Jump to content

Camera recommendations


Recommended Posts


You can get some good results from the Nikon 80-300mm, mine cost £80 off ebay..all depends on how much you have to spend, but, go for the best you can afford..

Edited by Romany
Link to post
Share on other sites

You can get some good results from the Nikon 80-300mm, mine cost £80 off ebay..all depends on how much you have to spend, but, go for the best you can afford..

 

 

i was looking at buying the nikon d70 last year,but after much thought i bought a sony a700,it was the in-body image staboliser that made me change my mind,that means unlike the nikon i don't have to be spending loads of extra money on image stabolising lenses,so that means every lens i buy is an IS lens.there is a big difference in price between an IS lens and an non IS lens.hope this helpsthumbs.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can get some good results from the Nikon 80-300mm, mine cost £80 off ebay..all depends on how much you have to spend, but, go for the best you can afford..

 

 

i was looking at buying the nikon d70 last year,but after much thought i bought a sony a700,it was the in-body image staboliser that made me change my mind,that means unlike the nikon i don't have to be spending loads of extra money on image stabolising lenses,so that means every lens i buy is an IS lens.there is a big difference in price between an IS lens and an non IS lens.hope this helpsthumbs.gif

 

I would like to see how this compares to a IS lens. The way i look at it is that if "on camera" IS was so good the two top camera manufacturers would be using it. Not knocking your camera mate,just saying thats all.

Personally you want the fastest lens you can get, but for photography you also need a little fieldcraft and savvy. It doesnt matter what lens you are using if you cannot get near the subject. I always say that canon and nikon are both top class.....JMO :victory: JD

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sony is a good camera, but I can't really see the point of built in IS... I wouldn't buy a camera simply for that reason because I would rarely use the feature. It's handy on a big zoom like the 100-400, but I agree with Darcy, the faster the lens, the better. Being able to use a slow shutter speed is little use when it comes to twitchy wildlife.

 

The D70 was (and still is) an excellent camera, but I'd look around for a good Nikon lens in the 70-300 range. Tamron are ok, and make some very good lenses, but their budget range leaves quite a lot to be desired. Depends how serious you are about photography and what you want to do with your photos really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Muttle, i agree. Top be honest without top class lenses you wont get top class results!

Theres no short cuts IMO. Sure the odd pic may come up trumps, but to consistantly produce top-draw shots you need good glass.........JMHO...JD :victory:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Found a refurbed D70 on eBay for 170 buy it now and a tamron 70-300mm lense priced at 70 quid do u guys think this is a decent setup?

 

Seems a good price for the Nikon, dont be frightened about it being refurbished, my first D200 was, it came with a good guarrentee and it was a very good camera..Tamron and Sigma I tend to keep away from, but thats my opinion, I know a lot of people with Canon gear and they use Sigma quite a lot. But you could get a Nikon 80-300mm (non VR)for around that same price on ebay if you keep a watch out, and its far superior glass to the Tamron..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Romany, i do agree about cheaper lenses. But, i think they vary alot. I own a 150 macro sigma and its tack sharp. I mean it picks out hairs on a newly hatched caterpillars head!! But i know ai got lucky. Today i would never take a chance with a Sigma, its canon all the way for me. I saw the light.

They are expensive, but i look back on my old photos and i know they would have been better if i had have had a better lens. The ones from even a couple of years ago i can now see are poor, but its a learning curve i guess..... :victory:

 

Happy snapping folks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Romany, i do agree about cheaper lenses. But, i think they vary alot. I own a 150 macro sigma and its tack sharp. I mean it picks out hairs on a newly hatched caterpillars head!! But i know ai got lucky. Today i would never take a chance with a Sigma, its canon all the way for me. I saw the light.

They are expensive, but i look back on my old photos and i know they would have been better if i had have had a better lens. The ones from even a couple of years ago i can now see are poor, but its a learning curve i guess..... :victory:

 

Happy snapping folks

Have to agree with the canon lens .. i noticed a vast difference in pics i took with a tamron lens & then a canon lens

 

the tamron lens results were ok but the canon lens pics were sharper & basically better pics

Link to post
Share on other sites

:hmm: I have borrowed an old Nikon D70s,...and it is a vast improvement on my tiny holiday snapper camera :laugh:

 

My action pictures are no great shakes,...and I have noticed that images taken by my pal, on his Canon EOS 350D SEEM to be far crisper,.. and definitely far better quality..

 

With such an old camera,..is it worth my while,.saving money from my meagre pension,..to purchase a 300mm lens,..or will the body of the ancient Nikon D70s not be up to the task of supporting it ?

 

Be nice to know...guys.. :hmm:

 

All the best,.CHALKWARREN...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Found a refurbed D70 on eBay for 170 buy it now and a tamron 70-300mm lense priced at 70 quid do u guys think this is a decent setup?

 

The tamron 70/300 imo is ok if your on top of what you want to photograph .. but it isnt much cop at 300 i found the images grainey

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can get some good results from the Nikon 80-300mm, mine cost £80 off ebay..all depends on how much you have to spend, but, go for the best you can afford..

 

 

i was looking at buying the nikon d70 last year,but after much thought i bought a sony a700,it was the in-body image staboliser that made me change my mind,that means unlike the nikon i don't have to be spending loads of extra money on image stabolising lenses,so that means every lens i buy is an IS lens.there is a big difference in price between an IS lens and an non IS lens.hope this helpsthumbs.gif

 

I would like to see how this compares to a IS lens. The way i look at it is that if "on camera" IS was so good the two top camera manufacturers would be using it. Not knocking your camera mate,just saying thats all.

Personally you want the fastest lens you can get, but for photography you also need a little fieldcraft and savvy. It doesnt matter what lens you are using if you cannot get near the subject. I always say that canon and nikon are both top class.....JMO victory.gif JD

 

Agree fieldcraft and savvy are a must.Not long go a new camera myself.Dont think i have taken one good photo yet.using a nikon 70-300 lens.atb. Catcherthumbs.gif Not down to the lens just me

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...