Help Choosing a Camera around $300-$400

[Adora_Bella]

Hello Everyone,

I'm planning a trip to Disney World in November. I'm going to be able to go for 7 days, so I will have extra time to take some nice photos. I am starting to feel a little overwhelmed and stressed out about my camera search. The first camera I looked at was the Panasonic Lumix TZ80. I really liked the reviews for this one, but I feel like it's a really big camera to lug around the park. Have any of you used this one in the parks?

The second camera I've been looking at is the Canon PowerShot SX730. I liked the size of this one, as well as the ability to flip the screen for selfies. The screen flip is a nice feature, but not 100% necessary for me. I can always pull my cell out for selfies. I have heard that the low light performance of this one is pretty bad though, which concerns me. I would like to be able to get some pretty pictures of the castle and other scenery at night.

Basically, I'm looking for something under $400, but preferably closer to $300 that can take better photos than my cell phone. I'd like to get some of the photos framed for my wall, probably 5x10 max. What do ou think of the cameras I listed, and what alternate suggestions can you give me?

 

[jec6613]

Any of these won't have much problem printing 8x10 up to ISO1600-ish, you should also probably check out the Nikon A900 which is in the same category. They're all about equally good (or bad, depending on your point of view) in low light. As for size, they're all pretty much the same - jacket pocket or small camera bag, or a purse.

What you're buying with those cameras though, is zoom They have incredibly long zoom ranges, but they're designed to be used in sunny conditions, and are not really designed for low light.

The two things affecting the amount of light a camera can shoot in is how wide the lens' aperture can open, known as the F-number (lower F numbers collect more light and are, "Faster") and how long you hold the shutter open - faster shutter speeds let in less light but also keep moving subject sharp, while slower shutter speeds let in more light but end up with blurry subjects. IS/VR can stabilize the camera to remove your shaking it, but subjects will still move. Once the light hits the image sensor, the image sensor can then increase its gain as required to make the final exposure, and sensors (and film in the film era) introduce random noise or grain. The larger the sensor (or film) the less grainy it is, and conversely the smaller the sensor the more noisy/grainy the image is. There also used to be terrific sensor advancements each year that lowered the noise/grain, but they've mostly stopped since 2013-ish as we approach the theoretical limits of sensor performance.

Since the shutter speed will need to be what it is to stop subject motion, that means to use in low light you need to either increase the aperture size (decrease the F number), or increase the sensor size to remove the graininess of the image, or just tolerate a noisy image. And increasing the image sensor size means increasing the physical size of the lens, making the camera bigger. Want to know why a big pro DSLR or mirrorless camera has that big piece of heavy glass out front? Well, that's why, they're usually both very large sensors and have a very low F number on the lens.

All of those cameras mentioned use a sensor size of 1/2.3", which has an area of 25 sq mm. This may surprise you, but compared to the iPhone X this is both a slightly smaller area and a higher lens F number (1.8 vs 3.3), so the iPhone will in fact be significantly better in low light. Of course, the iPhone can't really zoom with the lens, but that should give you an idea of where you're starting from. An f/1.8 lens is usually considered very good, with the best lenses getting to f/0.95 and costing more than ten times your budget - and that's before you even buy a camera, that's just the lens.

In order to really use low light, you'll need to both increase the sensor size and open the aperture more. A favorite around here is the Sony RX100 - it's a bit bigger, loses a bunch of the zoom range, but it has an f/1.8 lens and a sensor that's 116 sq mm, so about 4x the size and therefore will have 1/4 of the noise in low light. The Canon G7X is another fantastic choice, as is the Panasonic ZS100, but these are starting to climb up in price. Another way to go is the Ricoh GR (any version) or Fuji X100 which although it has an f/2.8 lens (so collects half of the light compared to the RX100) and doesn't zoom at all, you have a 370 sq mm sensor and beautiful low light performance with it. All of those are reasonably small and do an amazing job - I have the Coolpix A (basically a discontinued Nikon version of the Ricoh GR) and it's wonderful in low light. Similarly, my Coolpix P7800 that I often take into the parks has both a lower F number and slightly bigger sensor at 43 sq mm, while still maintaining a good zoom range. Despite being many years older, they're all much better in low light than one of the pocketable super zoom cameras.

Or, for $400, you're within the range of an entry level DSLR or APS-C mirrorless camera, with its large sensor and lenses that you can change out to improve low light or zoom performance and end up with essentially several cameras in one, but that's a much larger option and honestly I can't really recommend any camera with interchangeable lenses until you reach $1000 or so - there are just too many compromises that make for a very poor shooting experience unless you can afford to buy at least an extra lens or two and get to the one level up from the entry camera body.

And, most importantly, whatever you get: take it out and shoot the heck out of it before heading to Disney, at least 2000-ish images if you can. Learn what it does and how it works, vacation is not the time to figure it out. The practice will make up for a lot of a camera's technical deficiencies.

 

[havoc315]

What phone are you using? The newer and better phones are better than most of the sub-$400 P&S cameras.
And you don't need great low light performance for things like the castle at night -- the Castle is brightly illuminated and isn't moving, making it a pretty easy night capture.
"Low light" needs are if you want to photograph the dark rides, etc.

 

[Meshell2002]

I have the sony rx100 (old version without wifi, the new one is > 1k) that is currently priced between 350-450 on amazon new. It has excellent low light performance. Its what I carry if I need to drop weight or don't want to be "that person" with the big camera. It can shoot in manual or auto. It shoots RAW or JPEG too if that matters to you. It does 90% what my old DSLR does, without the interchangeable lens, when I need bigger zoom is when I need the "big camera". In your budget that's going to be one like that or the cannon, or your phone. Attached is a jpg image I took with the sony in Fairy Tale Hall

 

[Adora_Bella]

Any of these won't have much problem printing 8x10 up to ISO1600-ish, you should also probably check out the Nikon A900 which is in the same category. They're all about equally good (or bad, depending on your point of view) in low light. As for size, they're all pretty much the same - jacket pocket or small camera bag, or a purse.

What you're buying with those cameras though, is zoom They have incredibly long zoom ranges, but they're designed to be used in sunny conditions, and are not really designed for low light.

The two things affecting the amount of light a camera can shoot in is how wide the lens' aperture can open, known as the F-number (lower F numbers collect more light and are, "Faster") and how long you hold the shutter open - faster shutter speeds let in less light but also keep moving subject sharp, while slower shutter speeds let in more light but end up with blurry subjects. IS/VR can stabilize the camera to remove your shaking it, but subjects will still move. Once the light hits the image sensor, the image sensor can then increase its gain as required to make the final exposure, and sensors (and film in the film era) introduce random noise or grain. The larger the sensor (or film) the less grainy it is, and conversely the smaller the sensor the more noisy/grainy the image is. There also used to be terrific sensor advancements each year that lowered the noise/grain, but they've mostly stopped since 2013-ish as we approach the theoretical limits of sensor performance.

Since the shutter speed will need to be what it is to stop subject motion, that means to use in low light you need to either increase the aperture size (decrease the F number), or increase the sensor size to remove the graininess of the image, or just tolerate a noisy image. And increasing the image sensor size means increasing the physical size of the lens, making the camera bigger. Want to know why a big pro DSLR or mirrorless camera has that big piece of heavy glass out front? Well, that's why, they're usually both very large sensors and have a very low F number on the lens.

All of those cameras mentioned use a sensor size of 1/2.3", which has an area of 25 sq mm. This may surprise you, but compared to the iPhone X this is both a slightly smaller area and a higher lens F number (1.8 vs 3.3), so the iPhone will in fact be significantly better in low light. Of course, the iPhone can't really zoom with the lens, but that should give you an idea of where you're starting from. An f/1.8 lens is usually considered very good, with the best lenses getting to f/0.95 and costing more than ten times your budget - and that's before you even buy a camera, that's just the lens.

In order to really use low light, you'll need to both increase the sensor size and open the aperture more. A favorite around here is the Sony RX100 - it's a bit bigger, loses a bunch of the zoom range, but it has an f/1.8 lens and a sensor that's 116 sq mm, so about 4x the size and therefore will have 1/4 of the noise in low light. The Canon G7X is another fantastic choice, as is the Panasonic ZS100, but these are starting to climb up in price. Another way to go is the Ricoh GR (any version) or Fuji X100 which although it has an f/2.8 lens (so collects half of the light compared to the RX100) and doesn't zoom at all, you have a 370 sq mm sensor and beautiful low light performance with it. All of those are reasonably small and do an amazing job - I have the Coolpix A (basically a discontinued Nikon version of the Ricoh GR) and it's wonderful in low light. Similarly, my Coolpix P7800 that I often take into the parks has both a lower F number and slightly bigger sensor at 43 sq mm, while still maintaining a good zoom range. Despite being many years older, they're all much better in low light than one of the pocketable super zoom cameras.

Or, for $400, you're within the range of an entry level DSLR or APS-C mirrorless camera, with its large sensor and lenses that you can change out to improve low light or zoom performance and end up with essentially several cameras in one, but that's a much larger option and honestly I can't really recommend any camera with interchangeable lenses until you reach $1000 or so - there are just too many compromises that make for a very poor shooting experience unless you can afford to buy at least an extra lens or two and get to the one level up from the entry camera body.

And, most importantly, whatever you get: take it out and shoot the heck out of it before heading to Disney, at least 2000-ish images if you can. Learn what it does and how it works, vacation is not the time to figure it out. The practice will make up for a lot of a camera's technical deficiencies.

Thank you very much for your reply. I wasn't looking for cameras with so much zoom on purpose. Those are just the cameras that come up in searches within that price range.

I feel like if I absolutely have to stick within that budget I'll probably get the Cannon SX730. I don't have any illusions that this is a "great" camera, but it seems like it may fit the "decent enough" category.

I looked into the other cameras you mentioned and I'm really wanting the Canon G7X. Since my trip is in November I decided to wait a little longer and see what I can do about increasing my camera budget. I also have a ton of stuff I've been meaning to sell and get rid of, and since posting this already sold $100 worth of stuff on ebay, if I add my ebay sales to my original budget I'm practically there.

I definitely plan to practice the heck out of it as soon as I get it, so that's why I'm trying to get one ahead of time. I've been wanting a real camera for a long time, the trip is just my excuse to finally get one.

 

[Adora_Bella]

What phone are you using? The newer and better phones are better than most of the sub-$400 P&S cameras.
And you don't need great low light performance for things like the castle at night -- the Castle is brightly illuminated and isn't moving, making it a pretty easy night capture.
"Low light" needs are if you want to photograph the dark rides, etc.

I have a Samsung Galaxy s7, so it's a few years old now. I'm not one to upgrade my phone every time a new model comes out and my phone still works well. It takes pictures good enough for posting online and stuff like that, but I want something better. Also it's a huge drain on my battery to be using it for photos in the parks.

I have the sony rx100 (old version without wifi, the new one is > 1k) that is currently priced between 350-450 on amazon new. It has excellent low light performance. Its what I carry if I need to drop weight or don't want to be "that person" with the big camera. It can shoot in manual or auto. It shoots RAW or JPEG too if that matters to you. It does 90% what my old DSLR does, without the interchangeable lens, when I need bigger zoom is when I need the "big camera". In your budget that's going to be one like that or the cannon, or your phone. Attached is a jpg image I took with the sony in Fairy Tale Hall

Thank you, I'll look into that one too!

 

[McNs]

I have the Canon G7X and it is a fantastic camera. It takes significantly better photos than my wife’s iPhone 6s particularly when’s light isn’t as good. Below are a couple of photos from our 2017 visit


(f1.8, 1/15, ISO400)


(f1.8, 1/15, ISO250)

Another great aspect is that it can either just be set to auto, or you can start playing around with some of the manual settings. That isn’t as scary as you might think, just takes a bit of reading and playing around.

Definitely try and save up a little bit more if you can, as the photo rewards are totally worth it.

 

[jec6613]

I have the Canon G7X and it is a fantastic camera. It takes significantly better photos than my wife’s iPhone 6s particularly when’s light isn’t as good. Below are a couple of photos from our 2017 visit

In future, try creeping that shutter speed up to 1/60 or faster for people - I usually do 1/250 or faster, but 1/60 is the lowest I'll go. Your ISO will creep up to 1600 and 1000 respectively, but I'd rather have a slightly noisy shot than a slightly blurry one. I think you'll find the results are better.

I really wish the Nikon 1 series was still around, the J5 was basically the perfect Disney camera. Same 20 MP 1" sensor, but interchangeable lenses so you could have a fast prime or long telephoto, and very compact.

 

[McNs]

In future, try creeping that shutter speed up to 1/60 or faster for people - I usually do 1/250 or faster, but 1/60 is the lowest I'll go. Your ISO will creep up to 1600 and 1000 respectively, but I'd rather have a slightly noisy shot than a slightly blurry one. I think you'll find the results are better.

I really wish the Nikon 1 series was still around, the J5 was basically the perfect Disney camera. Same 20 MP 1" sensor, but interchangeable lenses so you could have a fast prime or long telephoto, and very compact.

Appreciate the tips I think I was mostly shooting in aperture mode and leaving shutter and ISO up to the camera. I had a pretty good elbow lock technique to help with shakes, but will take note of the caster shutter speed and play around with full manual a bit more, just leaving ISO to auto.

The camera really has opened my eyes to photography in a way I never expected, so much more fun being creative with a shot rather than just taking a photo.

 

[jec6613]

Appreciate the tips I think I was mostly shooting in aperture mode and leaving shutter and ISO up to the camera. I had a pretty good elbow lock technique to help with shakes, but will take note of the caster shutter speed and play around with full manual a bit more, just leaving ISO to auto.

The camera really has opened my eyes to photography in a way I never expected, so much more fun being creative with a shot rather than just taking a photo.

The IS effectively took out your shake, but not your subject's.

For situations like those, I tend to leave the camera in S (Tv in Canon parlance) and just supervise it. This lets the camera get a good exposure by stopping down the aperture even if I forgot to speed up the shutter entering a brighter area. M with auto ISO also works well of course, as you mentioned, but I tend to use that for sports and wildlife where I want to control both the depth of field and the shutter speed to stop motion. For park snapshots I'd be fine up to 1600 or so on a 1" sensor without an issue - a bit noisy but nothing unusable.

Here's an image taken at ISO 6400 with the Aptina 10 MP 1" sensor (which at high ISO is almost as good as the 20 MP Sony), through a dirty glass window coming down from Table Mountain. As you can tell, noisy but still usable for web (e.g. here) and snapshots where getting the photo is more important than technical quality.



For reference, here's the common 24 MP APS-C sensor (D7200) at ISO 6400, mostly so that people can get an idea of what sensor size does to noise:

 

[bob100]

In future, try creeping that shutter speed up to 1/60 or faster for people - I usually do 1/250 or faster, but 1/60 is the lowest I'll go. Your ISO will creep up to 1600 and 1000 respectively, but I'd rather have a slightly noisy shot than a slightly blurry one. I think you'll find the results are better.

I really wish the Nikon 1 series was still around, the J5 was basically the perfect Disney camera. Same 20 MP 1" sensor, but interchangeable lenses so you could have a fast prime or long telephoto, and very compact.

Appreciate the tips I think I was mostly shooting in aperture mode and leaving shutter and ISO up to the camera. I had a pretty good elbow lock technique to help with shakes, but will take note of the caster shutter speed and play around with full manual a bit more, just leaving ISO to auto.

The camera really has opened my eyes to photography in a way I never expected, so much more fun being creative with a shot rather than just taking a photo.

You can get small interchangeable lens "perfect Disney" cameras - Canon M100 for example which can fit in your shirt pocket (with "pancake" lens) but they cost more than $300 with lens.
I use the older Canon M5 mirrorless which is larger but small enough to fit in ordinary and cargo pants pockets

ISO 4000 1/60 - Smithsonian museum

Untitled by c w, on Flickr

 

[jec6613]

You can get small interchangeable lens "perfect Disney" cameras - Canon M100 for example which can fit in your shirt pocket (with "pancake" lens) but they cost more than $300 with lens.
I use the older Canon M5 mirrorless which is larger but small enough to fit in ordinary and cargo pants pockets

The M100 dry body is about 15% heavier and substantially larger than the J5, without netting that much in the high ISO performance (despite a larger sensor it's about a generation behind the J5, so only about 1-1.5 stops difference between them, not the normally indicated 2 stops). But what really makes is less suitable is that the lenses are larger, with some almost twice the weight and volume for the same field of view, and the AF slower, all consequences of the larger sensor it uses.

For the same weight and size as carrying a reasonably fast prime and two zoom focal coverage from 28-300 mm on the EOS M, I could carry a Ricoh GR or Coolpix A and a bulky 1/1.7" or 1" camera with similar zoom lens, and full set of accessories for each, and still be under the size/weight of an EOS-M system. Of course, since no camera company aside from Leica makes both options today, I'd have some serious issues switching back and forth with the controls, but from a pure size/weight standpoint it's smaller and has more features like a viewfinder (and older cameras with that pairing are frequently what I'll carry to parks for this reason). Or I could carry a J5 with three primes (including a pancake and an f/1.2) and three zoom coverage from 18-300mm FoV. Heck, the 10-30mm PD Zoom for Nikon 1 is about the size of the EF-M pancake lens, and the 30-110 N1 tele zoom about the same size as the 18-55 EF-M compact standard zoom... see here: http://j.mp/2VpAbLg

But besides size, what most people don't realize, and what made the Nikon 1 series special, were all consequences of that exceptionally fast sensor readout, even by small sensor standards and even by today's standards. If you tapped to focus and shoot, even racking most of the focus range, the photo was taken before your finger lifted. 20 FPS with full AF, and 60 FPS full resolution with AF/AE locked. Full resolution photo during video without interruption, and with a PD Zoom lens and a microphone they could be turned into a proper camcorder on a whim. Plus all of the trick modes where you could blaze away at high speed and select only the best shot, or 100% silent shooting, or half a dozen others - basically a camera purpose designed for a Disney vacation. Basically: full smartphone level computational photography, but in a proper ILC. Even the A9 can't keep up with their speed today, and this is more than 5 year old tech. The major downside of the smaller sensor's worse high ISO performance just isn't as much of an issue at Disney where it never gets that dark, at least from an EV standpoint.

The closest thing still produced today is to pick up one of the Olympus PEN cameras and a couple lenses, which doesn't net the features but is at least the smallest currently produced ILC system today. But as my wife would point out: the J3 and 3 lens kit (10-30, 30-110, 18.5) fits in her purse, while the PEN doesn't, so the J3 gets shot more because as the old adage goes: the best camera for the job is the one you have with you.

 

[bob100]

The M100 dry body is about 15% heavier and substantially larger than the J5, without netting that much in the high ISO performance (despite a larger sensor it's about a generation behind the J5, so only about 1-1.5 stops difference between them, not the normally indicated 2 stops). But what really makes is less suitable is that the lenses are larger, with some almost twice the weight and volume for the same field of view, and the AF slower, all consequences of the larger sensor it uses.

For the same weight and size as carrying a reasonably fast prime and two zoom focal coverage from 28-300 mm on the EOS M, I could carry a Ricoh GR or Coolpix A and a bulky 1/1.7" or 1" camera with similar zoom lens, and full set of accessories for each, and still be under the size/weight of an EOS-M system. Of course, since no camera company aside from Leica makes both options today, I'd have some serious issues switching back and forth with the controls, but from a pure size/weight standpoint it's smaller and has more features like a viewfinder (and older cameras with that pairing are frequently what I'll carry to parks for this reason). Or I could carry a J5 with three primes (including a pancake and an f/1.2) and three zoom coverage from 18-300mm FoV. Heck, the 10-30mm PD Zoom for Nikon 1 is about the size of the EF-M pancake lens, and the 30-110 N1 tele zoom about the same size as the 18-55 EF-M compact standard zoom... see here: http://j.mp/2VpAbLg

But besides size, what most people don't realize, and what made the Nikon 1 series special, were all consequences of that exceptionally fast sensor readout, even by small sensor standards and even by today's standards. If you tapped to focus and shoot, even racking most of the focus range, the photo was taken before your finger lifted. 20 FPS with full AF, and 60 FPS full resolution with AF/AE locked. Full resolution photo during video without interruption, and with a PD Zoom lens and a microphone they could be turned into a proper camcorder on a whim. Plus all of the trick modes where you could blaze away at high speed and select only the best shot, or 100% silent shooting, or half a dozen others - basically a camera purpose designed for a Disney vacation. Basically: full smartphone level computational photography, but in a proper ILC. Even the A9 can't keep up with their speed today, and this is more than 5 year old tech. The major downside of the smaller sensor's worse high ISO performance just isn't as much of an issue at Disney where it never gets that dark, at least from an EV standpoint.

The closest thing still produced today is to pick up one of the Olympus PEN cameras and a couple lenses, which doesn't net the features but is at least the smallest currently produced ILC system today. But as my wife would point out: the J3 and 3 lens kit (10-30, 30-110, 18.5) fits in her purse, while the PEN doesn't, so the J3 gets shot more because as the old adage goes: the best camera for the job is the one you have with you.

LOL
not talking about the original M v1
But that Nikon J is HUGE ... I tell 'ya . Buh-Lieve me !
(and mirrorless can easily use DSLR lens)

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

Untitled by c w, on Flickr

 

[jec6613]

LOL
not talking about the original M v1
But that Nikon J is HUGE ... I tell 'ya . Buh-Lieve me !

I wasn't talking about the original EOS M either, if you click the link I was directly comparing the M100 to the J5. So, sorry, I don't, "Buh-Lieve," you, and nor should anybody else who actually cares.

And the lenses are still larger and heavier than the 1 mount lenses - the EOS M's lenses aren't any lighter than similar EF-S lenses (compare the 20/22mm pancakes and 18-55 STM IS's, for instance). And the EOS M (all of them) lack virtually any of the features of the N1 bodies that help you capture moments. And I'm not even going to discuss the likely dead-end future of the EF-M mount now that the R mount is around.

But we both know you won't bother looking it up nor care. You have your EOS M and are convinced it's the second coming, and that's fine, but throwing out lies that contradict facts is supremely unhelpful to people looking for accurate information and help making decisions.

 

[bob100]

I wasn't talking about the original EOS M either, if you click the link I was directly comparing the M100 to the J5. So, sorry, I don't, "Buh-Lieve," you, and nor should anybody else who actually cares.

And the lenses are still larger and heavier than the 1 mount lenses - the EOS M's lenses aren't any lighter than similar EF-S lenses (compare the 20/22mm pancakes and 18-55 STM IS's, for instance). And the EOS M (all of them) lack virtually any of the features of the N1 bodies that help you capture moments. And I'm not even going to discuss the likely dead-end future of the EF-M mount now that the R mount is around.

But we both know you won't bother looking it up nor care. You have your EOS M and are convinced it's the second coming, and that's fine, but throwing out lies that contract facts is supremely unhelpful to people looking for accurate information and help making decisions.

actually I have the old M5
But hey, I know you you love the old DSLR cameras ....... (and dead-end defunct Nikon cameras !)
.
capturing the moments .... with old DSLR lens ... on mirrorless !

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

Untitled by c w, on Flickr

 

[jec6613]

Nikon A900 is well worth considering

The A900 is a very good camera, but it's been replaced with a newer model, if you're remotely serious about quality the A1000 is much better for only $80 more ($390 vs $470).

The A1000 adds a viewfinder, cleaner high ISO with a newer sensor, better zoom control with zoom peeking in a useful place, a touchscreen, the physical buttons themselves are much improved in feel and usage, and raw image support.

I was really hoping the A1000 wasn't going to be as much better as it was for my wallet's sake (my mother's camera needs replacing and Mother's day is coming up), but indeed it's really much better. I guess Nikon did learn a few things in the 3 years between them.

 

[ember1205]

I realize that this doesn't necessarily provide you with the type of answer you're looking for, but it MAY be something to consider...

PhotoPass for your park time would cover an awful lot of photos for you at a price below your overall camera budget. The plus side is that you could get a LOT of pictures at a fixed price while the downside is that you don't get a camera to use anywhere else.

SmartPhones have had good or better cameras in them for a few years with the new ones being flat-out excellent. My current Google Pixel 3 XL takes awesome photos, even in low light and the new iPhone's take really good shots as well. So, upgrading your phone would net you a pretty decent camera overall.

You could also look at the used market as there are definitely some deals out there. I just recently upgraded my bag from a Nikon D90 with a couple of telephoto lenses to a D750 with a couple of newer lenses. The D90 outfit cost me in the neighborhood of about $1500-$1600 with a second battery, but it maxes out today at around $400 in value. In fact, I am not only scammers interested in buying it from my online ads even though the shutter count on it is around 8700. I'm going to stick it in the closest and keep it for backup in case I run into an issue with my D750 since nobody wants it.

 

[jec6613]

You could also look at the used market as there are definitely some deals out there. I just recently upgraded my bag from a Nikon D90 with a couple of telephoto lenses to a D750 with a couple of newer lenses. The D90 outfit cost me in the neighborhood of about $1500-$1600 with a second battery, but it maxes out today at around $400 in value. In fact, I am not only scammers interested in buying it from my online ads even though the shutter count on it is around 8700. I'm going to stick it in the closest and keep it for backup in case I run into an issue with my D750 since nobody wants it.

Any interchangeable lens camera is a big rabbit hole to fall down quickly in terms of spending both money and, more crucially, time. Here's a quick breakdown of just getting into it:

• DSLR Body. Used for $100-$200 you can pick up a body that has a sensor that's a few generations old and doesn't perform to today's standards. To get into the modern sensors and processors so you're not at a disadvantage compared to a decent compact camera, you'll need one that's 16 MP or higher (about 2013 or later vintage), which runs $250 or more. So far not too bad.
• An extra third party battery, if you're willing to accept the compromises that come with it, will run about $15 each, so $30.
• Two media cards are $20 each for anything that can keep up with a DSLR, so another $40.
• Two basic 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses with VR/IS go for $50 and $80 used in good condition, respectively. Lenses don't really drop much in price since they can continue to be used for decades, so if a lens is available cheap there's usually a reason.
• A camera bag to carry it all is another $30 for a Chinese knock-off.

So that comes to $480, probably an even $500 after shipping, to get about 8 year old electronics and technology to take basic photos. Alternatively, you could spend $50-$100 more to get a new entry level DSLR or mirrorless body, which isn't really photographically better but is at least new. And now you have a camera where automatic modes aren't easy or effective and there's a very serious learning curve, and your low light capability is compromised by the kit lenses having small apertures. Oh, and that kit weighs about 4-5 lbs to lug around … yikes.

Once you get over that learning curve and learn how to shoot it you've shot 10,000 or more photos, you discover that in low light it's not any better than a decent P&S camera because those kit lenses have tiny apertures. So you add another 30mm-35mm lens with f/1.8 or faster aperture and that's another $100 for a used lens. And then you realize that you can't zoom out because your widest field of view isn't wider than your cell phone (or worse, on Canons it doesn't even get as wide as your cell phone), and need a wide angle lens, so that's another $200 cost. Then a new bag to hold it all, a couple of lens filters … pretty soon you've crept up on $1,000 without even realizing it.

For that same $500, you could get a pocketable 1" sensor compact that hits photographic equivalence with that basic DSLR kit, has an automatic mode that works, and is newer so it links to your cell phone to share photos in seconds, and the full kit comes in under 1 lb and fits into a jacket pocket.

I love interchangeable lens cameras, I have a bunch of SLRs, DSLRs, and mirrorless bodies, and dozens of lenses that I use a ton (and several P&S), but I'm honestly of the opinion that jumping into the world of system cameras is not for everyone and that's perfectly OK. Now, if you can borrow one from somebody so you're not invested, so much the better, I have a couple of pieces of kit that I'm happy to loan out to friends so they don't need to jump down the rabbit hole and I would take the time to teach them how to use it properly before a big trip they're taking, and that's certainly an option to look into if you have it available to you. But I do know that I'm unusual in that I have enough gear that I won't miss it if it gets damaged or stolen, and rather value my few friendships more than camera gear.