Best Affordable Camera to take pics

[Profkrakatoa]

i'd say for the money, canon PS's are the best..you can get a great camera for just over 200 bucks

That's what I have, and as I learn to use the macro feature better, my pics are rapidly improving.

 

[Arachnomore]

.

You have pretty much all the information you are going to get. Try to get something that takes SD cards aswell as look into the battery options. Try to get something with a rechargeable lithium Ion pack instead of using AA all the time. You will find yourself saving a ton and running out alot less.

 

[dragonblade71]

Isaacboda: "In no way shape or form is learning the ropes practical with film."

Millions of people have 'learnt the ropes' with film and it never did them any harm. One just needs an understanding of the basics of exposure and depth of field and a roll of film or two to start off with. Furthermore, it can teach you discipline and it's great seeing how the manual cameras work - aperture ring on the lens, change in distance from film to lens as the lens is focused etc. Though I can see the benefits of digital for multiple shooting / experimenting with artificial light set ups.

"Especially with manual focus or Lighting."

If one can produce a sharp image on the viewfinder screen, then one would be fairly confident that the photographed image will be in focus, regardless if it's shot on film or digital.

"ISO is a huge section to test in itself."

ISO / ASA speed settings are a fairly basic concept to understand. I'm not sure what testing you're referring to.

"I have already paid off my camera just in what would have been film costs."

I certainly believe you. Though one wonders how long till digital camera technology evolves and computers too, forcing people like yourselves to 'upgrade' to another camera and then another after that. With myself, I like the fact that a good film camera can remain 'usable' for decades.

I must clarify that there is no perfect medium. Both film and digital have their advantages and disadvantages. People can choose whichever appeals to them more. Of course there are some who shoot on both.

 

[Dean86]

The Nikon S51 Looks very appealing with its 4cm Macro and 8.1Mp

 

[Arachnomore]

The Nikon S51 Looks very appealing with its 4cm Macro and 8.1Mp

Very Nice Choice!

Isaacboda: "In no way shape or form is learning the ropes practical with film."

Millions of people have 'learnt the ropes' with film and it never did them any harm. One just needs an understanding of the basics of exposure and depth of field and a roll of film or two to start off with. Furthermore, it can teach you discipline and it's great seeing how the manual cameras work - aperture ring on the lens, change in distance from film to lens as the lens is focused etc. Though I can see the benefits of digital for multiple shooting / experimenting with artificial light set ups.

"Especially with manual focus or Lighting."

If one can produce a sharp image on the viewfinder screen, then one would be fairly confident that the photographed image will be in focus, regardless if it's shot on film or digital.

"ISO is a huge section to test in itself."

ISO / ASA speed settings are a fairly basic concept to understand. I'm not sure what testing you're referring to.

"I have already paid off my camera just in what would have been film costs."

I certainly believe you. Though one wonders how long till digital camera technology evolves and computers too, forcing people like yourselves to 'upgrade' to another camera and then another after that. With myself, I like the fact that a good film camera can remain 'usable' for decades.

I must clarify that there is no perfect medium. Both film and digital have their advantages and disadvantages. People can choose whichever appeals to them more. Of course there are some who shoot on both.

Well by the time you get the ropes down with a film camera you could have already bought another lens or Digital camera. As for ISO/ASA being a easy concept... not really. It depends on tons of variables, it truly does. I don't know why you challenge my word on this.... but I'm not going to throw away my memories on keeping a notebook and a box of film marked with dates and speeds out the window. It probably costed me 200 bucks easy in film to really understand what was going on inside the camera. I worked in a lab so I saved a bunch on developing - 5 finger style

As for Camera's upgrading and needing to buy a new one... I have had a D50 for 3 or 4 years. I have shot roughly 8000 to 10000 pictures with it easy. Give or take a couple thousand. Divide that by 24 and thats 416~ rolls. At roughly a $1.50 a roll you could have saved $624 and that doesn't even count the cost of developing. I shall be moving up to a D300 when I get the funds. I don't have to buy new lenses... those are staying just fine. But, there is going to be a peak on Digital soon... we already have it if you think about it. With film comes grain... same thing with digital just the magnitude of it. I can only print a certain resolution give or take a couple inches with film. Usually clear 11x17's... with the D300 you can crop and fajangle billboards ;P ... Its clear that film isn't going to come back.. nor should it be bowed down to. Learn the ropes on digital... after all your going to go there anyways... why learn twice.

 

[Truff135]

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/coolpix_p5100

I don't think you can go wrong with that camera.. or the step down:

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/coolpix_p50

here is a macro sample from the P50

CLICK HERE

I don't know what it is about it, but that is just an awesome picture! I love it! I was eyeballing a $550 Nikon digital SLR at Wal-Mart a couple weeks back, but I'm getting a house soon (well, pretty sure) and need to spend the money on furniture. I'd love to get one someday, though.

 

[Arachnomore]

.

Probably the best way to do things nowadays is apply for credit. Do the whole no payments for 12 months through a dealer. You could shoot a wedding every 3 months and pay off all your gear. It's basically a free camera if you take the oppurtunity. I was going to get the Nikon D300 body for like 36 dollars a month... thats half of what I charge for a sitting at senior pictures... its crazy easy. I'm fixing to do it soon.

 

[imjim]

Since its turning into a digital vs film, nikon vs canon debate.

35mm film is full frame with a resolution of about 20 mega pixels with current 100 iso films. Its said that current 200 iso film has the grain of older 100 iso film.

I like film for the different look it has and multiple exposures.

You can develope film for about $2 a roll and scan the negatives to digital or pay about $5 per roll for Wal-Mart to develope and make a photo CD.

Digital cameras are the limiting factor in resolution and many lenses are sharper than current small sensor digital cameras can resolve.

The resolution solution is full frame digital at about $3000 from Canon 5D or Nikon D3.

I prefer Canon.

You will not go wrong with a current model Canon PowerShot camera such as the A580.

If you want digital resolution get a full frame sensor model.

 

[Arachnomore]

...

I'm not meaning this to be a war... Digital would win. Whether you like it or not the time and the money saved in digital is enough to switch over. Nikon or Canon.. do your research they both are amazing. I would recommend Nikon over Cannon. The D300 is sexy.

 

[imjim]

I'm not meaning this to be a war... Digital would win. Whether you like it or not the time and the money saved in digital is enough to switch over. Nikon or Canon.. do your research they both are amazing. I would recommend Nikon over Cannon. The D300 is sexy.

Its no war just facts the Nikon D300 will limit the resolution of a good lense the only solution is full frame digital or film.

 

[metallica]

i was allways well impressed with the colors from my fuji finepix. sure it was never as frigging sharp as my Canon DSLR but then it never died on me also...
in Malaysia i bought a Sony DSC T7. an ultra compact with 5.1 mpix that i use when i don't want to build the whole theatre of DSLR for 1 pic

choosing your camera is a personal choice. just go to your local photo store and try out all the models in your butget. then look online for the best deal on the camera you like best.

good luck and let us know what you bought!

Eddy

 

[Arachnomore]

Its no war just facts the Nikon D300 will limit the resolution of a good lense the only solution is full frame digital or film.

he is looking to spend 200-300 dollars.. and not on processing costs.. what do you suggest he goes with. How much are full frame format camera's? You really don't lose much on digital anyways when it comes to frame.. its what.. maybe 1/4" on each side? when I shoot raw.. it looks just like it did through the lens. I like cutting a lab out of the picture in the first place. I just go out.. shoot pictures... plug in my card.. edit .. order through mpix. With film.. I either have to take it to WALMART boooo and sit for an hour.. or mail it out.. or risk developing it myself... which can screw up the whole roll.... or I can just open it in photoshop.. correct the contrast and order..... So lets compare... 15 minutes versus 1 hour/3 days.... plus you pay for the ones that don't look right.

 

[Nerri1029]

i was allways well impressed with the colors from my fuji finepix. sure it was never as frigging sharp as my Canon DSLR but then it never died on me also...
in Malaysia i bought a Sony DSC T7. an ultra compact with 5.1 mpix that i use when i don't want to build the whole theatre of DSLR for 1 pic

choosing your camera is a personal choice. just go to your local photo store and try out all the models in your butget. then look online for the best deal on the camera you like best.

good luck and let us know what you bought!

Eddy

I love my Fuji S5200, damn inexpensive..

"IMJIM" you are missing the point... the OP wanted affordable ( assume average person/ average T enthusiest )

I loved my SLR's and If I was to shoot another wedding I'd use film again.
check E-bay for SLR's you can get a full package for 75-100 dollars..
the convenience factor is winning.. has won the battle of digi vs. film.

Film will always have a niche.. and I hope it never goes away, however..
the writing on the wall ... was done with photoshop

 

[Arachnomore]

I love my Fuji S5200, damn inexpensive..

"IMJIM" you are missing the point... the OP wanted affordable ( assume average person/ average T enthusiest )

I loved my SLR's and If I was to shoot another wedding I'd use film again.
check E-bay for SLR's you can get a full package for 75-100 dollars..
the convenience factor is winning.. has won the battle of digi vs. film.

Film will always have a niche.. and I hope it never goes away, however..
the writing on the wall ... was done with photoshop

That is true... I mean film will always be around. I think in 2005 or 6 Kodak signed another 20 years in negative production. I have seen some amazing film pictures... check out www.Fatali.com thats film! He is very good... but for time and money factor and ease of use... digital is great.. thats why it is booming. I still have a film camera.. my use for it is well.... not there anymore. I can do everything old school... on new school equipment.

 

[Tunedbeat]

You really can't go wrong with a nice P&S, these days. Most are capable of focusing at a very close range, which is good for shooting Ts. I would suggest you go to your local retailer and have a hands on at some of the advance P&S cameras. (Canon's S-series, Sony's H-series, Panasonic)

If you decide to get a DSLR, you can always go with a cheaper model like Canon's 10D or 20D, or even the XT-XTi. With a nice lens, they are just as good as the newer models.

 

[Stylopidae]

You can develope film for about $2 a roll and scan the negatives to digital or pay about $5 per roll for Wal-Mart to develope and make a photo CD.

The photo CDs made from film at Wal*Mart aren't going to be anywhere near full resolution...assuming, what, 20 megapixels from film?

Seems a bit high for your happy average run of the mill Kodak 400 speed (also avalible from Wal*Mart)...but I haven't done film photography since 6th grade.

Either way...you're missing the point and on top of that, the information you're giving is making me wonder if you really understand the question. I don't think you do. Actually, I know you don't.

We're talking an average photographer on (presumably) a college budget. Show me someone who's going to pick up a $3,000 35mm SLR and take pics anywhere near the quality of the pictures I took above with only a layman's level of knowledge about photography. It's not going to happen.

With just a 5 megapixel digital camera and minimal knowledge about how to set the camera, I take pictures that are better than 90% of the general population who take pictures with film cameras.

For the average college student photographer, digital is the way to go. You pay for the pictures once (as opposed to twice with film), you pick and choose your pictures and you don't have to bother yourself with getting the stuff developed before you post the pictures online, which I'm assuming is what the OP is looking to do.

 

[sick4x4]

it seems everyone as a good perspective just remember the mega pixel thing is only good if doing larger prints....3.1 is all you really need, if taking digital stills...now if your doing poster size lol then dugh your going to need to be higher..

if photography is your thing then of coarse most get the detachable lens and the big bulky cameras but for great pics you dont have to spend alot and coming for me thats saying something..i got mine cuzz it was small, i can take it everywhere and when holding or taking out my t's, i dont need to become a photo-shoot production just to take a pic lol;P but a word of advise read the manual:wall: theres alot of good info in there about what the functions actually do. to be honest i didnt and just experimented, save time read that thing lol...

 

[imjim]

I love my Fuji S5200, damn inexpensive..

"IMJIM" you are missing the point... the OP wanted affordable ( assume average person/ average T enthusiest )

I loved my SLR's and If I was to shoot another wedding I'd use film again.
check E-bay for SLR's you can get a full package for 75-100 dollars..
the convenience factor is winning.. has won the battle of digi vs. film.

Film will always have a niche.. and I hope it never goes away, however..
the writing on the wall ... was done with photoshop

I didn't miss anything. Please read again. . .

I suggest for the thread starter a Canon PowerShot A580 or similar current model.

The rest was information and fact. Check out full frame resolution comparisons on the internet to learn more about full frame advantages. Also read "The Mega Pixel Myth" All this information can be found easily on the internet with google search. . .

As for scanning film you are at the mercy of the quality of the scan to capture the films resolution to the digital format. But the results can be worth the effort. I like to do real multiple exposures with film rather than simulating with PhotoShop.

 

[padkison]

The point & shoot variety is certainly more affordable than the DSLR. However, the trade-off is picture quality (DSLR has a better CCD). That said, if you are just getting into taking macro shots, I would get a p&s. You can get shots you will be very happy with (take a look at my latest of the Ga in the photo thread). If you get to a point where you want the better quality of a DSLR, you can buy one in addition to the p&s. You will still want the p&s as a grab-and-go camera since a DSLR with lenses and tripod, etc will be bulky.

For a p&s, I would get one with options that allow for aperture priority, shutter priority, and manual so you can control depth of field and other factors.

I went with the Canon SI5 IS and am happy with it so far. I have only had it for a short while and am still learning about lighting and composition, etc. This camera also has 12x zoom which is nice for wildlife shots. A lot of p&s only have 3-4x zoom. Price is about $320-$350. But keep in mind with any p&s camera you need to budget for a memory card, extra battery, and protective case. That can run about $75 right there.

 

[imjim]

The photo CDs made from film at Wal*Mart aren't going to be anywhere near full resolution...assuming, what, 20 megapixels from film?

Seems a bit high for your happy average run of the mill Kodak 400 speed (also avalible from Wal*Mart)...but I haven't done film photography since 6th grade.

Either way...you're missing the point and on top of that, the information you're giving is making me wonder if you really understand the question. I don't think you do. Actually, I know you don't.

We're talking an average photographer on (presumably) a college budget. Show me someone who's going to pick up a $3,000 35mm SLR and take pics anywhere near the quality of the pictures I took above with only a layman's level of knowledge about photography. It's not going to happen.

With just a 5 megapixel digital camera and minimal knowledge about how to set the camera, I take pictures that are better than 90% of the general population who take pictures with film cameras.

For the average college student photographer, digital is the way to go. You pay for the pictures once (as opposed to twice with film), you pick and choose your pictures and you don't have to bother yourself with getting the stuff developed before you post the pictures online, which I'm assuming is what the OP is looking to do.

Cheshire:

<edit>
Now I guess you want to pretend to be a professional photographer. You do not fool me.

Please read what I wrote in context and then shut up.