You can get a Canon 5D II or a Canon 6D for that. Older cameras for sure, but full frame with excellent sensors. And there are a ton of inexpensive used EF lenses available.
Compared to moderns systems the main difference is the autofocus and video capabilities. Modern mirrorless have cosmically better tracking, eye detect etc.
Also speaking of older models I think it is important to repeat that the pixel count is not what define the quality of the image but mereley only how cropable the end result will be and it is only really useful if the higher pixel count isn't made of garbage. Accutance of the end result is in most cases much more important.
For instance, human eyes can't perceive the difference between a 12MP and a 50MP image printed in a poster format from a typical 1.5-2meters viewing distance and 8MP is usually good enough for most large prints.
So I would advise choosing a second hand model taking shutter count, general state, lenses quality, autofocus speed and image stabilisation efficiency as more prioritary parameters than sensor pixel count.
Both take excellent photos, especially in low light. I reprinted some of the original 5D photos 11”x17” and even though they have fewer pixels the quality was fine.
Canons are pretty cheap on the used market because they have a new mirrorless R series cameras/lenses so the older ones value dropped a lot.
A good lens helps a lot. Someone on the thread suggested a 50mm 1.8 “plastic fantastic”. It’s a great choice. Really sharp, lets a lot of light in, feels kind of cheap. I always liked the 24-105mm f4 zoom, but it’s pricier.
Cannons are no longer pretty cheap. If so then they have huge mileage on them, shutter count might kill your camera soon. I think the window closed two years ago and now they are becoming very cool again.
Besides the 50mm nifty fifty. There is "middle" range of "ultrasonic" zooms that are actually pretty capable and underrated/cheap. I have few for canon film cameras and their secret huge advantage is weight, optics wise they are pretty good (i have them converted on lumix full frame). I would also mention sigma 35mm art which can be get for less than 300eur and is THE lens if you know you like 35mm (person i ended up being).
On one hand, you have to remember that huge MP doesnt do much if the glass can't resolve well enough.
On the flipside, I have to note that switching to high MP full frame makes it a lot easier to do good, clean crops. Sometimes I might care about a small portion of the frame but for composition reasons (e.x. can't get closer for one reason or another) I at least can lean on cropping more.
To add: Hit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II and scroll down to the very end, then click "show" to expand the "Canon EOS digital SLR timeline". This is an incredible collection of information that I can't figure out how to link directly.
Full frame sensor = full frame lenses = heavy and expensive. You need something light that you want to carry with you. Otherwise what's the point of having the best medium format camera + lens that you have at home, collecting dust.
That means a camera APS-C or micro four thirds sensor might suit better to someone who is new to photography.
I've always thought i am that APSC person and I ended up not taking the camera that much with me because it was small difference to compact camera i was carrying in my pocket. I thought it was skill issue because my photos just didn't have that bite/detail/look.
The moment i got older full frame i realized that "look" has so much to do with the sensor size. In beginning i only had cheap 30euro manual soviet lens and even with that the quality of the photos just shot up.
Full frame is heavy yes but it can be pretty affordable (lenses from china are becoming extremely competitive).
Full frame DSLRs are heavy because of the big mirror box. Mirrorless full frame cameras are a lot lighter. An APS-C Canon R7 is bigger than my full frame Canon RP. Coupled with a light prime it's almost indistinguishable from a compact camera and delivers better image quality than most of those.
I recently finally got my first fullframe (i've always used apsc crop sensors). I would say you want fullframe - to me it's really major difference in the look of photos. I would get apsc only if you really need portability. But for 200eur even old fullframe is tough.
I've tried to get Canon 5D/6D but they are becoming pretty sought after (because of the availability of lenses). Another problem is when they are sold cheap they have huge shutter counts often way after their spec lifetime. Not sure about Nikon maybe there are some cheaps. You can probably get 6D mark I with pretty high shutter count for around 200e.
Best usable 5D mark III deals i could find were around 450eur (thats camera from 2012). I ended up getting Lumix S5 (mark 1, from 2020) for like 500eur that is very different beast of a camera while having L-mount which is becoming only "open" camera mount (third party lenses are being "disallowed" by most manufacturers now).
I've been hunting 6D for a while in eu for 200eur you get like 400 000 shutter count. But 6D is also in that range where people don't care about it and often sell it as some junk. So one might get lucky.
You can get a Canon 5D II or a Canon 6D for that. Older cameras for sure, but full frame with excellent sensors. And there are a ton of inexpensive used EF lenses available.
Compared to moderns systems the main difference is the autofocus and video capabilities. Modern mirrorless have cosmically better tracking, eye detect etc.
Also speaking of older models I think it is important to repeat that the pixel count is not what define the quality of the image but mereley only how cropable the end result will be and it is only really useful if the higher pixel count isn't made of garbage. Accutance of the end result is in most cases much more important.
For instance, human eyes can't perceive the difference between a 12MP and a 50MP image printed in a poster format from a typical 1.5-2meters viewing distance and 8MP is usually good enough for most large prints.
So I would advise choosing a second hand model taking shutter count, general state, lenses quality, autofocus speed and image stabilisation efficiency as more prioritary parameters than sensor pixel count.
I had a 5D and have a 5D mk3.
(The mk is the version number)
Both take excellent photos, especially in low light. I reprinted some of the original 5D photos 11”x17” and even though they have fewer pixels the quality was fine.
Canons are pretty cheap on the used market because they have a new mirrorless R series cameras/lenses so the older ones value dropped a lot.
A good lens helps a lot. Someone on the thread suggested a 50mm 1.8 “plastic fantastic”. It’s a great choice. Really sharp, lets a lot of light in, feels kind of cheap. I always liked the 24-105mm f4 zoom, but it’s pricier.
Cannons are no longer pretty cheap. If so then they have huge mileage on them, shutter count might kill your camera soon. I think the window closed two years ago and now they are becoming very cool again.
Besides the 50mm nifty fifty. There is "middle" range of "ultrasonic" zooms that are actually pretty capable and underrated/cheap. I have few for canon film cameras and their secret huge advantage is weight, optics wise they are pretty good (i have them converted on lumix full frame). I would also mention sigma 35mm art which can be get for less than 300eur and is THE lens if you know you like 35mm (person i ended up being).
Two tricky things when it comes to pixel count...
On one hand, you have to remember that huge MP doesnt do much if the glass can't resolve well enough.
On the flipside, I have to note that switching to high MP full frame makes it a lot easier to do good, clean crops. Sometimes I might care about a small portion of the frame but for composition reasons (e.x. can't get closer for one reason or another) I at least can lean on cropping more.
To add: Hit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II and scroll down to the very end, then click "show" to expand the "Canon EOS digital SLR timeline". This is an incredible collection of information that I can't figure out how to link directly.
The direct link is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Canon_EOS_digital_cam... You can get to it by pressing the `V` in `V T E` at the top left of any tmeplate
Direct link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Canon_EOS_digital_cam...
Not sure why it is a "template".
Full frame sensor = full frame lenses = heavy and expensive. You need something light that you want to carry with you. Otherwise what's the point of having the best medium format camera + lens that you have at home, collecting dust.
That means a camera APS-C or micro four thirds sensor might suit better to someone who is new to photography.
I've always thought i am that APSC person and I ended up not taking the camera that much with me because it was small difference to compact camera i was carrying in my pocket. I thought it was skill issue because my photos just didn't have that bite/detail/look. The moment i got older full frame i realized that "look" has so much to do with the sensor size. In beginning i only had cheap 30euro manual soviet lens and even with that the quality of the photos just shot up.
Full frame is heavy yes but it can be pretty affordable (lenses from china are becoming extremely competitive).
Full frame DSLRs are heavy because of the big mirror box. Mirrorless full frame cameras are a lot lighter. An APS-C Canon R7 is bigger than my full frame Canon RP. Coupled with a light prime it's almost indistinguishable from a compact camera and delivers better image quality than most of those.
The 5D mkii (or mkIV) are fantastic cameras - the Mkii when coupled with magic lantern is a fantastic camera still in my opinion.
Glass is of course important, but I’ve taken nearly all of the digital shots I’m proud of on a mkii.
(Most of the images I’ve captured that I’m truly proud of were on tmax or ektar… various camera bodies usually coupled to decent lenses )
I recently finally got my first fullframe (i've always used apsc crop sensors). I would say you want fullframe - to me it's really major difference in the look of photos. I would get apsc only if you really need portability. But for 200eur even old fullframe is tough.
I've tried to get Canon 5D/6D but they are becoming pretty sought after (because of the availability of lenses). Another problem is when they are sold cheap they have huge shutter counts often way after their spec lifetime. Not sure about Nikon maybe there are some cheaps. You can probably get 6D mark I with pretty high shutter count for around 200e.
Best usable 5D mark III deals i could find were around 450eur (thats camera from 2012). I ended up getting Lumix S5 (mark 1, from 2020) for like 500eur that is very different beast of a camera while having L-mount which is becoming only "open" camera mount (third party lenses are being "disallowed" by most manufacturers now).
Get a used 6D or 70D and a 50mm f1.8 lens.
With the 200eur budget you wont make the 6D but you might 70D maybe even most of the lens. I would pay a bit more and get 6D though.
I got a 6D from facebook marketplace for ~125 USD, but it was in the US, which has a more 'liquid' second hand electronics market in my experience.
I've been hunting 6D for a while in eu for 200eur you get like 400 000 shutter count. But 6D is also in that range where people don't care about it and often sell it as some junk. So one might get lucky.
Go to your equivalent of estate sales.
Is the SLR part a requirement? Would a mirrorless camera work for you?