What is the best camera under 1000

[radical guild]

This camera needs to have a lens with It I am looking at the LUMIX G7

[PIlllIE]

What are you using the camera for?

What lenses do you need?

Do you have lighting, audio, and other equipment?

[ShadowCaptain]

15 hours ago, radical guild said:

This camera needs to have a lens with It I am looking at the LUMIX G7

 

need more info than "best camera"

 

For video? stills? sports? landscape? like what are you doing, whats it for

Are you wanting MFT? APSC? Mirrorless? Camcorder? i dunno we need info

[cc143]

4 hours ago, ShadowCaptain said:

 

need more info than "best camera"

 

For video? stills? sports? landscape? like what are you doing, whats it for

Are you wanting MFT? APSC? Mirrorless? Camcorder? i dunno we need info

That +, do you have aparticular reason why you wouldn't like a compact system/mirrorless or dslr or is any form factor ok? 

 

Do you have any camera equipment we should know about? (Lenses, Flashes, mics etc, memory cards?)

[AkiraDaarkst]

22 hours ago, radical guild said:

This camera needs to have a lens with It I am looking at the LUMIX G7

Wouldn't this kind of include every single camera on the market?

[radical guild]

7 hours ago, ShadowCaptain said:

 

need more info than "best camera"

 

For video? stills? sports? landscape? like what are you doing, whats it for

Are you wanting MFT? APSC? Mirrorless? Camcorder? i dunno we need info

I will be doing stills and video and I want a DSLR like camera

[AkiraDaarkst]

15 minutes ago, radical guild said:

I will be doing stills and video 

Every person who buys or wants to buy a camera has at least one of these two as their reason, one of their reasons.

[thekillergazebo]

Sony a6300

[cc143]

29 minutes ago, thekillergazebo said:

Sony a6300

That's way more expensive than the G7. 

 

The G7 seems solid enough, there are cameras out there which have more resolution at a similar price point like the a6000, which is however older. There are also some used a7's in amazon (UK) I have found for £700, although those must be body only options. 

 

If you want to look at DSLRs the Canon 700D would be a good bet at a similar price, it should come with the 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 STM kit lens, which is an ok lens to start with. It doesn't take 4k video like the G7, but I'm not sure that's necessary to be honest. I personally tend to favour DSLR over mirrorless for ergonomics, battery and robustness, although many mirrorless cameras have undeniable qualities, also keep in mind that if you start adapting lenses etc. the size advantage of a mirrorless system diminishes. 

 

The G7 seems to be better for video than the 700D or a6000 due to its 4k capability, however, not all 4k is the same just as the 16mp sensor in this is not the same as the one in your phone, when stills are taken into consideration, the 700D takes it, with the a6000 being a bit behind in my view, unless you want a mirrorless system. 

 

Also note that EF lenses tend to offer a better value proposition and are also vastly available in the used market. 

[xQubeZx]

You don't have to spend all money on the camera but keep in mind you can get a body with a kit lens and then one additional lens. Either a wide angle, a telephoto or a say a 50mm 1.8 prime. 

[ShadowCaptain]

12 hours ago, cc143 said:

SNIP

yeah G7 is great for its 4k video but let down by MFT sensor, poor low light, cheap plastic body, and its stills performance is meh

 

the A6000 is much better in this regard and takes good video but only at 1080p

 

But as usual, it depends on OPs budget, needs and wants

[xQubeZx]

4 hours ago, ShadowCaptain said:

yeah G7 is great for its 4k video but let down by MFT sensor, poor low light, cheap plastic body, and its stills performance is meh

 

the A6000 is much better in this regard and takes good video but only at 1080p

 

But as usual, it depends on OPs budget, needs and wants

I would agree. He could get a A6000 and a good lens for a grand. But really it depends on OP's preferance and how he plans to use it. Most people won't need 4K but it can be nice to have.

[cc143]

3 hours ago, xQubeZx said:

I would agree. He could get a A6000 and a good lens for a grand. But really it depends on OP's preferance and how he plans to use it. Most people won't need 4K but it can be nice to have.

OP can certainly get the a6000 with the sony kit 16-50mm f3.5-5.6 lens (for half the 1000 specified!), which (the lens) however is in my opinion trash. I would spend the money on a metabones adapter, if they are going to be going with sony all the way. 

 

The issue here is we don't know how seasoned a photographer/videographer OP is. If they know they will be investing in camera equipment and need potential to grow over time, then perhaps the best bet would be getting a nifty fifty and 24-105 f4.0L IS, which is supposed to be good for video and a great all around lens. As far as the body, I would pick up a used 60/70D or even 650/700D, something cheap that can record 1080p basically. 

 

If on the other hand OP is just starting out, a camera+ lens bundle, such as the a6000+ kit lens or the 700D + kit lens I believe would be preferrable. 

 

I would go with the Canon because, well it could be because of brand loyalty (i.e. being a fanboy), but also because, most people end up adapting canon lenses for Sony or m4/3 cameras anyway, so by investing in the canon system, if OP likes it, they can keep investing in glass, without having to shift their entire glass collection if they decide to swap systems. If on the other hand OP finds out they are not that much into it, they can resell (with a lower loss than buying another 3 lenses and adapter), or even keep the camera for occasional use, incurring relatively low sunk costs, especially for a used 700d+EF-S 18-55.

 

If they like it, they can grow their lens collection to a desireable level, relatively inexpensively (in comparison to other camera systems), and buy a metabones adapter down the line, or hopefully something that had even better performance for cheaper. If not, they can always just stick with Canon bodies, I have and they are not that bad. 

[ShadowCaptain]

15 hours ago, cc143 said:

SNIP

The MAIN reason people use adapted lenses is that most pros were nikon/canon shooters since Sony were not very competitive until only recently so they already have like £10k worth of glass 

Sony have a very good line up of E and FE glass now, enough that you really dont need to bother adapting, and even have their own cheaper options like the new budget FE 50 and 28mm primes, and as for E mount there are tones of options - plus Sigma, Samyang and others are starting more and more to make E mount lenses

[cc143]

1 minute ago, ShadowCaptain said:

The MAIN reason people use adapted lenses is that most pros were nikon/canon shooters since Sony were not very competitive until only recently so they already have like £10k worth of glass 

Sony have a very good line up of E and FE glass now, enough that you really dont need to bother adapting, and even have their own cheaper options like the new budget FE 50 and 28mm primes, and as for E mount there are tones of options - plus Sigma, Samyang and others are starting more and more to make E mount lenses

I have seen that Sony have been expanding their glass collection, and can understand the predicament pros are in. 

 

However, for someone like me its much worse, prices for sony lenses are ridiculously high in comparison to canon and canon have the added benefit of being available at large in the used market which saves you even more, I got my 17-40mm for £300 instead of a price north of £500 new. 

 

For example, this is the sony 24-70 in amazon, going for £1629 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-SEL2470GM-24-Frame-Master/dp/B01BUAVMQY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1475136419&sr=8-1&keywords=sony+24-70mm+f2.8

 

and here is the equivalent canon L lens https://www.amazon.co.uk/24-70mm-2-8L-USM-Zoom-Lens/dp/B0076FS09A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1475136471&sr=8-1&keywords=canon+24-70mm+f2.8l+ii+usm its more than £200 less

 

and it can be had used from anywhere like £900

 https://uk.webuy.com/product.php?sku=SCMACANEF2470M01#.V-zMCfArKUk

 

I guess what I'm saying is that if you can take the performance hit that comes with adapting, which most people can, it might be worth it to buy into the canon system in the first place and then change your body to a sony if it comes down to it. At the end of the day, the EF mount has been with us for 30 years and is probably here to stay for a bit longer, you never know, canon will probably release a great camera sometime in the next decade;Ρ 

[ShadowCaptain]

8 minutes ago, cc143 said:

I have seen that Sony have been expanding their glass collection, and can understand the predicament pros are in. 

 

However, for someone like me its much worse, prices for sony lenses are ridiculously high in comparison to canon and canon have the added benefit of being available at large in the used market which saves you even more, I got my 17-40mm for £300 instead of a price north of £500 new. 

 

For example, this is the sony 24-70 in amazon, going for £1629 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-SEL2470GM-24-Frame-Master/dp/B01BUAVMQY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1475136419&sr=8-1&keywords=sony+24-70mm+f2.8

 

and here is the equivalent canon L lens https://www.amazon.co.uk/24-70mm-2-8L-USM-Zoom-Lens/dp/B0076FS09A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1475136471&sr=8-1&keywords=canon+24-70mm+f2.8l+ii+usm its more than £200 less

 

and it can be had used from anywhere like £900

 https://uk.webuy.com/product.php?sku=SCMACANEF2470M01#.V-zMCfArKUk

 

I guess what I'm saying is that if you can take the performance hit that comes with adapting, which most people can, it might be worth it to buy into the canon system in the first place and then change your body to a sony if it comes down to it. At the end of the day, the EF mount has been with us for 30 years and is probably here to stay for a bit longer, you never know, canon will probably release a great camera sometime in the next decade;Ρ 

 

Well you could also adapt to A mount, I got my Tamron 27-75 F2.8 for about £280 , since you can use the entire history of Minolta lenses too

I got my 50 f1.8 and 70-200 F4 for £100 combined on ebay

 

They work 100% with the adapters, no wondering about compatibility with metabones

but I agree EF lenses can be a smart option too, but E mount especially on the ASPC side is WAY cheaper than the FE stuff  and there are some nice options

[thekillergazebo]

Plus with Sony apsc camera you can use speed boosters which can make a big difference. My friend got a 70-200 f4 from cannon used a speed booster and you get the look of an f2.8

[thekillergazebo]

Price is a big deal when looking at lenses buy the quality of the lens is also a. It factor. The cheaper canon and Nikon stuff is well cheap. Sony does cost a bit more and they don't offer as many lenses, but all the lenses I have gotten are fantastic and for the price, they out proform the canon or Nikon equivalent. That is not to say it is better then canon L glass. That's like made from baby tears or something 

[cc143]

2 hours ago, thekillergazebo said:

Price is a big deal when looking at lenses buy the quality of the lens is also a. It factor. The cheaper canon and Nikon stuff is well cheap. Sony does cost a bit more and they don't offer as many lenses, but all the lenses I have gotten are fantastic and for the price, they out proform the canon or Nikon equivalent. That is not to say it is better then canon L glass. That's like made from baby tears or something 

I am not comparing unequivalent lenses, I am comparing L lenses to their Sony equivalents and have found that sony's lenses are indeed anywhere from 10-30% more expensive depending on the lens, and when talking about £1,500 lenses a 30% increase puts it at £2000! that is a significant difference by any standard, and unless the lens is so much better, which it isn't then its plainly not a good value proposition.

 

And of course we are talking about new lenses, I haven't been able to buy anything new as far as camera equipment is concerned for close to the past 10 years. If you consider that you can pick up a used Canon L lens at a price 25% less than retail, while with sony you have to buy the new one at the full retail price, Canon makes a lot more sense for people on a budget. And even if you are not on a budget, used should always be an important consideration, for example a new 5d3 would cost approximately the same with a used 5d3+ 24-105L, that is a significant value proposition if you are willing to incur the risk that used purchases entail. 

 

Also, I was under the impression that a speedbooster would have the opposite effect from what you specified above, which I guess is what my physics knowledge also can make sense of, however I do accept I might be wrong about that. 

 

Btw, I assumed OP was speaking about $1000, so I'm not sure if this applies or something equivalent can be found in the US, but this is a Jessops link for a sony a7+28-70mm lens at £999 http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/Compact System Cameras/products/Sony/Alpha a7 Compact System Camera 28-70mm Lens-89678/Show.html