snubbr.com

I think I'm ready for dSLR, but I'm having trouble choosing one
My wife and I travel a lot, and we take thousands of pictures every year. Right now we have a Canon SD700 IS, which we love, and a Canon S2 IS, which has been a source of frustration. The S2 has the potential to take some great shots, but all too often I'm let down by the image quality. I find the color and exposure on the SD700 to be noticeably better, and the S2 often has focus problems. The S2 also tends to forget it's settings and revert to storing low-res pictures without warning (an issue Canon has already fixed once, but it has happened at least one time since)..

I've considered the S5, but it doesn't sound like they've improved the image quality all that much. I also tend to shoot a lot of low-light, and the bigger lens will give me more flexibility. It would also be nice to have a faster lens, as the S2 doesn't really allow me to reduce the depth of field as much as I want..

Anyway, I want full control, better color, better exposure (compared to the S2), and faster performance. As you might have guessed from the two cameras we have now, I consider IS (or VR or whatever you want to call it) a must..

I'm currently thinking that the Sony a700 with the 18-250 lens looks like a perfect setup. The lens gives me enough range that I won't have to carry a second lens on vacation, and the built in IS means I can buy other lenses at reduced cost..

However, maybe I should save some money and get a d40x with a Nikon 18-200 VR lens. That's lens range on the zoom end, but it might still be enough, particularly if I crop later (so the extra resolution of the d40x could come in handy over the d40). Of course, if I ever buy another lens, I'd get VR and end up spending more in the long run. My wife does have a couple older Nikon lenses we could use, but I really, really like having IS..

And of course, I could do the same thing with an XTi and a Canon IS lens..

Mainly I like the Sony because it has IS in the body, and it sounds like the 18-250 is the perfect single lens (I haven't found an equivalent for Nikon or Canon)..

Advice?..

Comments (31)

STOP Global Stasis! Change is good!.

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos..http://www.photo.net/photos/GlenBarrington..

Comment #1

A good suggestion, IMO. The E-510 has a lot going for the money. The Oly kit lenss are very good.My humble photo gallery: http://ntotrr.smugmug.com.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #2

And it soundslike the 18-250 is the perfect single lens.

There is no such thing. The more 'versatile' the lens the more compromises it has...

Comment #3

I should have said it looks like the perfect single lens for a vacation. That is, if I have to carry only one lens, I haven't seen one that looks better...

Comment #4

Nikon has an 18-200mm VR lens. VR (Vibration Reduction) is Nikon's term for IS..

With the Nikon lens, you would see the benefits of stabilization in the viewfinder while composing the picture...

Comment #5

That's true, but having the VR on all the time makes it less effective, so it's a trade-off. If the VR is on while you're composing your shot, there's always the chance that the element will be at the edge of it's travel when you actually shoot, and it will be unable to correct more movement..

Either way though, the Nikon lens does look like it's rougly equivalent, although it gives up 75mm (in 35mm equivalence) on the zoom end..

The real issue is that if I want to buy another lens, I have to pay for VR again..

Tom_N wrote:.

Nikon has an 18-200mm VR lens. VR (Vibration Reduction) is Nikon'sterm for IS..

With the Nikon lens, you would see the benefits of stabilization inthe viewfinder while composing the picture...

Comment #6

There is a vast variety to choose from so it is a time consuming decision. I would suggest looking into Pentax also if you are looking into wanting IS/VR in the camera. Plus you may find helpful that you can use any old K-mount lens, plus they do have a 18-250 lens out (plus third party with same range). Happy Hunting!..

Comment #7

Nullspace wrote:.

That's true, but having the VR on all the time makes it lesseffective, so it's a trade-off..

Hmm...I'm of the opposite impression. Seems to me that the "effect" quoted for in-lens stabilization is always greater than in-camera stabilization..

In my admittedly very limited perusing of the internet on photography matters I personally have not come across anyone suggesting that if PRICE WAS NOT A CONSIDERATION that they'd chose in-camera stabilization instead of in-lens stabilization if the desire is to achieve to maximum effect..

The real issue is that if I want to buy another lens, I have to payfor VR again..

True..

Good Day,Roonal.

'Money doesn't buy happiness, but it makes for an extravagant depression' by golf tournament sportscaster..

Comment #8

Roonal wrote:.

In my admittedly very limited perusing of the internet on photographymatters I personally have not come across anyone suggesting that ifPRICE WAS NOT A CONSIDERATION that they'd chose in-camerastabilization instead of in-lens stabilization if the desire is toachieve to maximum effect..

Well, I should think it is more of a reason of WHY you want IS. While I suspect in-lens IS is probably more effective with the really long, really big lenses, and the sort of photography that can use them; I also suspect that it's increaded value for shorter and wide angle lenses drop considerably compared to in body IS, and here is why I think so:.

As a 4/3s shooter, the lens that I use most often is the 14 - 54 (rough equiv of a 28 - 108 in ff) I rarely use anything longer and I'm currently lusting after the 11 - 22 mm lens..

As I age, I'm finding it more difficult to keep minor casual camera shake from creeping into my photos wit these smaller light-weight bodies. In-body IS is just fine for that sort of thing. Also for shorter more compact lenses, the in-lens IS mechanism will undoubtedly add mass, size and weight to the lens which serves to increase instability for the type of photography I am interested in..

As we see in the Oly E510, you can squeeze in in-body IS without adding an uncompetitive level of weight and mass to the camera body..

For my purposes, I think in-body IS would be preferable to in lens regardless of cost.STOP Global Stasis! Change is good!.

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos..http://www.photo.net/photos/GlenBarrington..

Comment #9

Nullspace wrote:[...].

I'm currently thinking that the Sony a700 with the 18-250 lens lookslike a perfect setup. The lens gives me enough range that I won'thave to carry a second lens on vacation, and the built in IS means Ican buy other lenses at reduced cost..

However, maybe I should save some money and get a d40x with a Nikon18-200 VR lens..

If I would want to save money and would want one lens set-up I would go either for Sony 100 or Pentax K100D/K10D with 18-250mm lens..

By the way, have you said that you want fast lens for low light? Well, 18-250mm lenses are slow, very slow (f/6.3 at the long end)..

Edvinas..

Comment #10

Glen Barrington wrote:.

Well, I should think it is more of a reason of WHY you want IS..

Now that I've used IS on both of my small cameras (SD700 and S2), I find that I just can't live without it. For me, it makes the camera so much more versatile. I can go on vacation and not have to worry about getting the shot. During the day it's of limited use, but I also take a lot of indoor and night shots, and I hate using the flash. With the higher usable ISO range in a dSLR, I could probably get some shots without IS, but I just love knowing that I can deal with most lighting conditions and not worry..

That and it makes hand-held shots with a big zoom lens much easier...

Comment #11

Nullspace wrote:.

I'm currently thinking that the Sony a700 with the 18-250 lens lookslike a perfect setup. The lens gives me enough range that I won'thave to carry a second lens on vacation, and the built in IS means Ican buy other lenses at reduced cost..

The Sony 700 certainly looks like a good deal, but with the 18-250 mm, I don't think it is perfect. The 18-250 mm is f/6.3 at the long end..

(BTW: you mention the "zoom end", you can zoom to either end, the short or wide end and the long or tele end.).

However, maybe I should save some money and get a d40x with a Nikon18-200 VR lens..

A fine lens by almost all accounts.

That's lens range on the zoom end, but it mightstill be enough, particularly if I crop later (so the extraresolution of the d40x could come in handy over the d40). Of course,if I ever buy another lens, I'd get VR and end up spending more inthe long run. My wife does have a couple older Nikon lenses we coulduse, but I really, really like having IS..

If you want to use older Nikon lenses, the you would be better looking at the Nikon D80, the D40 and D40x are fully compatible with some older Nikon lenses (and there are a lot of very nice older Nikon lenses out there)..

And of course, I could do the same thing with an XTi and a Canon ISlens..

You sure could.

Mainly I like the Sony because it has IS in the body, and it soundslike the 18-250 is the perfect single lens (I haven't found anequivalent for Nikon or Canon)..

Where there are lenses of equivalent quality and focal length, the Sony lenses tend to be quite a bit more expensive. For example the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS is currently 1,574.00, the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 is $1999..

You may want to consider trying some of these setups out. They are considerably larger and heavier than your current setup..

Brian A...

Comment #12

Edvinas wrote:.

By the way, have you said that you want fast lens for low light?Well, 18-250mm lenses are slow, very slow (f/6.3 at the long end)..

Yeah, I noticed that it was fairly slow, but the range and price are just so appealing. I figured it would make a good starting lens, but maybe I should consider a two-lens setup to start. I'm just worried that I would never carry two lenses on vacation...

Comment #13

Thanks for the feedback. I definitely need to try these cameras in person before I make a decision. Since most of the replies have been positive on both Nikon and Sony, I'll consider them both. I'm leaning towards Sony because I like the idea of in-body IS, but it's not the only consideration..

I do worry that the camera will be so big I won't carry it with me, but I have a SD700 when I want to save weight. Right now, I only take the S2 when I know I need the range or I want more manual control. On those days I think I could tolerate the extra weight if it meant better pictures (no guarantees, but there have been times when I knew what I wanted to do and the S2 just couldn't get it done for me)...

Comment #14

1. Supposedly, in-lens stabilization is more effective than in-body. I can vouch that the Nikon 18-200's is very effective..

2. Nikon's 18-200 probably has better image quality than the Sony's. Not that it's perfect. I'd suggest you dig up some reviews..

3. Nikon has way more lens options. But, many of them don't autofocus on a D40x. You might consider a D80. Much more comparable to an A700...

Comment #15

One thing I've heard is that the extra weight of a dSLR means IS isn't as necessary as it is for P&S cameras..

A friend of mine thinks that any dSLR will be more than enough, so maybe I should just get a used d80 or some other (relatively) cheap dSLR and not worry about it. He kind of has a point. I race autocross, and I see a lot of people spending tons of money on their cars when the real problem is their driving skills. I know a real pro could get amazing results with a P&S, so maybe I should just get whatever dSLR I can get, save some money, and see what happens..

I'm so indecisive...

Comment #16

Nullspace wrote:.

One thing I've heard is that the extra weight of a dSLR means ISisn't as necessary as it is for P&S cameras..

There's more inertia, yes... although a Pentax K100-class camera with one of their pancake lenses, or perhaps an E-410 with the shorter kit lens, would still be pretty light..

A friend of mine thinks that any dSLR will be more than enough, somaybe I should just get a used d80 or some other (relatively) cheapdSLR and not worry about it. He kind of has a point. I raceautocross, and I see a lot of people spending tons of money on theircars when the real problem is their driving skills. I know a realpro could get amazing results with a P&S, so maybe I should just getwhatever dSLR I can get, save some money, and see what happens..

There are technical obstacles and creative obstacles. Unless you're comparing against cameras with horribly inaccurate, low-visibility viewfinders, there's little that a camera can do with the latter..

If you -need- something like accurate tracking of rapidly and erratically moving objects, or to get well-exposed shots of stop-motion action in the dark, or control of wireless multi-flash setups, or access to tilt-shift lenses, or 8FPS, or the ability to reliably survive the odd splash of saltwater, or low-noise five-minute exposures... you have technical issues, and it's not necessarily true that any particular dSLR or lens will resolve 'em all satisfactorily. If you want razor-thin DOF with smooth bokeh at ordinary portrait distances, you may not want an f/4.5-6.3 lens. If you're not running into such technical issues, then you should probably worry more about such things as ergonomics, affordability and so forth...

Comment #17

Check out this thread for examples from the Tamron 18-250mm on the Sony A100..

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=25641726..

Comment #18

I just got back from my local camera store where I handled both the a700 and the d80. The a700 felt much better in my hand - the grip was bigger and more comfortable. It also felt more substantial and solid. The screen was one of the best I've seen on a digital camera. It felt very responsive, although I only took a few test shots inside. I was able to test the IS a bit in AP mode, and it worked great..

At this point I think I'm sold on the a700 unless I discover some deal-breaker. I think I will wait until prices drop a bit though...

Comment #19

Glen Barrington wrote:.

Well, I should think it is more of a reason of WHY you want IS..

For my purposes, I think in-body IS would be preferable to in lensregardless of cost..

Whatever works for you of course..

I wasn't taking into consideration additional factors such "why", camera/lens balance, overall camera/lens size & weight, the particular focal range you shoot in, increased or decreased stability for the type of photography you're interested in, the purposes for which you in particular would use it for..

I was specifically responding to the OP's statement: "...but having the VR on all the time makes it less effective..."..

And that, in my limited time following photography related matters, is the first time I have ever seen such a claim or assertion..

I was addressing the single issue of which stabilization system - in-camera or in-lens - offers the maximum effect. And by "effect" I assumed it would be understood that that would simply be the greatest reduction in shutter speed (ie. which would give the lowest hand-holdable shutter speed all other conditions (within reason) being equal) and nothing else..

But perhaps I was the one who mis-understood and the OP - like you - was/is speaking in a broader sense???.

Of course in the "bigger picture" the person using the camera equipment must be comfortable with it for the particular type of shooting he/she does. With the recognition that every choice in camera equipment one makes is a compromise in one area or another, to one degree or another..

I don't spend time in the Oly Forum or follow Oly news all that closely, so perhaps it's a commonly held belief/understanding that the Oly in-camera IS system beats out other manufacturer's in-lens systems at shorter focal lengths..

I for one would be interested in seeing a direct comparison since I don't consider myself a gear fanboy - 6 digital cameras by 4 different manufacturers and considered adding Pentax when the Samsung GX-10 (a re-branded Pentax K10D) dropped below $700 a few months ago..

You've put forth an interesting opinion, but like you, I'm "NOt 100% convinced"..

Good Day,Roonal.

'Money doesn't buy happiness, but it makes for an extravagant depression' by golf tournament sportscaster..

Comment #20

Roonal wrote:.

I was specifically responding to the OP's statement: "...but havingthe VR on all the time makes it less effective..."..

And that, in my limited time following photography related matters,is the first time I have ever seen such a claim or assertion..

I haven't seen this discussed much in the SLR forums, but I have seen it quite a bit in the P&S forums. This is probably because P&S cameras give you the option of using IS in continuous (always-on), shoot-only (doesn't do anything until you take a picture), and panning (ignores horizontal movements). As far as I know, the IS systems work in the same way for SLR's..

It makes sense when you think about it too. Suppose your IS is always on, and you're of course moving while framing the picture. The element will move to counteract your movements, but it can only move so far within the body (or lens). If you take the picture when the element is at the edge of it's travel, it can't do anything for you..

I found a random thread here:.

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1002&message=24019870.

DC Resource also mentioned the same in a recent review (search for "shoot only").

Http://www.dcresource.com/...reviews/canon/powershot_sd870-review/index.shtml.

And a blurb on some random site here:.

Http://www.digicamhelp.com/camera-features/camera-modes/is-modes.php.

Just in case you were wondering ..

Comment #21

As a person who has spent many years in electronics retail, the best advice is: go take a handful of the ones you are considering, feel them, touch them, get to know them. I chose Nikon D200 because I had the cash(at the time) and really like the feel of it. My brother has a Canon, which is an awesome camera. Both of my kids have Sony P&S. It is all in how the camera fits you. For me it was the controls are comfortable for me.

For me. The camera just feels natural in my hands. Looking back, I realize that there are other cameras that take pictures that are just as nice, or even better, better noise reduction, better VR, IS whatever, and I could have spent a lot less getting almost any other system, because Nikon lenses aren't cheap. But, I bought what fit me. Just like the next time you go to buy a TV, take a good long look at how it fits you before you drop $1-5k.

Everyone's an idiot sometimes, I just advertise...

Comment #22

While I don't (currently) use Nikon, I am somewhat familiar with their terminology and from what I've read I presume their image stabilization system is quite good..

You wrote "...but having the VR on all the time makes it less effective...", BUT I READ "but having (Nikon's) Vibration Reduction (which is on their DSLR & SLR lenses) on all the time makes it less effective than in-camera stabilization"..

Didn't consider that you were.

1) using "VR" in a generic sense, not specifically to referring to Nikon's VR system.

2) talking about P&S stabilization and/or.

3) extrapolating P&S stabilization info/experience out to DSLR stabilization systems..

This is probably because P&S cameras give you the option of using IS incontinuous (always-on), shoot-only (doesn't do anything until you take apicture) ....

Yes - I happen to have a Panosonic FZ20 for which the user's manual states (if memory serves) Mode 2 (activates at time of shutter press) is better than Mode 1 (always active). Therefore I leave it in Mode 2..

As far as I know, the IS systems work in the same way for SLR's..

Hmm...I don't know - I haven't been inclined to make that assumption since I consider P&S and DSLR to be very different beasts in some respects (eg. all electronic view versus optical thru-the-lens view, no mirror to flip out of the way, all one piece camera/lens unit versus two piece camera & lens unit, etc., etc.) so I "assume" the stabilization systems would "work somewhat differently" from my Pano FZ20's system..

Good Day,Roonal.

'Money doesn't buy happiness, but it makes for an extravagant depression' by golf tournament sportscaster..

Comment #23

Roonal wrote:.

I was specifically responding to the OP's statement: "...but havingthe VR on all the time makes it less effective..."..

And that, in my limited time following photography related matters,is the first time I have ever seen such a claim or assertion..

I agree, that is something of a ludicrous statement, certainly unproven and to my knowledge, never discussed in any detail before by anyone else..

I was addressing the single issue of which stabilization system -in-camera or in-lens - offers the maximum effect. And by "effect" Iassumed it would be understood that that would simply be the greatestreduction in shutter speed (ie. which would give the lowesthand-holdable shutter speed all other conditions (within reason)being equal) and nothing else..

But perhaps I was the one who mis-understood and the OP - like you -was/is speaking in a broader sense???.

Who knows, we all respond to the message we heard and not neccesarily to the message that was sent. Your's was a good faith effort..

Of course in the "bigger picture" the person using the cameraequipment must be comfortable with it for the particular type ofshooting he/she does. With the recognition that every choice incamera equipment one makes is a compromise in one area or another, toone degree or another..

I don't spend time in the Oly Forum or follow Oly news all thatclosely, so perhaps it's a commonly held belief/understanding thatthe Oly in-camera IS system beats out other manufacturer's in-lenssystems at shorter focal lengths..

Actually, the 4/3s community, after the initial burst of enthusiasm, is somewhat sanguine about IS. But we have a unique situation, The Oly lenses have no built in IS and the Leica lenses do. And since all 4/3s lenses fit on all 4/3s bodies, well, it just isn't an issue with us. Granted, we'd be a lot happier if Leica stepped up their lens offerings for a variety of reasons but that's a different issue..

I for one would be interested in seeing a direct comparison since Idon't consider myself a gear fanboy - 6 digital cameras by 4different manufacturers and considered adding Pentax when the SamsungGX-10 (a re-branded Pentax K10D) dropped below $700 a few months ago..

Me too..

You've put forth an interesting opinion, but like you, I'm "NOt 100%convinced"..

Actually, I don't fully understand why this is an issue. Oly/Leica lens thing makes me understand that there is no reason why Canon/Nikon couldn't produce in body IS bodies that worked with existing IS lenses if it became necessary and Sony/Olympus couldn't produce IS lenses. The Leica 4/3s lenses prove it's possible. This argument distracts us and the camera manufacturers from having the particular tools we need to get particular jobs done..

Good Day,Roonal.

'Money doesn't buy happiness, but it makes for an extravagantdepression' by golf tournament sportscaster.

STOP Global Stasis! Change is good!.

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos..http://www.photo.net/photos/GlenBarrington..

Comment #24

I say buy what you think will fit your needs for now. If you like the Sony and it's lens - stop wasting time and get it. You seem to have seen it, handled it, and still like it. Go for it! At some point, without experience, everything comes down to trusting your research but then pulling the trigger. At a minimum it keeps you excited about your new camera, so you'll use it, and it may remove any lingering doubts you might have. As you shoot, and compare your photos - maybe you will find limitations, or even more freedom than you had originally thought? That's FUN.

 .

It seems like you've done as much research as is reasonable. Look at your life history - do you tend to make good decisions or bad ones? If they are basically good - then buy the Sony with confidence. It's certainly not a "bad" camera at all. And to me, there are no "one size fits all" solutions for equipment of any kind (and frankly, I wouldn't want it)..

FWIW - I just ended my own odyssey - 3 months, 4 camera bodies, 7 lenses - and I purchased a D40X, 18-200vr, and SB600. The opinions certainly vary about this combination - but noone is screaming "don't buy it"; I tried it, I liked it, the IQ was good enough for me and for what I thought I'd need presently, it's light, seems like a great "travel/multipurpose" lens (compared to my 6mp Rebel and Tamron 28-300), and I felt confident in buying it for my present and foreseeable needs..

Finally - if you buy the Sony and realize it's not what you wanted or doesn't fit all your needs - no problem - buy something else..

Go for it and have fun!.

RNW123..

Comment #25

Glen Barrington wrote:.

...there is no reason why Canon/Nikon couldn't produce in body IS bodiesthat worked with existing IS lenses if it became necessary....

Probably partly a marketing decision - more profit with in-lens based systems I would assume..

I'd vote for a Canon entry level DSLR with in-camera stabilization since I already have Canon compatible gear like lenses, flashes, TTL cords, etc. - even if in-camera stabilization did prove not to be quite as effective as in-lens based systems. And since I'm more likely to upgrade bodies every so often than lenses, I'd get the latest generation of in-camera stabilization system each time I upgraded..

...camera manufacturers from having theparticular tools we need to get particular jobs done..

If Sony cared what I wanted  they'd be rolling out an R2. Wish the R1 had done better sales-wise and thus not been dis-continued. I like the idea of a one-piece camera/lens unit with variable angle LCD and larger-sized image sensor..

Good Day,Roonal.

'Money doesn't buy happiness, but it makes for an extravagant depression' by golf tournament sportscaster..

Comment #26

RNW123 wrote:.

I say buy what you think will fit your needs for now. If you likethe Sony and it's lens - stop wasting time and get it..

You're right - I just ordered the camera from Amazon with overnight shipping. I can't wait! Now I need to find a lens locally (Amazon didn't have what I wanted). I think I'll start with the Sony 18-250 since it seems like a good all-around lens..

Thanks everyone!..

Comment #27

It's not ludicrous, and it has been mentioned in reviews on this very site. Here's one example:.

"The MEGA O.I.S image Stabilization system used on the FZ20 (and many other recent Panasonic models) works, and it works well. There are two modes: Mode 1 (IS on all the time) and Mode 2 (IS is activated at the moment the exposure is made). Mode 1 makes framing easier - the IS system steadies the preview image (in the same way as, for example, the Canon S1 IS), but is less than 100% effective when it comes to actually taking the pictures.".

Quote from here:.

Http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz20/page5.asp.

And here's another example from a different review:.

"The first option makes framing easier - the IS system steadies the preview image, though in our tests it wasn't as effective as the Shoot only mode. Shoot only, which doesn't steady the preview image, is theoretically more efficient because it minimizes the amount of corrective movement required by waiting until the instant the picture is taken. We certainly found the 'shoot only' option to work more consistently, and we saw little, if any, camera shake in our everyday shots taken for the gallery.".

Quote taken from here:.

Http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonSD700IS/page4.asp.

And yes, the same principles apply to dSLR's, whether in-lens or in-body. All optical image stabilization systems work by moving a part of the camera (either the sensor or lens elements) to counteract movement in the camera. While in-lens systems move a different part of the system, they still have a limited range of movement..

In any case, I just ordered my a700, so we'll see how it works!..

Comment #28

The camera arrived yesterday! I've just updated the firmware, and I'm giving it a thorough test run in San Francisco this weekend. There should be plenty of opportunity for portraits (Thanksgiving dinner for one), outdoor (wine tasting in Napa on Friday), and probably some city stuff..

So far I'm really happy with it, although I am a bit underwhelmed by the focus speed of the 18-250 lens. I guess that's one of the trade-offs for such a big range...

Comment #29

It's slow to focus with just about any lens..

I would've went with the Oly E510 in that price range. But that's just me .

Gene..

Comment #30

I actually bought the a700, which is supposedly pretty quick with the right lens. I don't have another lens to test that theory though..

R Valentino wrote:.

It's slow to focus with just about any lens..

I would've went with the Oly E510 in that price range. But that'sjust me .

Gene..

Comment #31

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.