>>3813720There are no straight up bad cameras that you can buy new nowadays without getting into questionable chinkshit or Fuji APS-C.
Look into systems, not camera bodies. You can have a stellar camera body that barely has any lenses made for it and it's a waste.
>Canons are the best all around>Nikons are easy to use, have great image quality and arguably the best ergonomics but it's an expensive system specially if you go mirrorless>Sony have the best AF that not even Canon can match (but the difference is negligible) and shitty ergonomics and build quality but great sensors>Panasonic has a subpar AF but is amazing otherwise, specially when it comes to video >Leica is expensive but the only brand that makes rangefinder cameras>Pentax is absolutely incredible for photography with the best viewfinders, cleverest modes, weather sealing even in the entry level models, in body image stabilization, pixel shift mode (higher resolution moving the sensor), ergonomics that rival Nikon but they suck for video.>Olympus have some of the best out of camera JPEGs out there, beautiful colors. Like Panasonic's MFT offerings, they're not the brand to go for if you want shallow depth of field because there simply aren't lenses that are fast enough to achieve it out there. Amazing for wildlife. A lot of reach in a compact system. This is true for Panasonic's MFT models too. They also offer a model that looks like an actual film camera if you're into that, the PEN-F. Pic related. Like Pentax, many of their cameras offer pixel shift for increased resolution.>Fuji have shitty artifacts, "film simulation" gimmicks that look nothing like film, overpriced lenses and ergonomics on Sony's level. Cameras designed for children's hands. Good build quality, admittedly. Buy one if you want something that kind of looks like a Leica, about as much as a car in GTA looks like an actual Ferrari. 