DSLR Cameras

I love photography and video, and want to get into it more. I've taken lots of photo and video with my phone (lol) but I wanna get into using a real camera.

I have a few questions, short on time so I thought I'd ask what you guys think:

>In 2018, is a $600< DSLR camera noticeably better than a Galaxy S9? Is it really worth investing in the first place?
>What would you recommend for less than $600? I'm looking for something that is good at both video and stills

Thank u Jow Forumsoys

Attached: 10416668.jpg (500x500, 45K)

Other urls found in this thread:

dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-cameras-under-500
dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-cameras-under-1000
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

there's a board for this

get a mirrorless or a digital
You will end up using it more than you would a dslr because of the size

Sorry bro,I'm from summer. Thx for info

Like other user said, /p/ is a (marginally) better place to ask. Keep in mind most of them are autistic and terrible for equipment advice, just like asking the mechanical keyboard general what you should get for your first mechanical keyboard; they're going to tell you to get something way over your budget with features you don't need and really wouldn't want.

That said.

>In 2018, is a $600< DSLR camera noticeably better than a Galaxy S9? Is it really worth investing in the first place?
A DSLR from within the past 8 years will be orders of magnitude better than any phone, period. Whether it's worth investing is totally up to you - is this just a passing interest or have you been taking photos/video consistently for a long time? How much does $600 matter to you? etc

>What would you recommend for less than $600? I'm looking for something that is good at both video and stills
I'd recommend going with a Canon, and this is coming from someone who makes his living with a Nikon D3300. One of Canon's entry level DSLRs, I think they're called the Rebel series, is what I'd recommend.

The main reason for Canon instead of Nikon is that Nikon has a bunch of very kike-ish practices of stripping their entry, mid-level, and even their semi-pro cameras of niche but important features, for no reason other than to stratify their products.

Other than that, read and watch reviews. A lot of reviews, from a lot of different sources. Keep in mind that most people are retarded and will recommend you buy something that isn't actually good (if they're making money from it) or something that doesn't fit your needs (if they're """hobbyists""" or """prosumers""" or some other autistic zealot in their field). That's why lots of different opinions are a very good thing.

>In 2018, is a $600< DSLR camera noticeably better than a Galaxy S9?
If you are asking that question, it's pretty clear you have no idea what a DSLR is.

panasonic G7, outperforms its price as a 4k mirrorless, many cheap lenses too.

You'll need to learn how to use a camera to get the most out of it, start with the book Understanding Exposure. The best part of owning a proper DSLR/mirrorless system is that you have complete and total control over your photos, if you can be bothered to learn and practice how to shoot.

For

No, stay out of /p/, lurk the gear thread

>A DSLR from within the past 8 years will be orders of magnitude better than any phone, period.

Can confirm. I have a Nikon D3100 from 2011 that was $500 and phone cameras are almost starting to rival it in quality and megapixels.

OP If you really want to get into photography it's worth it. Seeing as how you weren't certain if a camera phone is equivalent to a camera itself of the same price I'd think it's something you're not familiar with and might be rushing the process. If you're in school you can probably check out a DSLR for free on a daily basis or maybe rent them somewhere else for a $10/day fee, or take a community college class at $150 ish.

I really do like my camera but with the ease of just pulling out a phone and taking a picture I found myself more and more reluctant to take the camera with me for small trips over the years. in 2011 there was an out of this world difference in quality over camera phones, with phones being quite poor. Today there still is a huge huge difference but most people are perfectly happy with a phone picture.

>You'll need to learn how to use a camera to get the most out of it
This. Install OpenCamera, enable camera2 APIs and start making photos while changing iso and shutter speed. It's fun.

i asked a similar question before in a private group.. new cellphone or dslr?
the response i got, if I was to get into photography, don't get a fancy camera with bells and whistles.. get a basic dslr. D3k series, T3i or something in that range WITHOUT the lens, just the body.. then instead of buying subpar included lenz, actually spend the money on getting a fixed focal length lens. At that point, you have enough functionality in the camera to play and learn and experiment and a decent specific use lens that will always be better than a mediocre multiuse lens.

Attached: 1532198560763.jpg (1565x1565, 477K)

> Asking if a sensor 10 times bigger is better

Attached: allsensors.jpg (620x508, 38K)

Go mirrorless with a Sony A6000. It will be the better option every time and here's why: lens choice.

My first ever camera was a pawn store bought Cannon XS with a kit lens and some crazy 70-210mm zoom lens or something. Using it and messing around with it was most of the fun. I watched a few youtube videos on the basics of photography: aperture, ISO, shutter speed. From there I took hundreds of pictures of mundane shit and messed with those settings until I had some idea of what they did. i.e shutter speed makes it darker, also lighter and sometimes blurry(that's what I could figure out without actually reading about the actual effects of shutter speed).

Even with the basic kit lens, it was way beyond what a smartphone of the time could do and it was released in 2008 rivaling 2014 smartphones. The key to a camera is the lens. Even super basic sensor with very nice lenses can take better pictures than a great sensor with a shit lens(which is kind of what you'll get with a smartphone). And with a Sony A6000, you can use all of the Sony branded lenses and also a bunch of legacy prime lenses.

The prime lenses will honestly be the best bang for your buck. Go for the ones with no auto focus, the manual lenses. The good brands are Minolta, Canon, Nikon(basically the big camera manufacturers except Minolta which got absorbed into Sony). You can get fast lenses very cheap as long as you're willing to learn how to focus them yourself. But with Focus Peaking with Sony cameras, it's ezpz.

pic related when I was into flowers

Attached: DSC04043-1.jpg (6000x4000, 3.34M)

Dont get a single dial dslr especially if you are a beginner and if you want many fixed lenses get a cheap aps-c or full frame mirrorless camera because its going to be a lot cheaper to use chink or vintage lenses with adapters. Also only having one dial wont be an issue because the aperture control is going to be on lens.

Attached: radioactive 50mm.jpg (1026x800, 108K)

>Today there still is a huge huge difference but most people are perfectly happy with a phone picture.
Guy you replied to here, and that is an important thing to note.

Modern phones, especially flagships, do take really good photos for the average person. You'll never be able to match what a full size sensor and lens can do (you can't beat physics) but for *most* people an S9 or an iPhone 8 will take as good of pictures as they need and want.

So before you drop $500+ on a DSLR, consider if you actually care about being able to control exposure to an autistic level of detail, or creating extremely shallow or wide depth of field. If you don't know what you're doing with a DSLR and just shoot on auto, your photos are gonna look about the same as what you can take on your S9.

almost everything take decent pictures as long you dont pixel peep if you do then everything aside 8x10 film is going to be shit.

That picture screams hipster.

I mean it's a macro shot. I was just excited I could get the middle actually in focus while crouching on a hot ass summer day with the wind blowing.

I can do better macro shots with my chink phone

Attached: IMG_20180716_070200-1728x2304.jpg (1728x2304, 531K)

Yeah with autofocus it's easy. Any moron can wait for it to focus. I was using manual focus with pic related.

Attached: Minolta_MC_Macro_Rokkor-X_50mm_f3.5_lens.jpg (2500x1875, 1.87M)

>Can confirm. I have a Nikon D3100 from 2011 that was $500 and phone cameras are almost starting to rival it in quality and megapixels.
You are a fucking retard who doesn't know how to use their own camera. Megapixels is not the same thing as quality. If you can't figure out how to get better quality with a DSLR despite having full control over the aperture and a wide variety of lens types, then you are literally retarded.

it's not perfectly in focus, you're not even good. and the fact that it's black and white makes you even more retarded

Learn how to do focus stacking. Your macro photography will instantly become 10x better. You'll need a tripod if you don't have one.

>I like to make life harder for myself and call others moron just so I seem the superior fotografer

I'm not him, but looking at it objectively, I don't think the focus is wrong. He could choose to close up the aperture and get the whole thing more in focus, but then it wouldn't be as sharp and the background would also come more into focus, which isn't usually desirable in macro shots. Focus stacking is the way to handle that, which requires taking 2 or more photos and then digitally combining them (kind of like HDR, but for focus instead of exposure).

>Implying

>You'll need a tripod
you people are fucking retarded

>he's never heard of focus stacking
And you are calling other people retarded?

the guy said right in his fucking post he took it while squatting or some shit. obviously you can get better shots with a tripod, captain obvious, but not everyone wants to carry one around

>>he's never heard of focus stacking
where did you get that, mongoloid?

>you people are fucking retarded
You can still do focus stacking without a tripod, you just lose some of the photo when the software aligns your shots.

Man you're blind. It was shot wide open so obviously it's going to be a bit hazy.
I'll definitely give focus stacking a try. I have a monopod that barely gets any use, but I do need a quality tripod. Thanks for the info.
Well it's apples to oranges though. An autofocusing smartphone compared to a manual lens mirrorless camera. Which seems easier?

>Using racial slurs

Since I'm on here anyway. I have a canon 550D. What is my next reasonable upgrade?

budget? Also whet lenses do you currently have?

There's an entire board for it.
Tip from a bigger-except-a-bit-further-down-the-line, the strength of 'real' cameras aren't that they are straight up 'better' than phone cameras, it's the fact you have much more control over various settings, from ISO, shutter speed and aperture to the specific lens you use, if you're not going to sit down and learn how to use it you're just going to end up using the auto mode, which would make your DSLR no more than an expensive point-and-shoot, and as a point-and-shoot your phone gets the job done just fine.
If we want to throw analogies in there 'real' cameras are a bit like linux where as point and shoots are like windows, if you don't know what you're doing and don't care they're basically the same shit, the strength of Linux comes from the fact you can make it your own and change things to your liking.
So if you're one of those people who like to fiddle with settings until shit's just right, you might enjoy using 'real' cameras.
If you are willing to commit to learning how the camera works (which in all honesty is not that difficult) than an entry level DSLR would look better than any point and shoot, and especially phone cameras (assuming, of course, you don't fuck up).

I recommend you go and look up the exposure triangle, good luck user.

Attached: d3400.jpg (2000x2000, 302K)

>>In 2018, is a $600< DSLR camera noticeably better than a Galaxy S9? Is it really worth investing in the first place?
are you a dumbdumb?
DSLRs will always be better than phone cameras unless someone builds a phone into a DSLR and visa versa, so unless they stop producing DSLRs or you're able to change the laws of physics, it's not going to be comparable unless you only do instagram photography.
-posted from my d7100

Attached: 1486498330440.jpg (800x800, 392K)

dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-cameras-under-500
dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-cameras-under-1000
I would recommend Cucknon 200D. Dual Pixel autofocus is fantastic for video or liveview mode stills, it have same sensor as 80D and there is touch screen with tutorial mode that help you transition from smartphone to proper camera.
It comes with decent kit lenses (18-55mm STM) and you can add 55-250 IS STM later on for a breddy decent and relatively inexpensive setup.
But it have only 9 af points, so it's not that suitable for action or sport shooting (or you can use liveview mode).

>guys from 1940's dreamed about autofocusing cameras with great lenses so they could concentrate on the making photos instead of worrying about technical aspects or lose precious moment to focus right
>guys from 2010's grabbing vintage manual focusing lenses and put b&w filters left and right
Such is life. Not that i'm judging, it's part of the fun of the modern photography. Everyone can do whatever they like.

he's just a poorfag if he wanted to pretend to be superior he spend 15k on a leica rangefinder and a f1 lens.

Doesn't those lenses have shitton of CA? Don't ask me because I've just read about it, never owned them myself.
But I think what OP is looking for is a mirrorless since he wants to do some video as well and mirrorless are just better for that, not to mention that transitioning from a phone to a mirrorless is infinitely easier than to a DSLR, also digital viewfinder is a lot easier.
Also OP, don't fucking buy anything with a flipout scren, they break very easily and are expensive to get replaced.

not him but cheaper lenses do that, nothing that imported RAW into PS can't fix though.
a tiny bit of CA occurs when using my 18-140mm nikon lens but it's non-existent unless I do mountain photography zoomed in and even then I don't bother patching it up.

Bump because i have a 550d too.
I have a 18-55 and a sigma 20mm f1.4 (i like shooting landscapes).

>550d
you have that expensive lens with that body?
if you're willing to spend a lot go for a full frame canon