>>108263261
Yeah. I want a decent video camera. I'm going to get a cannon r50 v.

>>108263274
It overheats and has no optical image stabilisation.

>>108263261
Yes, a decent dedicated camera blows any phone camera out of the water.
Just make sure you understand how to use it, if you want to get the best out of it. Modern phones like to shove in all sorts of automatic adjustments/postprocessing to try and make up for retards who know nothing about using it, and a proper camera will usually leave most of it to the (hopefully actually competent) user instead.

>>108263261
yes i recommend an older point and shoot like a canon powershot ca 2012

>>108263261
I have one and i can't be bothered to take it anywhere because my phone is good enough 99% of the time.
My phone can't do macro, 200mm zoom or highly detailed shots though so I still bust out the camera from time to time.

>>108263310
It has no body stabilization. You just need to use a cannon is lens for stabilization

>>108263261
You don't NEED a Sony alpha and 7 different lenses either, nor will you ever use that shit either as it's too bulky (and expensive) to slop around. A halfway modern pocket compact is still gonna be x times better than your phone. And you might actually use that.

>>108263261
If pictures from your phone look bad, a camera won't help you. If you can take good pictures with your phone, a camera will help you take great photos.

Last year I grabbed an a6500 and took some pictures with it
It's alright but don't go too far with this shit. You may end up becoming a gearfaggot and spending too much on trivial shit. Best practice decent photos with your phone first. Or buy one of those old ass used cheap janky Nikon/Canon big ass cameras and practice with that. Don't worry about stupid bullshit like "mirrorless vs DSLR" or "open gate" or "higher megapixels" or fucking "brand colors" "kit lenses vs prime lenses" or "recipes", never ever get into that sort of stuff ever.

>>108263261
No. AI replaces cameras. Just use AI to create the photographs you want when you need them. Don't waste your time doing things AI can do better and faster.

>>108263261
Proper cameras from 2006 still take better pictures than phones

cameras are incredibly behind in terms of durability, very few are IP rated and none can handle even mild drops. You cannot just have a good camera, lug it around and forget about it, you gotta really baby it if it's not in your hands
only high end cameras are better than iphone in terms of picture quality
the only cameras advantage are lenses that allow good non-software zoom and good macro

>>108263559
The alpha is tiny, how is that hard to carry around?

>>108263261
Yes, if only because of optical zoom
Both phone and cheap cameras will look bad at low light, unless you get something with a 1-1/2 inch sensor. But on the camera you can at least manually fiddle with the ISO and focus settings. In general, a used camcorder for a couple hundred bucks will give you better video quality a phone could, and they even come with stabilisation built in ca 2015.
Phone cameras are decent at taking 4K photos though, if you have good lighting

File: tiny.png (140 KB)

140 KB PNG

>>108263965
which model is 'tiny' then?
picrel is old, but point remains, theres a fair range of weights there before you even start with lenses etc. I have one I don't use - at all -for exactly this reason, YMMV.

>>108263340
It took me weeks to learn how to use my old DSLR.

Also keep in mind they are only as good as the lens you have. The standard lens they come with have optical zoom but they suck at making photos. A 50mm fixed focus lens costs like $30 (pennies when it comes to camera lens) and makes WAY THE FUCK better photos, especially in limited light, but can't do optical zoom.

There are lens that can do optical zoom AND do well in limited light, but they are stupid fucking expensive. On Canon they are marked with a red circle, I think. Or was it gold, I forgot. I may be confusing it with the marker they use for ultrasound motor.

>>108264497
>It took me weeks to learn how to use my old DSLR.
Just use automatic mode
>The standard lens they come with have optical zoom but they suck at making photos.
It’s still much better than a phone

File: 1kd9fb.jpg (847.4 KB)

847.4 KB JPG

>>108263261
I can think of a few people that absolutely should be using one instead of a phone.

>>108263964
Nikon has catered to professionals for so many decades that your post is simply not true and you don't seem to know anything about photography either.

>>108264914
thank you for making my point
>professionals
i.e. the "people" that specifically focus on photography and have their camera either in their hands or stuffed far away in the padded bag.
compared even with something like binoculars which are also bulky occasionally used lenses, almost all cameras are fragile pieces of shit
>Nikon
zero cameras with IP rating

>>108265053
>zero cameras with IP rating
this nigga is too stupid to either modify his equipment or just shoot from a plastic bag

>BBBUT PICTURE BAD FROM PLASTIC BAG
modify the paper bag and escape from crossing fate

>>108265061
you sound like an abused woman
no IP rating === company never truly gave a shit about day to day sturdiness for normal people (not "professionals") === cameras are fragile pieces of shit
you can apply best effort to nigger rig some padding and water protection, but it will never be as good as any modern smartphone

>>108263261
Only, and I mean ONLY if you're going to use it regularly - that is, you're sure you'll keep using it long after the novelty factor wears out.
t. owner of a camera that collects dust most of the time

>>108263447
Lens stabilization is not that great also having both is even better. In other words no inbody stabilization is a no buy.

>>108263261
>>>/p/

>>108263261
>niggle me this question answer to which only i can know
kys retard.

>>108263261
What do you want to do with these pictures?
Put them on facebook?
Your phone is fine then.

>>108263261
A dslr from 20 years ago beats any phone camera. Make sure you get one with a strong optical zoom though, don't let anyone convince you otherwise. Also best to get one that can do video.

Unless you climb Mt. Everest to take pictures of sunrise or something, don't bother.

>>108264546
>>108264546
>Just use automatic mode
Automatic mode was not adequate for my needs. I had to learn how to get proper lightning, create custom white balance, learn how the perspective changes with the zoom level, and find the right balance of shutter speed, lightning, and sharpness. It's usually a triangle where moving in one direction makes the other two worse, unless you learn how to compensate, if you want to get good enough quality images. Learning all that took me a bit of time.
However I was creating very specific studio stuff, not taking general photos outside. Still it was very interesting to learn how exactly do cameras work.

>It’s still much better than a phone
Agreed.

>>108265614
>Make sure you get one with a strong optical zoom though, don't let anyone convince you otherwise.

Yes and no. The default lens they include with DSLRs and MILCs are zoomable but pretty garbage outside of anything but optimal light conditions. Even the cheapest fixed focus lenses will outdo them. I know this for a fact because I tried both lens.
However you can also buy high-end lenses that can do zoom AND be as light sensitive as prime lenses. It's just that those are significantly more expensive. Like $1-2000 or so depending on type.

If you are an amateur learning how to use a digital camera, try getting a cheap fixed focus lens next to whatever zoom lense the camera comes with in a kit. Test it out in bad light situations, learn how it works. Once you understand the difference and know how to exploit the prime lens, then decide if you want to get more serious or not.

File: IMG_82832.jpg (2.3 MB)

2.3 MB JPG

>>108263261
I'm of the opinion that the best camera is the camera you always have with you = your phone.
I regularly switch between my Canon EOS 7D (photos on the left side) and my Pixel 9 Pro XL (photos on the right side).
And honestly with some patience and settings it's not too far off.

File: R0000752.jpg (3.7 MB)

3.7 MB JPG

Get a Ricoh GR camera and use the snap distance priority mode. The built-in "recipes" have really good film simulation.

>>108263261
Yes if you actualyl go out and take pictures. No if you take pictures of the sky or plants and shit

>>108263764
>Best practice decent photos with your phone first.
Problem is that it's impossible to take good photos with a phone

File: 20171206_185053.jpg (137 KB)

137 KB JPG

Yes

>>108263801
this

>>108263261
>Is it worth it to get a camera in 2026?
only if its older than 2015

>>108263261
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyBQ6NXBTPY

>>108263764
>"mirrorless vs DSLR"
There are actually pretty big differences in practical use, and DSLR has been phased out by manufacturers almost completely.
>"kit lenses vs prime lenses"
Choosing a lens that's appropriate for the kind of photography you want to do is extremely important. A kit lens will let you learn the ropes and can be good enough for some stuff, but it won't give you long reach (long focal length), or great low light performance and shallow depth of field (wide aperture). Which are exactly the things that set apart a camera from a phone.

>>108266475
>However you can also buy high-end lenses that can do zoom AND be as light sensitive as prime lenses. It's just that those are significantly more expensive
They're also significantly heavier, which can be a PITA. Though, when compared to multiple primes, it's not so bad.

>>108264210
They're all under 1kg.. carrying 500g is nothing. Just use some light lens, the full frame is worth it. I'm biased because I used to carry large format cameras though.

>>108263261
Phones can't even compete when doing telephoto shots

>>108263261
you can shoot open gate on phones and it can look better than a camera without all the processing
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.motioncam
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/moment-pro-camera-ii/id6748837351

Here's how you make better photos with a phone: use a glasses cleaner cloth (a microfiber cloth) to clean off the lens.

You are welcome.

>>108266539
I like the camera pics more

File: 1757313036462519.jpg (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB JPG

Reminder that film will always be better

>>108267012
You can learn a lot of the basics (like composition) with your phone, even if you have a very narrow set of focal lengths (maybe even just 1) to choose from and you have to fiddle with it to remove the AI overprocessing

>>108267577
The idea here is to have the beginner learn the ropes first then consider if he wants to make a huge fucking investment on it. If the beginner camera setup costs more than a midrange smartphone we're having a problem here.

>>108263261
always, more glass and bigger sensor
you'll get reality instead of ai generated stuff.

>>108263965
can you fit it in your pocket?

File: DSC00286.jpg (808.2 KB)

808.2 KB JPG

I've got a Sony RX100 VII and having 200mm of zoom in such a tiny body is just real fukken neato.
I'm not actually very good at taking photos though.

>>108268853
>AI, remove grey transit van in front of the lens

File: DSC00286P.jpg (781.3 KB)

781.3 KB JPG

>>108268875
it's okay I fixed it

File: DSC01819.jpg (2.4 MB)

2.4 MB JPG

There's not only a monetary investment but also time when picking up a dedicated camera, especially if you try to save by getting older bodies.
At a glance my A6300 produces less pleasing photos than my phone. It's pretty much a must to process every photo manually (especially since the built-in denoise is horrible). This takes a lot of time though so over the years I use it less and less.

My phone cannot do shots like these though.

>>108263261
ever since i got a wfh job i also decided i have to start going outside to no go insane hiking,camping and going to large social events like protests and sport games then i also decided i need a camera to capture all of this and bought a old nikon d80.
Its been fun ngl,took some great pics with it.
I dont even use or carry my smartphone with me.

File: IMG_2109-1.jpg (2.7 MB)

2.7 MB JPG

By summer last year I borrowed a cheap rebel T7 and started practicing with it. Sometimes it's fun, but I don't think the amount of time and money I spent after switching to a sony mirrorless camera is justifiable and I find a lot of what I do comes down to editing rather than taking a good fucking picture.

>>108263261
I got the chimera and it's cool af except the videos glitch out when I try to play them on my PC but I blame Wondows for that.

>>108263261
Here are a few reasons to get a dedicated camera if you already have a smartphone.
- you want direct physical controls
- you want zoom range
- you want a view finder for composition
- you want to get high quality photos in dark environments

>>108265424
If you can't afford a gimbal for moving video shots sure.

>>108265424
lens stabilization is better for telephoto, in-body is better for wide angle.

>>108263964
It is really impressive how everything in this post is wrong

>>108267012
>it's impossible to take good photos with a phone
Wrong. A good photographer has no problems using a phone.
Just like a shit photographer will get shitty photos with a $50k camera.

In fact, it's much harder to get good photos with a proper camera. Phones do 90% of the work for you. A real camera puts all of that work on you. I learned that the hard way.
Borrowed a Nikon D850 with some lenses for a few months a couple years ago for my vacation. Every single picture I took turned out like dogshit because I had no clue other than the basic settings and that's not enough.

>>108270512
There's stuff a phone just can't do physically, like small and far away objects, low light or shallow depth of field. Doesn't matter how great of a photographer you are, these limitations don't go away and put restrictions on the kind of photos you can take. One of the major reasons to get a camera is having a use case where these limitations actually matter.
>Nikon D850
Any modern mirrorless will be much easier to get started with, though there's still a steep learning curve.

>>108270512
>A real camera puts all of that work on you.
This is only half true. Cameras have automatic modes that do all the work for you, same as smartphones. Of course if you want to get most of a camera, you'll have to learn how to use it. But they all have point-n-shoot modes.

File: sony.zv-1.jpg (133 KB)

133 KB JPG

>>108263261
yeah, my meta is trash $150 chinkphones and a simple camera when I need something better (mainly on vacations)

>>108270844
People act like it's hard but unless you're doing pro action photography stuff all you have to do is
>set aperture more since DoF control is by far the most creative aspect of your shot
>experiment with the ISO settings, find the highest that still gives you a tolerable amount of noise, set the auto max ISO to that
>experiment with the slowest shutter speed you can handhold without blurring, set the auto min shutter speed to that
>learn how your camera's autofocus works and set it to back button activation
wa la

>>108263559
>A halfway modern pocket compact is still gonna be x times better than your phone.
the reality is that it's gonna be 1.1x better than your phone at best

File: 1766858557872915.png (442.2 KB)

442.2 KB PNG

*makes your phone as good as most cameras*

>>108270995
This is mostly on point, though focus and metering modes are also important no matter how much you can fuck around with RAW editing.
Also cameras will have their quirks with the settings that might frustrate beginners if they rely too much on automatic shit (for instance, some sony cameras will not really respect limits set to Auto ISO + minimum shutter speed, or you'll have stupid stuff like ISO being reported differently depending on what gamma profile you're using). And don't get me started on exposure compensation.

Why is Canon unable to keep their G7 X III in stock?
It's just a camera and it's the year 2026.

>>108268227
Only after anon told you which were which.

>>108267117
Good goy

>>108263559
Not true. A halfway modern pocket compact will cost the same as a phone and produce photos which are barely any better than a phone. On a small phone screen which everyone is used to, you won't even be able to tell the difference.

That's why this shit is not for casuals, if you actually want to burn money on a camera, you need to have reasonable expectations

>>108268816
Yes, but I have big pockets. If you've got those tiny pockets they put in women's clothes then no.

>>108263559
I walk a round with a big fat fucking medium frame film camera and a loaded .38 eat shit you retard. You are a weak little coward.

no, my phone (iphone) is far superior to my dslr

>>108263559
Why the fuck would you care about this?
Oh no someone on the street might see me with a camera, what will they think. God they might even ask me to take a picture of them with their phone, what will I do.
Just grab a small fucking bag and keep one lens in, the one you want to use today. These cameras are not heavy. Chink $200 lenses are definitely not heavy. You can take that shit, use a fucking wiimote strap if you want, and do handheld shooting with one fucking hand in a park while you use the other to service yourself. A phone is actually more fucking annoying because you don't have the perfect placement for the fucking index finger to shoot. You do it like a retard with the thumb instead.

why does the moon look like a crumb on 100% smartphone photos?

what's the difficulty? it's 2026 let me photograph the damn moon

File: Screenshot from 2026-03-02 08-01-09.png (705.8 KB)

705.8 KB PNG

can anyone recommend a CORDER of the CAM variety?
>good low light performance
>optical zoom of at least 20x
>1080p
>ideally with an integrated light, if that's a even thing

>>108275376
100% of*

>>108263261
only if you are interested in photography beyond a vague sense of wanting your pics to get better, but yeah the difference in quality is massive even nowadays

>>108275386
pervert

File: 1763562661555693.jpg (61.4 KB)

61.4 KB JPG

>>108275365
>A phone is actually more fucking annoying because you don't have the perfect placement for the fucking index finger to shoot. You do it like a retard with the thumb instead.
I remember there were some nice cameraphones like cybershots with dedicated shutter buttons.

>>108275376
Because phones don't typically have lenses capable of significant optical zoom.

>>108269777
I just want the ability to turn off all the shitty upscaling, filtering and forced HDR. Anytime anyone hands me an iPhone to take a picture with I want to kill myself.

>>108275668
I mean you could grab one of these brand new Xiaomi 17 ultras with the fucking $100 (or $200?) accessory that has all the cool fucking buttons and dials.
But I'm not spending $1500 on a phone that might be better than a few select cameras

>>108275690
everytime i see people use one of those elaborate mounting rigs with modular extras and just an iPhone as the centre-piece i want to commit a minecraft

>>108275668
>dedicated shutter buttons.
Even iphones have those now

>>108263261

I've never had a camera. I don't make money from photos and I never will. How retarded is it to buy Panasonic Lumix DC-S5II once it drops in price (the Kit 20-60 mm + 50 mm f1.8 usually goes down to around 1500 euro in Germany)?

>>108276605
Buy used and make sure you get something people actually want so you can resell it once you get bored of it.

>>108276752

In my country the used market is so fucked up that they are trying to sell their cameras for max -10% of what they paid for, which ironically is higher than the price I could get by ordering from Germany.
So the next question is: Panasonic Lumix DC-S5II - is this one actually desirable and would someone be willing to buy it from me if I get bored with it?

>>108263261
>Is it worth it to get a camera in 2026?
No. Prices for cameras have skyrocketed, thanks to dumb TikTok thoughts.
>Pictures from my phone look bad.
Skill issue. Unless you're making money from photography, your phone's camera is fine. Learn how to use it.

>>108275278
Do you have comparison shots

>>108275687
Halide process zero
https://www.lux.camera/introducing-process-zero-for-iphone/

>>108276855
okay, now give me something similar for Android.

File: 1744300637234058.jpg (23.7 KB)

23.7 KB JPG

>>108276925
I don't use android, so I don't know

>>108276855
>yeah before i take that snap of you and your missus lemme just sign you up for this subscription app real quick

>>108277002
There's a one time purchase option cheaper than any good lens, and this should be your default camera app on iPhone anyways

>>108277013
>your
>iPhone
lmao

>>108263261
use your phone until you know what you want
modern phones take good enough photos

learning composition rules will yield better photos
> I already know the rules
break them

>>108263261
yes

>>108276848
not without doxing myself
just make sure you get a camera app that can bypass the image processing pipeline and does raws

>>108277013
i got procam completely for free

It's always worth having a real camera over a cell phone. You're kind of screwed if you try to get anything other than a DSLR these days though.
Camcorders are pretty much dead, markets flooded with scams that are just dashcams/webcams/cheapo P&S photo cameras assembled into a fake camcorder body. The few actually legit models left from sony, jvc, panasonic, etc. are expensive as balls, whether they're old out-of-manufacturing models or the handful of new ones out there. Sony in particular all but killed the handycam segment in favor of prosumer video cameras that cost thousands.
Mirrorless cameras are expensive as shit too. DSLRs aren't cheap, but at least you can find them used, in great condition, for a discount.

>>108266475
Why are you shilling fixed focus this hard? That's the kind of lens shitty webcams use. The entire point of a proper camera is ability to do real shit like adjust focus.

What's the minimum I'm expected to pay for a decent camera if buying new?
Taking nature pictures would be a nice hobby.

>>108277971
one, you are confusing zoom and focus. fixed zoom lens can adjust focus just fine, they just can't adjust zoom so you have to move closer or further away if you want one part of the picture to be larger, or for more of the surroundings visible.

two, if you take two lens of the same cost, the prime lens will have far better f-stop values and be able to capture far more lightning than the zoom lens. Which means that it will be able to use either faster shutter speed for less motion blur, or close the aperture more to create a wider depth of field if so desired, or simply not end up with a blurry dark mess when taking images with limited lightning (for ex. at night). In return you can't use zoom. It's a trade off and both lens have their own utility.

You can get lens that can do all of that with less trade offs, but they cost orders of magnitude more due to being more mechanically complex and also much heavier. for ex. my Canon 50mm f/1.8 will beat the tar out of the 18-55mm zoom kit lens, and it costs almost half. A 24-70mm f/2.8 would beat both of those into the absolute ground except maybe in ultra low light scenarios, but it also costs 20x as much.

>The entire point of a proper camera is ability to do real shit like adjust focus.
And to have full control over the shutter speed (exposure time), iso setting, white balance, lens aperture, have a manual focus ring and zoom ring, and to have higher settings for all of those that phones simply can't do on account of having a tiny bitch lens and sensor. And changing the lens means you can go from fisheye wide shots to insect macro photos to sports telephoto pics all in the same day, good luck doing that on a phone.

>>108263261
no the world is ugly now

>>108278429
That's cool and all, but I'm referring to (You) talking about fixed focus lenses. You explicitly refer to them as "fixed focus lenses".

>>108278526
Probably because I self learned photography 10 years ago and haven't used it since and made a mistake. I was thinking of prime lens vs zoom lens. Sorry.

File: 1242508829052.jpg (51.9 KB)

51.9 KB JPG

>>108263261
Of course.
The microscopic sensor in a phone won't compete with a Canon G7 or T6.

File: 704x704x2.jpg (92.7 KB)

92.7 KB JPG

for me it's the pentax mx

File: 1765807666798508.png (63.2 KB)

63.2 KB PNG

>>108278726
>The microscopic sensor in a phone won't compete with a Canon G7
smartest anime poster

>>108279255
So what, you're posting a bunch of phone cameras that are shitty? Amazing argument.

File: 1750745666946417.png (16.3 KB)

16.3 KB PNG

>>108279712
holy brainlet. which is larger 1" or 1/1.8"?

File: 1744322469960362.png (17 KB)

17 KB PNG

>>108279712
And even if you meant the G7xIII, that still only has the same sensor size as every one of those smartphones in the previous table.

>>108279948
>>108279958
>comparing cell phones against 7-20 year old cameras
>the cell phones are still shit and reliant entirely on algorithmic processing and low resolution social media shares to mask how trash they are

DSLR > Mirrorless
You know I'm right

>>108280056
DSLR is a cope abomination that should never have existed
Designers just wanted to reuse their film camera design (that actually needs the reflex mechanism unlike digital sensors) while display tech caught up

>>108280106
Meanwhile, mirrorless cameras have zero battery life and the world's shittiest displays that don't really let you see what you actually took until you plug your SD into a computer

>>108263261
10+ year old compact mirrorless cameras are superior to phones

>>108278358
If you have to buy new then you theoretically get something for around 500 Euro. In this case Amazon offers the Canon R100 + RF-S 18-45mm lens. You might want something like a 35mm 1.8 lens for better depth of field or performance when its darker though. You can get something better if you get something used, but in theory for around 500,- you can get something new thats doable.

>>108280720
But how do I actually take good pictures

>>108280403
me with an olympus m43 agrees on this

>>108264210
Even the heaviest camera on that chart is not that heavy. What do you do when you need to carry a laptop? Does your phone sit too heavy in your pocket for you?

>>108279978
NTA but those phones generally produce really good results considering the limitations they're working with. Personally I like the processing on my X90 Pro+, though RAWs do tend to look better and more like something from a halfway decent p&s aside from the 12MP. I'll always take a p&s over a phone but a phone with hardware like that won't exactly take shit pictures.

For me, it's Fujifilm X-E cameras