>>4505251
If JK Imaging ltd. is in any way involved, don't bother.
Everyone else is more or less okay, depending on what qualities and features you value the most.

Get a (used) 90D for $900, or an R7 for ~$300 more if you want IBIS. Paying 40% extra for full frame is essentially pointless for a beginner.

At the end of the day, you can't go wrong with anything Canon makes in Japan/Taiwan. Their Malaysia/Thailand stuff is junk though, but that's OK because it sells for junk prices.

>>4505251
just use your phone. they take good pictures

>>4505253
I don't really want to start slow and upgrade several times. I want to just get something top tier immediately, I can't be bothered with wasting my time. It should be realistically sized etc. Not those cameras they take with them to photograph amazon wildlife from a canoe

>>4505254
Not good enough, especially garbage at low light

fuck you motherfucker i hate you

>>4505255
>I just want something top-tier immediately
You're in luck, digital photography technology was perfected a decade ago. This is why /p/ is constantly seething. Both the cameras I listed are professional-grade cameras and will do essentially whatever you want them to.

>>4505256
>>4505255
ok get a used a7s

>>4505257
>This is why /p/ is constantly seething.

what's their problem? they seem really bitter

File: 1765031782201372.jpg (38.4 KB)

38.4 KB JPG

>>4505256
turn the torch on

>>4505257
>>4505258
why are you telling me to get used products? do you feel superior to me?

>>4505259
because they spent thousands of dollars on dust collectors.
/k/ does something similar but at least they have the excuse that you can't shoot guns in public the way you can take photographs.

>>4505261
ok go to b&h and sort by price high to low

>>4505254
They really don't and you immediatly realize this when shooting with a camera for the first time.
You can't get the same image quality as a full frame or APS-C sensor with a smartphone-sized image sensor, it's physically impossible for many reasons. That's why the philosophy is to have a heavy post-process pipeline to try to compensate.

File: Screenshot From 2026-04-17 23-08-31.png (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB PNG

>>4505264
>They really don't and you immediatly realize this when shooting with a camera for the first time.

right, these pricks dont want us to have nice things, fucking motherfuckers

I sorted price descending in local e commerce and this seems kinda steep but maybe I should go for it

>>4505259
fuck you

>>4505266
I would love to kick your fucking ass, fucking nerd!

File: 1770079444085479.jpg (245.3 KB)

245.3 KB JPG

Stop being poor and just get the fujifilm gfx or whatever entry level hasselblad

>>4505255
>I don't really want to start slow and upgrade several times.
That's how it works. You've got to start somewhere. It's basically the meta in photography to buy used gear, and sell it back when you need to swap brand/mount or upgrade. It's far cheaper than buying new, and you will upgrade eventually, like everyone who does photography professionally or as a serious hobby.

Also, if you're a complete beginner, full frame or APS-C won't make a difference for you. Depending on the type of photography you want to do, there's no single camera that's best in all fields.
Want to shoot wildlife?
Sports?
Street photography?
Travel?
Landscape?

Your style and type of photography will dictate what kind of camera and lens is best for you, but that comes after you've picked up photography.
First get a cheap used DSLR with a couple of lenses and play around with that.

Some people cream their pants over the latest ultrawide super fast prime lenses paired with their R5 Mark II to shoot on the streets. Others do wildlife and instead will pray for a new fast (and affordable) telephoto lens or an APS-C with fast readout speed.

>>4505255
First question you should ask yourself is what kind of photography do you want to do and when/how. That should drive your choice.
portrait?
macro?
landscape?
travel?
some videos too?
studio?
at night?

>top tier immediately
"top tiers" setups easily reach 30k+, are you sure you want that?
Also, high end gear requires great skill to take advantage of and skill >>>> gear.

Anyway, your pic is a good all rounder, it will take years before any update would add something meaningful.

>>4505259
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQsR78SB3DM
They are all gearfags or gearfags in denial

>>4505269
>That's how it works. You've got to start somewhere. It's basically the meta in photography to buy used gear, and sell it back when you need to swap brand/mount or upgrade. It's far cheaper than buying new, and you will upgrade eventually, like everyone who does photography professionally or as a serious hobby.

I don't play by your rules, faggot

>>4505271
Why are you talking about snoys?

>>4505251
I'm in the same position as you. Get Sony a6700 with sigma 18-50mm lens if you can afford it or a6400 with Sony lens. The reason why you want Sony lens in a6400 is because it lacks in body image stabilization and sigma lenses don't have it built in.

>>4505272
What's your budget then, big boy?

>>4505270
>"top tiers" setups easily reach 30k+, are you sure you want that?


well no, I meant top tier within the realm of my reality of someone who isnt a millionaire

>>4505275
>What's your budget then, big boy?

I'd say about 3000 euros, that shouldn't attract too much attention, still cheaper than an apple monitor

>>4505274
but /p/ said sony is garbage and makes everything green

>>4505276
>top tier within the realm of my reality
What kind of schizo reality then? You don't even know what you what kind of photography you want to do and want "top tier".

The R6 Mark II is a very good all rounder, but the 35mm IS STM is an entry level RF lens, so that alone you will sell back to upgrade to a better lens in the future.
So why not trying out with a used camera that you can sell to get something better instead of insisting on spending 3K€ on something you don't even know if you'll enjoy?

Top tier in the real of wildlife are 20K€ prime lenses.

My RF 100-500 alone is 3300€.

>>4505271
I didnt watch the full video, but noticed he mentioned "zooming 300% on a 4k monitor while our audience watches on a phone"

retard doesnt know shit of fuck, a phone is like 16k so zooming 300% on a 4k monitor isnt even enough to be adequate, let alone exigent

>>4505279
>why not trying out with a used camera
I'm not OP but I feel you have to have a certain level of skill to buy used. How would I know the ibis is fucked, or there are scratches on the sensor if I never held a DSLR before?

File: 20260417_142924.jpg (2.8 MB)

2.8 MB JPG

>>4505264
point to the problem that my phone sensor has. RAW image with no tweaking by the way

>>4505279
>Top tier in the real of wildlife are 20K€ prime lenses.
i am aware of that, and so is everyone else, you stupid fucking cuck, trying to seem like you have insider knowledge, thats why i mentioned
>>4505255
>t should be realistically sized etc. Not those cameras they take with them to photograph amazon wildlife from a canoe

>>4505281
By from MPB if you're in Europe or equivalent used markets, all the gear is checked by professionals. You can get a used D800 for like 400€. Or a Canon equivalent if you want to upgrade to an RF camera with your EF lenses.

>>4505283
Then be more specific than "I want top tier according to what's in my sick mind" you schizoid vermin

>>4505285
camera to take pictures of family and shit like that, and want them to look as good as they can, which is better than iphone

>>4505286
So a used DSLR will be enough. Thanks for your attention, very cool.

>>4505287
thanks for fucking nothing

>>4505288
A used D800 + a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM ART get you:
- one of the best full frame high resolution camera ever made
- one of the best 50 mm lens ever made, easily in the top 3
All for around 800€ used

But if you absolutely insiste on spending 3000€ on a R6 Mark II and an entry level 35mm lens, go ahead, you don't need my approval, attention whore.

>>4505289
in b4 this is a meme after i buy it

>>4505286
>camera to take pictures of family and shit like that
Get a GR IIIx. You can get something bigger once you know what you want from your camera and you get to keep a pretty good pocketable one too.

disclaimer: I have never used a GR. I did use the FoV quite a bit and it's a pretty versatile one.

>>4505255
>I want to just get something top tier immediately, I can't be bothered with wasting my time.
Good news is, most new gear is pretty good, and just fine in the hands of a capable operator.
If you simply take the time to figure out what is important to you in a camera, what your actual needs and goals are, you wont have to ask others for help figuring out what you like.

>>4505290
it is

sigma makes dogshit lenses optimized for sharpness that suffer from really poor color transmission and internal reflectance issues like contrast loss and haze in real world conditions. photographers who dont know how lenses actually work call the issue “flat rendering” or “lacking 3d pop”. accentuated by the fact that good mtf charts equal unnatural photographs. realistic detail loses more edge definition the smaller it is. thats how your eyes see.

use a normal sized lens not a fucking sigma fart bazooka

>>4505295
>that suffer from really poor color transmission and internal reflectance issues like contrast loss and haze in real world conditions
With it being such a persistent issue, surely you have examples, or at the very least cherry picked anecdotes from another person(s) to share

>>4505292
Most gear is actually pretty bad. Cameras went pros only in the 2000s and became horrid and retarded for real world use. Pros are expected to deal with any stupidity. Consumers are expected to upgrade yearly.

Compared to classic processions like om1n to om4ti, cameras are serious enshittification victims.

>>4505295
Recommend me a new camera. Not old scheiße

>>4505296
>do my research on sigma arts flat rendering for me!
Why, when the camera industry already implicitly admitted it was an issue by pouring most of their effort into lens coatings - AFTER those DSLR era sigmas showed that high element counts aren’t free lunch (sigma never really improved either)

You’re basically asking me for race footage to prove a ford model T was slow
Fuck you, figure it out yourself cuck

>>4505299
>already implicitly admitted
And you are implicitly admitting you have nothing at all to backup what you are saying
I'm just asking for any actual evidence that isn't from your undiagnosed schizophrenia, my bad

>>4505299
watch out, you’re basically offending a sony color science coper. get ready to be told to tell photos apart after heavy editing, with no control reference, at 0.2mp.

>>4505298
buy a canon r8 and 35mm and 85mm primes

never take a photo of a bird unless you want to suddenly hunger for dicks up your ass

>>4505299
>Source: it was revealed to me in a mushroom trip
Why are copers like this?

>>4505299
>the camera industry already implicitly admitted it was an issue
You mean the camera industry implicitly admitted Sigma was right by forcing Canonikon to stop selling overpriced, soft 50mm lenses in favor of vastly improved designs.
>pouring most of their effort into lens coatings
Specifically because they tried to catch up by improving upon Sigma, and nano coatings became essential on simpler designs.

>photographers who dont know how lenses actually work call the issue “flat rendering” or “lacking 3d pop”.
Photographers who don't know how lenses actually work use three sentences to describe "micro-contrast" instead of just naming it.

>It's dogshit
Purely subjective. "Muh unnatural feeling of sharpness". Warning, we're entering the niggerlicious and LGBT-friendly realm of psychophysics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychophysics
Micro-contrast enjoyers are worse than reddit vegans.

>>4505305
Sigma was right for who? The dying breaths of a DEAD field? Name any admirable photographers still working. Its all corporate slop, intern journos cropping to compose at the HIGHEST while the remaining serious professionals shoot medium format kit the “modern photographer” believes underperforms full frame (and does in sharpness, af tracking, etc) and cinematographers slap 20 flavor filters on an arri master to make it softer or rehouse a vintage SLR prime.

Photography is dead and you know it. Developments since have appealed to the camera equivalent of protestant megachurch “worship guitarists” - horrid gearfaggots with all the creativity of a rock, spending a grand a week while obsessing over the minutiae of GARBAGE under a microscope.

You think film is still alive because its better than digital? No, its alive because the standard for good in digital has been handed to complete fucking morons. Photography: sony G master edition is pure fucking irrelevance. The modern camera buyer is the most pathetic, balding dad-hobbyist on earth right now.

>>4505257
Pretty much this, there's not much change from a camera made 5 or 10 years ago to a camera you can buy right now. Even a really basic brand new model is about on par or better than a top of the line camera from 10 years ago.

>>4505308
Agreed. All the new hotness and serious creativity is in videography right now and guess what videographers are buying… vintage lenses lmfao.
>sigma art was right tho
>look at the nikkor s line ultra g master primes and 100mp bodies
>videographers aka relevant people: 12mp and vintage prime pls

>>4505308
the worship "guitarist" comparison is pretty on point

wanting ~better~ camera gear really is on the level of thinking the gibson les paul and marshall tube amp are now insufficient… yeah you might technically improve it but no one will enjoy the end result except for people like tyler larson aka guitar ken rockwell

just buy a dslr and a normal lens not a sigma art

>>4505308
Mirrorless sales are picking up, people who go for film or retro style cameras are just hipsters, probably fujiworms too.