Digital cameras forum: Need a DSLR like Camera without DSLR price.Nothing Above 220

Is that a good idea? and if so, where. I do not trust craigslist and ebay when it comes to electronic devices.I going to be on here all day researching cameras

Which camerais best? Nikon Coolpix P80, Kodak Z1012, Nikon 8800, Canon Powershot S3,and the coolpix p100?

I don't think any PS camera is good at low light or night shots. As someone else mentioned above, you should consider a D-SLR if you do a lot of low light photography.

Used D-SLR is okay to buy from a reputable store that does technical inspection of the equipment. However I will not buy used PS cameras since they are usually not made to last long these days. Look for a camera with a larger sensor, a larger aperture (small f/number) lens, lower noise (at high ISO) and has manual controls.

From the previous link I gave you:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/SLR-Digital-Cameras/ci/15488/N/4294182649

The Canon 30D $700 is a pretty good deal, which comes with a 17-85mm lens. I still use my old Canon 30D, which was twice this price without any lens when it first came out. It performs well in low light, especially when you pair it with a fast lens. The cheapest fast lens is 50mm f/1.8. The 17-85mm lens is a very versatile general purpose lens, though not a low light action lens. If you absolutely have to stay below $400, the list included Nikon D40 with 18-55mm kit lens and some Sony entry models. Any D-SLR will be better than a PS camera in low light, but it is best when used with a large aperture lens.

You will also need a tripod for low light photography.

Here are some samples of my low light shots with the old Canon 30D:

Handheld shots (done with a f/2.8 zoom lens with IS):
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u45/hjfok/DSLR/IMG_0940-trim.jpg
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u45/hjfok/DSLR/IMG_3047.jpg
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u45/hjfok/DSLR/NightAction-DynamicDuo2.jpg
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u45/hjfok/2008%20Travel%20Photos/ABeautyofNature.jpg

Tripod shots (let you use longer shutter speed):
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u45/hjfok/Monterey%20and%20SF/IMG_3068_1copy.jpg
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u45/hjfok/Monterey%20and%20SF/IMG_3065_1copy.jpg
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u45/hjfok/Night%20Photos%2012-2007/9cf37276.jpg (leaning on a rock, not with tripod)

PS camera can do okay if you can find something to steady your camera or if you have a tripod:
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u45/hjfok/2008%20Travel%20Photos/LasVegasStrip.jpg

You can't even get a very good point and shoot for $200, even the best point and shoots are over $359.99. Asking for a good, even used, DSLR for less than that is just hoping to get lucky. Really, your best chance for a used DSLR in that range and was made in the last 4 years is probably going to be a Sony A230 or A380. Those DSLRs were flops because of the poor ergonomics and can be had very cheap. You might be able to find an old Nikon D40 or Canon XT, but those will definitely be older cameras.

The Z1012 is nothing more than a compact point and shoot but with a longer zoom lens. So it won't be better indoors, nor will it have the operational speed of a real DSLR.

I just bought this camera two weeks ago from Sony Style. It still comes out to a little over $300 in spite of the discount in the cart, due to taxes (in my case $313).

Still, it's a great buy! To the OP: you're not going to find a full-featured DSLR at this price so might as well get it! Plus, you can use Minolta lenses with it!

The Nikon P80 is just a megazoom camera, not a DSLR, and it wasn't rated as a very good camera for a megazoom. Which Canon Rebel is that one? If it's an XT then that could easily be a 5 year old camera, which if it was film then it lasts forever but it's an electronics device. Also, you put that it's only the body, which means that you will have to buy a lenses for it and getting the 18-55IS kit lens to go along with it will run you another $150.

Out of those, the Canon Rebel would be the best, if it's an XT or higher, but with the caveat that you will not have the flexibility of the long zooming like the others and you'll have to fork out more money for a lens for the Canon.

Obviously, which types of cameras that can do well in low light can be subjective without objective measurement. For many people, a point and shoot camera is good enough, because they will never view their photos in full size, instead only printing 4 x 6, or viewing on a computer monitor. But the OP has said she wanted a camera that is fast, and can take pics at concerts, parties, and at night. That can be tough if not impossible for a point and shoot. The small sensor, the dim lens, the slow performance all work against getting a good photo. Can you get good photos from a P&S in low light situations? Yes, but there's a lot more luck involved...my own experience is that I am disappointed far more often than not.

A DSLR doesn't automatically guarantee good results in tougher conditions, but because they have bigger imaging sensors, can accept brighter lenses, and are generally much faster performing cameras, the odds of producing better quality photos goes up quite a bit.

But i also wanted a camera with a viewfinder. List of wants that I cant just put in google
Good in low light
Viewfinder(optional)
Good with fast action. Not like speedy mclightning but good enough to catch a drummer with out blurs. I dont want the people i taking pictures of to have to wait 2 minutes to take a picture while a party or concert is going on. If the z915 can do so they im up for it and I don't care about the viewfinder.

I know I am being very wishful and difficult but I am sort of a failed perfectionist. So I want something to atleast turn out great. Am I wrong for being that way? I don't want a point and shoot really but IF it is amazingly great I will get it. But i want the feel of a DSLR I want some automatic and some manual options. Want want want. I want all of that. thanks for listening.

You may be able to get something like an old Nikon D40 or D50 (6MP) body only for $220 or less, and if you get lucky and are willing to tolerate a few dings you might even get the originally supplied kit lens, a 35-70 mm zoom. You'll be WAY better off, however, spending about twice as much and getting a modern micro 4/3rds from one of the usual suspects (Panasonic, Olympus, Sony, etc.).

Be very careful buying "used". Buy only from a reputable dealer or where you have some recourse if it's not up to par.

You might want to consider a "micro four-thirds" type camera. They have many of the advantages of DSLRs like large sensors, good low-light performance, fast shutter response, interchangeable lenses, but they do not have the moving mirror system of an SLR type camera which means no "true" through-the-lens viewing. They're smaller and generally cheaper than DSLRs, but not as small or as cheap as a point and shoot and nowhere near the ~$200 price point you're looking for.

Any more tips and pieces of advice would be greatly appreciated. I am saving up for a Micro 4/3rds camera like the Panasonic Lumix G10. Not bad? What do you think?