Is it worth buying a [dslr] camera that's quite a few years old?

I'm looking at dslr cameras as I've been wanting one for some time now.
I don't have much money for this procedure - roundabout £200-250.
Been having a look around amazon and I've found a few that seem to fit the bill.

However they seem to be a few years old -

http://www.amazon.co.uk/...000GSVQNQ/

http://www.amazon.co.uk/...001TOD3YG/

http://www.amazon.co.uk/...002J9GIAQ/

So reviews from 2006 to about 2009. I know this isn't too long ago but I'm wondering are these still decent cameras to get? Do newer camera's have much better features or will these still take outstanding pictures?
Should I save up lots for a newer model camera or should I just go for an older version?

Newer cameras have higher resolution, live view and video capability - how useful these are is a matter of conjecture, as the video is barely adequate and live view drains batteries at a rate of knots.

Older cameras like these still take current lenses, but I'd advise only considering purchase if a warranty is included.

Any of the models listed will do the job, and do it well - as long as they're in working order.

Depends what you need from it, new cameras will have higher resolutions, but these will still be great camera's and take picture just as good as hey always did.

I nearly always buy second-hand when it comes to consumer electronics, for 2 reasons, older product have been around for longer so any problems with them will documented and should have fixes if relevant - if a product has good build quality or no problems this will also be documented.

The other reason is manufacturers are constantly trying to get the highest numbers on there specification list, and it's not all about the biggest numbers, quality of the components is important too.

Just do lots of research on the above models, search the model name + the word problem or common issues in Google to read about common problems.

My 8-year old Canon 1Ds mark II is still a great performer (for what I want to do, it outperforms the similarly priced 7D), therefore that's my preferred camera. My other camera is a Canon 5D mkI, now that is around £400 these days, and compared to a Nikon D5100, or Canon 600D, the 5D again fits my needs far better.

The thing is you're looking at the bottom of the range cameras from a few years ago, as a result they were pretty much out of date when they were introduced, unlike a range topping models which even today have functions that entry level cameras don't have.

All good answers. Even if you are on a tight budget, a dSLR, even an old one will crush any new compact, regardless of price or brand, so yes go for it! Of course you won't have the HD video and all the extras, but that's not a bad thing really if your money is tight.

I took a quick look at your links. Please avoid the Sony A100 at all costs. This is coming from a Sony Alpha user (A700). I owned that dSLR for a very short time. It was a good all around camera, but the image noise, even at a low ISO of 400 was too much of a deal breaker. The A200 and later models are better in this regard.

Back in 2006 when I was researching the A100 it was hard to find RAW files on the web, and I don't think DxOmark.com was testing sensors at the time, but I could be wrong Anyway, if you go back to these older models, the Canon sensors were performing a bit better.

But new dSLRs, the Sony and Nikons (both using Sony image sensors) are better overall than Canon.