JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

On the other hand, how many great shots in the film/manual focus and settings era were messed up by not focusing fast or accurately enough, not getting exposure settings fast enough, etc. I know I get a lot more photos in focus now with autofocus than I did in the manual focus days, and better exposures in fast changing lighting conditions with auto exposure.

jrb1213 Loc: McDonough GEorgia

It is amazing, I agree with Mtshooter on everything (except his analysis of the Canon 7D mark II. :lol: )

Papa Joe Loc: Midwest U.S.

Yep! That about covers it.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

That is quite true. For an inexperienced shooter, the results from a $300 camera and a $3000 will likely be very similar, especially if shooting in auto mode in good light. However an experienced photographer knows how to use an expensive camera's greater capability. The OP's general statement that there is no apparent advantage to getting an expensive body is based on his obviously limited experience and understanding of the subject. I think that's the issue that most of us are speaking to.

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

Dude, open the box already!!

:mrgreen:

emmons267 Loc: Arizona, Valley of the Sun

:thumbup: :-D

emmons267 Loc: Arizona, Valley of the Sun

Great picture...I really like the color and composition.

Buckeye Loc: Dayton, OH.

Some people take pictures. Others make photographs.

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

Hello Jim,

Obviously quoted from a novice. As you improve your abilities, you will gain an appreciation for quality equipment and how they can better fulfill your needs. You can continue to use your $300 camera, but others have the right to buy whatever they please.

Why by a car, when you could walk or ride a bike?

Why would you want to make a ludicrise statement like this?
:thumbup:

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

How much expensive is, depends on ones budget, I guess. But as to your question, what kind and how expensive of a camera you want depends on your photographic needs. I would say that if one is not a serious photographer or professional photog, a real expensive camera may not be what you need, and you may not ever use a lot of its features, so it could be a big waste of money. If, on the other hand, you want a camera to take pics of the kids, grandkids, family functions, or to records a great vacation trip, and you're not going to do a bunch of post processing to blow images up to 16X20 for framing, a "$300.00" camera will probably be just the ticket for your needs.

My advice is to evaluate what your photographic needs are and buy a camera that will meet those needs. I am currently looking at two cameras: one is a $300.00 Canon SX700HS that seems to be pretty versatile with full manual controls if needed. The other is a Sony A5000 mirrorless APS-C camera that is quite a step up, with interchangeable lenses. It's much more advanced. I am looking at that only because Costco currently has it for sale at a greatly reduced price, just over $400.00. Both would satisfy my needs, but what I'm really battling is my "wants."

Again, ask yourself what you really need out of a camera and go with that idea. And good luck and have fun camera shopping.

cneajna Loc: Port Angeles, WA

I didn't read ALL the replies so I may be repeating something similar already pointed out.... however, a $300 camera may not shoot in RAW or have a full-size sensor. Probably the single most important thing in getting a good shot (besides the talent of the person behind the lens). Yeah, if you don't really care and want to spend a lot of your time refining a pic post-processing then buy the $300 camera. I own some... they take good pictures for casual shooting where graininess doesn't matter much (candid photos, etc).
Anyway, that's just a couple reasons why, I have no doubt someone will point out some others. And it's just my opinion, I could be wrong. :)

david2day Loc: Central Coast, Calif.

MT Shooter has spoken. No need to read further.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

in the end it's you who decides if a $300.00 camera fills all your needs.

mmeador

If you have never used an upper end camera, DON'T. I started with a Kodak Instamatic and was very happy. Then, a friend let me use his Nikon F. It has been down hill ever since. I spent more than $300.00 on my tripod. Just saying.

coot Loc: Evansville, IN.

Hi John. You are correct. The thing I really do like about the new digital cameras is that folks can take as many shots as they like, which is really great. I also think it is wonderful that no longer do people waist time and money with film processing to be able to see their results. I was not criticizing new technology, just how poorly manual operation usage is implemented on lower priced cameras.