Moron Camera

Should that be moron has more on cameras?

I know just enough about photography and cameras to know that I don't know shit about cameras and photography.

This is a place where my falling out with Tam hurts because she's prolly forgotten more than I'll ever learn about the subject.  Perhaps she's reading this right now and thinking, "HA! I knew that idiot would regret it!"

I have what I call a minimum feature set for whatever camera I select.

Foremost is an articulated screen that can be used to take pictures and not just review them.  This feature is now common.

I want a mirrorless camera because with the live view screen, it seems better to ditch the mechanical complexity of the mirror box.

It turns out this is still being debated.

Cost, as always, is a big factor but saving money on the body essentially just means a discount on the first lens.  Sucking it up and getting a better body from the get-go sounds like the better plan.

Which makes me wonder if I should be saving much longer and getting a high-end EOS R (body only) for $1,800 instead of an entry level like like the EOS M50 (with a lens) for $600.

Both have adapters for the common EF/EF-S lenses...

Considering that I'm struggling with the idea of buying a $600 camera, it's prolly out of the question for me to drop triple that.

It's bothersome that if I get the M50 and decide that I want a more capable camera, and wish to stay mirrorless, then all the M series lenses will be useless for the RF series that the EOS R uses; though I would be able to keep any EF-S lenses I'd accumulated.

I just don't know.  I might not like a swapable lens camera as much as I think I will.