File :-(, x, )
FUUUCK
I'M POOR! what's a good digital camera to get with poor money?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
How poor are we talkin' here? You posted a pic of a D40, does that mean you can wrangle $500?
>> MaDame
www.newegg.com
>> Anonymous
>>57968
Used Canon 300D (Digital Rebel if you're American) or Pentax *ist DL/DS = about $300.

If $300 is too much for you, get a film camera, because non-SLR digital cameras (except Leicas) are not welcome in /p/ lol.
>> Anonymous
>>58002
WRONGGGGG!!! Let's put it this way; /p/ would rather see an interesting 640x480 shot than boring shit shot with a D200.

That being said, I agree with>>58002; If you want quality build that'll take quality shots, go for a film SLR. I'd rather have a film SLR with a good few lenses and a film scanner than a D40 and one lens.

I have a friend who bought a Minolta SRT101, 50mm prime lens, 80-200mm macro/telephoto lens, and a 3x telconverter for 69 USD. You'll be hard pressed to beat that value. He develops at walmart without prints for 1.70 USD (don't jump all over me, wamart is hit or miss for developing but they're usually pretty consistent from store to store.) He scans his negatives at 2000 DPI in a used 40 dollar flatbed scanner with a light in the lid. In theory, if you scan a 35mm negative at 2000DPI you're getting a 10.7 MP file. For 109 USD his setup and system makes me sometimes look at my D40 and wonder.

Just something to consider.
>> Anonymous
this "brilliant" developing/scanning scheme neglects to realize that the crucial bit of digital is that cost per shot is effectively 0 once the hardware is amortized. here's a sample calc:

i've got 8000 clicks on my 3 month old D40. $1.7/24 exposures is 14c/shot * 8000 shots > 1k$. D40 with (remarkable) kit zoom was 500$. a low-end AF SLR or classic MF SLR will run you 50-100$ with a lens. so, even discounting the time, gas, scanner and film costs, you have several orders of magnitude less opportunities at shots for the same investment of your time and money with 35mm film.
>> Anonymous
>>58335
I never claimed it was 'brilliant', I only said it was 'something to consider'. It's an alternative with low start up cost. The 1.70 is for a 37 exposure roll. It can be a lot easier for some people to come up with money for film and developing every week than it is for them to come up for enough upfront for a good camera/lens setup. Your 'cost per shot' only becomes an issue after they've shot enough to cover the cost of an alternative camera. Your equation makes the assumption that they'll shoot as much as you. You're right, If you want to go out and take hundreds of exposures a day, then yes, digital is the only way to go.

I'm not even sure why I'm continuing to discuss this point; I have a D40.
>> Anonymous
Problem with that is you need C-41 processable B&W to get those cheap walmart rates.

I shoot slide film, and it definitely isn't 1.70 a roll (In fact its about $9.50 CAD for a 36 exp roll)
Transparency film is awesome though, ISO 50 35mm stuff definitely holds detail up to about 2400 Dpi.
The problem is, Most C-41 B&W is 400 ISO, which definitely doesn't hold up to scanning aswell. So the 10 MP comparison isn't completely true.

Also just because its a film camera doesn't mean the Lenses automatically become cheaper, In fact finding non APS sensor lenses that Autofocus is just as expensive if not more so, than on Digital. Also the quality film is low ISO stuff, So the 80-200 f4-5.6 won't cut it for most things anymore.

I also have a D50, which i've taken about 30,000 pics on in a year and 2 months (And I was without it for 4 weeks while it was being repaired). Its good to have both, But for utility the Digital will pretty much always win.
>> Anonymous
yah, you didn't say it was brilliant. i was just riding your jock because you're so sexy.

i have both a film and digital body as well. the film body is also F mount, and in a hilarious twist of marketing fate, can AF with exactly the complement of the lenses the digital body can AF. it is good to have both, but if you're poor, pick up a cheap used digital body with some wear on it; eg, a canon 10d, rebel/XT, Nikon D50/D70, or the cheapest current body: pentax k100d (<400 for the kit)