Camera suggestions

[DVA]

Hey guys! Short and sweet. $500-600 USD cap. I want great quality if possible and the ability to record. I think most current cameras can record 1080p in 60 frames which is fine by me. The 4k at 30fps probably wouldn't be used too often unless it's something important. 

I have seen a few cameras with 24MP capture, but I know sometimes the lens means a lot more than the camera itself. So... does anyone have a suggestion for a good camera?

Main uses will be family vacations as well as events such as concerts and comic con. So the ability to zoom in would be great. Being able to balance with low lighting would also be great. 

My phone takes great photos but it doesn't do the best job when it comes to zooming in, plus I hate when a picture looks great and you zoom in only to see pixels =/

 

I know very little about cameras so If you could provide information than that would be greatly appreciated!! Also, I have been seeing a lot of "mirrorless" cameras pop up, I have googled it but I still don't understand much of it, what is it?

[bowrilla]

500-600$ is unfortunately not that much if you're looking for a system with interchangable lenses and good video.

 

DSLR cameras have a mirror in front of the sensor that reflects the image that is being seen through the lens up to the viewfinder. That means you see exactly the same picture the sensor would see if you hit the button. When you hit it, the mirror flips up, the shutter opens (if there's a mechanical one) and the picture is being taken. During that time (fractions of a second) the viewfinder will be black. That's usually not a big issue but it can become one if your have a lot of moving objects or people in your picture - the moment could be a little off.

 

A mirrorless camera removes the mirror out of the equation. If they have a viewfinder then those are electronical viewfinder - that means there's a little display in the viewfinder that shows you the image the sensor sees in a lower resolution. The picture is limited to some extend by the resolution (most viewfinders have something between 2 and 3.5 megapixel). Those cameras tend to have higher power consumption since the sensor needs to be powered in order for you to see anything. On the other hand, those cameras can be A LOT slimmer and lighter.

 

The next thing is: Micro 4/3, APS-C or FF sensor. The difference is in the size of the sensor (they're ordered from small to big). Bigger sensors tend (but not necessarily) to have a little less noise at higher ISO settings (ISO is a term derived from film emulsion sensitivity - that was a standard; a sensor has usually a specific sensitivity, the rest is done through amplification and there are both analog and digital amplification at work, the analog is good, the digital is worse, but it's unfortunately not a linear curve/switch from analog to digital). A bigger sensor needs lenses with longer focal lengths to acchieve the same field of view, but to some extend it's possible to get the same look from smaller sensors if you choose your lenses wisely. The crop factor (that's the factor to compensate for the difference is sensor size) for APS-C compared to Full Format sensors is 1.5-1.6. That means in order to have the same field of view as a 50mm lens on a FF camera, you need to choose a 35mm (roughly) on an APS-C sensor. That lens needs to be faster (biger aperture, that's the relationship between opening and focal length of a lens, it determines the maximum amount of light a lens can capture) in order for it do acchieve the same or at least a comparable depth of field. Depth of field means the part of a picture that's actually in focus.

 

A full format camera is definitely not within your budget, not even used. Even higher end APS-C cameras are out of the question. The issue is: along with your camera body you'll need lenses and they tend to be expensive but you can keep them when you upgrade you camera body as long as you stick within the same compatible system. 

 

The only cameras I can think of that even remotely fit your budget would probably be the Panasonic G81 (micro four-thirds), the Fujifilm X-T100 (APS-C) and the Sony Alpha 6000 (APS-C). None of them is the particularly new with the Sony probably being the oldest (there's a Alpha 6400 now). Still, all of them will do a good job. The Panasonic comes with build in image stabilization, which will help you with doing videos. It's micro four-thirds though so if you'll ever want to step up to a bigger sensor, your lenses won't migrate with you. If you want to go for a classic DSLR then there's the Canon 250D (no idea if it's called the same in the US) or the Nikon D3500.

 

All of them can come in a bundle/kit with a starter lens that will get you started but you'll most likely will want to invest into more lenses over time.

 

I wouldn't go for a DSLR at this point anymore. Mirrorless systems are the future, Canon introduced a whole new lens bajonett for pro grade mirrorless cameras. Especially for concerts DSLRs can quickly become an issue if you're not officially accredited as a photographer. And a DSLR is also bigger and heavier. The best camera is of no use if it stays at home. 

 

I would pick the Fuji, it's the youngest of them all, the APS-C sensor is nice and the Fuji lens lineup is great. My second pick would be the Panasonic. If video is really important to you, this might even be your first pick. 

 

P.S.: buying used lenses is rarely a bad idea as long as they're not fully run down or somebody damaged the lens, a used mirrorless camera is usually also never a bad choice. Saves some money.

 

P.P.S.: Panasonic GX85 or G7 maybe ... both micro four-thirds as well. Used Panasonic G8 is also an option. Amazon.com has an offer for the Olympus OM-D E-M10 mk ii as well.

[cc143]

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.