Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 59

Thread: Camera Help

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    167

    Default Camera Help

    Hi. New guy here, atleast in this department for sure. I am wanting to buy a decent digital for wildlife potography. I work as a fishing guide in the summer and will also be on a moose camp in September as a packer/guides assistant. I don't have a ton to spend for I only work 4 months a year and the rest of the time I am on Admiralty Island, fishing, trapping, hunting and living my dream life. I dont know where to begin with my search but have a budget of about 1500 to spend on camera and lens. I figure best bet will be used to get more bang for my buck, but dont know whats a good fit for a newbie that will take nicer pictures than the crappy thing I have right now. Please help. I do know I will get many different opinions and debates on the right camera, thats what I want. The more opinions the better, with my limited budget, I can only buy this camera once. Thanks in advance.
    Take a youngster out when you go, it will change his/her life forever!!

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    260

    Default See the attached

    There was a recent discussion on another thread

    http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/...ad.php?t=48988

  3. #3
    Member danattherock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,608

    Default

    If on a budget, forget a DSLR. A good wildlife lens will cost as much (or much more) than your $1,500 budget. I don't mean that to sound smug. Just being honest. Instead, look at some of the advanced point and shoots. One such model is in the link below and it has a 20x zoom. That will lend itself very useful for wildlife images. Spend $400 on a set up like this or spend $2,000+ on a entry level DSLR with a decent telephoto lens. Hmmm....

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...S_Digital.html
    The two loudest sounds known to man: a gun that goes bang when it is supposed to go click and a gun that goes click when it is supposed to go bang.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Wildlife images are hard without really good equipment, and as Dan said, that will not be cheap. I agree with him that the new Canon pint & shoot superzoom model would be a good option, as would Panasonic's FZ28.

    There are some real advantages to going with a DSLR type though. So a Canon Rebel XSi with Canon's 18-55 IS and 50-250 IS lenses could be an option. Or as far as that goes, any of the new crop of digital SLRs with a Tamron 18-270 VC lens could do a nice job for a lot of things. The superzoom point & shoots will still have longer reach, but are not the best things to shoot with in low light, and you often find wildlife in low light.

    Anything you do will be a compromise, and the main limiting factor is money if $1500 is your limit. Anyway you could see fit to add another $1000?

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danattherock View Post
    If on a budget, forget a DSLR. A good wildlife lens will cost as much (or much more) than your $1,500 budget. I don't mean that to sound smug. Just being honest. Instead, look at some of the advanced point and shoots. One such model is in the link below and it has a 20x zoom. That will lend itself very useful for wildlife images. Spend $400 on a set up like this or spend $2,000+ on a entry level DSLR with a decent telephoto lens. Hmmm....

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...S_Digital.html
    Look at this on ebay, d90 with everything I need for under $1500.00 Is a d90 with all this not good for what I want? I might be missing something? Point and shoot is what I have now. I have read on here that the d90 was a good body and nikon lens' were good also? Are these the wrong style camera and lenses?
    http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-D90-Digita...3A1%7C294%3A50
    Take a youngster out when you go, it will change his/her life forever!!

  6. #6
    Member danattherock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,608

    Default

    Looks fishy to me man. Did you see all the items that were "included"? That looks like a scam to me, but that is just my impression of course. It is worth mentioning that there are lots of scams out there with photography equipment. You can check out many suspicious retailers by going to the website, www.resellerratings.com and entering their name. Be wary of deals that look too good to be true. Most ALL are. Even some of the advertisers in popular photography mags are scams. I still can't figure out how they do it. Seems the mags would not allow this, but that is not the case. Broadway Video (or similar name) comes to mind here. Heard many bad reports, yet they will have a two page spread in a some of the better photography mags. The Nikon D90 is a fine camera and below is a link to B&H with it paired with a Nikon 70-300 which would make a decent entry level wildlife lens. Notice it does not come with 20 other items though. But you will not have to worry about getting scammed. And don't let the 99.9% customer satisfaction thing on Ebay convince you. I bought a Zeiss Diascope (spotting scope) that I thought was a killer deal under similar circumstances on Ebay. Got scammed. Ebay did nothing. The page looked real, 100% satisfaction with hundreds of customers (supposedely). Ebay did nothing but say "sorry" and we are "checking into it as we have many similar complaints". The only reason I got my money back was because my credit card company did it for me. Luckily. See the D 90 below at B&H. And don't understimate the new point and shoots. 20x zoom, vibration reduction, etc... these are not you normal "point and shoots".

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...al_Camera.html


    Below is what I dug up on "Get it Digital" the Ebay store selling the D90. This is on reseller ratings site. Looks fishy to me man, but check into it. Ebay site says they have sold 5,538 items, but the reviews on reseller ratings only goes back to November 2008. My thought is it is a scam and they are putting fake positive reviews on reseller ratings to support their shady business. It would not be the first time this happened. And also, there is a total of 77 reviews on reseller ratings for this "company" so out of 5,538 sales, that is not very many. Point is, easy to fake this. I doubt these guys are selling 300 items a week on Ebay, which is what would have to be the case for them to have 5,538 items sold (based on customer service rating on Ebay). I say scam, but it is your money of course. Just offering my two cents. I would hate to see you get ripped off.

    http://www.resellerratings.com/selle...ry.pl?id=17054
    The two loudest sounds known to man: a gun that goes bang when it is supposed to go click and a gun that goes click when it is supposed to go bang.

  7. #7
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steeliekingfisher View Post
    Look at this on ebay, d90 with everything I need for under $1500.00 Is a d90 with all this not good for what I want? I might be missing something?
    It is exceedingly difficult to determine what somebody else wants, so I can't say if that is it, or not! :-) It does appear to be a reasonable deal, if indeed it is what you want and if indeed the seller is a reputable company (which is open to question!).

    First, Nikon DSLR's are a very good choice given your description of where and what you will use it for. They have better weather proofing and are just generally a more rugged camera than Canon makes. (For most users that isn't really important, but for an out of doors kinda person... especially in SE Alaska, it is significant.)

    I don't use a D90, and can't really compare it with say a D80 or with a used D200 or even a used D2x (one model that I do own). You might want to really really look carefully at such things as the viewfinder and the highest ISO that is noise free, and anything else that might affect how you use a camera. The D80 is significantly less expensive, and the others can be found for relatively the same prices as a D90. You might want to think about a used camera too. (Which also depends on how much experience you have with eBay and judging whats a deal and whats a steal.)

    A quick check on eBay makes me suspect that a new or used D2x is within your price range. It has better weather proofing than the others (it's a "professional" model), not to mention that is has far far better capabilities in almost all ways than any of the others. However, it is heavier, more complex to operate, and doesn't do well at anything above ISO 800 (while newer models might do quite well at ISO 1600).

    The lenses are an issue that you may or may not be able to answer, but nobody else can. Note that the eBay listing you are looking at includes an 18-55mm, a great 50mm f/1.8 lens, and a older 70-300mm non-VR model. BH offers D90 kits that include the 70-300mm VR lens, and the price tag ($350 more for that lens) shows it.

    I don't know if VR is worth $350 to you or not. I use a tripod, so it isn't. You might also be very happy with only an 18-200mm lens (10x zooms are not the sharpest lenses in the world, but they are extremely convenient).

    Me? I'd go find a good deal on a Nikon D2x and get something like a Tamron SP 24-135mm and a 70-300mm non-VR. I don't do much with wide angle, and if did I'd change that to a Nikkor 18-70mm. With careful shopping you can probably come in at under $1500 on that. (Then go bite the bullet and spend $400-600 on a carbon fiber tripod, and you'll be in business!)

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,083

    Default

    While I agree with the others about a point and shoot, you can begin with a Canon entry-level camera such as the XSi and the kit lens, which costs perhaps $700.00.
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...Si_a_k_a_.html
    If you ever want to get into wildlife photography, then you would have to buy some L glass, some of which is expensive. However, not all L glass is expensive. For example, the EF 200mm f/2.8L USM (one I have), costs around $700.00. This is an excellent lens for large wildlife such as moose: this one was around 50 yards:

    This hawk was around 35 yards, flying my way:

    The photo of the hawk I had to crop (zoom into the photo, and then crop it), but the moose, although it was young, still is a very large animal, so the photo is straight out of the camera. The one below was perhaps 150 yards away, so I cropped the photo to get the subject closer. The EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro costs around $400.00, but it is a very sharp lens like the 200mm one I have.

    Small wildlife such as birds at a distance requires a longer lens than the EF 200mm one I have. I will buy a 400mm f/5.6 prime just for this purpose. This lens is not expensive, but costs $1,100.00. But some of this small wildlife at close range is not a problem with a lens such as the 100mm macro up to the 200mm one I have. In this case, you zoom-in with your legs (walk closer to the subject).

  9. #9
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RayfromAK View Post
    While I agree with the others about a point and shoot, you can begin with a Canon entry-level camera such as the XSi and the kit lens, which costs perhaps $700.00.
    The problem with that is he spends $700 (nearly half his budget) on an entry level camera. And it is one that locks him into buying Canon lenses which locks him into upgrading later to a Canon camera.

    He wants an outdoors camera, and Canon doesn't do nearly as well in that environment as do Nikon's. Even the consumer model Nikons have better weather proofing than the pro model Canons.

    And moreover, within his budget he could start with a Nikon D200 (a prosumer model, if he wants to go smaller and lighter) or even a D2x (a topline professional camera with even better weather proofing than the D200).

    Another lens option with the Nikon cameras is either the older 80-200mm f/2.8 or it's replacement the current 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, along with 1.5x and 2.5x teleconverters. The price/peformance ratio is unbeatable.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,083

    Default

    If he wants a water-proof camera, then he would either have to buy a water-proof point and shoot (Doug at Camera Land in this forum has such), or a underwater housing for any of the Canon and Nikon entry through professional cameras, which by the way aren't water proof.

    You can ask just about every person in this forum (Canon and Nikon users) where they use their cameras, and the answers will more than likely be in accord to what the OP asked about. In other words, we use our cameras outdoors, while hunting, snowing, while boating canoeing, and try to avoid pouring rain or dropping it in the water. We do the same for our cell phones, too. Sooo, the answer is simple: he can buy a point and shoot camera as mentioned by others in this forum, he can buy a D200, a 40D, or spend around $700.00 and buy the XSi I mentioned above.

    Some of my best photographs were taken with a Canon XT, and it took over four years for me to upgrade to a 40D. I am now using the same glass (some L, some not) that I used with the XT, and am using the 40D in the same environments I used the XT. He can buy the XSi with the kit lens, and some good glass whenever he can afford it. Four or five years later, all he has to do is upgrade to another body. Entry level or pro matters not, but what he can do with whichever camera is at hand at the moment.

  11. #11
    Member danattherock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,608

    Default

    Here comes the Ford vs Chevy arguement

    A mainstay with photographers.

    I have Canon and would not think twice about recommending it. Only women and children use Nikons. OK, I am just stirring the pot.

    Many Canon models have weather sealing features. I have shot with my 40D in the rain on a few occasions and no problems. I would tend to think that all entry level cameras have poor weather sealing. Where higher end models (Canon and Nikon) have of course better weather sealing with "pro" models being by far the best. There are far more important things than weather sealing to consider when deciding on a camera. If weather sealing is your only priority, get a Pentax. Good luck with the lenses though. They don't make many compared to Nikon and Canon.

    Biggest thing to me is the lens selection. And Canon has the hands down best selection in my opinion. That is why I choose Canon over Nikon as both companies had great cameras to choose from. Go to B&H and look at how many lenses you can choose from for Canon and Nikon. Some 76 Canon lenses are there compared to 55 Nikon. While Canon has more offerings, Nikon has FAR more than other manufacturers. Once you get into Sony, Pentax, etc.. your choices dwindle down fast. You can get a nice Nikon or Canon set up and feel good about it. Beyond those two, the lens choices drop considerably. Ford or Chevy. Your choice.
    The two loudest sounds known to man: a gun that goes bang when it is supposed to go click and a gun that goes click when it is supposed to go bang.

  12. #12
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RayfromAK View Post
    If he wants a water-proof camera, then he would either have to buy a water-proof point and shoot (Doug at Camera Land in this forum has such), or a underwater housing for any of the Canon and Nikon entry through professional cameras, which by the way aren't water proof.
    Nobody said he wants or should get a "waterproof camera". I'm saying the weather proofing on Canon cameras is virtually non-existant, but is fairly good on even the consumer level Nikons and is excellent of the pro level models.
    You can ask just about every person in this forum (Canon and Nikon users) where they use their cameras, and the answers will more than likely be in accord to what the OP asked about. In other words, we use our cameras outdoors, while hunting, snowing, while boating canoeing, and try to avoid pouring rain or dropping it in the water. We do the same for our cell phones, too. Sooo, the answer is simple: he can buy a point and shoot camera as mentioned by others in this forum, he can buy a D200, a 40D, or spend around $700.00 and buy the XSi I mentioned above.
    But that does not make all of those cameras equal. Nor do most of us spend months at a time on Admiralty Island (which puts him in a vastly different environment than you or I or others like us who live in a desert).

    Entry level or pro matters not, but what he can do with whichever camera is at hand at the moment.
    If that were true, nobody would ever buy the pro models. In fact, as I noted, a Nikon D2x has excellent weather proofing and is far more versatile (for example a better viewfinder and much more rugged) that the Canon models you've cited.

    As I noted, generally these things don't necessarily make much difference at all, but on occasion it really does, and the OP's description of what he'll do suggests it is one of those occasions.

  13. #13
    Member danattherock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,608

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson View Post

    In fact, as I noted, a Nikon D2x has excellent weather proofing and is far more versatile (for example a better viewfinder and much more rugged) that the Canon models you've cited.

    .
    Can't find the Nikon D2x, but I did see a D3 and D3x, $4,500 and $8,000 respectively.
    The two loudest sounds known to man: a gun that goes bang when it is supposed to go click and a gun that goes click when it is supposed to go bang.

  14. #14
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danattherock View Post
    Can't find the Nikon D2x, but I did see a D3 and D3x, $4,500 and $8,000 respectively.
    Nikon's top of the line DSLR models began with the D1 in 1999, the D2x came along in late 2004, the D3 was released in December 2008, and the D3x has been out for a couple months. (There were other variations of each, such as the D1x and the D2h.)

    The D2x is a 12MP camera with a 1.5x "crop factor". The D3 is also 12 MP (the D3x is twice that) with a 35mm sized frame and has the distinct characteristic of being able to shoot at very high ISO values with low noise. (I commonly shoot up to ISO 800 with a D2x but prefer ISO 400; with the D3 I shoot at ISO 3200 almost all of the time, and only rarely drop to ISO 1600.) Interestingly enough the D2x and the D3 are just about equivalent at ISO 200 (for studio use, they are just about
    equivalent).

    With the release a year ago of the D3 and D300 models, the D2x (and the D200) have plummeted in price, and of course are even less expensive used. The D1, D2x and D3 all initially sold for $5000 for the body only, and all of them sold quite well and developed great reputations. Currently the D2x is competitive with the newer D300. The D2x is bigger, more rugged and cost less, while the D300 is newer and has lower noise but cost a bit more.

  15. #15
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danattherock View Post
    Here comes the Ford vs Chevy arguement

    A mainstay with photographers.

    I have Canon and would not think twice about recommending it. Only women and children use Nikons. OK, I am just stirring the pot.
    It would be nice if you would leave your pride of ownership out of recommendations to others. It does not help at all. That you are happy with a given model is interesting and fun to talk about, but in a discussion giving advice to someone who is about to spend significant money what you need to tell him is why you are happy with it, other than the fact that you own it.
    Many Canon models have weather sealing features.
    Not that anyone has noticed...
    I have shot with my 40D in the rain on a few occasions and no problems.
    Too small a sample to be indicative. And notice that when a muh larger sample is examined (combine the results of the two articles above) the numbers showed Canon cameras failing in significant percentages, while there simply were not enough Nikon failures to even get a valid rate with the larger sample!
    I would tend to think that all entry level cameras have poor weather sealing.
    But since you don't know, it would be poor advice to tell another person about what you "tend to think".
    Where higher end models (Canon and Nikon) have of course better weather sealing with "pro" models being by far the best.
    That appears to be true with Nikon, but not with Canon.
    There are far more important things than weather sealing to consider when deciding on a camera. If weather sealing is your only priority, get a Pentax. Good luck with the lenses though. They don't make many compared to Nikon and Canon.
    Wrong on all counts. Weather sealing is important if reliability is a concern. For those of us in remote places who work a camera constantly in adverse weather conditions, it is extremely important. Pentax DSLR's are not generally as well sealed as Nikon. And Pentax makes excellent lenses and if anything has even more old lenses available that Nikon, which has more than Canon.
    Biggest thing to me is the lens selection. And Canon has the hands down best selection in my opinion.
    It depends entirely on what you want. (I would seriously question the validity of an opinion from someone with as little experience as you have, because it just takes years and piles of money spent on lenses to be able to relate to what others have to say about lenses, much less actually develop an opinion based on first hand use.)
    That is why I choose Canon over Nikon as both companies had great cameras to choose from. Go to B&H and look at how many lenses you can choose from for Canon and Nikon. Some 76 Canon lenses are there compared to 55 Nikon. While Canon has more offerings, Nikon has FAR more than other manufacturers.
    That is absurd! Look at what the lenses are, not how many are forsale! Canon has lenses like their 50mm f/1.2, which is worthless on a camera but is priceless for marketing. Canon has certain areas better covered than Nikon, and Nikon has others better covered. For a long time Canon had better wide angle coverage. They probably still have better choices in the mid-range zoom lenses (I haven't checked to see what Canon has, but I'm not happy with what Nikon has. Which actually doesn't make much difference to me, as I ended up buying a Tamron lense that of course is available for either Canon or Nikon mounts!) But overall they are about equal, and a person has to be extremely picky and well informed to actually determine valid distinctions between the two lines of lenses.
    Ford or Chevy. Your choice.
    In your opinion... which suggests perhaps that opinion isn't valid. People who have vastly greater experience than I do find Nikon lacking in some ways and Canon lacking in others, depending on whether they want wide angle or midrange or telephotos, whether they need fast focusing speeds, whether they need large apertures, whether they need zooms or fixed focus.

    Other odd things make difference too. As mentioned, I have a Tamron SP 24-135mm lense. I also have a Nikor 28-105mm, both of which I use on a D3 both, and I have a Nikkor 18-70mm for the D2x (where it is the equivalent of the 28-105mm). Each of these lenses are distinctly better for certain uses than are the others. I bought the Tamron because of the flare characteristis of the Nikkor 28-105mm (take a picture inside of someone that has a bright window behind them, and it is unacceptable). Turned out the Tamron is indeed better for that. However, if I'm outside and the sun is in the image area, the Tamron shows more effects in that circumstance than the Nikkor! And here's where a limitation of the Nikon lense lineup bites me! I need the longer end of the range on those lenses. And while Nikon does have others, the 28-105mm is the best (it is also no longer being made, so no it does not show up in your faulty lens count analysis).

  16. #16
    Member danattherock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,608

    Default

    Floyd,

    You can't be serious

    Everything you just said is BS.

    Get some rest man. You are representing yourself poorly in that post. I know you to be a far greater gentlemen than this.

    Looks like I struck a nerve with a Nikon guy. Like I said, Ford vs Chevy...
    The two loudest sounds known to man: a gun that goes bang when it is supposed to go click and a gun that goes click when it is supposed to go bang.

  17. #17
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danattherock View Post
    Floyd,

    You can't be serious

    Everything you just said is BS.

    Get some rest man. You are representing yourself poorly in that post. I know you to be a far greater gentlemen than this.

    Looks like I struck a nerve with a Nikon guy. Like I said, Ford vs Chevy...
    So says a guy who has owned how many SLR's, and used them for how many months?

    It isn't BS. Incidentally I own more Pentax cameras that Nikons.

  18. #18
    Member 6XLeech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    2,162

    Default Still there?

    Steeliekingfisher?

    1. Do cameras still have remote shutter release? For some kinds of photos, pre-positioning the camera on a tripod if you know where your subject will be can be one option in lieu of the spendy optics needed to pull game in close.

    2. Consumer Reports not long ago recommended Canon PowerShot SX10 IS, $370 and Kodak (yep) EasyShare Z1012 IS, $240 for their long zoom feature.

    Not sure what kind of pics you had in mind. RayfromAK makes some strong visual arguments. If you're inclined to consider his suggestion - seems like he'd be worth a PM to research his suggestion more carefully before committing.

    CNET used to list places and prices for electronics - some of which ought to be reputable: http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/?tag=hdr;snav

    Also, keep Doug at CameraLand in mind - seems to have quite a few satisfied AOD customers and has been willing to offer suggestions too in the past. Good ones apparently!

    Best of luck.

  19. #19
    Member danattherock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,608

    Default

    6Xleech makes some good points.

    Like I said in my first post here, the new point and shoots are really impressive and would sure be easier to carry around than a DSLR with lenses. Not to mention much, much, less expensive. Certainly worth looking into before pulling the trigger on a DSLR. Lots of choices out there. A double edged sword of sorts. Makes it that much harder to decide.

    Whatever you do, just be sure to get a Canon

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...S_Digital.html




    .
    The two loudest sounds known to man: a gun that goes bang when it is supposed to go click and a gun that goes click when it is supposed to go bang.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,083

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson View Post
    Nobody said he wants or should get a "waterproof camera". I'm saying the weather proofing on Canon cameras is virtually non-existant, but is fairly good on even the consumer level Nikons and is excellent of the pro level models.
    But that does not make all of those cameras equal. Nor do most of us spend months at a time on Admiralty Island (which puts him in a vastly different environment than you or I or others like us who live in a desert).

    If that were true, nobody would ever buy the pro models. In fact, as I noted, a Nikon D2x has excellent weather proofing and is far more versatile (for example a better viewfinder and much more rugged) that the Canon models you've cited.

    As I noted, generally these things don't necessarily make much difference at all, but on occasion it really does, and the OP's description of what he'll do suggests it is one of those occasions.
    Are you implying that there aren't photographers in Admiralty Island using but water-resistant cameras? Are these folks using only Nikon cameras?

    My points still stand: right here in this forum several of us use Canon cameras, while others use Nikon. I am willing to bet that most of us use our cameras while hunting, snow-machining, hiking, canoeing, boating, while snowing, at the campsite, to take photos of wildlife, sports, sometimes by the sea, etc. All you have to do is to look at the photos being posted, as some are taken in all sorts of environments or situations. Well...not underwater as far as I can tell.

    If the OP is considering a camera for outdoors photography, wildlife, etc., then any of the cameras mentioned here (the ones all of us use each day), could very well be what he is looking for. He can do that with a Canon camera, a Nikon, Pentax, Sony, and even with a point and shoot camera as the ones mentioned by others in this forum.

    And yes, what makes a good photo isn't the camera, but the person behind it. It does not matter if the camera is water proof, water resistant, point and shoot, etc. If you look at the most famous photos around the world, a lot are from folks that are long gone. Do you really believe that those old cameras were water-resistant? If you look at the professional photographers taking photos at sporting (water skying, surfing, etc.), you will notice that most of the cameras use white-color lenses.

    You like Nikon, and I like Canon. That's all there is to it.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •