Decent camera for an amateur photographer

[ShadowCaptain]

Argement is tho, mirrorless IS the better camera for MOST people nowadays

 

Hence my A7

[TroubleKlef]

I suggest against getting a mirrorless camera if you're on a budget.

 

Their lens selection is sparse compared to Nikon and Canon (both first party and third party) and you won't find very many budget lenses either. If you are just going to shoot photos, I suggest getting a Nikon as they have the best combination of value, picture quality, and lens selection. 

[Ex14]

I suggest against getting a mirrorless camera if you're on a budget.

 

Their lens selection is sparse compared to Nikon and Canon (both first party and third party) and you won't find very many budget lenses either. If you are just going to shoot photos, I suggest getting a Nikon as they have the best combination of value, picture quality, and lens selection. 

Not true. While lens selection IS sparse, you can still probably get a mirrorless with a kit lens, which is more than enough for beginners, for a pretty decent price. Here is an Amazon listing a Sony a5000 with a kit for less than 400 dollars brand new,  You can even add a 50 prime (OOS currently) or a 55-200 for abit more. Admittedly though you don;t want that 55-200, the prime would be a better choice  And here is a B&H listing for more included accessories for the same price.

 

[TroubleKlef]

Not true. While lens selection IS sparse, you can still probably get a mirrorless with a kit lens, which is more than enough for beginners, for a pretty decent price. Here is an Amazon listing a Sony a5000 with a kit for less than 400 dollars brand new,  You can even add a 50 prime (OOS currently) or a 55-200 for abit more. Admittedly though you don;t want that 55-200, the prime would be a better choice  And here is a B&H listing for more included accessories for the same price.

 

 

Who wants a kit lens when you can get cheap primes.

[Ex14]

Who wants a kit lens when you can get cheap primes.

a starting photographer thats who. While we're more technically inclined in photography, not everyone is really gearing towards what we do for fun, most just wants to take pictures with their camera.

Even if they DO want to learn and grow, one might argue a kit lens would serve them well as well, what it doesn;t limit them in (versitility) it limits them in others (amount of light, depth of field/bokeh) etctec

If you're gonna state cheap primes, I could also say mirrorless cameras have an additional benefit, the ability to adapt MOST lenses due to their shorter flange distance so That lens collection/cheap lenses argument? well yea. Not to mention there are SOME adapters that allow autofocus with canon lenses so yea.

[TroubleKlef]

a starting photographer thats who. While we're more technically inclined in photography, not everyone is really gearing towards what we do for fun, most just wants to take pictures with their camera.

Even if they DO want to learn and grow, one might argue a kit lens would serve them well as well, what it doesn;t limit them in (versitility) it limits them in others (amount of light, depth of field/bokeh) etctec

If you're gonna state cheap primes, I could also say mirrorless cameras have an additional benefit, the ability to adapt MOST lenses due to their shorter flange distance so That lens collection/cheap lenses argument? well yea. Not to mention there are SOME adapters that allow autofocus with canon lenses so yea.

 

 

Yes, cause what a budding photographer needs is the headache of adapting legacy lenses. Those adapters that allow autofocus are quite slow and can retail for $600 for a good one.

 

If the OP wants to just shoot for "fun" get a point and shoot. They're fantastic these days. However, the OP has made it quite clear he wants to invest in several lenses. Besides, I'm not arguing that he shouldn't use a kit lens, but if the OP is on a budget and would still like to get other lenses, Canon and Nikon are optimal.

[Ex14]

Yes, cause what a budding photographer needs is the headache of adapting legacy lenses. Those adapters that allow autofocus are quite slow and can retail for $600 for a good one.

 

If the OP wants to just shoot for "fun" get a point and shoot. They're fantastic these days. However, the OP has made it quite clear he wants to invest in several lenses. Besides, I'm not arguing that he shouldn't use a kit lens, but if the OP is on a budget and would still like to get other lenses, Canon and Nikon are optimal.

Tbh there is no trouble with adapting lenses nor headache. Just probably manual focusing which many mirroless have Peaking to counter this. I give you that about the autofocus adapter. Even a contax G autofocus adapter for the Sony NEX cost about 100-300 dollars. But mainly this point was brought up because someone cited a lack of lenses for mirroless, which is not exactly true.

OP wants to invest in lesns yea. which is why mirrorless. he gets the flexibility on changable lenses , but a size and weight closer to compact and superzoom. 

I ahve seen beginners drop photography after a while after lugging a DSLR and later on stop using it altogether. If the intent is to keep a person interested. I feel Mirrorless might be better in the long run, esp for the OP's case, even if equivalent lenses might cost a premium.