> One of the folks on community told me of a Nikon D100 he had for sale.
> After I sent him an endless barage of questions I finally bought it.
>
> The camera is great. It might take me a another year or two to learn
> how to use it, but so far I love it.
They both make a pretty good con
A couple of months ago I posted almost the identical question.
I was looking at the same camera at a much higher price.
One of the folks on community told me of a Nikon D100 he had for sale. After I
sent him an endless barage of questions I finally bought it.
The camera is great. It mig
> If you do a fair amount of sports photos, you might want to also put
> the Canon 70-200 f/4 L on your list.
Oops, forgot you said in your original post that you use Nikons. I'm totally a
Canon girl, so not sure what Nikon has to offer. But I'd be surprised if they
don't have something similar
>Another thing I've found to be handy is to go back and review the
>shots I've made. My kit came with a 28-80 and a 70-300. After
>reviewing my shots, I figured out that I did a lot of shooting above
>the 135mm range (my girl's soccer games mostly), and below the 200mm
>range, therefore that prom
>I've noticed that the Sigma is a bit longer in the autofocus dept. It
>was too tempting though...a sigma for $250.00 or the Nikon for
>$800.00. I'm curious though, I thought canons did the focusing on the
>body whilst the nikons had the focusing built into the lenses? If
>that's the case, why w
On 1/1/07, Mary Jo Sminkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
then just save up until they can afford some decent lenses. The 50mm
is less than $100 and you won't find many better low-light lenses than
this one. It's really great anytime indoors where you simply cannot
use (or don't want to use) flash. The
Sorry Mary Jo :)
I've noticed that the Sigma is a bit longer in the autofocus dept. It
was too tempting though...a sigma for $250.00 or the Nikon for
$800.00. I'm curious though, I thought canons did the focusing on the
body whilst the nikons had the focusing built into the lenses? If
that's th
>Thanks for the feedback and especially thanks for the report on the
>site she was looking at for purchases!
Yes, that is definitely not the place to buy from. Certainly a case of a price
being too good to be true!
>She's planning on using the camera as a hobby (maybe to make money
>every once
Thanks for the feedback and especially thanks for the report on the
site she was looking at for purchases!
She's planning on using the camera as a hobby (maybe to make money
every once and a while). She wants her first lens to be something
good for taking pictures of young children (our youngest
>My choice for an
>all around lens has been a Sigma 18-200mm. Like Mary said, you do
>lose some quality with the third party lenses, but I'm so amateur I
>don't notice it much.
Yeah, it's one of those things that until you spend the money on a good lens,
you will usually be happy with what you
Ditto what Mary said about the 18-55 lens. My Nikon came with a 28-80
which I really didn't find that useful at all. It seemed like I was
always saying, "Move in a little closer together". My choice for an
all around lens has been a Sigma 18-200mm. Like Mary said, you do
lose some quality with
>She's been sold on the camera (Canon vs Nikon or Sony) and drooling
>over this model for well over a year. I'm wondering if this is the
>best deal out there... it's the best I can find at any point.
I'm a big fan of Canon digital SLRs, I use a 20D myself. The Rebel models have
always been excel
We're looking at getting my wife this "package":
http://www.bestpricecameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=557848&up=215535
It's a Canon EOS Rebel XT 8 MB SLR digital that includes the following:
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Auto focus lens
1Gb Memory Card
2 tripods (1 desk, 1 floor)
Case for camera, lens, stuf
13 matches
Mail list logo
