Like Nikon Joe suggest, you'll find it difficult to find one at 350 and if you find one used, it's likely to be obsolete.
It sounds like your budget is low so keep this in mind. Once you buy a camera, you still need lenses to make the magic happen. Sure you can buy kits for 599 but the lenses aren't great.
That said, for 350, you can get a great point and shoot that will take excellent pics...remember you get what you pay for, get one with a rechargeable lithium ion battery and a good rule of thumb is the bigger the glass, the better the pic......ISO claims can be deceiving and even more deceiving is high resolution claims. High resolution does not mean high quality. The CCD that captures the image is more important than how many pixels the image actually is.
I have 3 DSLRs all Nikon (700, 300, 200) and several point and shoots....when money isn't an issue, step up to a DSLR but while it is, get a good point and shoot instead of a bad DSLR.
As I comprehend your question, the digicam is nearly a ingredient and shoot form, while the dslr is extra stronger and many times resembles the 35mm cameras of many years in the past. between the main wanted useful factors of a dslr is the flexibility to alter lenses. the skinny, %.-of-taking part in cards sized digital cameras now produce very stable pictures, %. certainly in a shirt pocket and fee below $3 hundred. A dslr is an entire sized digicam, cumbersome, weighs over a pound and would fee $one thousand and up for a robust one. as long as we photographers proceed to view our pictures on computer monitors and tv video exhibit instruments, the extra perfect optics and resolutions of costly cameras is moot. the adaptation is merely considered in super image prints.
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
Like Nikon Joe suggest, you'll find it difficult to find one at 350 and if you find one used, it's likely to be obsolete.
It sounds like your budget is low so keep this in mind. Once you buy a camera, you still need lenses to make the magic happen. Sure you can buy kits for 599 but the lenses aren't great.
That said, for 350, you can get a great point and shoot that will take excellent pics...remember you get what you pay for, get one with a rechargeable lithium ion battery and a good rule of thumb is the bigger the glass, the better the pic......ISO claims can be deceiving and even more deceiving is high resolution claims. High resolution does not mean high quality. The CCD that captures the image is more important than how many pixels the image actually is.
I have 3 DSLRs all Nikon (700, 300, 200) and several point and shoots....when money isn't an issue, step up to a DSLR but while it is, get a good point and shoot instead of a bad DSLR.
As I comprehend your question, the digicam is nearly a ingredient and shoot form, while the dslr is extra stronger and many times resembles the 35mm cameras of many years in the past. between the main wanted useful factors of a dslr is the flexibility to alter lenses. the skinny, %.-of-taking part in cards sized digital cameras now produce very stable pictures, %. certainly in a shirt pocket and fee below $3 hundred. A dslr is an entire sized digicam, cumbersome, weighs over a pound and would fee $one thousand and up for a robust one. as long as we photographers proceed to view our pictures on computer monitors and tv video exhibit instruments, the extra perfect optics and resolutions of costly cameras is moot. the adaptation is merely considered in super image prints.
I think you can spend more money to buy dslr
Nikon D3000 10.2MP Digital SLR Camera
*10.2-megapixel DX-format imaging sensor for prints up to 20 x 30 inches
*Includes 3x 18-55mm Zoom-Nikkor VR Image Stabilization lens
*Nikon EXPEED image processing; in-camera image editing and Active D-Lighting
*3.0-inch color LCD screen; 170-degree wide-angle viewing
$350 for a DSLR? Check craigslist. Wont find anything quality/new at that price. I personally wouldn't ever buy a Sony.