xQubeZx

A friend of me thought he could put a i7 4770K in a pretty cheap motherboard with a am3+ socket..had to explain real slow that he need to get a new motherboard with a socket for the i7, it till a white befor he got it

It all depends on what you shoot

The Sigma 16mm f/1.4 is perfect for this too if you got an aps-c sensor. The 24mm equivilent is a little on the narrow side but you still get very good results imo, especielly if you stitch together a few shots. I’d also think the Samyang 12mm f/2 to be a good option too. 

It should be okay, of course not perfect but it will work. However using proxys could be an idea if it feels to slow to edit 4k and then just export in 4k. 

I'm not crazy about either of those options, especially if those prices are in USD. The 5D mkIII is a fantastic camera (I shot with one for many years), but the sensor is really lagging behind these days. The A7rII has amazing image quality, but it definitely has some usability quirks and you'll want really good glass if you're going to be using such a high resolution sensor.

5DmkIII
Pros:
-solid and rugged build (I put mine through hell and it always kept up)
-better autofocus
-two card slots
-fantastic battery life
 
Cons:
-very outdated sensor
-no IBIS
-no EVF
-no articulating screen
-bigger and heavier
-very limited video features
 
A7rII
Pros:
-fantastic sensor
-IBIS
-EVF
-tilty screen
-smaller/lighter
-better video features
 
Cons:
-not as ruggedly built
-autofocus is meh, but far from great
-single card slot
-battery life not great
-no joystick to select autofocus point
 

Again, at those prices, I don't think you're getting that great a deal. I think if you're looking in that price range, I'd check out a Sony A7III w/ 28-70mm kit lens ($2200 USD new). Here's why:
-24MP sensor will do much better in low light than the A7rII
 
-24MP sensor means you don't have to put super expensive glass in front of it to get good image quality (the higher the sensor's resolution, the better optics are needed as tiny flaws show up that wouldn't otherwise be apparent in lower resolution sensors)
 
-sensor will blow the 5DmkIII out of the water (The 5DmkIII's dynamic range is pretty limited and I was always having to use graduated ND filters to balance exposures. I shoot with an A7rIII now, which has similar dynamic range to the A7rII, and I don't blow my highlights any more and am more able to recover shadows)
 
-autofocus is WAY better than either the A7rII or the 5DmkIII

-Z-type battery is WAY better than the A7rII's battery, but not as good as the 5DkIII's battery

-all the usual Sony benefits like EVF, eye tracking, IBIS, smaller, lighter, etc
 

I'm not really following you on the value of the 5D4 or 6D2 at this point, even with price drops since release. Save for Video, I'd say the D750 is still better value and capabilities than the 6D2 save for DPAF live view focusing), and I think the 5D4 is rather over priced for what it offers. Out of all the DSLRs out there, the D750 offers the best value for money for stills, imho, while still being an excellent camera in and of itself. (price is also going to vary a lot from country to country)

I agree with radmanhs; D750 with two nice pieces of glass to go with it. A Tamron 15-30mm 2.8 VC (I had this lens and it was really nice when I shot Canon. Great for landscapes and architectural) and a Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC G2 (covers most other situations. Slap a x2 teleconverter on it and you got yourself a decent wildlife lens, too) would be a pretty rocking combo that would cover most situations.

The a6000 is pretty good still. The replacement a6300 and a6500 are of course better but they increased the price quite a bit with these with the a6300 going new for 800$ now when the prices have dropped a bit. The a6500 goes for over 1000$ new. 

The a6000 is pretty good still. The replacement a6300 and a6500 are of course better but they increased the price quite a bit with these with the a6300 going new for 800$ now when the prices have dropped a bit. The a6500 goes for over 1000$ new. 

I don’t know what you will be doing but the RX100vi is plenty of camera for most people. However persnally I preffer a changable lens system as that gives you the option to play with speciality lenses and legacy glass which can be fun. But for 1500$ you will maybe get a camera that does most of what you asked for, but then youd have no money left for any lens. 

The Sony a6000 is defentivly better than the other options by a fair bit. Especially if you get a better lens for it down the road. 

You can not get all that for under 1500$. You can also not achive that zoom range and low aparture with just one lens. You would need several. 
 
A Sony RX100vi is probably the one that fits most of what you want. Otherwise a Panasonic GH5 or Sony A6500 or Fuji XT2 is what I would get with 2-3 lenses. 

Use your phone. You won’t get any decent camera for 100$, maybe used but thats a big maybe. So use your phone or assign a larger budget. (If you see any camera for less than 100$ its most likley worse than your phone which would mean buying it is a waste of money) 

Thought about renting a DJI ronin or something like that instead of buying a gimbal of your own? 300 is quite low for a gimbal at the moment sadly and if you are only going to use it a few times maybe renting one may be a smarter option as you can get a high end model. 

If that is the budget its not really worth buying a new laptop tbh. Just a waste of money at that point as the performance gain will be insignificant most likley. If he does Ps work proffesionally he should save up a budget to get something good. 

If size is not an issue the Sigma ART is what I would get. Good performance for a very fair price. If size is more important but you want a shallow dof the Sony Distagon it is. If you need a really small and compact walk around lens and shallow dof is not as important then get the Samyang. 
 
Thats basically how I would go about it. Think about how you will use it and then it will be a lot easier to decide. 

I skimmed the topic, but got the jist of it, if you havent gone ahead yet, I would say rent a Macro and wide angle lens, even if it is at the cost of a lower resolution or inferior camera. The Macro will allow you to take much more detailed shots, but you will need a wider angle for some of them anyway. 
 
Also, and I know this might prove difficult, but a tripod will help you a lot and so will proper lighting. Shoot in RAW and try some test shots to determine colour temperature etc. 
 
Now there's some pretty technical stuff in there, so my suggestion if you are not familiar with photography, lighting and editing it would be wise to use your budget to get a kid from photography school or a friend or someone else to do the work for you. It will be much easier for them and they will get better results than you if you are not familiar with the process. 

If you want super high quality images rent the A7r ii and a nice lens with it. I’d probably get the 16-35, 24-70 or a fast prime lens. 
 
If you don’t need high res files the 6D is a good option. Really any of these cameras would be good and proper lightning will help a ton for the images. But a fullframe camera like the A7r ii with 30+ megapixels will give really cripsy and detailed images you can crop in a lot on for example. I mean, if you are renting and they are somewhat similar in price then why not get something really good. 

Dont get an adapter not worth it if you need a ”first” lens. The Sony FE28 f/2 is great and if you want to spend a bit more the Sigma ART series is amazing. The 24, 35 or 20mm are all great options from the ART series that now exists on native E mount for 600-700US each. These are slightly larger though. 
 
The Zeiss 35 f/2.8 is a good option. A budget option is the Samyang 35 f/2.8 Both are small. 

The t6i is what I would get. A bit more advanced and easier to grow with. It also takes Canons EF lenses which you can always find for a good deal on the used market. 

A used Sony A6300 can most likley be found for 600US if you are lucky. Just saw one with a 50mm f/1.8 and an L-plate for 750US so. Other than that I don’t know what would compete really. 

I’d do as said above, shoot with a modern camera and add all the film looks in post. Way easier to control the look that way. 

What do you shoot? Better glass is probably worth it more. If you really need a second body the D500 is a nobrainer to match the D810. Longer reach for sports and wildlife and killer AF. 

It might got some more points to it, i totally forgot that i probably has better battery. But still, in my mind there is very little that would push someone to get the SL2 over a X100 if we are looking at both specs and handeling. I don’t know if you tried one of the really low end cameras on Nikon or Canons side and I hate the way the handle. They lack so many controlls and basic software settings that are found in the cheaper mirrorless. They also feel very cheapish built with a lot of plastic. I think the fuji overcomes most these flaws. I have however not held it in my hand so i cant know for sure it feels better of course.

I’d personally get the Fuji without even thinking. In my mind a much better choice and their design really caters to the people buying the cheaper camera models. The wannabe instagram travel photographers. Who wants an ugly low tier plastic dslr when you can get a beautifully crafted compact hipster fuji that is great as a prop in photos? That is how people debating between these two cameras will think. 
 
The SL2 really got nothing going for them except the EF mount. The optical viewfinder is not even worth as a plus as it is so small and low quality compared to the modern and what it looks like, large EVF. 

Adobe Lightroom for mobile works really well. On ios its almost as capable as the desktop version. Of course not as fast but defentivly nice to use on the go.