cc143

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Both EF and EF-S lenses will work on your camera, the difference is, EF-S lenses are made with the crop factor into account, giving a FF equivalent focal length that is more manageable (multiply focal length by 1.6).
 
Don't bother with a tele yet, buy an 18-55mm or if you want to spend a bit more for more quality a used tamron or sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 or even a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 if you are willing to spend more for better quality. 

Both EF and EF-S lenses will work on your camera, the difference is, EF-S lenses are made with the crop factor into account, giving a FF equivalent focal length that is more manageable (multiply focal length by 1.6).
 
Don't bother with a tele yet, buy an 18-55mm or if you want to spend a bit more for more quality a used tamron or sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 or even a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 if you are willing to spend more for better quality. 

Both EF and EF-S lenses will work on your camera, the difference is, EF-S lenses are made with the crop factor into account, giving a FF equivalent focal length that is more manageable (multiply focal length by 1.6).
 
Don't bother with a tele yet, buy an 18-55mm or if you want to spend a bit more for more quality a used tamron or sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 or even a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 if you are willing to spend more for better quality. 

Look for a used Canon 800d or whatever its called over there and an EF-S 18-55mm (usually come as a kit.). 
 
Very capable little camera, does everything you will need, light, durable, batteries last forever, and you get access to the most used lens mount on any system, leaving you countless options down the line. 

Consider the Canon EOS RP, which is Canon's low end budget full frame mirrorless camera. Can be had for $1,299 USD body only, and includes the the EF to RF mount adapter, so you can adapt existing Canon lenses to it.

I am a bit displeased with the 6d2's AF system, its always been a matter of contention with the 6d tbh, but, they fitted the admittedly excellent for APS-C 45 AF point system on it, which makes a very poor coverage for a FF sensor. 
 
I would really consider going for an eos r vs the 6d2, since the price can't be that much off used, I've found loads of bundles on ebay with the RF 24-105mm for under £2000 for some time now. The rp might also be a choice, although I hate they didn't go with the LP6N battery making its battery life suck and me having to buy new batteries. 
 
Now none of them are there yet, I think there's stuff they need to fix, but if you can save up for a while and buy an r instead, I think it would be worth it for a multitude of reasons, you'll get 4k, even at an APS-C equivalent sensor using the crop, but I imagine you have EF-S lenses for that, the AF system is great, you get a higher resolution sensor and I think newer processor and RF, EF and EF-S compatibility. 

As I said earlier, you are going to more than pay for that price differential in the body when buying the glass. The Sonys just strated getting cheaper glass from tamron and sigma, and there's so much older EF glass out there, nevermind the actual current L glass that sells at a 40-50% discount in the used market because so many idiots believe the DSLR is dead and are buying into Sony instead. The truth is, DSLRs are still very capable, and in some instances you would see very little actual difference adapting the EF or F mount glass to Canon or Nikon mirrorless cameras once they become more competitive in a couple of generations time.
 
If not, if you buy the lenses used anyway, your loss when selling them will be much less anyway and you can keep them until you can justify or can finance a proper kit from another manufacturer, whether that is Sony or anyone else in the future. I mean, prices are already very low, you can't lose more than 10-20% on them when you sell. 

Its technically not, it has 45 AF points, its just that on a crop sensor they take up more of the frame, which is often just as important.

I've shot 3-4hour concerts with a 70-200mm f/2.8 and I can't say I felt it a lot, because the grip is so comfortable, I prefer using it over long periods vs my xt2 if I'm not hanging it around my shoulder or neck, when I am the weight advantage of the xt2 is indeed apparent. The xt2 is much more comfortable to travel with as well, coupled with a 23mm f/2 and 50mm f/2 its possibly the best travel camera around. Trust me, the Canon's grip is sublime, it fits into my hands perfectly, every button etc. is exactly where it should be, I don't need to take my eye off the VF any more at all. Coupled with a 24-105mm the weight distribution is just perfect and because its more substantial its much more comfortable with heavier glass. 
 
Well, sure the body will be, but the majority of the cost is in glass, and with the rf system now out, the ef glass in the used market is a hell of a great deal. The a7 was always cheap used, The original was available for around £500 for quite some time and the a7ii isn't really that much more, but you can get a 5d for £250 more than that? I got mine for £1100 3 years ago with all original accessories, in pristine condition with about 3K clicks (must have been used more for video though). The overall cost to get equivalent sony glass will more than cover the differential in body prices. 
 
The silent option on the Canon is as quiet as it can get. I'm not sure if the a7ii has an electronic shutter at all, and if it does how it performs with banding etc. to be honest, but I always hated the sound of Sony shutters, they always sound broken to me, while Canon Nikon and even fuji sound much smoother. Sure, a dslr can't shoot completely silently, but the silent shutter does improve a lot and in a noisy environment, like a busy street, subjects don't even notice. 
 
I don't know about the EVF, most people swear by them, I have been lucky enough to use one of the best in the industry at the time with the xt2 and still prefer my old trusty OVF over that, but then again, I'm set in my ways since the days of film and I use liveview to shoot most of my landscape shots anyway. I don't have the issue with exposure, I'm used to using my lightmeter anyway, but I would like to have a level or peaking overlay, but still, prefer the OVF overall, again, I am in the minority in that regard though. The a7ii is not semi pro even, a FF sensor doesn't make a camera professional, the surrounding ecosystem, reliability, ergonomics, redundancy, battery life, weather sealing, all of those things do and in those areas, the 5d3 isn't semi pro, its full on professional. The range has been the camera of choice for a while now and there's a reason for that. Then again, I don't see why an enthusiast or amateur necessarily need all of these, or even why a pro can't shoot professionally with what is technically classed as a non pro camera. Camera technology is pretty good these days, you most certainly can do it. 
 
Depending on where you live you can try rental services, but these are old bodies, its quite unlikely you'd find them available for rental and it would cost. I can see many reasons personally why the a7ii might be infuriating to use, there are some for the 5d3, but the a7ii did appear to me to be much more of a pain, while the Canon...I'll say this, I have had my xt2 for a while and love using it. The sensor difference aside, because it really doesn't matter that much, I find the 5d3 much more conducinve to better results than the xt2, I don't know why, I can't justify it, but I like the results more and have a much better hit rate  with the Canon.

The Sony system is more expensive all things considered. As far as bodies are concerned, I was in kind of the same boat as you 3 years ago when my previous cameras shutter failed and I wanted a new one, so I thought why not go FF. 
 
I tested out both, I ended up going with the 5d3, the a7ii has some better specs, like IBIS, a slight resolution advantage, DR etc. But the 5d3 is mch more reliable and ergonomics are amazing VS the a7ii being pretty much horrendous. The battery life was also a major point for me and the added beenfit of 2 card slots. Also, adpated lenses barely worked on that sensor, the a7rii is the one where they finally got it somewhat right. 
 
All in all, I'd have gone with the 5d3 again. Its an amazing camera, it does everything I need and more. There's often stuff I want, like more resolution, more fps, a deeper buffer, a touchscreen, wifi etc. but its not like I'd get all that with the a7ii either, but shor of moving to a 5d4 and compromising even then...its a great camera it will serve you well.  

So is a 6d with a small prime or even some smaller zooms, there's many you can find that are quite good, certainly better than the Sony 28-70mm, dirt cheap and much more reliable. The size advantage of the a7 is really oversppreciated. By the time you put most lenses on there, the camera is as bulky as a typical dslr, only you dont need to carry 14 batteries for it and the AF acctually works. 

Can you share some pictures? there might be other reasons for that, often something will look much better on camera vs real life. Also, are you looking at raw files or jpg? Can you describe the problem a bit? is the image unshap? are the colours off? 

I'd say don't bother with a camera for $300, in most cases your smartphone will do as good if not better a job than whatever you might find. 
 
Now, there's stuff thats cheap, like the panasonic g7, which could potentially be had for $300 used and is quite good for video purposes, but again, for that sort of budget...

I'd say don't bother with a camera for $300, in most cases your smartphone will do as good if not better a job than whatever you might find. 
 
Now, there's stuff thats cheap, like the panasonic g7, which could potentially be had for $300 used and is quite good for video purposes, but again, for that sort of budget...

I'd say don't bother with a camera for $300, in most cases your smartphone will do as good if not better a job than whatever you might find. 
 
Now, there's stuff thats cheap, like the panasonic g7, which could potentially be had for $300 used and is quite good for video purposes, but again, for that sort of budget...

Depending on what it is it should be fine in mild conditions. Prolonged exposure might damage it, but that is true of a weather sealed dslr as well. Finally, not all weather sealing is equal. I mean the sony a7 series are said to be weather sealed but protection is worse than dslrs like the 6d which are not advertised as so. At the same time, the 1dx or d5 class of camera is definitely more "weather sealed" than say a 5d series camera because its more likely to be in adverse conditions (Theoretically). 
 
Finally, even on weather sealed cameras, there's procedures you want to follow in mist or fog or if you are exposing it to extreme temperature fluctuations. 

Fuji x-t3,/x-h1 Panasonic gh5, 
 
I'd go with the fuji due to the reportedly useable AF in video, although I'm not entirely sure what it entails. Better glass options than the Sonys as well in the fuji system. 
 

https://www.red.com/DSMC2-DRAGON-X-Camera-Kit