>>3514928>I would never recommend one brand over another to any photographer >immediately drops the veil and reveals himself to be a SonyfagSides.
A Canon 50D or 500d body is going to be much, much cheaper than an A6000, new or used. A comparable Nikon body will also be cheaper.
Canon EF/Nikon lenses are cheaper and more common on the used market. They're definitely cheaper than Sony's lenses if you leave out Sigma's f2.8 lenses for a minute. That's because DSLRs are mature tech while mirrorless is still relatively new technology. So lens prices are still higher. This is the same story for Canon's EF-M lenses too.
There are only now starting to be cheap AF chink lenses for Sony from Samyang and Viltrox but there are still more competitive options for Canon and Nikon DSLRs due to the maturity of the tech and large install base. Canon just happens to have the biggest selection of cheap lenses due to being the #1 camera manufacturer. That's why I focused on them.
Using the "future proof" argument for a camera is ridiculous, all a newcomer wants to do is shoot photographs and learn the basics so the cheapest option is usually best. 10 year old bodies work fine for that. Cameras don't age like game consoles or mobile phones do. And you could use the same argument, you can build a cheap Canon or Nikon lens kit and adapt it later on wherever thanks to the great autofocus adapters we have now.
Honestly, if one where to go Sony, I'd recommend they go older than A6000. /p/ is known to be prone to company marketing spiel and seem to forget there were Sony mirrorless before the A5000. The Nex 5/6/7 are dirt cheap for any newcomer. I started out with a 5n and took some amazing photos with it. It even has features the A6000 lacks, like a touch screen for focus. But of course Sony wants people think the ground floor entry is the A6000 for those sweet profits.
Anyway, nice debate. The real answer is: the one you have with you.
