At only $679, the Canon EOS R50 makes a strong case as one of the best camera for beginner photographers by offering plenty of modern features while still leaving room to grow into more advanced options. This excellent video review takes a look at the camera and the sort of performance and image quality you can expect from it in real-world use.
Coming to you from Photo Genius, this great video review takes a look at the Canon EOS R50 mirrorless camera and if it is the ideal camera for beginners at the moment. In a time when most mirrorless cameras cost multiple thousands of dollars, the EOS R50 is certainly intriguing. It comes with a nice range of features, including:
- 24.2-megapixel APS-C CMOS sensor paired with DIGIC X processor
- Native ISO range of 100-32,000 (expandable to 51,200)
- 4K 30p video oversampled at 6K and Full HD video at up to 120 fps
- Up to one hour of continuous recording
- 15 fps continuous burst rate
- 651 autofocus zones with Dual Pixel CMOS AF II system
- 2.36-million-dot OLED EVF
- Vari-Angle touchscreen LCD
- Advanced A+ Assist system for beginners to tackle difficult shooting situations
- Vertical movie mode for creating social media content
- USB-C, micro-HDMI, and microphone ports
- Full HD livestreaming capabilities
- Bluetooth and Wi-Fi
- Pop-up flash and advanced multi-function shoe
Altogether, the EOS R50 looks like a great camera. Check out the video above for the full rundown.
The best camera for beginners is any camera with a 16-55 F2.8 (aps-c) or 24-70 F2.8 (full-frame) lens.
Any camera with kit lens will be a big disappointment.
Weeelll not entirely true. The Fuji XF 18-55 is pretty incredible.
I have read, and people wrote that it's ok. (Not as Canon or Nikon kits...)
I'm pretty impressed with my copy. it's more than sufficiently sharp. Sharper than any other 18-55 kit lens I've used and it can absolutely be used for pro work.
Sharp and very good colours, or only sharp?
(For example, Canon 15-85 it's sharp, but doesn't have very good colours.)
Both. I have no issues with colors or sharpness. Contrast is great too.
Why does a beginner necessarily need a more expensive f/2.8 lens? Kind of presume that you know what they want to shoot. Maybe they would be well-served with a good, lighter f/4 lens.
It's a personal thing. I understand that if someone carry a camera is to have image quality (and shoot in raw). If not, you carry a smartphone (which it is a lot lighter).
Absolutely. there's quite a bit of a really good F4 lenses. I actually prefer those lenses because of their lighter weight, cheaper cost, and smaller size. They are often just as sharp as their 2.8 counter parts.
"because of their lighter weight, cheaper cost, and smaller size." Ok
"They are often just as sharp as their 2.8 counter parts." I don't think so.
I know so. I have compared f4 lenses to my f2.8 lenses and they are just as sharp if not sharper in some cases. I have a ($750 new) Nikon 18-35 f3.5-4.5 that is significantly sharper than my ($1750 new) Nikon 14-24 f2.8. I'm actually kind of mad at how much sharper it is. The whole reason I bought the 14-24 was for the extra 4mm of width and it was supposedly bonkers sharp. That is not the case.
The Nikon 18-35 f3.5-4.5 is crazy underrated.
And how are colours, compared from f4 to F2.8? It must be something diferent...
Nooot really. I mean again if you're pixel peeping you'll see a difference like with anything but to non photographers it's not significantly noticeable. Besides, the majority of people that use cameras will edit color and exposure in their images anyway so it's kind of a moot point. Like "color science". Yeah Fuji has great "color science" but it doesn't really matter if you're going to change those colors in post anyway.
What's the point? Recently we had an article telling us five reasons to avoid entry level cameras. Y'all make up your minds. :)
$679 Body only! Add 2 (budget) lenses and now $1000 Seems like bad advice for beginner? Far too many other options at half the price.