I really wanted to get into photography, but my budget wasn't

Yes decent shots can be taken, at one point old DSLRs were The Thing to get. A tool is only as useful as you can make it in your hands. Get a new DSLR when you have mastered your current. I was on a Kodak Point and Shoot for YEARS man, 5 megapixels, but I still tried to get the best I could with the tools I had.

>>3084622
Just curious why were they the thing to get? I understand old film cameras but why outdated DSLRs?

>>3084600
Don't shoot at 1600iso if possible

megapixels aren't that important, just get some good sharp lenses, probably a few old primes, and go to town with the basics

i have a decade-old DSLR, a Nikon D80. I don't go above 800 ISO. You don't get to complain.

>>3084937
Posted too early....

I find that shooting with an old kind of bad camera about shooting than a nice one does. On an old camera, you have to struggle to get nice shots, you have to relaly think about how you're going to expose it, and not rely on fancy technology to make the shot good. On a nice camera you can throw it an AUTO and run out and shoot and get nice shots relying on the internal computer alone, but never really learn about how to do it yourself.

Just my two cents

>>3084943
>>3084943
>I find that shooting with an old kind of bad camera about shooting than a nice one does
I find that shooting with an old, bad camera teaches you more about shooting than a nice one does***

>>3084870
because they had just released, anon.

>>3084937
basically the same here. i've got a used nikon d300s, released in 2009 i think, and i think that it's still a decent camera. was the only dx pro-model for a long time and a lot of photographers managed to get great shots out of that thing.

but yeah, iso above 800 is not a good idea...

>>3084600
> can decent photos be taken with an old dslr
Ultimately not to the fairly typical- "decent in all regards" - standard that western society usually asks for. No.

That said it's a societal standard. Of course you can get a photo that is of emotional relevance to you or artistically pleasing to you or someone else in some ways, but it's not generally going to be the optimal result.

> I feel like I'm shooting on some outdated piece of shit that is ultimately going to waste my time.
> when should I invest in a better camera?
I personally think you should kinda get one of the best devices companies can make in mass production if photography is something you care about.

Doesn't mean you should neglect trying to be a skilled user, but really, it's one of these devices where other skilled parties (people who make the camera, lenses, accessories, software) also contribute a lot to get some of the best results that can be achieved. It's really not an useless waste of money to hire a bit more of what's ultimately their time.

>>3084600

Nah don't worry about it. Enjoy cheap Minolta AF lenses from the 80s/90s

>>3084943
In general, your argument is opposite to how humans actually use tools. Yes, if tools become good enough at one or another thing, some skills do actually become irrelevant.

That said, high end cameras still have all these settings because they still matter. Nobody says you should ignore them.

Knowing when the automatics on a modern high-end camera work and when you need / want to compensate manually somehow is just best learned on a modern high-end camera, because you often really can't even do that well an older or worse model.

File: p600.jpg (553KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

553KB, 750x1000px

I work fulltime but still pretty poor. Bought a Nikon p600 this week (going to use the zoom for PI work later). My shots are shit, but using a bridge cam (will buy a cheap dslr or film again later) surely makes you think about shots.

The photo I uploaded now sucks (cant edit for shit) but I'm having a blast making pics again...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON
Camera Model	COOLPIX P600
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.4
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:28 23:51:20
Exposure Time	1/5 sec
F-Number	f/3.3
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/3.3
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3084600

Similar cameras were used at the time for professional photos, don't worry about it.

That said, you want at least 16 megapixels, and try to keep ISO as low a impossible. 800 is probably your max.

At the same time, old Minolta lenses are absolutely dirt cheap and fantastic.

>>3085012
> Similar cameras were used at the time for professional photos
Only "similar" but not really often actually that one.

And today professionals and enthusiasts alike are mainly using the many generations better cameras + lenses that we have now.

Budget-wise it's really not even all that remarkable to own and get something current that is nearly or entirely professional.
Unlike for quite many other profession's gear, you can do this on a pretty typical middle class hobby / holiday expenses budget.

>>3085005
I wasn't saying that those high-end computers are stupid - of course technology can help improve your shots- i'm just trying to get across that starting on an oldish camera isn't necessarily that of an idea and that blaming your shitty shots on your old tech is silly.

>>3084600
tfw that high iso noise is sorta pleasant...I need to lay off shooting so much film.

>>3085249

Yea it is just grainy, no discoloration.

Not that bad.

>>3084600
How much did you pay?

>>3085004
He can't get any of the nice primes still because of all the fucking A mount holdouts.

>>3084600
Shoot film you mong

>>3087890
Not OP but I was able to sell that camera with the kit lens for around $150 recently

File: Missy4.png (3MB, 1324x881px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1324x881px

I just bought the first DSLR I've ever used and I desperately want to believe the "It doesn't matter what you shoot with." meme.

Paid $250(aud) for a Canon 400d, came with memory card/charger/spare cords, an unused 75-300 and an 18-55 (which is full of condensation and thus useless.) It was released in 2006.

File: Bones.png (3MB, 1329x884px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1329x884px

>>3089464
It has 10 megapixels and these were taken at 400iso.

Admittedly I'm not aiming to get into photography; I want it to promote my clothing and a noisy/gritty look is fine for that.

File: IMG_3570.jpg (2MB, 2912x4368px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2912x4368px

I just brought me a 5Dc
its fuggen epic

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Photographer	Holger Drallmeyer
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:29 17:31:07
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/9.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/9.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard