Buying Guide: The best cameras under $500

As long as the Fuji isn't available to buy body-only, it's irrelevant what it would cost. Right now, whether you want the lens or not, you'll have to pay more than $500 to get the camera body.

But is the camera available in a body-only kit? If not, then it's really not priced below $500. Surely the categories should be based on the price one actually pays, not on the price one would've paid if the lens hadn't been included.

In my English, all you need to take a photo is a camera. Some camera bodies require a lens.

True. Pinhole cameras do not require a lens.

Why do we know that it's better than the A3? Often new products are worse than the previous one. If it explodes like a Samsung Note 7, then it would be worse.

This would defy their goal of promoting the current merchandize.

@Jefftan - Faster lenses definitely make a big difference.

Back to your original question, from what I understand the EOS M models with DPAF are worse in low light than their DSLR counterparts, or at least that's what I've come to understand. But also from memory are a little faster when light is good.

Accuracy is essentially perfect on CDAF, however on the models you discuss (and others) sometimes with a flat scene (it's less about low light and more about contrast) has difficulty determining what is in focus, you will get the big green (or red) square and in that case it is essentially 'guessing', it's not inaccurate as such, just doesn't have enough information.

Nice, I think I will keep all of my film cameras(Olympus Stylus, Olympus 1N, Canon AE-1, Canon A-1, etc,) I would put the Mamiya 330 at the top.

I think for decent C-AF at it's price point the a6000 is very hard to beat, but there's loads of cameras that do loads of things better from egos (# of control dials and/or touch), to overall system options (lenses!), to IBIS, etc.

No.

Sadly, the APSC lens offerings by Sony lets down a remarkable piece of tech (in all the A6*** series cameras)

I agree about the A6000 being better (not about the lens issue) -- except for the price thing. DPReview often contradicts itself in defining these price groupings, and it happened here again....

The M100 starts at $499 with lens (not counting tax), so it sort-of meets the under $500 title. Of the cameras presented here, only the Fujifilm X-A10, Canon EOS Rebel T6, Nikon 1 J5, and Sony Alpha a5100 are also below $500 including a lens. It's a closer call between an M100 and an A5100, but the A6000 is only $30 over the $500 mark with the kit zoom, which I'd say is well worth it. ;-)

@ProfHankD -- Agree 100%. Also at the moment the A6000 is on sale for $498 at B&H with kit lens and some extras!

I think I meant that its more tricky to assemble a portfolio of native Sony APSC lens for the Sony A6*** series mirrorless. No sleight intended. In fact, I'm very interested in the Sony A6* and A7* series at the moment...

Link:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1201894-REG/sony_alpha_a6000_mirrorless_digital.html

@Xentinus ... Nikon already have a camera almost as good as the A6000 ... its called the D3300. :-).

@ProfHankD ... the Nikon D3400 also comes in below $500 incl. lens

(Hides)

Eloise,
-It is not that compact
-terrible pentamirror OVF with %95 coverage
-5fps with 11 mediocre focus points
-Terrible AF on video mode
-Silly fixed LCD
-No NFC no wifi
-Not customizable
-6 frames buffer for RAW or jpeg (5 frames RAW+jpeg). While a6000 has 21 RAW+Jpeg and 47 Jpeg ****11 fps Sony vs 5 fps Nikon
Yeah being fan-boy is very hard.
I have Nikon system alongside Sony mirrorless, with only one huge difference...I am objective!

Martin JC,
I agree with you about APS-C lens offering of Sony. But my main reason buying Sony a6000;
-compactness
-video
I have mixed feelings about kit lens. It is not that good (terrible when u shoot RAW and I shoot RAW+jpeg all the time). I am using Nikon (and I love) as my main camera. I am waiting for Nikon's mirrorless offer to decide to invest on Sony or not. If I will able to use my lovely Nikon lenses on Nikon's mirrorless, I will sell my a6000. But if we are talking about today, Sony really offers better than both Nikon and Canon.

@Xentinus -- thanks for a clear and candid reply. You summarize my thoughts, too, almost exactly.... Lets see what the future holds re Nikon (or Canon) mirrorless......

"Sadly, the APSC lens offerings by Sony lets down a remarkable piece of tech (in all the A6*** series cameras)"

Yet the winner is the EOS M100, with how many lenses?

"I think I meant that its more tricky to assemble a portfolio of native Sony APSC lens for the Sony A6*** series mirrorless. No sleight intended. In fact, I'm very interested in the Sony A6* and A7* series at the moment..."

Compared to what? Canon and Nikon don't make more APS-C lenses for their systems. There are plenty of available lenses and Sigma probably just filled the last real hole in the lens lineup (yes some might still be asking for an f/2.8 standard zoom).

@ Martin JC - Yes I agree the M100 is probably the best Canon mirrorless camera to date all things considered. I've had several M1's and a few of the lenses (still have a 22/2 and EF adapter laying around).

Sony have plenty of lens options at reasonable prices in pretty much every category, however people like to point out the 'Zeiss' 24mm and 16-70mm and call it a day (ALL Sony lenses are overpriced because they can point to these two). However there are plenty of reasonable options and some that are downright bargains considering what the competition offers.

Kidding? That camera is well over 500.

A camera for less than 500 bucks, maybe?

There 50000 cameras under 500 USD. For example if I want a fast touch screen AF, then A6000 is gone. That's what I meant by "depends on what you want".

i rule out the A6000 as i want some sharp compact affordable APS-c lenses...sony only has 1 the 50mm F1.5 OSS all the other sony APS-c lenses are optically poor or very expensive but still no better than canon's cheaper lenses ..as sony has not released a APS-c lens for 4 years that's not going to change anytime soon.. at least the M has the 11-22 the 22F2 the 28f3.5 macro are excellent .the 55-200 is good .the 18-55 and 15-45 are useable and the 18-150 seams to be one of the better super zooms ...although not my thing ..there are no lemons in the M line up...so giving you more choice if you like sharp lenses ......losing some compactness but other lenses that are very good to excellent and can be adapted to the M CHEAPLY is the 55-250stm the 50mm f1.8 stm the 50mm f1.4 28mm f2.8IS 35mmF2IS 85mmF1.8 100mm F2 just to name a few ...

Sharp primes for A6000:

Samyang 12mm
Sigma 16mm
Sigma 19mm
Sony 20mm
Sony 24mm Zeiss
Sony 28mm
Sigma 30mm (2.8 and 1.4)
Sony 35mm(1.8 and 2.8 Zeiss)
Sony 50mm
Sony 55mm
Sony 85mm
Sony 90mm Macro
And probably a few more that I am not aware of.

The only affordable good prime lenses for Sony E are from Samyang and Sigma (and they are quite good).
Sony 35mm f1.8 is not that good, 20mm as well.

i did say sony .. but yes the sigma 30mm is very good i have it.. and the 19mm and 60mm sigma fits the bit i say affordable and compact ...and sharp ...take the lenses that that fall down on anyone of the above and the list is much much smaller take the sony 24mm F1.8 zeiss its £800 GBP and optically almost on par with the M22/2 (i like the Bokeh better with the zeiss) so falls down on cost the sony 35F1.8 is soft at the wide end the others are big ...i want a MILC system to be compact with affordable sharp lenses ...sony cannot offer me that... other people look for different things and sony may give them what they want

"losing some compactness but other lenses that are very good to excellent and can be adapted to the M CHEAPLY is the 55-250stm the 50mm f1.8 stm the 50mm f1.4 28mm f2.8IS 35mmF2IS 85mmF1.8 100mm F2 just to name a few ..."

"...i want a MILC system to be compact with affordable sharp lenses ...sony cannot offer me that... other people look for different things and sony may give them what they want"

Soooooo adapting the 28mm f/2.8 IS with big adapter is better than buying the Sony 28mm f/2? Or adapting the 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2 is better than using the native 85mm f/1.8 on the Sony? 35mm f/2 IS over the native 35mm f/1.8 IS OR Sigma 30mm f/1.4 OR 30mm f/2.8...

Really you have to be joking, or a clown.

@davev8 - honestly it's clear your pretty well stupid AF. Good luck with your M100, it's clearly the ideal system camera for you.

Soooooo what was your point again? Couldn’t answer any of the questions above, just prattle on about how you could adapt lenses. That’s great Dave, but you can adapt lenses to the Sony as well. Claiming Sony have no lenses for their APS-C mirrorless cameras AND saying that the Canon has a better range of affordable options just makes you sound stupid.

Thank you A LOT!

Are you referring that it just works/shoots or about focus peaking? (Which is an aid where the area in-focus lights up with colour). Maybe peaking is activated along with the CFII option?

I am planning to use Nikkor prime lenses that are quite small and very suitable for the M100, and would really like a focusing aid instead of just digital 5x/10x zoom.

Both works :D Zoom can be achieved easily with touch screen loop sign, and focus peaking is ok, though I find it's a bit less clear when the image is fully zoomed in, which is not really a problem as you may want to see image details more than colored peaks at 1x1 magnification. The problems I had more with M6 and 180mm is about colors not really matching well with the sensor render in certain circumstances. Probably a problem with old Nikon lenses vs Canon sensors. It needs more work with raws afterward.
Here is a panoramic sample made with M6 and 180mm F/2.8 AI-S : https://orig00.deviantart.net/4c11/f/2017/162/7/4/chateau_de_menars_by_pierre_lagarde-dbcbhbr.jpg