camera?

[photographs,]

what is a fairly inexpensive,
but good camera too get?
like i said in my other thread,
i dont have tons of money too spend on one.
but id like one that can still produce good pictures!
if you know of any, please let me know.
and also if you know the price range?
thanks!!

 

[tirediron]

You'll have to be more specific. First off, what is "fairly inexpensive" with respect to your budgetary constraints? What type of photography are you most interested in?

All modern cameras except for the very cheapest point and shoots will produce pictures which will print well to at least 5x7, and most to 8x10. You need to do a little research and establish how much you are willing to spend, and what features you want. Once you've done that, look at the major manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, etc) and see which of their model(s) meet your requirements.

There is probably someone here who can answer specifics on just about any camera you care to name, but no one but you can decide which camera is best for you.

 

[Fusionbrad]

i dont know what kind of camera you are looking for but i have a canon A720is, its a simple point and shoot but also has all the manual settings too,

i took these with it and they came out pretty good:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=132630

dunno what your budget it but the A720is it pretty cheap

 

[Village Idiot]

The Nikon D700 is fairly inexpensive...when compared to a Hassleblad setup with a 16mp back. The Nikon is what, $3000? The Hassy is about $12000.

 

[Alex_B]

well, I suggest you first give us a price range, since
the terms cheap and expensive are fairly relative

 

[rasheemo]

get the Canon XT

 

[garboui]

everyone has perfectly valid points so far given that you havent provided us with an finite budget as of yet, thouh ill still plug in my 2 cents here anyway.

if your going to go the point and shoot route and want something fairly inexpensive look at the canon A570IS. its a camera that will give decent end product quality and if you are doing alot of shooting you will find the ergonomics of this camera very nice to handle. It has image stabalization and manual modes too which will all help you squeeze more performance out for your buck. The fact that it takes AA batteries is also nice.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona570is/

If you are planning on going the DSLR route i would also suggest sticking with canon and picking youre self up a rebel XT or an XTi as previous members have suggested.

 

[elemental]

Do you really want to learn about photography and get better?

Used 35mm SLR from eBay: $21
Chemicals to do your own black and white developing: $45
20 rolls of black and white film from Freestyle: $25

For under $100, which will barely get you a digital point-and-shoot (and definitely not one you'd be happy with), you can be getting your hands dirty (wear gloves!) doing the real thing. You will learn more about photography in your first three rolls of self-developed film than most people learn in years of shooting digital. And, if you ever want to throw in some color film for a family vacation or something, you can just get it developed at Wal-Mart.

I know this seems like an odd suggestion, but if you want to learn photography this is the way. If you want to take pictures, you should probably get a digital point-and-shoot, and the Canons are the best and worth the extra investment.

 

[Village Idiot]

Do you really want to learn about photography and get better?

Used 35mm SLR from eBay: $21
Chemicals to do your own black and white developing: $45
20 rolls of black and white film from Freestyle: $25

For under $100, which will barely get you a digital point-and-shoot (and definitely not one you'd be happy with), you can be getting your hands dirty (wear gloves!) doing the real thing. You will learn more about photography in your first three rolls of self-developed film than most people learn in years of shooting digital. And, if you ever want to throw in some color film for a family vacation or something, you can just get it developed at Wal-Mart.

I know this seems like an odd suggestion, but if you want to learn photography this is the way. If you want to take pictures, you should probably get a digital point-and-shoot, and the Canons are the best and worth the extra investment.

You can find an older 300D for about $250. That's a DSLR. And just because the person is shooting digital vs. film doesn't mean they're only learning how to take pictures and not learning about photography.

After all, photography isn't learning how to use film.

Main Entry: pho·tog·ra·phy
Pronunciation: \fə-ˈtä-grə-fē\
Function: noun
Date: 1839 : the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or a CCD chip)

I figured some one that shot film would at least know that. After all, if the OP wants to really learn photography, they should be learning how to use and manipulate light. It has nothing to do with what type of medium you're using.

 

[elemental]

You can find an older 300D for about $250. That's a DSLR. And just because the person is shooting digital vs. film doesn't mean they're only learning how to take pictures and not learning about photography.

After all, photography isn't learning how to use film.

Main Entry: pho·tog·ra·phy Pronunciation: \fə-ˈtä-grə-fē\ Function: noun Date: 1839 : the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or a CCD chip)

I figured some one that shot film would at least know that.

Where did I say photography is learning to use film?

Learning photography is, in my opinion, learning to wrap your head around the concept of creating images by holding the canvas and trying to catch the paint.

If there were $20 digital cameras that only had manual settings I would recommend these, but there's no such animal. I took "modest budget" to mean "no DSLRs," and point-and-shoot digital cameras are not, in my opinion, the best way to learn serious photography. For someone on a budget who wants to really learn and understand aperture, shutter speed, sensitivity, and composition, and how all of these work together, I think a camera that allows control over all of these is essential, and in a modest price range the only equipment that will really allow for this is 35mm. If a DSLR fits the budget, it may well be a better option, but it's tough to beat the cost effectiveness of film.

Alright, off to develop last night's roll.

 

[Bigfatts]

Take a look at the Canon S5 is, I just bought one and I love it. I wanted a less expensive camera to wet my feet in digital photography and I think I made the perfect choice. It is not an SLR but I by no means consider it a basic point and shoot. I have been a member here a short time and have already seen wonderful quality shots taken with this camera. It allows great auto shooting but also has settings that give you almost SLR-like manual control. The Macro and image stability are also wonderful. If you can afford $350 it's what I reccommend.

 

[Village Idiot]

Where did I say photography is learning to use film?

Implied...

Do you really want to learn about photography and get better?

You will learn more about photography in your first three rolls of self-developed film than most people learn in years of shooting digital.

if you want to learn photography this is the way. If you want to take pictures, you should probably get a digital point-and-shoot

 

[Mystwalker]

Canon SDxxxIS (xxx being 700, 750, 800, 850, and bunch of other models)
I believe these are fairly affordable - $150 to $350 or so.
These are purely Point and Shoot, let's stay in auto mode type of cameras. If you want good pictures, these will work fine.
You will find similar offerings from Pentax, Sony, Kodak, etc ... Best Buy have these all lined up if you want to test/touch them (I do not work for BB, just like to go there to drool over new tech).

If you want to go deeper into "photography", I would recommend a DSLR. You are looking at $350+ just to get into the door (entry-level), and that is for camera only. Lens will run you ~$100 for a semi-decent/useable lens to thousands.

 

[photographs,]

well so far from what ivea heard, is that a cannon is my best shot
and sorry for not telling you what my price range was!
up too $250 probly.
if i need to i could spend $300 though, but prefer not too.

 

[elemental]

Implied...

I'm sorry you weren't able to correctly infer my intended meaning. It's explained fairly clearly twice now.