>>4219977lurk more, the topic of "getting into photography while poor" comes up evrery day.
go to flickr and look up these camera models, you should find photos taken with them. if they look good, then the camera is still a good camera. unless it's broken, a camera from 2005 will take as good a picture now as it did in 2005.
the ergonomics of cameras hasn't changed from the film days.
the quality of lenses has improved only for expensive lenses, cheap lenses now look the same as they did in 2000
the three areas where older cameras lose are
>resolutionit's quite possible your phone has higher resolution (more pixels) than these $100 cameras.
>low lightolder cameras have pretty limited low-light capabilities, especially if they are not full frame (and the $100 ones aren't).
most of your phone's low light abilities are fake, btw. it takes muliple exposures and AI's them together, in ways that become obvious once you've compared phone photos to camera photos
note if your budget was $1000 or even $500 you could get *real* low light performance from an old full frame, but for $100 plan on needing to at least have sunlight coming in the windows to get a good shot, or use the flash. photos taken, like, of people dancing in a dimly lit club will be shit.
>videojus use your phone
most photography cameras (as opposed to video camcorders) of the 2000's didn't even do video, but even if they do the controls of a dslr were never designed for video, video was the main reason for the move to mirrorless
