I am taking photography as an elective this summer and though the class doesn't require any particular type of camera I'd like to upgrade what I have a bit. Right now I have a Samsung P&S 12.2 mp which is good for alot of things but w/ only 3x zoom and not as many customizations available as I'd like. I actually use my cell for my shots for this project and plan to finish the project that way but if/when I start my next year I'd like to have more options to use as far as equipment and the types of shots I can get. I am not sure if my budget allows an SLR that is worth buying or if I should find a newer, nicer ZLR than my Samsung. My budget probably needs to stay under $500 and if possible, closer to $300. My current camera I only paid $70 for about a year & a half ago. I'd love any recs either for specific models or even what features to look for that will be most useful. Thanks!
In your budget range I'd look for used DSLRs. You can pick up quality models that are a few years old at a significant discount. This doesn't make them worse cameras, but it's just the nature of how technology pricing works. There are working professionals today who are using camera bodies that can be picked up on ebay for a fraction of what they used to cost, and still cheaper than newer and lesser entry level models today.
Heck, there was a guy just six months or so ago on one of the big photo forums who was contacted by National Geographic about a photo he took. He used an old 30D, which these days can be found for under $400. If nat geo finds photos from these old models acceptable, I'm sure they hold up very well in the hands of everyone else.
For example, I recently picked up a Canon 20D a while back for 200 bucks. Back in the day it was a semi-pro camera priced at nearly $1,500. Slap a $100 nifty fifty lens on that bad boy and for $300 you have a camera that will compete with many other DSLRs and beat the pants off of most point and shoots.
One thing to keep in mind is to not get hung up on megapixels. Once you go beyond 8 MP, unless you are a professional or making very large prints, that camera specification is almost worthless for everyday use.
I still have my old 20D, and at normal size (screen or print) no-one can tell the difference between photos I took on that and ones taken on my 5D Mark II, assuming normal lighting and such of course (newer cameras do handle low light better). And most people can't tell the difference between a shot taken on the 20D with my old $100 50mm lens and one taken on the 5D II with my $3k 85mm (again, under normal shooting conditions). Most of the differences lie in the use of said equipment and extreme shooting conditions, and if something was good enough for a pro 5 years ago surely it is still decent quality now.
The canon 20D or 10D if you can get one cheap are good cameras also you can pick up lenses pretty reasonably, a kit lens and either an old EF 70-210 F4 or the cheap newer telephoto and have a wide variety of shooting options for within that budget if you shop carefully...
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Heck, there was a guy just six months or so ago on one of the big photo forums who was contacted by National Geographic about a photo he took. He used an old 30D, which these days can be found for under $400. If nat geo finds photos from these old models acceptable, I'm sure they hold up very well in the hands of everyone else.
For example, I recently picked up a Canon 20D a while back for 200 bucks. Back in the day it was a semi-pro camera priced at nearly $1,500. Slap a $100 nifty fifty lens on that bad boy and for $300 you have a camera that will compete with many other DSLRs and beat the pants off of most point and shoots.
One thing to keep in mind is to not get hung up on megapixels. Once you go beyond 8 MP, unless you are a professional or making very large prints, that camera specification is almost worthless for everyday use.
I still have my old 20D, and at normal size (screen or print) no-one can tell the difference between photos I took on that and ones taken on my 5D Mark II, assuming normal lighting and such of course (newer cameras do handle low light better). And most people can't tell the difference between a shot taken on the 20D with my old $100 50mm lens and one taken on the 5D II with my $3k 85mm (again, under normal shooting conditions). Most of the differences lie in the use of said equipment and extreme shooting conditions, and if something was good enough for a pro 5 years ago surely it is still decent quality now.
The canon 20D or 10D if you can get one cheap are good cameras also you can pick up lenses pretty reasonably, a kit lens and either an old EF 70-210 F4 or the cheap newer telephoto and have a wide variety of shooting options for within that budget if you shop carefully...