Drummerboy2650 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 2 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4521 times:
so i have always been into aviation and aircraft photos and all that good stuff and i had the average digital camera, but it was stolen and now it is the holiday season and my parents offered to get me a new camera and i want a good camera that is less then 350$ and has good quality. is the Canon Powershot SX200 IS good? any recommendations??
Longhornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3377 posts, RR: 44
Reply 1, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks ago) and read 4503 times:
I'm an amateur photographer myself, so I won't have has much good advice as others on here, but I'll give you my advice.
The bottom line is there is a HUGE difference between even a full sized point and shoot, and a dSLR. I had the Sony H5 which had a nice 12x optical zoom, and basically had a lot of the features of an SLR, without it being an SLR. It's great because the autofocus is SO fast on dSLRs, and with fast moving objects like planes, you don't have to track it in the sky as the camera focuses, which is great!
I upgraded last Christmas to the Canon Rebel XSi, and didn't ever look back.
One piece of advice I've been told on here is that the body isn't anywhere near as important as the lens.
I'm sure plenty of people on here are still shooting with the Rebel XT or earlier, with perfectly fine results.
You should be able to find an old Rebel XT for $300 or so with a kit lens, and then save up a little bit and get an entry level telephoto lens. I got the 55-250 IS for like $225 on amazon.com, so It'd require a bit of saving up, but you'll be SO much happier than if you got a big P&S.
For your own shooting, I'm sure it would make a fine camera. If, however, you have any hope of uploading here, definitely pass on any compact.
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 1): The bottom line is there is a HUGE difference between even a full sized point and shoot, and a dSLR.
Yup. It has to do with the size of the sensor. The typical sensor in a compact is around three times smaller than in the average DSLR, meaning it gathers three times less light. This leads to a lot more noise, which for snapshots is fine, but for other kinds of photography (i.e. here), it's pretty useless.
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 1): One piece of advice I've been told on here is that the body isn't anywhere near as important as the lens.
True, but you can get decent shots with less expensive equipment if you know how to get the most out of it.
As Cameron mentioned, you'd do well to find a used, but well-kept model that's a year or two old. DSLR technology is advancing, yes, but not that quickly. You can get five or more year old DSLRs that are more than capable of producing quality good enough for here.
Which brand? The eternal debate. There are many Canon and Nikon fanboys on here who will tell you one is better than the other, but in reality all major brands (Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Sony, Olympus) make good quality entry-level DSLRs, and you wouldn't really go wrong with any of them starting out. You need to find the one that feels best in your hand, and that you can get the best price/value on. Go try them all out in a store if possible, and ignore the marketing gimmicks.
Coming here and asking which is better Canon or Nikon is like asking which is better Airbus or Boeing, and is unlikely to get you very far. If you find a good deal on a DSLR that feels good in your hand and is easy to operate for you and you can get a great deal on, then come back and ask for some specific advice, that would be much better.
RonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 762 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4476 times:
Quoting Drummerboy2650 (Thread starter): so i have always been into aviation and aircraft photos and all that good stuff and i had the average digital camera
Sounds like me a little. I have alot of slightly older photos taken with compact point and shoots that the quality is really terrible. If you're interested in making some higher quality shots I would get a DSLR.
Quoting Dlowwa (Reply 2): You can get five or more year old DSLRs that are more than capable of producing quality good enough for here.
Agreed with above.
Yeah. IMO opinion you have two choices if you want to get a DSLR given the $350 budget, ask your parents for a gift card (if they are willing) and savfe up the rest.
Or buy used. Canon Rebel XS used prices $350-450 depending on the lens package (see my photos for examples). Used Canon 40D bodies $600-700 ranges.
Nikon D40 and D60 used should also be investigated for prices.
Sorry about your stolen camera! Best of luck.
All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
I bought my Nikon D50 with a 28-80 lens as well as a Sigma 70-300 for around $400 (I think). Saw the ad on Craigslist, met the seller at a coffee shop, inspected everything, and have been really happy with it.
Getting ready to sell it and upgrade to a D90, but it's been a fantastic camera.
ThomasWarloe From Norway, joined Jul 2008, 265 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4461 times:
I do agree that a dslr would be much better than a point-and-shoot. If you willing to, you can probably get more for your money if you shop for used cameras rather than new cameras. Also, if you are only planning to use the camera for aviation photography, then you could buy the camera body only without the kit lens, and used the money saved (maybe $100) for a telephoto zoom lens. I was buying a camera a little while ago, (Xsi) and now the prices are dropping rapidly with the introduction of the T1i. You should be able to find better and better deals.
Yeah, I got the same lens too, also off of amazon. It is a good lens that I would recommend. The price has dropped to about $180, but I'm not sure how much you are willing to spend on the lens. The quality is decent provided you don't use it at 250mm.