the Nikons whose lack of an in body AF motor precludes you from using the majority of affordable f mount lenses.

I would recommend you go for a used 800d instead, the body is much more capable compared to earlier generations and well worth the additional cost.

Slight note, the camera was plagues with shutter issues I believe and there had been recalls on it. Regardless, I've seen many people use them reliably since, even though its an older camera, if you don't need it for video, its excellent. Just keep that in mind and do your research before buying.

The market is certainly moving there, but you still have to value the value proposition at this particular point in time and right now, dslrs offer better value in absolute terms for most usecases, and will continue to do so for some time. The mount size is irrelevant, whatever savings you make in the body you will have to compensate for in the lens. The fact that you can make a new mount and thus make a greater diameter, allowing for more innovative lens designs is true, so is the need for a smaller flange distance, but for existing focal lenghts, to make an equivalent lens you will end up with something similar, and a smaller body isn't necessarily better all the time. The fact that the recipient is 12 years old is not an issue, a d3300 is right about the same size and weight as my xt2 kit, and that's before I put anything outrageous on there. The difference is negligible. Size and weight is not and has never been the issue with mirrorless, it shouldn't be the be all and end all when making a camera purchasing decision. Yes some designs can end up that way, but most of the same compromises are being made in technology, or there are significant tradeoffs, like ergonomics and battery life. Mirrorless is not the answer to everyone for everything.

Because its well known for high iso performance and high dynamic range, there are many available for a cheap price in the used market and it has an AF motor which allows you to use older f mount af glass to its full potential and there's a bunch of stuff out there for that purpose. Its also much more reliable, durable and much more comfortable to use than any Sony out there. I don't have a specific lens in mind that would certainly fit your budget, its just something you could go for in the future even, but something like the 105mm f/2 or that sort of thing.

Used d750 with a used tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC or better yet, a combination of a used wideangle and a fast d series prime.

Dude, whether the camera has a mirror in it or not is completely and utterly inconsequential, and honestly, dlsrs like the 1300d etc are very small and light as it is and are much better value than most mirrorless cameras. Even if you ant to buy used, there's still dslrs that are a better value proposition than mirrorless cameras, there's absolutely no need to always go for one. The 4000d will probably do fine, the issue is that a very small increase in budget or going for something used or refurbished will give inproportionately higher return if that makes any sense to you. I like the idea of an entry level Canon for most people because of the EF mount mostly, which is a great place to start because there's tones of stuff for it out there that's at great price points and a huge used market. If your friend can find a 750d or 200d on a good offer, which might be possible since its possible stores will give discounts on them, since the 800d was released.

Don't forget the 24-105mm, a great all round lens. I have the EF version 1 and its a great compromise for general everyday stuff. Plus the 35mm f/1.8 is also a great swiss army knife lens, and one the EF system is lacking, not to mention the added macro functionality. In short all lenses in the rf system are great in one way or another and the system has a lot of potential. If only they could have released them in an rf mount and kept develping dslrs, I don't really like mirrorless systems myself, other than the fuji and that only because its extremely capable for the cost, and even then I'd much rather have my 5d. That camera is simply sublime, all of them are, regardless of the extreme criticism of the mk4. I have long said, if it had 1 more fps, a better, faster card to get a somehwat deeper buffer and 6 more mps without an AA filter, it would be the perfect camera.