What's the best camera for under $200? I just want something

>>57366467
>I just want something that will take pictures in decent quality without a lot of messing around,
your phone
>although it would be good if it let me change settings so that I could learn a bit more about cameras.
a phone won't do for that. save up an extra hundred bucks and get a used or old stock Pentax K-50.

>but can't I just get a point-'n'-shoot or some 'bridge camera'?
You can, but you'd be throwing money away. They have the same tiny-ass sensors you find in phones, except they have shitty little zoom lenses bolted to them. You can't change lenses, which is something you're going to want to do if you ever start learning more about photography. and many (not all, but a lot) don't really give you much in the way of manual control.

Go to /p/ and read their sticky. If you post there and ask a question, do it in the gear thread, don't make your own.

>>57366467
>>>/p/

>>57366494
I'm not buying a phone retard, I don't want to be tracked. You're telling me there isn't a single good camera from the last few years that shows up for $175 on ebay?

>>57366526
No, there isn't. Proper digital cameras hold their value pretty well by electronics standards.

Save more money. $300 is about the lowest figure you're going to be able to get down to.

>>57366565
Maybe I was lowballing it, now that I think about it cameras were always pretty expensive. Half a grand isn't too unreasonable as long as I take lots of pictures.