looking for a better camera, but I'm on a budget (Page 2): You are using conflicting terminology. A full frame camera with lenses can run anywhere between $2500 and $25,000. You said...

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

davidheald1942 wrote:

I'm thinking a Nikon, but want one better than my Canon
SX160 is with 16x zoom. I'd prefer one with full frame whatever it's called. I know I can't afford a slr, but interchangeable lenses is a must. Thanks a lot.
David

You are using conflicting terminology. A full frame camera with lenses can run anywhere between $2500 and $25,000. You said interchangeable lenses are a must. A dslr with a smaller sensor (APS-C) and lenses go for about 8 or 900 and up. I think you are looking for a bridge camera, one that "bridges" the gap between point and shoot and DSLR. That would fit your price range. I have no idea if that answers your question. But I hope it makes sense.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

My epm2 recommendation then fits your bill.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

davidheald1942 wrote:

Makes no sense? u2! I have between $400.oo-$500.oo that I can spend & not break the bank. does that make sense

Perfect. Get the Sony I mentioned and buy elements 12 and have money left over.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

BigDaddy wrote:

Perfect. Get the Sony I mentioned and buy elements 12 and have money left over.

Your sony can't shoot raw, I'd go with the canon 50x camera

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

tdekany wrote:

Your sony can't shoot raw, I'd go with the canon 50x camera

If you look at the links to the pictures I listed, you will see there is no need for raw. I've not seen any pictures from a canon sx50 that come close to the clarity of those pictures.

BTW, it's not my camera or my pictures, but the more I see of them, the more I wish it was.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

BigDaddy wrote:

If you look at the links to the pictures I listed, you will see there is no need for raw. I've not seen any pictures from a canon sx50 that come close to the clarity of those pictures.

BTW, it's not my camera or my pictures, but the more I see of them, the more I wish it was.

That is like saying one doesn't need more than 80 hp in a car because I saw someone drive one on a highway all by itself at sea level. Meaning, that in good light "almost any"camera will take a great picture. However that is not reality. But if you are happy with it, that is all that matters. Unfortunately i would not consider it. Also, please don't forget that the person behind that camera who is mostly responsible for those shots. He/she could most likely take great pictures with most cameras.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

tdekany wrote:

That is like saying one doesn't need more than 80 ... (show quote)

No, it's like saying I don't need a v8 to go 100 mph when my 4 cylinder turbo goes 120. Also, I doubt that camera has manual focus so it's the camera that is doing the focusing. If the camera takes that sharp of pictures, then all the cameraman has to do is the hard stuff without worrying much about focus and sharpness. Best of all, that camera is well within his price range.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

BigDaddy wrote:

No, it's like saying I don't need a v8 to go 100 mph when my 4 cylinder turbo goes 120. Also, I doubt that camera has manual focus so it's the camera that is doing the focusing. If the camera takes that sharp of pictures, then all the cameraman has to do is the hard stuff without worrying much about focus and sharpness. Best of all, that camera is well within his price range.

That camera gets noisy by iso 400 so when you need to go uphill, you will be in trouble. Your analogy is not a good one, as the tiny sensor can not match larger sensors unlike a smaller engine getting to 120 like a V8.

PS: are you really saying that having a sharp lens = focus?

I am out. You win.

sueyeisert Loc: New Jersey

The responder wasn't being rude. If you can't afford a dslr a full frame camera is the most expensive level of camera.

davidheald1942 wrote:

Makes no sense? u2! I have between $400.oo-$500.oo that I can spend & not break the bank. does that make sense

Realist101 Loc: Indiana

Hi there...I just found a Canon EOS T5 on QVC with a zoom lens and macro mode, etc...USB cord, bag, and more, all for the cost of a body. They have payments too. If that's something you'd be interested in. I just ordered so haven't used mine yet, so...I am hopeful. :) Susan

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

davidheald1942 wrote:

Makes no sense? u2! I have between $400.oo-$500.oo that I can spend & not break the bank. does that make sense

Full frame is out of the question

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

boberic wrote:

You are using conflicting terminology. A full frame camera with lenses can run anywhere between $2500 and $25,000. You said interchangeable lenses are a must. A dslr with a smaller sensor (APS-C) and lenses go for about 8 or 900 and up. I think you are looking for a bridge camera, one that "bridges" the gap between point and shoot and DSLR. That would fit your price range. I have no idea if that answers your question. But I hope it makes sense.

You can get a refurbished D5100 for under $400. REfurbs are always my first choice. For another $100+, you can get a D5200. These aren't full frame, but they're both good cameras. Of, course, you'll have to buy a lens, too.

http://www.cameta.com/Nikon-D5100-Digital-SLR-Camera-Body-Factory-Refurbished-62313.cfm

Go to a place like Best Buy and handle some cameras and see what you like. I don't care for the electronic viewfinders, so give them a try.

Howard5252 Loc: New York / Florida (now)

davidheald1942 wrote:

I'm thinking a Nikon, but want one better than my Canon
SX160 is with 16x zoom. I'd prefer one with full frame whatever it's called. I know I can't afford a slr, but interchangeable lenses is a must. Thanks a lot.
David

Let's start over.
1- What will you do with the camera? Sunday family picnics? Birds in flight? BIG DIFFERENCE in equipment.
2- How much money do you have to spend? $200 / $2000
3- Why do you want interchangeable lenses? Maybe a Bridge camera with a good zoom will do?
There are myriad excellent cameras available. In order to answer the question "Which is good for you?" We've got to know a lot more about WHY you're buying it; what are the shortcomings of your existing camera? WHAT you plan to use it for, and HOW MUCH money you can spend.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

boberic wrote:

You are using conflicting terminology. A full frame camera with lenses can run anywhere between $2500 and $25,000. You said interchangeable lenses are a must. A dslr with a smaller sensor (APS-C) and lenses go for about 8 or 900 and up. I think you are looking for a bridge camera, one that "bridges" the gap between point and shoot and DSLR. That would fit your price range. I have no idea if that answers your question. But I hope it makes sense.

You can get a very nice D700 used for around $1200 or less, and add $150 for a clean Nikkor 28-105 F3.5- F4.5, or $300 for a nice used 24-85 VR, and you would have way better image quality than ANY smaller sensor camera, without breaking the bank. But everything is relative.

cthahn

If you are on a budget, forget a full frame.