ELIZA passed the Turing test in the 1960s, at which point they redefined the test... I would say be careful how you define intelligence, as it's quite possible that "Human Intelligence" is nothing more than a highly sophisticated biological computer program that we don't understand.

Machine Learning is a category of AI, preferred as a term by those in the field because AI as a term was badly tainted by massive over-promising and under-delivering in the 70s and 80s: Claiming to be working in AI was a funding no-go, while Machine Learning is something completely different. Unless you are producing games, in which case AI it is because that is what the players understand. Even if there is less intelligence to most game AIs than most ML systems.

If that's the sum total of the punishment they got off lightly. That could quite easily have got them both sex offender registry entries, AIUI!

So yeah, lucky idiots, IMO.

How much Canon glass do you have?

What type of photography do you want to do? Are you looking at glass other than the basic trinity of zoom lenses? If there are exotic lenses on your roadmap, they should factor into your decision process.

A camera doesn't exist in isolation, it's a core part of a system. Look at the systems as wholes.

The sensor has a better low-light capability than a FF sensor of the same pixel count due to larger sensor sites. If shooting at f1.2 on FF, this will obviously more than off-set the sensor site size benefit. It's also worth noting that f1.2 lens probably gives a narrower depth of field than most MF lenses would.



I think this is questionable: I suspect part of the reason FF bodies have so much more ISO headroom is the FF camera makers are prepared to accept a higher noise image, possibly in a bragging rights marketing game to have the "highest ISO camera". In principle, the MF cameras should have pretty similar high-ISO performance to FF as the sensor tech is pretty much the same.

In technical metrics, most MF options are unlikely to blow away the top end FF cameras. However the continued sales of MF digital cameras would lead me to suspect that MF cameras still offer something that isn't really captured in the raw technical metrics. Obviously, a lot of this will depend on what you are photographing.

It's kinda blunt, and not cheap, but it's quite a popular sentiment:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/accessories/camera-accessories/tripod-101.html

If you are looking at costs, and it is that tight, a cheap P&S camera may be far cheaper than a high-end smart Phone, and should be a step up from a cheap smart phone.

I'm not sure the camera involved is so important if serious reach is needed at the first step of evaluating options.

If serious reach is needed, the options are:
1) Telephoto primes. Big con to this option is price: VERY expensive.
2) long zooms, there are three main candidates here: 3rd party 150-600, Canon 100-400, and Nikon 200-500.

Now, if 750mm equivalent is the target, the only cheap option for Canon is 3rd party zooms, there are no Canon zooms reaching that far. For that reach, for a lot of purposes, even for a primarily Canon shooter, the 200-500 Nikon with a Nikon DX body is an option to consider. There are other focus lengths where the opposite applies: the Canon option is there/so much cheaper, that even for a primarily non-Canon shooter, the Canon option is worth looking at.

As to the OPs question: If you are choosing between an own-brand EF-S 55-250 and the linked 500/1000 combo, take the 55-250. You can always crop to gain further effective reach, and the lens will be far better for the price point involved.

Possibly a silly question, but are you getting the under exposure with the flash firing at full power?

Would you consider the Neewer Li-Ion battery equipped speedlights? I think the TT860 is their Nikon option, but I can't really figure out their model numbering and their website isn't that helpful for figuring it out... The Godox equivalent with be the V860(II)N.

Moving to Li-Ion battery tech should address the battery consumption problem.

Note: I haven't used any of these flashes, though I am considering buying Godox instead of Canon going forwards: The battery change and the costs make it attractive, especially as I no longer solely shoot Canon.

I am not a lawyer, and obviously it will vary with jurisdiction, but I believe the governing principle is summarised as "Is the photo of the building, or is the building incidental to the photo?" Where the line lies is a pretty grey area, obviously.

In this case, the photo is clearly of the building.

On your budget, you will have very limited options in the FF space, especially as the "budget FF" cameras are all 3+ years old. I wonder if the benefits of FF in a 2014 camera model beat the benefits of having a 2016 APS-C camera?

Regarding the low light performance side of things: Would you get better performance from an older sensor coupled with a very fast lens (say an f/1.4) than you will with a new sensor and a slower lens (say an f/4)?

Honestly, if you want "this years tech" on your budget, buying FF is probably not the best option.

Is there a particular reason you want a FF camera?

Can I offer that Elan a good, kind, and loving home?

Did you have any other accessories? Are you sure you will never want to throw a roll of film into a camera for old times sake? I picked up an old EOS 500n recently just to have some fun with film in, partly because it is compatible with all my current Canon speedlites and EF lenses, so it's a $10 purchase. Yes, I know you can do similar with Nikon, but they make it harder AIUI.

Canon appear to have a refurbed 6D for $1100 on their US store if you really want a FF camera. This would work with your old lens, and leave you $600 to add a second lens or decent flash or whatever you want really.

Not f 0.95?

The question is not silly, it's actually interesting.

However, there are two types of answers, as other posters have alluded to:

There are the "infinite budget" answers, which are what I am referring to as the "silly aspirational" ones: The LS911 (estimated price in excess of $100,000!), the XF3100, the H6D-100c, etc. These are only interesting if they reference something unusual or different. Personally, I love the idea of the LS911, though I know that realistically I will never be able to afford one. Breaking $10k on a camera is likely to get in in trouble with my CFO!

And there are the realistic budget answers, which is actually a more interesting question: With budgets imposing compromises, what are people choosing? What are peoples budgets? etc. Most of my shooting so far has been with Canon, but since I acquired a 10yo Phase One back and Mamiya body, I have found that I both love the medium format camera, and am really not remotely brand loyal. As far as pricing or functionality are concerned? Anything from any of the current camera vendors is going to be adequate, I'm not brand loyal, and having handled the real "big toys" I don't feel an overwhelming need for "high end".