snubbr.com

Canon EOS 40D Vs. Sony A700 - Detailed Advice Question
Im looking to finally take the plunge and upgrade to a DSLR. I used to have a Minolta 3xi that I got as a gift some 13 years ago, but never really used it to it's potential. Recently, I got a Canon S3-IS and in the past couple of years, Ive been taking my hobby more seriously. Id like to finally dig in and get a decent DSLR camera. Ive been doing all kinds of research (dpreview, popphot.com, etc.), and I think Ive narrowed it down to 2 options:.

The Canon EOS-40DAndThe Sony DSLR-A700.

Now, from what Ive seen the A700 seems to be the better camera, spec-wise. Its about the same price, and the specs seem comparable to the more expensive Nikon D300 (which I considered, but is too expensive). But Ive heard so many great things about Canon (and Nikon), Im reluctant to go with anything else. Most photographers that Im acquainted with use Canon, but Ive been impressed with some test shots Ive seen of the A700, though I'm not sure how much you can count on test shots viewed online..

So, I guess Im wondering what experiences youve had with either camera and which you might recommend. I dont want to pass up a better camera (if the A700 is the better camera) simply because it doesnt say Canon on the front. I had been leaning towards the 40D, but the more I read about the A700, the more I wonder if I should consider it more seriously..

What about lenses?Will I be limiting myself with the Sony?Will I be better off buying into the Canon system?Are there enough 3rd party lenses out there to make this a non-issue?How big of a deal is it that the A700 has built-in IS?.

Should my familiarity with the Powershot S3-IS play into my decision, or is the DSLR world so different that it won't make any difference?.

From what I understand, Sony is stepping up their digital photography division to really challenge Canon and Nikon, so Im wondering what the future holds..

I did look at Nikons D80 and D200 as well, and I like the sample pics I saw. Im not sure how much you can really tell from sample pics online though. But I think Id rather go with something newer. One thing is that Im very attached to Live View, which the older Nikons dont have. And again the D300 looks impressive, but will leave me without enough money left over for good glass..

Im budgeting myself at about $2500 for body, lenses, accessories, etc. If I can go cheaper, so much the better, but thats the cap on what Im willing to spend right now. I also just ordered a Lexar 4GB CF card for test purposes when I get myself to B&H Photo to sit down with a salesman and get to handle these things. So, I have at least one memory card already..

What I typically enjoy photographing in order of importance:.

Travel (mostly outdoor)Outdoors / NatureNight Club crowds and performancesFamily, pets, etc..

So something that takes good pictures at higher ISOs would be ideal. From what Ive read, both are good at 1600 and halfway decent at 3200. I do work at the club, so I can get away with using a good flash..

And if you think Id be better off with the Nikon D300, let me know that too. Its just that the $1800 body will leave me with only a few hundred dollars for a lens, whereas the others would leave me with $800 - $1000 for something better. As for going with Pentax or Olympus, I'm not totally opposed to them, but it took me a while to finally accept the possibility of going with Sony, so I'm kind of stuck on either Canon, Nikon, or Sony..

I'm looking to buy early next year (January or February)..

Any help or guidance you all could offer would be appreciated..

Thanks in advance!.

Ben..

Comments (13)

Hi Ben,.

DJDysfunction wrote:.

Im looking to finally take the plunge and upgrade to a DSLR. I usedto have a Minolta 3xi that I got as a gift some 13 years ago, butnever really used it to it's potential. Recently, I got a Canon S3-ISand in the past couple of years, Ive been taking my hobby moreseriously. Id like to finally dig in and get a decent DSLR camera.Ive been doing all kinds of research (dpreview, popphot.com, etc.),and I think Ive narrowed it down to 2 options:.

The Canon EOS-40DAndThe Sony DSLR-A700.

Now, from what Ive seen the A700 seems to be the better camera,spec-wise. Its about the same price, and the specs seem comparableto the more expensive Nikon D300 (which I considered, but is tooexpensive). But Ive heard so many great things about Canon (andNikon), Im reluctant to go with anything else. Most photographersthat Im acquainted with use Canon, but Ive been impressed with sometest shots Ive seen of the A700, though I'm not sure how much youcan count on test shots viewed online..

So, I guess Im wondering what experiences youve had with eithercamera and which you might recommend. I dont want to pass up abetter camera (if the A700 is the better camera) simply because itdoesnt say Canon on the front. I had been leaning towards the40D, but the more I read about the A700, the more I wonder if Ishould consider it more seriously..

What about lenses?Will I be limiting myself with the Sony?.

If you want brand new Sony branded lenses, then yes. Otherwise, it will work with pretty much all Minolta/Konica-Minolta AF lenses ever made..

Will I be better off buying into the Canon system?.

The Canon system is probably the biggest and most complete that there is..

Are there enough 3rd party lenses out there to make this a non-issue?.

There are certainly a lot of 3rd party lenses out there. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina...

How big of a deal is it that the A700 has built-in IS?.

Well, built-in IS means any lens you put on the camera will benefit from IS. With Canon or Nikon, you will only have IS with the purchase of IS lenses (which of course cost more than non-IS lenses)..

Should my familiarity with the Powershot S3-IS play into my decision,or is the DSLR world so different that it won't make any difference?.

No it shouldn't. DSLR's are waaay different..

From what I understand, Sony is stepping up their digital photographydivision to really challenge Canon and Nikon, so Im wondering whatthe future holds..

Well, they have some more lenses and accessories in the works, as well as a Pro level body..

I did look at Nikons D80 and D200 as well, and I like the samplepics I saw. Im not sure how much you can really tell from samplepics online though. But I think Id rather go with something newer.One thing is that Im very attached to Live View, which the olderNikons dont have. And again the D300 looks impressive, but willleave me without enough money left over for good glass..

The Canon 40D has live view if it really that important to you. The a700 does not..

Im budgeting myself at about $2500 for body, lenses, accessories,etc. If I can go cheaper, so much the better, but thats the cap onwhat Im willing to spend right now. I also just ordered a Lexar 4GBCF card for test purposes when I get myself to B&H Photo to sit downwith a salesman and get to handle these things. So, I have at leastone memory card already..

What I typically enjoy photographing in order of importance:.

Travel (mostly outdoor)Outdoors / NatureNight Club crowds and performancesFamily, pets, etc..

So something that takes good pictures at higher ISOs would be ideal.From what Ive read, both are good at 1600 and halfway decent at3200. I do work at the club, so I can get away with using a goodflash..

And if you think Id be better off with the Nikon D300, let me knowthat too. Its just that the $1800 body will leave me with only afew hundred dollars for a lens, whereas the others would leave mewith $800 - $1000 for something better. As for going with Pentax orOlympus, I'm not totally opposed to them, but it took me a while tofinally accept the possibility of going with Sony, so I'm kind ofstuck on either Canon, Nikon, or Sony..

I'm looking to buy early next year (January or February)..

Any help or guidance you all could offer would be appreciated..

First, ask yourself what you really need. Like what lenses and accessories you would really want. See if Sony's system can satisfy those needs (the Canon system will definitely satisfy any and all needs/wants). If all of the systems you are considering (Canon, Nikon, Sony) can satisfy your needs/wants, then it comes down to your own personal choice..

What I mean by personal choice: This means go to a store, and handle all the camera's you are considering. The one that feels the best in your hands and that operates the easiest for you is the one you should get. Don't let sales people influence you in any way on this. Because when it comes down to it, all that really matters is that the camera fits you. If a camera is uncomfortable in your hands or is frustrating to operate, you aren't going to be too thrilled with it regardless of what other people think of it..

Thanks in advance!.

Ben.

'I reject your reality and substitute my own' -Adam Savagehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/mrnoronha/sets/..

Comment #1

Thanks very much for your input. I had a feeling that my experience with my good old S3IS really wouldn't be relevant, but you never know. And that's good to know about lenses and stuff. I got kind of taken aback when I saw the CNET review of the A700 and they said something like, "it's a great camera if you're not already committed to another system." Maybe I have a fear of commitment when it comes to electronics..

I will definitely be taking a trip to B&H Photo in early December to handle some cameras. I'm bringing a CF card with me in the hopes that they'll let me take some shots with it so I can see them for myself when I get home. I've never been there, but I remember reading that it's like "Disneyland for photographers," so I'm excited go there and check some things out..

It's funny what you said about letting salespeople influence me. The rep. from B&H that I spoke to on the phone told me to go with the Canon, no question. I was actually a little surprised, since the A700 is slightly more expensive, though I'm sure they'd make up the cost on lenses and accessories that they'd end up selling me, and he knew that. But he was adamant about Canon. But like you said, I'll have to see what is more comfortable in my hands..

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond..

Ben..

Comment #2

DJDysfunction wrote:.

Now, from what Ive seen the A700 seems to be the better camera,spec-wise..

Better how? 2 more MP- not significant.

The only spec it has of any conesquence is the inbody IS, which is nice, but not necessarry by any means..

It lacks a top mount LCD- not important until you want to change settings in bright sunlight and can't see the LCD or in the dark when the rear LCD lights up half the room and gives you temporary night blindness..

It's a little slower FPS- 20% or more actually..

Depsite what Popphoto (they're useless) says, the 40D with USM lenses focuses faster in all situations, especially in low light..

The A700 lacks Live View if that's important- whether Canon's implementation is good or bad- it has it if you need or want it..

Its about the same price, and the specs seem comparableto the more expensive Nikon D300.

The A700 is not really close to the D300 is spec other than both being 12mp..

Both are capable of great images, there's no discernable difference..

The Sony does appear to have a resolution advantage when shot in RAW, at least on test charts , and probably in real life as well..

At what size you need to print them in order to actually see the difference I don't know..

So, I guess Im wondering what experiences youve had with eithercamera and which you might recommend..

For sure consider both, go hold both. However don't be quick to judge the ergos (buttons, changing settings ect...) because once you used either one for a time they will both be easy to use..

I guess the Sony has a slight edge in it's quicknav menu and a few more hard buttons. But it's not a deal maker or breaker..

What about lenses?.

Canon has the most..

Canon has the widest range..

Canon's prices are generally lower for similar lenses..

Used Canon lenses are easier to find..

There is more third party support for Canon..

All lenses used on Canon have in lens motors- more USM, HSM etc... lenses available..

Will I be limiting myself with the Sony?.

Currently- yes IMO. Sony has a lack of fast glass and what there is, is more expensive and MUCH harder to find..

If fast glass is not important and you think you'll be satisfied with low and mid grade lenses, then Sony is not that fast behind Canon in lens availability..

Will I be better off buying into the Canon system?.

I think so. Bodies come and go. Canon will always have a competetive body. Plus they have models in 3 classes, offering a clear path to upgrade or add..

And of course there is the lens issue- more, more, more... many of them better than any other offered..

Are there enough 3rd party lenses out there to make this a non-issue?How big of a deal is it that the A700 has built-in IS?.

Like I said, it's useful, but not necessarry..

Should my familiarity with the Powershot S3-IS play into my decision,or is the DSLR world so different that it won't make any difference?.

As long as you understand the basics of exposure you shouldn't have any problem..

From what I understand, Sony is stepping up their digital photographydivision to really challenge Canon and Nikon,.

Sony's going to try for sure, but they will not supplant Canon or Nikon- not going to happen..

One thing is that Im very attached to Live View, which the olderNikons dont have. And again the D300 looks impressive, but willleave me without enough money left over for good glass..

Good glass- you're better off with a less expensive body (provided it has what you want/need) and good glass- ALWAYS..

Im budgeting myself at about $2500 for body, lenses, accessories,etc. If I can go cheaper, so much the better, but thats the cap onwhat Im willing to spend right now..

You could do very well with Canon or Sony at this price..

40D, Tamron 17-50, Canon 70-200/4 and 430EX flashOr if you get the kit version, skip the 17-50..

You could nearly substitue the Sigma 70-200/2.8 for the 70-200 Canon if you want the speed and don't mind the extra weight..

At your budget the inbody IS becomes a little more of an issue- The Canon kit 17-85 or 28-235 both have IS, but the Sony gives it to you on the less expensive long lenses to, if you can find them. The 70-210/4 "beercan" seems very nice for the price if you can find one- used..

What I typically enjoy photographing in order of importance:.

Travel (mostly outdoor).

A nice wide angle- Sony kits include the Zeiss 16-80 or 16-105 giving you a nice (24mm) wide end..

Outdoors / Nature-.

Same as above.

Night Club crowds and performances-.

Canon has the advantage of faster low light AF and a little less high ISO noise in this type of lighting..

Family, pets, etc..

Either is a good choice for this..

So something that takes good pictures at higher ISOs would be ideal.From what Ive read, both are good at 1600 and halfway decent at3200. I do work at the club, so I can get away with using a goodflash..

Again the Canon is a little better, plus the flash performance is better (IMO).

Stuck on either Canon, Nikon, or Sony..

Depends on how many lenses you want- 2-3 OK lenses, 1 OK and 1 good lens, 1 really good lens- All depends on what you want..

Here, Canon offers more choice IMO, to get what you want. They also have more to choose from when getting your next lens(es)..

I'm looking to buy early next year (January or February)..

By this time the price of the 40D and A700 will have come down even further and the D300 will still not likely be available in any quantity..

Any help or guidance you all could offer would be appreciated..

Only other thing I have to say is that Canon's customer service is better. Sony has a reputation for some of the worst service in the electronics industry..

Has it changed? Don't know, but I would check into it..

Gene..

Comment #3

Sony's 70-200 F2.8 (non IS) is $2400.

Canon's 70-200 F2.8 IS is $1600.

Canon's 70-200 F2.8 non IS is $1100.

So even though Sony has in-body IS, they still sock it to you on the lenses..

The camera body is a small part of the overall system cost..

DJDysfunction wrote:.

It's funny what you said about letting salespeople influence me. Therep. from B&H that I spoke to on the phone told me to go with theCanon, no question. I was actually a little surprised, since theA700 is slightly more expensive, though I'm sure they'd make up thecost on lenses and accessories that they'd end up selling me, and heknew that. But he was adamant about Canon. But like you said, I'llhave to see what is more comfortable in my hands..

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond..

Ben.

Some cool cats that can use your helphttp://www.wildlife-sanctuary.org.

Even if you can't donate, please help spread the word...

Comment #4

DJDysfunction wrote:.

What I typically enjoy photographing in order of importance:.

Travel (mostly outdoor)Outdoors / Nature.

These two will benefit from I.S. After all, it is not always practical to set-up a heavy tripod. So A700 is better here..

Night Club crowds and performancesFamily, pets, etc..

Here Not much will be lost with A700. 40D does have an edge..

So something that takes good pictures at higher ISOs would be ideal.From what Ive read, both are good at 1600 and halfway decent at3200. I do work at the club, so I can get away with using a goodflash..

Right..

And if you think Id be better off with the Nikon D300, let me knowthat too. Its just that the $1800 body will leave me with only afew hundred dollars for a lens,.

Not advisable, as lens plays major part in good IQ..

Whereas the others would leave mewith $800 - $1000 for something better..

There are enough good lens available for A700. One good walk around lens could be 16-80mm, (which was on R1)..

As for going with Pentax orOlympus, I'm not totally opposed to them, but it took me a while tofinally accept the possibility of going with Sony, so I'm kind ofstuck on either Canon, Nikon, or Sony..

Ultimately, think over whether you are primarily a landscape photographer (A700- higher resolution, I.S.) or sports/event one (40D, low ISO noise, better JPGs in low light).Best Wishes, Ajayhttp://picasaweb.google.com/ajay0612..

Comment #5

Thanks, that's great to know about lens prices. That could definitely factor into the decision!.

IMac, therefore iAm wrote:.

Sony's 70-200 F2.8 (non IS) is $2400.

Canon's 70-200 F2.8 IS is $1600.

Canon's 70-200 F2.8 non IS is $1100.

So even though Sony has in-body IS, they still sock it to you on thelenses..

The camera body is a small part of the overall system cost..

DJDysfunction wrote:.

It's funny what you said about letting salespeople influence me. Therep. from B&H that I spoke to on the phone told me to go with theCanon, no question. I was actually a little surprised, since theA700 is slightly more expensive, though I'm sure they'd make up thecost on lenses and accessories that they'd end up selling me, and heknew that. But he was adamant about Canon. But like you said, I'llhave to see what is more comfortable in my hands..

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond..

Ben.

Some cool cats that can use your helphttp://www.wildlife-sanctuary.org.

Even if you can't donate, please help spread the word...

Comment #6

Gene,.

Thank you so much for your thorough response. I appreciate you taking the time to share your advice. It's been very helpful, though I'm sure I won't be able to fully make up my mind before testing a few cameras out..

Ben..

Comment #7

Ajay,.

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond. I'm really still figuring out what type of photographer I am, or want to be. But I'll definitely consider your advice..

Thank you!.

Ben.

Ajay0612 wrote:.

DJDysfunction wrote:.

What I typically enjoy photographing in order of importance:.

Travel (mostly outdoor)Outdoors / Nature.

These two will benefit from I.S. After all, it is not alwayspractical to set-up a heavy tripod. So A700 is better here..

Night Club crowds and performancesFamily, pets, etc..

Here Not much will be lost with A700. 40D does have an edge..

So something that takes good pictures at higher ISOs would be ideal.From what Ive read, both are good at 1600 and halfway decent at3200. I do work at the club, so I can get away with using a goodflash..

Right..

And if you think Id be better off with the Nikon D300, let me knowthat too. Its just that the $1800 body will leave me with only afew hundred dollars for a lens,.

Not advisable, as lens plays major part in good IQ..

Whereas the others would leave mewith $800 - $1000 for something better..

There are enough good lens available for A700. One good walk aroundlens could be 16-80mm, (which was on R1)..

As for going with Pentax orOlympus, I'm not totally opposed to them, but it took me a while tofinally accept the possibility of going with Sony, so I'm kind ofstuck on either Canon, Nikon, or Sony..

Ultimately, think over whether you are primarily a landscapephotographer (A700- higher resolution, I.S.) or sports/event one(40D, low ISO noise, better JPGs in low light).Best Wishes, Ajayhttp://picasaweb.google.com/ajay0612..

Comment #8

The SONY 70-200mm G lens happens to be a pricing anomaly in the SONY line-up. There's speculation that they'll come out with a less expensive version early in 2008..

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=25610269.

The important thing is to look at the full range of lenses before you decide that prices are out of line..

For instance, check out the Sigma 50-500mm lens that's available for all the major camera mounts. It costs $999 whether you buy it for Canon, Nikon, or Sony. In no case is it image stabilized..

Except on the Sony and Pentax mounts, because image stabilization is built into the camera body..

If you're shooting at 500mm handheld, you will want image stabilization..

Check out how much an image stabilized 500mm lens will cost you in the Canon and Nikon mounts before you decide which system offers you the best lens prices..

DJDysfunction wrote:.

Thanks, that's great to know about lens prices. That coulddefinitely factor into the decision!.

IMac, therefore iAm wrote:.

Sony's 70-200 F2.8 (non IS) is $2400.

Canon's 70-200 F2.8 IS is $1600.

Canon's 70-200 F2.8 non IS is $1100.

So even though Sony has in-body IS, they still sock it to you on thelenses..

The camera body is a small part of the overall system cost..

DJDysfunction wrote:.

It's funny what you said about letting salespeople influence me. Therep. from B&H that I spoke to on the phone told me to go with theCanon, no question. I was actually a little surprised, since theA700 is slightly more expensive, though I'm sure they'd make up thecost on lenses and accessories that they'd end up selling me, and heknew that. But he was adamant about Canon. But like you said, I'llhave to see what is more comfortable in my hands..

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond..

Ben.

Some cool cats that can use your helphttp://www.wildlife-sanctuary.org.

Even if you can't donate, please help spread the word...

Comment #9

Dennis Phillips wrote:.

The SONY 70-200mm G lens happens to be a pricing anomaly in the SONYline-up. There's speculation that they'll come out with a lessexpensive version early in 2008..

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=25610269.

The important thing is to look at the full range of lenses before youdecide that prices are out of line..

For instance, check out the Sigma 50-500mm lens that's available forall the major camera mounts. It costs $999 whether you buy it forCanon, Nikon, or Sony. In no case is it image stabilized..

Except on the Sony and Pentax mounts, because image stabilization isbuilt into the camera body..

If you're shooting at 500mm handheld, you will want image stabilization..

Check out how much an image stabilized 500mm lens will cost you inthe Canon and Nikon mounts before you decide which system offers youthe best lens prices..

The price of the Canon 500mm has virtually nothing to do with IS and everything to do with:.

F4 - vs F6.3 for the Sigma and thus requires a significantly larger front element (125mm vs 80mm).

That, unlike the Sigma, it's a true 500mm (Sigma is typically regarded as closer to 470)and the fact that the image quality will blow the doors of the Sigma..

In fact my Canon 300 F4 with 1.4 converter totally outperforms the Bigma (I shot a Bigma for 3 years before getting fed up with it's poor IQ that Sigma said was 'normal')..

Comment #10

The price of the Canon 500mm has virtually nothing to do with IS andeverything to do with:.

F4 - vs F6.3 for the Sigma and thus requires a significantly largerfront element (125mm vs 80mm)That, unlike the Sigma, it's a true 500mm (Sigma is typicallyregarded as closer to 470)and the fact that the image quality will blow the doors of the Sigma..

Are you talking about the Canon 500mm prime lens that costs US$5,500? Versus the Sigma 50-500mm zoom at US$999?.

In fact my Canon 300 F4 with 1.4 converter totally outperforms theBigma (I shot a Bigma for 3 years before getting fed up with it'spoor IQ that Sigma said was 'normal').

I have issues with the Bigma as well. I also have issues with paying 5 times the price..

All I'm saying is that anyone looking at a system cost should determine in advance what lenses they'll want, and then price them out with the various manufacturers. Some won't offer the lenses they want. Some will offer workarounds..

But you can't judge a system by a single lens. Otherwise anyone wanting stabilized 500mm at a reasonable price wouldn't buy Canon...

Comment #11

Dennis Phillips wrote:.

Are you talking about the Canon 500mm prime lens that costs US$5,500?Versus the Sigma 50-500mm zoom at US$999?.

Well... you brought it up. I don't know of any other 500 that Canon makes. .

In fact my Canon 300 F4 with 1.4 converter totally outperforms theBigma (I shot a Bigma for 3 years before getting fed up with it'spoor IQ that Sigma said was 'normal').

I have issues with the Bigma as well. I also have issues with paying5 times the price..

All I'm saying is that anyone looking at a system cost shoulddetermine in advance what lenses they'll want, and then price themout with the various manufacturers. Some won't offer the lenses theywant. Some will offer workarounds..

I agree..

But you can't judge a system by a single lens..

Agreed. Nor should a system be judged by a single feature..

Some cool cats that can use your helphttp://www.wildlife-sanctuary.org.

Even if you can't donate, please help spread the word...

Comment #12

I use Minolta 7D older generation DSLR that was used as A700 prototype..

A700 has clear advantage over 7D in terms of AF accuracy and speed. Sony claims it's best in class now..

It will work with wide range of older Minolta AF lenses in adition to Sony -built, that could be ebayed, purcgased from KEH, Adorama, BHphotovideo for less..

While many of these lenses are not as expensive as new, they've been built to last - metal housing and great true glass. Some lenses do have fast enough AF mechanism..

I would log to Dyxum.com for lens reviews/scores, check prices for lenses you would like to buy..

All 8 lenses I use currently were ebayed or came from consigment store.For what older generation camera is capable check out my shots..

Http://www.stan-pustylnik.smugmug.com..

Comment #13

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.