IMO you are putting the cart before the horse. It's kind of like asking, "I want to learn programming, should I buy a Dell or Mac?" Buy a cheap, used DSLR. Hopefully one with a bunch of accesories. Whether that is a Nikon or Canon is another post entirely. But don't worry about that now. Take lots of pictures! That old camera takes just as good of shots as it did 10 years ago when it was new. Local community classes have photography classes. Keep shooting, make friends, edit the photso onyour PC. After some time passes, you'll handle other cameras and find out what YOU need. At this point, buy. Worst case, you tire of the hobby in a few months, you're only out $300 instead of $1500.

I wouldn’t spend any excessive amount of time debating whether to get an SLR or a mirrorless camera. You’ll notice a big improvement over your smartphone with either. DSLRs can often be purchased used for cheaper and have better battery life, but mirrorless cameras are much smaller (the adage about the best camera being the one you have with you applies).

I also wouldn’t focus on getting the latest tech. I have a Nikon D80 from 2006 that, although it has a 10MP CCD sensor, which has a high noise floor and a low top ISO, is a perfectly functional camera that I use all the time.

If you have a camera store in your area, ask to see their used DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. You’re much better off spending less on the camera body and getting a few more lenses than you would be getting a top-of-the-line body and a junky kit lens. For three- to five-year-old cameras, DSLRs might be a better deal, and the standard SLR mount lenses are much more common and should be cheaper.

The biggest difference between a DSLR and a mirrorless is the wayfinder: on mirrorless you get digital vs analog on dslr (via the mirror system). In terms of controls, both have more or less the same, with some naming differences.

I would go for second hand set, either canon or nikon, whatever model!, with the stock zoom lens (18-55) and get a fixie (not zoom lens, 50mm works great for lots of conditions and most of them are fast). This should cover you for a while, maybe even years. When you literally run the thing down and think you can't progress anymore, you will most likely have a clear idea what you want from a camera.

Don't get bogged down by all the awesome new things cameras can do, to learn you need aperture priority and shutter priority. You will find that all decent cameras have that. Probably, pretty quickly you will need manual iso and white balance settings, but again, most cameras have that too.

So, go on, buy the cheapest set you can find, that' still a dslr with changeable lenses, get the two lenses I recommended and start shooting. After you figure out what you like to shoot, because you will never be able to shoot everything at the same level, focus on that.

I agree with a lot of this. I took a photography class in college and learned more on a borrowed old 35mm taking and developing black and whites than anything I have used since. People (myself included) tend to focus way too much on the gear, but when you are starting out go way cheap so you can get a feel for what you like to shoot and where your gear might be limiting you. Then after you go through that process make a more informed decision about what system you want to invest in. Definitely get you a zoom and a prime lens though as stated above.

I highly recommend taking a class in person. It really is the best bang for your buck. After that I think the best way to learn is just getting out there and taking shots. Get away from the gear reviews and spend that time practicing . Find out what you like and what you don't. Really its about you enjoying your own shots not trying to meet someone else's arbitrary standard of what makes a shot good enough.

Personally, I now shoot mirrorless. My first DSLR was an Olympus E-520 which served me very well. I reached a point where I was going to have to invest in more lenses, but Olympus had switched to micro 4/3 mirrorless and I was hesitant to invest in a system without a clear upgrade path. I then upgraded to a Pentax k-70 which was a decent camera, but I had so many focus issues with it I quickly sold it and now I've made the plunge into the Sony mirrorless system and plan on staying there and investing in it. Its a joy to shoot.

Finally, remember most of the greatest photographers in history had less capable cameras than the one you will have in your hand.

> on mirrorless you get digital vs analog on dslr

There’s plenty of dSLRs with digital viewfinders at all price points in virtually all brands.

why they need the mirrors then? (genuinely asking)

> The mirror is for the small optical viewfinder

That's what I meant. It didn't occur to me that the bigger display is a viewfinder too...

> they cannot do what an LCD viewfinder can do which is to say completely "demo" what the final picture will look like (i.e. show the results of shutter speed and ISO settings).

I’m definitely not talking about an overlay. I’m talking live full demo view on the LCD screen. The mirror is “locked up” when the LCD screen is on and you get a preview of what the end result photo would be just like you describe isn’t possible.

From Wikipedia[0], here’s a list of the first model supporting live view of each respective series:

Canon: 20Da, 40D, 450D, 1000D, 1D Mark III, 5D Mark II, 6D Mark II, 7D

Fujifilm: FinePix S3 Pro, FinePix IS Pro

Leica: Digilux 3

Nikon: D90, D300, D700, D3

Olympus: E-10, E-330, E-30, E-3

Panasonic: DMC-L1

Pentax: K20D, K-7, K-x

Samsung: GX-20

Sony: A300, A350, A500, A55, and A77

As most of those cameras were released ~10 years ago and as the Wikipedia article indicates “there is no product line in which live preview has been abandoned after being introduced”, there are now probably almost a hundred models of dSLRs with live preview functionality, if not more. In fact, that article goes on to state:

> and almost all new DSLRs have had the feature since mid-2008

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_preview

Which is completely off-topic. The discussion is Viewfinders. Even your own reply above referenced Viewfinders specifically:

> There’s plenty of dSLRs with digital viewfinders

A digital Viewfinder actually has an LCD (or other type of digital display) within the Viewfinder assembly itself. It has nothing to do with the rear/main display at all.

Your other reply makes me think you don't know what the Viewfinder is. So here's some references:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viewfinder

https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/50028/whats-the-pr...

Many mirrorless cameras only have an LCD screen, so are we saying they don’t have a viewfinder? The context wasn’t your pedantic view of what a viewfinder is, the context was comparing mirrorless cameras to dSLR cameras. I have clearly laid out a case why OPs critique of dSLRs only having optical viewfinders (which they called “analog”) is misguided with extensive examples and a solid basis for my claim. The fact you are so focused on your definition of a single word shows you are trying to “win” the debate rather than be factual and genuine, so I’ll say have a “great day!” and continue on with my life.

> Many mirrorless cameras only have an LCD screen, so are we saying they don’t have a viewfinder?

Yes. That's what everyone says, manufacturers, retailers, and customers. Take for example this comparison chart on Olympus' website. Note some cameras, with a rear display have no Viewfinder listed where there is none:

https://www.getolympus.com/us/en/pen#products-table-1

They call the rear screen the "monitor." Which seems fine, but I've also read it called the rear display, main display, preview screen, and so on.

> The context wasn’t your pedantic view of what a viewfinder is

If I call an apple an "apple," that isn't a pedantic view, that's the name of the object. If I call a Viewfinder a "Viewfinder" that is no less a pedantic view, and instead the name of thing we're discussing.

In general you obviously misunderstood what the word viewfinder meant, and went off on a rant that didn't make a whole lot of sense as a result. I'd suggest you go try a mirrorless camera with a digital viewfinder and report back when you have the prerequisite knowledge for this topic.

> I'd suggest you go try a mirrorless camera with a digital viewfinder and report back when you have the prerequisite knowledge for this topic.

I own two of them. I also own a bunch of dSLRs too. I also am a professional photographer with decades of experience with camera gear.

I’d suggest you not assume things about others without having sufficient context, but at least you’ve now proven my assumption about you was warranted, despite not having enough perspective to prove it before.

It is a reasonable assumption given that you didn't know what a Viewfinder was, and keep insisting the screen on the back is one even now.

When your mistake was pointed out by multiple posters, you then doubled down, called the industry standard terminology that is likely older than either of us "pedantic."

It is fine to not know things, or to have holes in your knowledge. It isn't fine to keep on doubling down rather than admit obvious mistakes.

All you had to do was read the Wikipedia article on Viewfinders in the "decades" you've been "professionally" taking photos.

To be pedantic, the topic started about "wayfinders". But that shows I'm an idiot, so let's not talk about that

There is quite a few great comments in this thread but I just want to add that getting a quality lens has a much bigger impact on your image quality than the camera body. A quality body with a bad lens is a waste of time.

Different eco systems have a varied number of lenses at each price point, for example you will be able to pick up an old but great canon lens cheap enough but if you go with Sony you will be spending much more to get a quality lens as their eco system is much younger. (I'm a Sony user btw)

Regards resources there is hundreds of Youtube videos for learning but be careful about getting caught up in the gear hype. I like Thomas Heaton [1]

Think about how you will be displaying the images, if you are just sharing to Instagram then you don't need a >16mp sensor.

No one can really tell you what exactly to do, it's bit of a journey to find out how you enjoy taking photos but it's a great hobby!

[1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfhW84xfA6gEc4hDK90rR1Q

Get a used camera at a pricepoint that doesn't matter if you choose wrong. Experience isn't just going to teach you how to understand the on-paper specs of the camera, you're going to learn what you find important in a camera.

If you fall down the photography rabbit hole, you'll very quickly end up spending way more on lenses than camera bodies, so don't sweat it. Picking which lens ecosystem(s) you want to get locked into is a more important question. And even then, you have multiple good choices and hardware with resale value.

2-3 year old articles are fine for shopping advice, you should buy something at least that old. If you needed more-advanced camera tech, you would already know exactly how to choose the right camera for you.

Careful. Learning photography can be like learning the new productivity method du jour.

That said, the book Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson was recommended to me a long time ago and provided me with immediate and stunning results. Buy it though, don't download one of the numerous copies online.

Any reason to not download it? Do you mean to support Peterson or for some other reason?

It was a hint, but yeah support the author. I initially torrented a copy, liked it, and bought it off of Amazon. And it's a great book to thumb through.

I was shopping around for a camera about 4 years ago. I realized that normal digital cameras are essentially smartphones. So I bought a Nikon D3300 (DSLR, ~$500). I haven't bought any extra things for it (used what was in the box), and an acquaintance gave me a tripod he wasn't using. I've considered getting a long focus lens, but the stock lens is sufficient for me (cue horror from "pro photographers").

I've never used a camera this good before, and I've been happy with the quality of every photo I've taken, even if the subject and framing isn't right. Yes, it's a bit bulky, but I don't mind. I haven't looked around at other cameras since, and I plan on using it as long as I can.

My advice: get a camera that gives you the quality you're looking for, take some good shots, and don't look back!

> I've considered getting a long focus lens, but the stock lens is sufficient for me (cue horror from "pro photographers").

Two reasons you'd want to get special lenses would be:

1) to reach a certain zoom length for sports, animals, or architecture; or

2) to get nicer bokeh for portraits.

Exactly. I often find myself shooting pictures and videos from across a church sanctuary (I'm my church's semi/un/official photographer). I've considered getting a lens because of that, but the stock lens's maximum zoom is good enough, especially if I walk around a bit.

I really like DPReview's recommendations: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-cameras-f...

Photography is one of my top hobbies. Some people will tell you to just buy any decent cheap camera and start taking photos. But to me the research is one of the most important and enjoyable part. I love reading various reviews and watching YouTube videos. Also I follow some photographers like Von Wong (https://www.vonwong.com/) and learn a lot from them.

Now photography can be very expensive hobby, there was a time when I was buying every single lens, gadget, gizmo recommended/used by these amazing photographers. But the good news is that it is very easy to sell and buy used photography gear. Sometimes I even made money when I sold used gear after trying it out for a few months.

Lately, I use x100f which is a mirrorless camera. My previous camera was a dslr, D750. Professional reviews will show D750 is way better camera than x100f. To me the best feature of x100f is all the knobs and handling. Sometimes you have to try out camera for a few days to see how you feel about it.

Image quality is almost indistinguishable between modern cameras. Autofocus speed and low light performance is where you will notice huge differences between entry level and high-end cameras.

I say read a lot, borrow your friends' cameras, try them out in stores, watch videos like: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=fujifilm+x100f Finally, when you buy a camera from store, don't feel shy about returning it if it doesn't click with you :) If you buy used, sell it if you don't like it. Also kit lens is usually not that good. First lens I would recommend on any camera system would be fast lens like 35mm/50mm/85mm f/1.8.

How important is "Environmental Sealing" ? It's a feature which is generally not available in beginner DSLR but I feel beginners need it the most

IMO, not that important. I have Nex-3N as a throw-around camera. It is at least, 5 years old. Basically, we take it wherever we feel that our fancy "artistic" X100F might get damaged. We have taken it on beaches, handed to kids to take photos during parties, etc. It still works.

You'll be fine with either. Just pick a camera you can afford and focus on quality glass (lenses). I personally prefer the Canon system so my recommendation would either be a T7i (DSLR) or, if you can afford the upgrade, the EOS R (Mirrorless and my current primary).

Biggest con these days on mirrorless is they tend to run through a battery charge about twice as fast as a DSLR equivalent.

For materials.. as much as I've not been fond of youtube in the past for whatever reason I find it extremely valuable today. Peter McKinnon is pretty great or if you want to start with landscapes maybe check out Thomas Heaton.

I was a fan of Canon SLRs for a long time. I lost my camera and my best lens a while ago and spent some time looking at the latest offerings by Cannon and Nikon. In particular I was interested in getting a "full frame" camera because of its greater light collecting capacity.

When I looked at reviews of the lower-end full frame cameras from Canon and Nikon I found countless complaints.

Then I took a look at this camera

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-7-ii

and saw it on sale for about $1000 at retailers such as Best Buy.

I think it is just great. The choice of Sony lenses is not as good as Canon or Nikon, and particularly some of the high end glass is expensive, but the choice is not bad and is getting better.

The advantage of DSLR is that you can set up your shot on a ground glass screen and see it through the viewfinder. Maybe that is a tough more accurate than the rear and viewfinder displays of a DSLR, but the ability to sight through the rear like a point-and-shoot is convenient.

My Sony also shoots startlingly good video, in fact the sound isn't half bad using the mic built into the camera.

> When I looked at reviews of the lower-end full frame cameras from Canon and Nikon I found countless complaints.

I've had a Nikon D700 for 11 years and I'm still pretty happy with its usability (at peak usage, I'd often considered it an extension of my body) and the quality of the photos it produces, even though my tolerance for how much weight I'd like to carry has gone down as I grew older.

Disclaimer: I am not a professional photographer nor formally studied photography, and have never used a DSLR, but I have been using mirrorless cameras (Sony NEX series) since 2011.

While there are generally less "native" camera lenses for mirrorless systems, one less well known/publicized advantage of using them is that you can use film camera lenses. While you do not get autofocus and there might be vignetting at the corners (which I personally like anyway), you can get a good quality lens for a good price by doing this. It also can be cool if you are trying to recreate a "vintage" look, or just going for something weird or unusual. All that is required is a cheap adapter that you costs around $5 on ebay. Two of my personal favorite lenses to use are the Jupiter 9 (the whole Jupiter series are Soviet copies of Carl Zeiss lenses) that I got for $175, and the SLR magic 3517E which I got for $37. This video has a general overview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQLi4g-wyDA

#1 Join a photography club and become very active in it, not much else will help you learn faster. I waited about 10 years before joining a club, and it's the one thing I wish I did from the start. The club I'm most active in also has monthly competitions with an external judge brought in (both print and digital). That also helps a lot, as you get to see what other people consider their best work and discuss it.

As far as mirrorless vs DSLR. I think the mirrorless craze is mostly over. There is a group that tracks industry trends (which I can't find right now) and the mirrorless market is on the way down.

I looked into getting a mirrorless several years ago. I think they have two advantages. 1. They weight a lot less and are smaller, so they work well for hiking and backpacking and other situations where photography isn't your main reason for going. 2. You can usually find adapters for most of them to use "normal" DSLR lenses, though usually with some limitations.

But there are a lot of downsides to mirrorless. The market is pretty fragmented, so there might be good lenses/accessories that aren't available no matter which you line choose. Most of the lenses are low end, and there isn't much competition in the high end lenses. Once you've got a few good lenses and a good tripod, the size/weight advantage of the mirrorless body becomes negligable. The market is young and fragile, so it's very likely which ever brand you choose might go out of business or become obsolete.

In the end I didn't find a mirrorless as being right for me. I wanted one for backpacking and kayaking, and to have at the ready in my car for unexpected opportunities. But I found getting some lenses for my cell phone suited me a lot better for those casual needs. And I carry my heavy DLSR and tripod on the hikes.

As someone who made this decision recently, I decided on a Sony a6000 and have loved it. The cameras quality is pretty high, and my photography skills will likely never hit the "quality ceiling" where I need to buy a better camera to progress.

Its small, so I'm motivated to take it with me. Its not too big & chunky. Its great for bringing on holidays, but also good enough to throw some lenses in my bag for if I see something fancy.

The electronic viewfinder is amazing for understanding the interplay between aperture, shutter speed, ISO and zoom levels, because they change in real-time.

Mirrorless is undoubtedly the future of serious photography but I don't think the systems are quite there yet. If you want a full system of lenses today a Canon or Nikon full frame DSLR is your best bet. There are lots of online resources to learn photography e.g. Ken Rockwell's website. I think the best advice is to shoot things that you are genuinely interested in - e.g. I love portraits and landscapes but have no interest in macro photography of bugs or flowers.

A lot of people saying it doesn't matter which one you go with, and that's mostly true, but "The best camera is the one that's with you" and mirrorless cameras are lighter and smaller. The weight and size difference may or may not be significant enough to determine how likely you are to bring your camera with you, but for me it's the difference between bringing it on a hike or leaving it at home.

If you want to learn about photography as well as physics and technology behind it, I recommend Ken Rockwell‘s site which has numerous reviews and how-to articles on these topics.

https://kenrockwell.com/tech.htm

One advantage of DSLRs is you can often pick up second hand lenses for them, at a fraction of the price that a new one would cost. For example I have an f1.4 50mm Pentax lens that cost me about £20 (although it doesn't have autofocus). A new equivalent would cost c. £380.