Ken Doo Photo wrote:
$300 really is not going to get you much in the digital market for even a serious amateur photographer.  Cameras in that price range (think point and shoot) generally don't share the common features offered by a digital slr.

$300, really?  I'd stay shooting with film-----look towards a used Nikon F100.  This really is one of Nikon's nicer F professional series cameras.  Single prime lens.  You're good to go.....

Yes 300$ can go a long way to some degree. Though while you can get an F100 for roughly around 300 - 400 on keh.com, you can get an F90 for roughly 130$ at the same site. Extra money to pick up a prime such as a typical 50mm. On the canon side you can get something decent like a Elan II for about 50 to 100, or even an Elan 7 for about 140$ at keh.com and can easily spend 75$ on a Canon 50mm f/1.8. And I think you can find a dedicated 35mm scanner for low as 150$ ( Pacific Image I think was the brand ). Also if you are not picky bout development, but dont want to develop yourself, just drop a roll off at walgreens pick up negatives only in an hour and pay only 2$ for the development.

But gota admit, if you are snap-happy and might use this camera are functions other than shoots, a cheap digital may be nice to have anyways.

Tim Baker wrote:
Nikon makes the best glass in the industry.  /t

So says the glamour guy. (it's a long back and forth argument that has been going on since before you were born Mallory...just as silly as PCs vs Mac)


At any rate, you're 19.  Tell everyone that you'd get presents from this year that you would prefer everything in the form of cash as you are really dedicated to becoming a photographer and save up the $200 you have plus whatever you get for Christmas (or whatever holiday you celebrate).

After christmas prices will come down for a few weeks, so go shopping then at your local camera store.  The guy behind the counter will likely be old and cranky, but if you tell him you're a young photographer and you're looking for your first real camera system he'll probably be the sweetest guy ever.

I personally would recommend a film camera.  No film isn't dead.  Is it going to be more of a pain for you to work with? A little, but it's just like I recommend to anyone trying to learn photoshop to at least work with real paint brushes and take a basic art class once.

Get a nice older SLR (Single Lens Reflex) or TLR (Twin Lens Reflex...has two lenses on the front...looks weird) medium format camera that shoots 120 or 220 film.  This will force you to use the processing services of a 'real' photo lab who knows how to handle this type of film.

You have a good sense of framing in bethany's last three photos....I hope to see you go far...

Tim Baker wrote:
...Nikon makes the best glass in the industry.  /t

Hrm I assume 'best' is a relative term here. sports shooters may think canon glass is the best ( usually like 80% canon on the side lines ), but then you run into people who will say no leica glass is the best, or carl-zeis, etc etc. Not to mention that hey maybe they do make the best glass.... but you are not going to get it for a 20/month plan on nikon's cheapest DSLR....

Mallory Bertrand wrote:
Okay So I am needing to upgrade my camera I have been working with a cheapy 3.2mp HP camera and it has done very well for the time being but I am wanting to get a better camera for better quality shots. I dont have very much money to work with.. no more thatn 300$
SO What is the Best of the cHeapest if that makes sense.... I dont want to buy a 300 camera and it be crappy... If I had 2000 I could get a nice one but I am poor so... any advice

Mallory,

If you will look on Ebay you can find a few Nikon 5400's left for about $200.00 to $225.00. They are 5 MP and have a very sharp lens. The lens is equal to 28mm to 115 mm, which will do most of your needs. I would use the extra money for a second battery and a larger memory card.  These cameras were $995 when new, but never sold as well as thay should have.   The image sensor chip is the same as on the 5000 through 5700 models.   My 5000 has paid for its self several times, and it still works fine. Several of my images were made with it.

The flash can be turned off and the camera will fire external flash units. It will also work on full manual with you setting everything from focus to f stops, and shutter speeds, if you want to go this way. (On manual it is no longer a point and shoot)

A lot of photographers will say that the point and shoot cameras are no good, but then they will say that they have always wanted a Leica rangefinder. Think of this camera as a rangefinder with a electronic viewfinder on the back.


Also I think you should ask Scott's thoughts about what you should buy. He is the guy helping you with your photography.

Marvin Dockery wrote:
A lot of photographers will say that the point and shoot cameras are no good, but then they will say that they have always wanted a Leica rangefinder. Think of this camera as a rangefinder with a electronic viewfinder on the back.

Point and shoot cameras aren't any good for young photographers trying to learn how photography works.  Wanting a Lecia rangefinder is a completely separate matter.

Marvin Dockery wrote:
A lot of photographers will say that the point and shoot cameras are no good, but then they will say that they have always wanted a Leica rangefinder. Think of this camera as a rangefinder with a electronic viewfinder on the back.

They don't want the body; they want the glass.

Tim Baker wrote:
... Nikon makes the best glass in the industry.  /t

Hmmm... Carl Zeiss, Leitz, Schneider-Kreuznach, Rodenstock, etc would have a little something to say about this assertation. I don't know of a single Nikon product that can compare favorably to an 85 1.4 planar for MM mount, and that's just 35mm SLR stuff...

Really, this Nikon vs Canon debate has gotten rather silly and ignores a whole world of perfectly good stuff that's often better for a specific purpose and narrowed the entire photographic industry down to a single paradigm that isn't always appropriate.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
Hmmm... Carl Zeiss, Leitz, Schneider-Kreuznach, Rodenstock, etc would have a little something to say about this assertation. I don't know of a single Nikon product that can compare favorably to an 85 1.4 planar for MM mount, and that's just 35mm SLR stuff...

Really, this Nikon vs Canon debate has gotten rather silly and ignores a whole world of perfectly good stuff that's often better for a specific purpose and narrowed the entire photographic industry down to a single paradigm that isn't always appropriate.

Agreed, the assertions such as that just goes to show he knows less about photography equipment and "The Industry" than he lead people to belive.

Karl Blessing wrote:

Agreed, the assertions such as that just goes to show he knows less about photography equipment and "The Industry" than he lead people to belive.

I shot a pair of contax 167 cameras for several years, and owned planar, and sonar glass. I have since bought a nikon 85mm f.1.8 D that gives the same look, contrast and sharpness as my planar did.

I still have a 80 planar on a graphix XL, and my Pentax 6x7 with a 105mm lens is sharper.  I will agree that my 50mm 1.7 planar had a little more contrast than my 50mm nikon f 1.8 does. But very little difference.

But this is talking about the film world.  When digital lenses are used to shoot close images with models, the cameras software program often has more to do with quality than the number of lines a given lens can capture on film.

Then there are the sharpening programs in photoshop.

A photographer with lots of shooting experence, and photoshop skills, will often produce better finished images, with a good 5MP point and shoot digital,  than a amateur will, using a high end camera with more MP's

Mallory Bertrand wrote:
Okay I have found alot of NICE cameras on ebay but I dont know that much about them. Can you give me your opinion on The brand Olympus,

Here are a few of the ones I am looking at
-Olympus c2100
Item Specifics - Digital Cameras 
Digital Camera Type:  SLR, Professional    Optical Zoom:  10x   
Brand:  Olympus    Digital Zoom:  2.5x   
Model:  OLYMPUS C2100 ZOOM    Memory Card Format:  SmartMedia   
Resolution (Megapixels):  2.1       
Condition:  Used    Battery Type:  AA/RX6 RECHARGEABLE   
Features:  Sound Recording, Video Recording    Bundled Kits:  Camera Bag, Extra Battery, Extra Memory   
Display Size:  1.8 inches 

-Olympus CAMEDIA C 2500L

Item Specifics - Digital Cameras 
Digital Camera Type:  SLR, Professional    Optical Zoom:  3x   
Digital Camera Brand:  Olympus    Manufacturer Warranty:  --   
Product Line:  Olympus CAMEDIA C    Flash Type:  Pop-up flash   
Model:  2500L    Memory Card Format:  SmartMedia card   
Resolution:  2.5    Battery Type:  4 x battery - AA type   
Manufacturer Part Number:  C-2500L




Olympus CAMEDIA E-10 4.0 Megapixel
Item Specifics - Digital Cameras 
Digital Camera Type:  SLR, Professional    Optical Zoom:  4x   
Digital Camera Brand:  Olympus    Manufacturer Warranty:  --   
Product Line:  Olympus CAMEDIA E    Flash Type:  Pop-up flash   
Model:  10    Memory Card Format:  SmartMedia card   
Resolution:  4    Battery Type:  2 x camera battery - CR-V3 - lithium   
Manufacturer Part Number:  E10 


All of which are in my price range. But I mean if there crap cameras then I guess I will have to spend a little extra to get a better quality camera

None of the above cameras seem to be a really good camera. Stick with film if your budget is that small. Film will make you understand photography more especially if you are just starting out.