I am in the United States
I remember messing around with it a couple of months ago and don't really remember being too impressed with it. Granted I think I'm over super zoom bridge cameras at this point. Also I think the last half of that is done with the digital zoom on that camera. If you want it for zoom purposes fine, but I don't exactly like menu diving on bridges these days.
Not sure if you'll get what you're looking for, it's a bit... All over the place?
I'll mirror the a6000 recommendation. You can also go for one of the Fujifilms... They'll have *slightly* lesser image quality in RAW, but tend to have better jpegs off the camera. They also like to have more "classic" styling, similar to film cameras, which can encourage you to use more manual controls as you get more accustomed to it.
You deeeeefinitely need a lens. Without one you can't take photos. (well technically you can but it'll just be a big blank single color, hardly a photo)
If you just want something for snapping pictures and don't want or need to invest in actual lenses just get one of the Sony RX100's.
Long story short, they are all good, but each new one gets better. I'd recommend a II or III, as they will have better performance in low light, and the IV is just too expensive for what it is.
Just see if you can find a refurb II model.
The RX100 is made to be really compact with great image quality and as a compromise it has a limited zoom range.
Wait so people buy D750's and don't even take that thing off auto? That's just a waste.
Pop up flash, particularly those on dslrs that you can't point upwards, are the worst things in the world.
You seem to be under the impression that people don't assume that nice photographs just come from nice cameras, and not from skills.
Mother of God. I mean I've seen tons of bad pictures on B&H's site and Amazon in the reviews portion of customer images so I'm not exactly blind to it. I just didn't think there were that many "I know nothing" photographers with high end dslr's. Makes me wonder who really knows what they're doing.
"Surely my 3000 dollar camera knows what it's doing." I mean I still mess up shots, but nine times out of ten I know why. Usually it's just too low of a shutter speed for a person in movement these days...either that or my AF is just hunting around.
As an aside, I think review photos (in ussr reviews) can be hard to get any meaningful context out of, mainly because a lot of times they don't give enough information. I've even seen the same thing in blog reviews and site reviews. Are these photos post processed? 100% crop? Color adjusted? F Stop? A lot of people leave this shit out mannnnnnn
My biggest pet peeve: I'll finally find a Flickr page with pictures from a rare-ish lens in looking at.
That image size thing is either from a wonky crop or the exported it wrong I guess. I do find that weird myself too.
I usually find groups and some members will consistently post low res pictures. I know because I look at the usernames to avoid them
Probably intentionally trying to make the camera look bad.I usually find groups and some members will consistently post low res pictures. I know because I look at the usernames to avoid them
Some review sites do it too. I found a review while looking up the Nikon P900 which had 1000x750 samples. I understand bandwidth limitations, but I wish they are least had one high res and warned about the other pictures being resized.
I think when it comes to super zooms the more you zoom the worse the picture quality gets. It's passable, but it's not really my thing anymore. The thing being a variable aperture lens is also a pain. I think when I messed around with it the last time I saw it I had already gotten over super zoom bridge cameras. Does it work? Yes, would I ever cover an event with it for work or freelancing? No.
