New DSLR/Mirrorless

[PB3]

I need a new camera. I'd like to get the lens and camera for under $1,000, but I'm willing to push it a little bit if needed. I'd prefer to get either a Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, or Sony. Can someone help me out? Thanks.

[vanished]

DSLRs and mirrorless are quite different, each has a distinct set of pros and cons... it seems you don't know or care which you get yet though so perhaps we should go through that first:

Mirrorless tend to be lighter, smaller, can offer faster shutter speeds (but it's electronic so you would get rolling shutter), they always show you what your'e looking at through the screen, like a phone or point & shoot, but because of this they use batteries a lot faster.  They also tend not to focus as quickly or reliably, or track moving objects well, but because it's contrast based, you don't need to fine tune them like with a DSLR.

[PB3]

2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

DSLRs and mirrorless are quite different, each has a distinct set of pros and cons... it seems you don't know or care which you get yet though so perhaps we should go through that first:

Mirrorless tend to be lighter, smaller, can offer faster shutter speeds (but it's electronic so you would get rolling shutter), they always show you what your'e looking at through the screen, like a phone or point & shoot, but because of this they use batteries a lot faster.  They also tend not to focus as quickly or reliably, or track moving objects well, but because it's contrast based, you don't need to fine tune them like with a DSLR.

Yeah I'm no expert, I just want whichever is the best camera. Don't really care which is one is which.

[cc143]

We'd need some more info than that to make a viable recommendation, like is there a specific use of feature you need? What will it be used for, are you willing to look at used options, do you already have any other gear you'd like to keep using, would you need anything else to get what you need done. 

[vanished]

3 minutes ago, PB3 said:

Yeah I'm no expert, I just want whichever is the best camera. Don't really care which is one is which.

There is no "best", even within either category.  You need to decide what kind of shooting you'll be doing most.

[LienusLateTips]

5 minutes ago, PB3 said:

Yeah I'm no expert, I just want whichever is the best camera. Don't really care which is one is which.

We will need more info then that.

[PB3]

6 minutes ago, cc143 said:

We'd need some more info than that to make a viable recommendation, like is there a specific use of feature you need? What will it be used for, are you willing to look at used options, do you already have any other gear you'd like to keep using, would you need anything else to get what you need done. 

 

5 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

There is no "best", even within either category.  You need to decide what kind of shooting you'll be doing most.

 

3 minutes ago, JDE said:

We will need more info then that.

I'd like 4K video recording and very good low light picture. I don't currently have any gear. I'll potentially go used if it's a good seller.

[vanished]

2 minutes ago, PB3 said:

I'd like 4K video recording and very good low light picture. I don't currently have any gear. I'll potentially go used if it's a good seller.

Most still cameras are really specialized for that and aren't great video cameras.  If video is a priority you might want to look at the GH5, although it's not going to have anywhere near the same low light capabilities as a full frame or even APS-C camera.  Any of them would destroy a phone though.

 

How well it does in low light depends a lot on the size of the sensor, pictured below:

 

Most Canon or Nikon are APS-C as I said, or full frame.  the GH5 is "four thirds", and most phones are smaller than the smallest green square.

[cc143]

1 minute ago, PB3 said:

 

 

I'd like 4K video recording and very good low light picture. I don't currently have any gear. I'll potentially go used if it's a good seller.

I'm not sure that is possible with $1000, the obvious choice seems to be the a7sii, but I doubt you'd find that for that amount, new or used. 

 

Is the proper lighting of the scene not possible or not desireable in this case? 

 

As mentioned above though, your very good low light capability might be different from mine. 

[PB3]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Most still cameras are really specialized for that and aren't great video cameras.  If video is a priority you might want to look at the GH5, although it's not going to have anywhere near the same low light capabilities as a full frame or even APS-C camera.  Any of them would destroy a phone though.

That's only double my budget

[PB3]

Just now, cc143 said:

I'm not sure that is possible with $1000, the obvious choice seems to be the a7sii, but I doubt you'd find that for that amount, new or used. 

 

Is the proper lighting of the scene not possible or not desireable in this case? 

 

As mentioned above though, your very good low light capability might be different from mine. 

Good for the price. Doesn't need to be outstanding in general.

[LienusLateTips]

5 minutes ago, PB3 said:

 

 

I'd like 4K video recording and very good low light picture. I don't currently have any gear. I'll potentially go used if it's a good seller.

I don't think that's possible for $1000...

[vanished]

1 minute ago, PB3 said:

That's only double my budget

Oops, yeah missed that part

 

The GH4 that came before it also had a great reputation for video, and should be findable for used at a reasonable price by now.  It can do 4K but only up to 30 fps iirc

[cc143]

Just now, PB3 said:

Good for the price. Doesn't need to be outstanding in general.

the a6300 from sony, fuji x-t20 and panasonic g7 should all be within your budget. All offer 4k recording, although the x-t20 has a 15minute limit and the g7 is going to be better than either of them foe video, that said however, the sensor being smaller will mean worse low light performance. 

 

I would probably go for the a6300 in your position. 

[PB3]

1 minute ago, JDE said:

I don't think that's possible for $1000...

I've seen 4K. I can deal with not amazing low light quality, just cannot be a weakness.

[PB3]

2 minutes ago, cc143 said:

the a6300 from sony, fuji x-t20 and panasonic g7 should all be within your budget. All offer 4k recording, although the x-t20 has a 15minute limit and the g7 is going to be better than either of them foe video, that said however, the sensor being smaller will mean worse low light performance. 

 

I would probably go for the a6300 in your position. 

Thanks.

2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Oops, yeah missed that part

 

The GH4 that came before it also had a great reputation for video, and should be findable for used at a reasonable price by now.  It can do 4K but only up to 30 fps iirc

Is that better than an A6300? And also wouldn't lenses push the price even higher?

[vanished]

1 minute ago, PB3 said:

I've seen 4K. I can deal with not amazing low light quality, just cannot be a weakness.

Again, we don't have a gauge for how bad "low light" is to you.  If you take any video or still camera and shoot/film in sufficiently low light, the compensation it needs to do to get a usable image effectively drops the resolution, sometimes quite considerably.  If you don't have enough light to actually get the value out of 4K, it might not make sense to spend on that gear until you can help the lighting situation.

[vanished]

1 minute ago, PB3 said:

Thanks.

Is that better than an A6300? And also wouldn't lenses push the price even higher?

Yes, lenses will cost more, anywhere from $100 to many many thousands, depending what you want.  

I don't know how those stack up off hand but the sony line has a reputation for excellent low light performance.

[cc143]

Just now, PB3 said:

Thanks.

Is that better than an A6300? And also wouldn't lenses push the price even higher?

Its a better video camera, but I don't think its AF capability and low light performance are as good as on the a6300. 

 

That said, if you can light your scene properly and this is not some constraint like you are running and gunning shooting video at night (in which case you are screwed anyway), then you should consider spending the $200 on a proper lighting setup. 

 

Glass prices for both are pretty bad, the sony will probably have more expensive and less lens options, but you can adapt lenses from other systems to both with varying degrees of success. 

[vanished]

1 minute ago, cc143 said:

Glass prices for both are pretty bad, the sony will probably have more expensive and less lens options, but you can adapt lenses from other systems to both with varying degrees of success. 

This is very true.  Keep in mind that when doing video, you should generally have pretty much everything in manual - focus, exposure, etc. - unless you're in an unpredictable environment that calls for auto.  Lens adapters are generally bad for photography since you lost a ton of features like various auto things and communication between the camera and the lens for settings on each, but if you're setting it all by hand anyway shouldn't really matter.

[PB3]

From every thing I'm hearing, I'm leaning towards the Sony. Seems like a better all around camera. I'll check back one more time when it's closer to buying time.

[PB3]

Depends how much Christmas money I get, but what's the best general camera for video that I can get for $500? Again, it kind of all depends on what happens with working/Christmas money.

[cc143]

4 minutes ago, PB3 said:

Depends how much Christmas money I get, but what's the best general camera for video that I can get for $500? Again, it kind of all depends on what happens with working/Christmas money.

You won't be getting 4k for $500, hell, the $1000 4k options aren't really that great. 

[PB3]

Just now, cc143 said:

You won't be getting 4k for $500, hell, the $1000 4k options aren't really that great. 

Yeah I had that I wouldn't need 4K in my original post, but I refreshed and lost it. What's the best option in general at that range?

[AkiraDaarkst]

38 minutes ago, PB3 said:

What's the best option in general at that range?

For a beginner like you, a $500ish entry level camera with the basic kit lens.  Spend the rest of your budget on courses.