snubbr.com

Best DSLR for motorcross pics?
Hello,.

The more I read the more confused I seem to get about which camera to purchase. I need a new camera which will be used mostly for taking pictures of my kids racing motocross. I will use it for other shots to but this is my primary reason for thinking I need a dslr. The shots will range anywhere from 10 feet away to 100 feet away. I'm hoping to keep my budget around $1500 but could spend more..

What would be the best camea and lens for me?.

Thanks to anyone for advice which can help clear my confusion...

Comments (33)

No need to be confused, the camera is not important. The lens is though..

For what you want to shoot, you will need a zoom 70-300 (or something like that) and with "F 2.8" == lets a lot of light in == allows high shutter-speed, which you need for fast moving targets. And those are expensive..

So, you better go shop for a lens and buy the lowest priced camera to go with it. Maybe someone else knows more affordable lenses that are useful for you - maybe 3rd party lenses. It may be possible to that kind of lens + body for 1500$.

Any entry-level camera will do, they all have A "S"-program (shutter-priority) for setting the right shutter-speed with auto-iso..

Greetings..

Comment #1

Does the Nikon D40 or D40x or the Olympus 410 have a lense like you suggest? I am female and have small hands so the Olympus caught my eye as being light weight and easy to handle..

Thanks for the suggestion...

Comment #2

Well, I have done some searching and I found a Sigma apo 100-300 F4 for 1043 Euro(as I am in Europe) and the Nikon D40 with standard kit lens goes 450 Euro.So you see that the lens is much more costly then the body..

And it is only a F4 lens. It should work well on bright sunny days, if cloudy, you will probably have to raise ISO to "HI" = 3200 (which gives more noise in the picture..

There is still the possibility of using a prime lens though, that is a fixed focal length lens that doesn't zoom.Hope you have an idea now..

Greetings...

Comment #3

Turtletrax wrote:.

Hello,.

The more I read the more confused I seem to get about which camera topurchase. I need a new camera which will be used mostly for takingpictures of my kids racing motocross. I will use it for other shotsto but this is my primary reason for thinking I need a dslr. Theshots will range anywhere from 10 feet away to 100 feet away. I'mhoping to keep my budget around $1500 but could spend more..

You do have a small budget. So:.

- get one camera + kit lens;- get a longer lens, faster lens;- enjoy.

I'd recommend Canon or Nikon; Oly might be interesting - check prices..

For Canon, a decent setup about your budget would be:.

- 400d + 18-55 kit (IS maybe - the IS is not kit lens) - 600$. You might look for more kits. With the IS, it's body only and separate lens, about 700$- 70-200 f4 or f2.8 - 540$ or 1100$.

BH prices..

You'll also need cards, batteries, camera bag, etc. You might want a monopod - longer lenses are heavy to hold for a few hours..

Also check lens characteristics, including size and weight..

In this kind of setup, the body will loose value pretty fast, but the long lens will get you good quality and bring back lots of cash if you want to sell it later..

What would be the best camea and lens for me?.

A better body is quite out of your budget, unfortunately. You might want to add it later, or not..

Thanks to anyone for advice which can help clear my confusion...

Comment #4

LOL, you caught me in speed Nikon sure has those lenses and the D40 is a lightweight like the Oly. But I don't know much about Oly. Better ask someone else...

Comment #5

My budget isnt set in stone, that was just a number I was hoping to stay around. However I can see that I am most likely going to go well over that. I really do want to get a setup which will do what I need to and I will be happy with..

I have also looked at the Nikon D80 and just recently the Sony A700 caught my eye. The Sony is quite a bit more expensive but it looks like a great camera..

Anyway with that said I can see that I will need to spend quite a bit on a nice lense to go with which ever body I choose. Something keeps tliing me I will not be happy with the entry level D40, but I'm not sure why. I guess thats why I keep searching instead of just going and buying it..

Thanks again for all you help...

Comment #6

So you feel you're not gonna like the D40? Please tell me why I have it and it will do much more then you expect. By all means, if you like the Oly, go for it, or any other brand for that matter. Don't think that because they're entry-level cameras, they are lower in Image Quality. Much much more depends on the one looking through the viewfinder But, first of all, if you're gonna stretch your budget, do it on the lens..

The lens will keep it's value over it's long life and you can use it on a newer body later on. Any 2.8 lens is a "lust" lens everyone lusts for such a lens..

The body is dispense-ware. By the time it is worn out, you will (hopefully) have learned how to handle it and can upgrade then..

The D80 has more features, but bulkier too. Go to a store and really feel and handle them...

Comment #7

I think you've made a very good point about getting a nice lens and then upgrading the body later if I need to. I'm also sure the D40 will probably be more camera than I need or know how to use. I've handled it in the store and I do like the size of it. I think I will either give the D40 or D40x a try. Do you suggest sticking with Nikon lenses or are the 3rd party lenses as good?.

Thanks for helping me make up my mind ..

Comment #8

Nikons are always a tad better with nikons. But the quality of 3rd party lenses is not bad at all, just not the nec plus ultra, but mostly a LOT cheaper. To be fair, Canon is overall cheaper for the same first grade lenses. 3rd party lenses are seldom used by pros.

I am not pro so ............. Sigma Tokina Tamron all make fair lenses. Give a bit, take a bit.lol..

Comment #9

RE>Do you suggest sticking with Nikon lenses or are the 3rd party lenses as good?<.

Photography can be confusing..

In an effort to make things simpler for beginning photographers, Nikon has designed the D40 and D40X so that they only take certain lenses; some from Nikon and some from other manufacturers..

Depending on the models, some third party lenses are better than Nikon lenses, and some Nikon lenses are better than third party lenses. And "better" is a word with broad definitions..

Taking pictures outdoors in decent light does not require a lens with f2.8 in it's description..

With a D40 or D40X, any Nikon lens that reaches 200mm will be fine for your purposes, and Nikon offers some two-lens kits..

You can also consider a Canon XT or a Canon XTi. The XT is older, but still available, often at bargain prices. Before Christmas, Canon has a two-lens package that was a real bargain..

With Canon bodies, Sigma and Tamron lenses work fine, too. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina are the three top inde[pendent lens makers, and they manufacture lenses with connections that fit different bodies. Make sure, for instance, that the box a Sigma lens comes in says "Canon" on it if you are buying the lens to fit on a Canon body..

After a while using a $500 body and a $300 lens you'll have a really good idea of how and if and why you might want something more expensive..

There's nothing wrong with Olympus, by the way. I just don't know anything specific about Olympus cameras..

When you're at the store, look at monopods these are like one-legged tripods, and are very handy for sports photography because they keep the camera near your eye, without a lot of strain on your shoulder muscles..

BAK.

BAK..

Comment #10

Which lense would you recommend as an all around "good for almost all shots" lense to have? I'm not sure if I should get the kit with the 2 lenses or just the body..

I was looking at the 70-200mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S VR but it looks rather large and not one that I would use all the time or leave on the camera. Also, is there anything special I should look for in a lense? I'm guessing I will want AF and VR in my lenses but other than that I don't know if there is something else I should be looking for other than zoom and speed...

Comment #11

Well, maybe use the kit lenses first and wait and see. You will find out what you need eventually..

If you're talking about the 2 kit lenses with the D40 (18-50 / 55-200), they're both very good. And you can get the 55-200 with VR BUT!!!!! VR doesn't help shooting moving subjects, only high shutterspeed , ergo "fast" glass (2.8) helps..

And yes, the 70-200 2.8 is a tube LOLIt is a PRO-tube though, made for sports, action, flying things, racing,and so on. You have time on your side, try the 55-200 (3.5/5.6) first and find out........ As for more detailed pricing of fast zooms/primes, maybe better go to the "lenses-forum" Nikon/Canon/Oly/Sigma.They may show you cheaper alternatives that work fine.Have fun with whatever you choose...

Comment #12

You're right, photography can, and is confusing for us newbies who are used to point and shoot cameras. It seems the more I read the more confused I get..

Thanks for the tip on lenses. I'd say 95% of my sports shots will be outside so the lense information is good to know. The f2.8 is quite expensive so it'll be nice to save some $$ if I can..

Are the lneses that come with the kits worth paying for or should I get just the body and upgrade on better lenses?..

Comment #13

Dear turtletracks,.

LOL.

Like I said in previous post, the kit-lenses are fine and made for allround purposes.Take them and try them out.And wait and see..... You will find out what you need or don't need..

Greetings...

Comment #14

Turtletrax wrote:.

Hello,.

The more I read the more confused I seem to get about which camera topurchase. I need a new camera which will be used mostly for takingpictures of my kids racing motocross. I will use it for other shotsto but this is my primary reason for thinking I need a dslr. Theshots will range anywhere from 10 feet away to 100 feet away. I'mhoping to keep my budget around $1500 but could spend more..

What would be the best camera and lens for me?.

For that specific requirement my first choice would be a Canon 40D with a 70-200 f/4L. $1149 and $539 at B&H. What this will give you in addition to amazing image quality is class-leading focus speed and accuracy - perfect for fast-moving targets. The IS version of the lens would give you an additional option of easier panning shots at slower shutter speeds but it is much more expensive at $984..

Close second would be a 400D (or it's successor, expected soon) with the same lens..

The f/2.8 version is a heavy, expensive lens which is wonderful - but overkill I think..

Either way you would also need a 17/18-xx lens for more general photography. I have a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 but I would suggest the Sigma 17-70 as a slightly more versatile option ($389)..

Comment #15

Thank you for the specific lens recommendations. For some reason I have not looked closely at the Canons but I will do so..

Thanks again!..

Comment #16

Turtletrax wrote:.

Which lense would you recommend as an all around "good for almost allshots" lense to have? I'm not sure if I should get the kit with the2 lenses or just the body..

I was looking at the 70-200mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S VR but it looks ratherlarge and not one that I would use all the time or leave on thecamera. Also, is there anything special I should look for in alense? I'm guessing I will want AF and VR in my lenses but otherthan that I don't know if there is something else I should be lookingfor other than zoom and speed..

First - I have Nikon so I'll only comment on the Nikons!.

Not to devalue taking pictures of the kids, but the 70-200VR is overkill for kid's sports for a new photographer. As suggested, maybe try the kit lenses for a while and see if you're getting what you want from it. If you need extra reach the 70-300 VR is a nice lens for the money. I might be inclined to skip the 55-200 altogether and just get the 70-300..

You really don't need to spend $1600+ on a lens to take nice pics of the kids, even sports pics of the kids..

Also, the D40 has a number of drawbacks:.

1) it isn't the best built camera so you do need to be careful with it (my friend dropped hers from about 2 feet and the AF stopped working and the body coverings cracked).

2) it takes only AF-S lenses, so it limits you to those if you want to retain autofocus. Stepping up to a D80 (or any other Nikon DLSR for that matter) gives you the ability to buy a much wider range of non AF-S (but still AF) lenses.3) Even with my small hands, I find the D40 uncomfortable small...

Comment #17

I think you should look harder at the Canon, great for sports photography..

Look at all the news on TV, the majority of photographers you see taking sport seem to use Canon and the majority of news photograhers seem to use Nikon, I think Canon have a better line up of Lenses for sport and a quicker auto focus.(My opinion only).

I agree that the 40D coupled with a 70-200 f2.8 is the ideal but it's big and expensive, the EF 70-200 f4L USM is lighter and 1/2 the price and will take just a good a picture in good outdoor light, you can get an IS version (a little bit bigger and dearer)..

It will cover all your sport and Portrait needs and when your budget will stretch get a AF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM for all other stuff, you will probably never need any other lens..

One thing I would ask you to ponder on is advice of " buy this and try it then upgrade later" Your childrens photos are very precious. You never never never get the chance to "do it again" because the moment you capture is fleeting and never reoccurs..

If you take these Precious shots with equipment less than adequate imagine yourself in 5 years time, showing the results, "here's Johhny doing that double turnover twist" "he only ever did it once" sorry it's a bit dark and out of focus..

Also get yourself a Monopod, even a very cheap one will take the strain out of sport shots...

Comment #18

You make a very good point about upgrading. Which model of Canon do you recommend for my situation? Is there a kit you'd recommend or just the body and purchase a separate lense?.

Thank you ..

Comment #19

If you take these Precious shots with equipment less than adequateimagine yourself in 5 years time, showing the results, "here's Johhnydoing that double turnover twist" "he only ever did it once" sorryits a bit dark and out of focus..

You should be in sales. .

Madam.

A lens that is fast in auto-focus speed and lets in lots of light AND keeps it all in sharp focus, costs a lot of money. It is because they require large lens elements made of superior grade glass and polished far better than 'average' lenses and be held in perfect alignment. Not to mention have the latest coatings. Coming from an Astronomy background I am painfully aware that excellent quality optics cost a lot of money. Just settling for 'good optics' means you'll spend far far less. The difference between amazing optics and good is small in measurement, but very large in cost.



The camera body is (IMO) FAR less important than the lens. Not irrelevant mind you, but far far less important. You can buy a $3000 body, but if the thing that forms the image (aka the lens) is only so-so in sharpness, or it can not focus fast enough for your subject matter, or simply does not let in enough light under your conditions, that will *always* be the camera's limiting factor - no matter what body you have. Remember the lens is your camera's eye. Your camera will never be sharper or more versatile than the lens you mount to it. Never..

And this is coming from someone who has spent $10's of 1000s on telescopes. But who refuses to give Canon $1100 for a single 'L' lens. It is a matter of what I am willing to settle for. I don't think an $1100 lens is twice as good as a $600. IMO I get fine results for what I need, from a $300 lens. YMMV.

But I am well aware it's not 6 times better the Chinese mirror. Yet I still bought the best. It's all about what you want to blow your money on. .

I admit I am weird. .

Best wishes..

Comment #20

I do understand that it's not the camera body that is nearly as important as the lens that I use. Having not priced Canon before, are you saying that Canon lenses are much pricier than Nikon or Olympus or another brand?.

I'm not looking for the "perfect" magazine cover quality photo. I just want a setup which will take sharp pictures, not blurry, and a camera that will respond fast enough so I don't miss that "one time" shot that I want..

I'm still not set on a brand or a model, just weighing my options from all the good advice I have been given. Thank you for yours. ..

Comment #21

Both Canon and Nikon are very similar in price for lenses that are of equivalent quality.Getting back to your original question "what is the best for Motorcross..

I would go Canon 40D with a 70-200 "L" lens. All are USM (Ultra Sonic Motor) lenses so fast focus is guanteed..

Now the choice of f4 or f2.8 could be made on the basis of available light, if everything is outdoors in good light then f4 is OK if indoors, poor light (Deep Shadow) then f2.8 is needed.f2.8 is bigger, heavier and more expensive..

Now what about "IS" (Image Stabilisation) this is a difficult one, for just your Motocross it's probably of limited value because mostly you will be panning. But for other shots, lower light without mono or tri pods then it's very useful, but if you are young and have steady hands or are smart enough to always have somewhere or something to steady the camera then the "IS" will not be worth it.It costs money and weight and size, but it's not just a gimmick..

There is one other point that may be of help, if you live in or near a large population centre there will be a place to Hire a camera & lens combination for a day or two, not cheap but may, save you many hundreds on the wrong choice...

Comment #22

... if the OP is going to take pics of motocross races, doesn't that mean there'll dirt flying all around, thus a better sealed camera (like the Pentax'es and Oly'ies) shouldn't be more appropriate?(as well as a camera with better & faster autofocus)..

Comment #23

There is definitely dirt at the races and depending on how dry it is, there can be lots of dirt. I just ran across the Oly E-510 today which seems to be a nice entry level model of SLR. Any thoughts on it?.

To everyone with lens information, thank you. Most (95%) of my shots will be outside so I don't think the added extra cost and weight of an f2.8 is needed, at least to start off with...

Comment #24

Unfortunately I cannot give you any actual thoughts about either Oly and Pentax because I've never used any of them .

(but seeing Pentax's K100D and K10D reviews here at DPReview, they seem very nices cameras).

As for the lenses, you could give a look here:http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html..

Comment #25

Brand wise I am starting to think it isnt going to make a big difference. If I get a quality camera with the features I need I should be happy..

Thank you for the lens link!..

Comment #26

Choices, choices, so much choices But I feel you have a good view on the overall setup now..

Most people, rightfully, have stretched that a "fast" lens is the important thing (2.8 or 4 in sunny weather). When it comes down to invest in such a nice lens, I would stick to Canon or Nikon because it's a bigger market if you wanted to sell it later on..

Though I doubt it very much you would do that, once you appreciate what it can do for you. And as suggested, you could rent it and have a try-out. Even if in worst case scenario, you can't/won't work with it, you will not loose big amounts of money..

These lenses keep their value much much better then any shiny car. VR won't help you much, so even a used lens on a monopod without VR would do nicely..

About 2.8 or 4 I know there is quite a diff in price. But the flexibility of the 2.8 comes in play. Even if the son later on does an indoor sport or graduates or whatever, the 2.8 will still be there for you a lifelong companion..

But you never mentioned if you really are into photography. Of course, you can grow into it, but I would hate to see you disappointed after a considerable investment.Maybe have a look at http://www.users.skynet.be/fc042264 family snapshots with a sony ps73 and a D40. I am learning Then look at real good one : http://www.shanidze.com/en/I would like to achieve that kind of level, wouldn't you?..

Comment #27

Jeffrey D. Gortatowsky wrote:.

The last 10% of performancecosts far more than 10%..

Indeed it does - the 'law of diminishing returns'. But this is true of most things - lenses, cameras, tripods, cars, shirts and pizzas..

The camera body is (IMO) FAR less important than the lens. Notirrelevant mind you, but far far less important. You can buy a $3000body, but if the thing that forms the image (aka the lens) is onlyso-so in sharpness, or it can not focus fast enough for your subjectmatter, or simply does not let in enough light under your conditions,that will *always* be the camera's limiting factor - no matter whatbody you have. Remember the lens is your camera's eye. Your camerawill never be sharper or more versatile than the lens you mount toit. Never..

This advice is regularly repeated on these forums, but:.

A) It was much more true of film cameras than digital, andb) Once again the law of diminishing returns applies..

The role of the lens hasn't diminished, obviously, but the role of the camera body has greatly increased..

And this is coming from someone who has spent $10's of 1000s ontelescopes. But who refuses to give Canon $1100 for a single 'L'lens. It is a matter of what I am willing to settle for..

Well, yes, or to paraphrase that it simply shows that your photography is less important to you than your astronomy. A friend who I have discussed this with several times has a telescope to die for but refuses to 'waste money' on any kind of DSLR..

I don'tthink an $1100 lens is twice as good as a $600..

It depends what you mean by twice as good. Twice the resolution? No, almost certainly not. Twice the light collecting power? Quite possibly, since f/2.8 collects twice as much light as f/4. Twice the 'value'? To a professional whose income depends on never missing a shot - could be ten times the value. And to someone who values portability above all else, the $1100 lens could be worthless..

IMO I get fineresults for what I need, from a $300 lens. YMMV. OTOH I have seenthat an $1100 telescope mirror produces a better image than a $200Chinese one and paid that price. But I am well aware it's not 6 timesbetter the Chinese mirror. Yet I still bought the best. It's allabout what you want to blow your money on. .

Yep...

Comment #28

Solo1 wrote:.

Both Canon and Nikon are very similar in price for lenses that are ofequivalent quality.Getting back to your original question "what is the best for Motorcross.I would go Canon 40D with a 70-200 "L" lens. All are USM (UltraSonic Motor) lenses so fast focus is guanteed..

USM, like Nikon's AF-S, doesn't guarantee fast focus. It also depends on how sensitive and accurate the AF sensors are in the camera...

Comment #29

You're right, the choices are endless! .

I have learned alot though by posting here and reading reviews and posts. What it comes down to now is really how much I want to spend and a final decision on which brand to get..

It is nice to know that lenses hold their value so well. I am a computer buff so I come from the technology world where everything you buy is outdated and depreciated before even turning it on..

As for me being into photography, I LOVE to take pictures. I almost always have my camera with me and my friends and family know that I will be there to capture the moment, if there is one. I don't howeverconsider myself any type of photographer because I have never used an SLR camera before. Last summer I was disappointed because I missed some shots at the track of my kids and it was then I realized I need to upgrade to a better camera which will fit my needs. After all that I've learned from just reading this site and posting here, I'm really anxious to get my new camera and see what I can do with it. I don't think I'll be disappointed as my interest in using the camera as it was intended to be used, is definitely there!.

I can see this becoming a rather expensive hobby! Thank you again, for all of your help and advice.  ..

Comment #30

Steve Balcombe wrote:.

For that specific requirement my first choice would be a Canon 40Dwith a 70-200 f/4L. $1149 and $539 at B&H. What this will give you inaddition to amazing image quality is class-leading focus speed andaccuracy - perfect for fast-moving targets..

I want to add a bit more by way of explanation, since others have ventured different opinions..

You said you don't need magazine cover quality - fair point, although your expectations will probably increase as you do more photography. But the difference between this lens and others you might consider is not only image quality..

Focusing speed has already mentioned by others as well as me. The importance of this for sports photography should never be underestimated, and it is often the single biggest weakness of cheaper 'consumer' lenses. Also, if the subject is moving towards you at speed the predictive autofocus of the 40D/400D combined with the focusing speed and accuracy of the 70-200/4 will capture images that lesser equipment would have no chance with..

Aperture is very important obviously. F/4 is a good compromise, especially when it is constant throughout the zoom range as it is with the 70-200. F/2.8 is wonderful but the price is just too high and you really don't need it - and you would probably soon tire of carrying it around! F/5.6, which is what you will get at the long end of any 'consumer zoom', is adequate when the weather is good but would be very limiting in duller weather, evenings and so on..

(Just to avoid any confusion when reading other advice - I *would* recommend f/2.8 for a shorter lens. At shorter focal lengths they are more affordable and not as large and heavy.).

I haven't explained why I suggested 70-200 and not some other range of focal lengths. You said you need to cover distances of 10 ft to 100 ft. Well, no lens will do that except for the 'superzooms' and they don't have the performance you need. But 70-200 will give you good coverage at the longer distances, and tightly-cropped shots (which can be superb!) at closer range. Also, because the image quality is very high, you can crop much more than you would want to with a cheaper lens, effectively increasing the range. If you are working from very close range you would, however, need another lens - there is no really good single lens solution for such a wide range of distances..

Build quality is very, very high - the same as lenses costing thousands. Professionals use them as everyday working tools and they last for years. For you and me they would last a lifetime..

Autofocus is very fast as we have already said, but in addition these lenses have a feature known as 'full time manual' focusing. This means it is possible to adjust focus manually even when in AF mode. It is hard to appreciate how useful this until you have it!.

A lens hood is included. With outdoor sports photography you don't always have the luxury of choosing which direction the light comes from, making a lens hood absolutely essential to minimise flare. With cheaper lenses the hood is an extra cost option..

The 70-200 f/4L has all the attributes of Canon's professional lenses at a bargain price. It is big enough to do the job yet small enough to be realistically hand-holdable. I don't think there is any better lens for the job - except perhaps the IS version of the same lens!..

Comment #31

Fraserj1 wrote:.

Solo1 wrote:.

Both Canon and Nikon are very similar in price for lenses that are ofequivalent quality.Getting back to your original question "what is the best for Motorcross.I would go Canon 40D with a 70-200 "L" lens. All are USM (UltraSonic Motor) lenses so fast focus is guanteed..

USM, like Nikon's AF-S, doesn't guarantee fast focus. It alsodepends on how sensitive and accurate the AF sensors are in thecamera..

The camera does have a significant role, but you can still guarantee that a USM lens will focus faster and more accurately than an equivalent non-USM lens on a given camera...

Comment #32

Thank you for the info! The 70-200 f/4L is pricey but not out of my budget and I have come to realize the importance of a quality lens, especially for the shots I will be wanting to take..

Thank you for taking the time to explain why it's such a great lens!..

Comment #33

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.