snubbr.com

Shooting wild life
Hi, although I've posted a more specific camera related question in the Casio forum I was hoping I could get a few more general tips in relation to shooting the wildlife in my local wooded area..

I'm trying to capture pictures of the larger birds (woodpeckers, Jays, etc), aong with squirrels and wood mice etc and although opportunites are presenting themselves at best I end up with a relatively blurred shot and at worst a picture of nothing as the subject simply moved on before the camera had sorte itself and I had a chance to take the shot..

In terms of equippment, I'm using the Casio EX-F1 a supposedly fast shooter although the focus is slow and it's 12x zoom sluggish. I've tried to leave the camera on auto for all settings thus reducing the complexity however the focus continues to be difficult with the foliage. To minmize waiting for the zoom to arrive at the intended focal range I always keep it at around 200mm although the shooting range is certainly approacing the top end of the 12x zoom and although camera AS is on I'm guessing holding the camera is introducing a certain level of blur. A recent close up of a very still field mouse showed that the camera had chose ISO400, F4.6 1/25 and even with AF the image was still quite blurry. i.e. you certainly couldn't crop into it..

Although obvious a large number of factors here can someone please suggest some simple high level improved techniques or some manual camera settings that would help me achieve a sharp picture!..

Comments (19)

Seiko4169 wrote:.

Hi, although I've posted a more specific camera related question inthe Casio forum I was hoping I could get a few more general tips inrelation to shooting the wildlife in my local wooded area..

I'm trying to capture pictures of the larger birds (woodpeckers,Jays, etc), aong with squirrels and wood mice etc and althoughopportunites are presenting themselves at best I end up with arelatively blurred shot and at worst a picture of nothing as thesubject simply moved on before the camera had sorte itself and I hada chance to take the shot..

In terms of equippment, I'm using the Casio EX-F1 a supposedly fastshooter although the focus is slow and it's 12x zoom sluggish. I'vetried to leave the camera on auto for all settings thus reducing thecomplexity however the focus continues to be difficult with thefoliage. To minmize waiting for the zoom to arrive at the intendedfocal range I always keep it at around 200mm although the shootingrange is certainly approacing the top end of the 12x zoom andalthough camera AS is on I'm guessing holding the camera isintroducing a certain level of blur. A recent close up of a verystill field mouse showed that the camera had chose ISO400, F4.6 1/25and even with AF the image was still quite blurry. i.e. you certainlycouldn't crop into it..

Although obvious a large number of factors here can someone pleasesuggest some simple high level improved techniques or some manualcamera settings that would help me achieve a sharp picture!.

If your camera is choosing 1/25 sec at f/4.6 using ISO400 then you are shooting in very poor light and you will be very lucky to get pictures that are not blurred, either due to camera shake or to movement of the subject. Taking pics in low light of small things that may be moving fast is about as difficult as it gets.

The only ways to get a non-blurred shot under such conditions are (i) to use flash to boost the available light, which will give you a faster shutter speed, or (ii) spend a ton of money on a DSLR with a 300 mm f/2.8 lens and shoot at ISO1600 (which would give you a shutter speed of about 1/250 sec, just about manageable hand-held with a 300mm lens if you are carefully braced)..

The AF issue requires you to select centre-point autofocus (which you can do on a DSLR), or the AF wil just lock on to whatever twig or leaf is nearest you..

Best wishesMike..

Comment #1

Hi Mike, thanks for that, very useful. Shooting in the woods obviously blocks out a lot of the available light however it really did seem bright enough for me as it had been a fantastically bright, clear day. I guess the camera simply struggles due to the shade..

In terms of the focus however, I'm still disappointed. Today I took several shots at 400mm of a stationay field mouse bathing in the sun. As the mouse was stationary I wrattled off a dozen shots and attempted to keep the camera as steady as I could. Alas, everyone is blurred. Two would be acceptable as a cute picture but they are a million miles away from the sharp DSLR pics I've seen posted. Yes, I know that skill, practice and equippment are all at play here but believe you and me the difference is rediculous.

I actually took recorded a SD movie on the camera one of it's nice features in between shots and the quality of that seems to be equal if not a little sharper than the stills?.

Overall, I'm disappointed by this camera now as I'm looking at it as user error/newnewss 70%, camera error/short comings 30%. Having had the option to go DSLR, 450D, 40D or even D300 etc I'm now beginning to regret the purchase as the ratio would no doubt be closer to 95% user error, 5% camera short comings ultimately giving me the confidence that as my experience and techniques improve so will my shots. Alas, I think the EX-F1 is going to be too limited for this particuar task!.

I'm acually trying to see if Dixons will allow me to exchange for a DSLR and 200mm lens of sorts even though I've just gone over the 28 day return policy but alas I think it's going to be a dead end..

Obviously if this setup wouldn't fair much better then please shout as I'm conscience that as any newbie if it was as simple as throing money into more expensive equippment we'd all be pro!.

Mike703 wrote:.

Seiko4169 wrote:.

Hi, although I've posted a more specific camera related question inthe Casio forum I was hoping I could get a few more general tips inrelation to shooting the wildlife in my local wooded area..

I'm trying to capture pictures of the larger birds (woodpeckers,Jays, etc), aong with squirrels and wood mice etc and althoughopportunites are presenting themselves at best I end up with arelatively blurred shot and at worst a picture of nothing as thesubject simply moved on before the camera had sorte itself and I hada chance to take the shot..

In terms of equippment, I'm using the Casio EX-F1 a supposedly fastshooter although the focus is slow and it's 12x zoom sluggish. I'vetried to leave the camera on auto for all settings thus reducing thecomplexity however the focus continues to be difficult with thefoliage. To minmize waiting for the zoom to arrive at the intendedfocal range I always keep it at around 200mm although the shootingrange is certainly approacing the top end of the 12x zoom andalthough camera AS is on I'm guessing holding the camera isintroducing a certain level of blur. A recent close up of a verystill field mouse showed that the camera had chose ISO400, F4.6 1/25and even with AF the image was still quite blurry. i.e. you certainlycouldn't crop into it..

Although obvious a large number of factors here can someone pleasesuggest some simple high level improved techniques or some manualcamera settings that would help me achieve a sharp picture!.

If your camera is choosing 1/25 sec at f/4.6 using ISO400 then youare shooting in very poor light and you will be very lucky to getpictures that are not blurred, either due to camera shake or tomovement of the subject. Taking pics in low light of small thingsthat may be moving fast is about as difficult as it gets.

The only ways to get a non-blurred shot under such conditions are (i)to use flash to boost the available light, which will give you afaster shutter speed, or (ii) spend a ton of money on a DSLR with a300 mm f/2.8 lens and shoot at ISO1600 (which would give you ashutter speed of about 1/250 sec, just about manageable hand-heldwith a 300mm lens if you are carefully braced)..

The AF issue requires you to select centre-point autofocus (which youcan do on a DSLR), or the AF wil just lock on to whatever twig orleaf is nearest you..

Best wishesMike..

Comment #2

Seiko4169 wrote:.

Hi Mike, thanks for that, very useful. Shooting in the woodsobviously blocks out a lot of the available light however it reallydid seem bright enough for me as it had been a fantastically bright,clear day. I guess the camera simply struggles due to the shade..

Shade really is dark. Your eyes are fantastic at differing light levels and dynamic range. All cameras are horrible in comparison ..

In terms of the focus however, I'm still disappointed. Today I tookseveral shots at 400mm of a stationay field mouse bathing in the sun.As the mouse was stationary I wrattled off a dozen shots andattempted to keep the camera as steady as I could. Alas, everyone isblurred. Two would be acceptable as a cute picture but they are amillion miles away from the sharp DSLR pics I've seen posted. Yes, Iknow that skill, practice and equippment are all at play here butbelieve you and me the difference is rediculous. My shots are awfuland as I said, the subject was stationary for a very long time.



Are you sure this is focus and not shutter speed?.

Slow to focus is one thing, but I would expect it to be able to focus on a stationary subject. Do you have a sample picture?..

Comment #3

Seiko4169 wrote:.

Hi Mike, thanks for that, very useful. Shooting in the woodsobviously blocks out a lot of the available light however it reallydid seem bright enough for me as it had been a fantastically bright,clear day. I guess the camera simply struggles due to the shade..

In terms of the focus however, I'm still disappointed. Today I tookseveral shots at 400mm of a stationay field mouse bathing in the sun.As the mouse was stationary I wrattled off a dozen shots andattempted to keep the camera as steady as I could. Alas, everyone isblurred. Two would be acceptable as a cute picture but they are amillion miles away from the sharp DSLR pics I've seen posted. yes, Iknow that skill, practice and equippment are all at play here butbelieve you and me the difference is rediculous. My shots are awfuland as I said, the subject was stationary for a very long time..

Shooting wildlife is difficult even with great gear. What you see as a ridiculous difference in quality is probably more like a realistic difference. There's a reason why some people spend 5, 10, even $20000 on gear. For every great DSLR wildlife shot you see, there are almost always many more that didn't make the grade..

Not only that, but you really weren't shooting at 400mm... you were only shooting around 85mm and cropping significantly. The 36-432mm zoom range your camera touts in nothing more than marketing - it is only a field of view equivalent, and is due to the small sensor in your camera. But the bottom line is an 85mm lens will always shoot like an 85mm lens, and a 400mm lens will always shoot like a 400mm lens, regardless of the sensor they are recording onto..

Unfortunately when shooting wildlife the two most important things (apart from lighting) are getting as close as possible (within the reason of safety) and good equipment...

Comment #4

Thanks Guys, this is exactly what I was hoping for. Some clear guidance to help cut through the marketing BS and reset my expectations..

In terms of a pic I'll try to upload it tomorrow although believe you and me, it is very poor!.

So at this rate, it would appear I've gone and bought a lemon in relation to this particular interest?.

IMac, therefore iAm wrote:.

Seiko4169 wrote:.

Hi Mike, thanks for that, very useful. Shooting in the woodsobviously blocks out a lot of the available light however it reallydid seem bright enough for me as it had been a fantastically bright,clear day. I guess the camera simply struggles due to the shade..

In terms of the focus however, I'm still disappointed. Today I tookseveral shots at 400mm of a stationay field mouse bathing in the sun.As the mouse was stationary I wrattled off a dozen shots andattempted to keep the camera as steady as I could. Alas, everyone isblurred. Two would be acceptable as a cute picture but they are amillion miles away from the sharp DSLR pics I've seen posted. yes, Iknow that skill, practice and equippment are all at play here butbelieve you and me the difference is rediculous. My shots are awfuland as I said, the subject was stationary for a very long time..

Shooting wildlife is difficult even with great gear. What you see asa ridiculous difference in quality is probably more like a realisticdifference. There's a reason why some people spend 5, 10, even $20000on gear. For every great DSLR wildlife shot you see, there are almostalways many more that didn't make the grade..

Not only that, but you really weren't shooting at 400mm... you wereonly shooting around 85mm and cropping significantly. The 36-432mmzoom range your camera touts in nothing more than marketing - it isonly a field of view equivalent, and is due to the small sensor inyour camera. But the bottom line is an 85mm lens will always shootlike an 85mm lens, and a 400mm lens will always shoot like a 400mmlens, regardless of the sensor they are recording onto..

Unfortunately when shooting wildlife the two most important things(apart from lighting) are getting as close as possible (within thereason of safety) and good equipment...

Comment #5

Since you are shooting in wooded areas, there will be very little sunlight coming in. Your camera is probably selecting shutter speeds around 1/40 to 1/250 and this is slow for handheld plus active wildlife. Your images are looking blurry because of handshake or animal movement OR both..

To eliminate blur from handshake use a tripod..

To eliminate blur from animal movement you need to increase your shutter speed. To do this you could try increasing the ISO (but this may result in more noise in the image) or use a flash to gain more light..

One thing you can try, is use the burst mode and take several (3-5 shoots) consecutively of the subject. What this will do is increase the chances that your subject and hands hold still for one of the pictures and MIGHT result in a sharp or semi-sharp image..

Im not familiar with your camera but I tried taking wildlife pictures with a P&S (Canon S3IS) and had very much the same problems that you are talking about..

But to be honest the problems you are having is the result of the limitations of your camera. Im not saying you wont encounter similar problems with a DSLR (all cameras need light to expose and the less light the slower the shutter speed and the slower the shutter speed the longer the camera and subject need to not move). But DSLRs do better in low light (Especially with a good lens) then a P&S; based on my experiences..

When I switched to a DSLR I got far better results, more opportunities to get a good image and less frustration, than I did with my S3IS..

From my experiences, wildlife is one of the most challenging things to photograph.I hope this helps.Good luck and most of all enjoy it.Tony.

PS I started wrinting this before anyone else replied and now I see your questions have been answered But I guess I will post anyways since I already typed it up..

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

Http://www.acoomer.smugmug.com/Wildlife Photography is 60% Luck and 40% Patience...

Comment #6

Not only that, but you really weren't shooting at 400mm... you wereonly shooting around 85mm and cropping significantly. The 36-432mmzoom range your camera touts in nothing more than marketing - it isonly a field of view equivalent, and is due to the small sensor inyour camera. But the bottom line is an 85mm lens will always shootlike an 85mm lens, and a 400mm lens will always shoot like a 400mmlens, regardless of the sensor they are recording onto..

Your statement really doesn't make sense. Yes, it is 36-432mm "35mm equivalent". But making it a smaller sensor and a smaller focal length lens to match doesn't make it inferior. The main downsides will be detail resolution (physics comes into play) and depth of field (which is a property of both sensor size and focal length). The field of view and magnification of both lenses will be nearly identical..

A 432mm lens which is designed to cover a full 35mm sensor will of course be much larger, but beyond size, DOF, and detail resolution doesn't change it's core functionality. A properly built prime or zoom lens mounted on a tiny sensor will have great image quality (ignoring any IQ problems of a tiny sensor). This would increase the price of the camera tremendously though..

Your comment on cropping would be correct if the OP was using digital zoom, which I don't think he is (the camera has a "432mm" optical lens)..

The OPs problem likely is light availability, stability of the lens/camera during capture, and auto-focus speed (not counting expierience or other issues)..

Unfortunately when shooting wildlife the two most important things(apart from lighting) are getting as close as possible (within thereason of safety) and good equipment..

I can agree here...

Comment #7

Havnt read through it all but having tried birding with an fz 50 set to 100ISO here are my findings.

You need a minimum of 1/250 of a second shutter an for quickflittering birds 1/500.

Probablly 1/1000.

HOWEVER even a bird sitting in shade of a other wise bright day will knock shutter speeds back to under 1/100too slow.

The FZ50 is a pretty quick point and shoot but is still too slow for flitting birds..

Birds are along way away even with 3mp EZ and Tcon (1100mm efective focal view) some birds are too small. all that magnification makes finding bids hard.

In short taking quick flittering birds in dark woods is extremel challanging and would be best done with many 000s of $$$ of DSLR gear f 2 or 3 600mm lense and a camera capable of iso 1 or 2000 with low noise and good RAW burst mode.

But dont give up just accept your keeper ratio will be very low. oncentrate on birds not moving and in better light..

Comment #8

Read a bit more.

Check out your focus modes, for wldlife especially with branches around see if you have a spot focus mode rather than a larger box or even multi area focus. these modes are a disaster for sharp focus on a speciic object - you willget much better results from spot focussame can go for your exposure metering..

Comment #9

Thanks guys, great information here. Yes, I'm starting to realise how much my expectations are out in relation to my camera's abilities. As I previously mentioned, I'd certainly based my expectations on my percieved brightness but now it's clear the camera fares far worse!.

I'll post the image later today to show the blur problem but I'm now assuming it to be a combination of slight camera movement, slow shutter and long zoom! Alas, if this is the case then the camera's AS function is also very poor as I was extremely still and slowly squeezed the shutter!.

Of course it may have been the AF not really honing in on the subject but I was certainly in spot mode and the live view looked very clear. If I'd have had the opportunity to use the manual mode I would have but when a field mouse is less than 6 feet away any movement other than a shutter press is going to send it packing! .

Anyway, I'm still trying to remain positive as I appreciate the challenge I've set and can certainly take the blame for poor shooting at the moment. What I don't want to do however is continue to try if the camera is continously going to work against me..

Any further thoughts?..

Comment #10

Seiko4169 wrote:.

Any further thoughts?.

Find out what your camera's strengths are and focus on them..

There are many times when I'm out and I will look at a photo opportunity and not bother because I know my camera/gear will not be able to pull a good picture from the situation..

From my S3IS...it does a good job in some situations. Just not as many as a DSLR..

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

From my DSLR...there is just no way my S3IS could have done this. It's just too slow..

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

DSLR again. For me to try and get this picture with my S3IS. I would have had to bumb up the ISO and ruined the image with too much noise..

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

I hope this helps..

P.S. IF you ever go DSLR, don't get anything less then 400mm. Especially for small animals like song birds..

Thank you,Tony.

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

Http://www.acoomer.smugmug.com/Wildlife Photography is 60% Luck and 40% Patience...

Comment #11

You need to get the basics right, at 400mm you need tobe shooting at around 1/400th second. At 1/25th you are 4 stops of light 400/2, 200/2, 100/2, 50/2 ..... short of what you need. So you'd need ISO 3200!.

This is why folks spend thousands on "fast" lenses (f/2.8 so they can shoot at 400mm with less light..

Sorry to dissapont but I have a DSLR with a consumer zoom which is f/5.6 at 450mm and it's still not bright enough, especially how consumer gear needs to be stopped down..

At a minimum you need a decent body and a Sigma 50-500 to go birdign so around $1,500 plus accessories..

Seiko4169 wrote:.

Thanks guys, great information here. Yes, I'm starting to realise howmuch my expectations are out in relation to my camera's abilities. AsI previously mentioned, I'd certainly based my expectations on mypercieved brightness but now it's clear the camera fares far worse!.

I'll post the image later today to show the blur problem but I'm nowassuming it to be a combination of slight camera movement, slowshutter and long zoom! Alas, if this is the case then the camera's ASfunction is also very poor as I was extremely still and slowlysqueezed the shutter!.

Of course it may have been the AF not really honing in on the subjectbut I was certainly in spot mode and the live view looked very clear.If I'd have had the opportunity to use the manual mode I would havebut when a field mouse is less than 6 feet away any movement otherthan a shutter press is going to send it packing! .

Anyway, I'm still trying to remain positive as I appreciate thechallenge I've set and can certainly take the blame for poor shootingat the moment. What I don't want to do however is continue to try ifthe camera is continously going to work against me..

Any further thoughts?.

***********************************************Please visit my gallery at http://www.pbase.com/alfisti.

Pentax Lens examples at http://www.pbase.com/alfisti/images_by_lens.

Updated May '08..

Comment #12

Fantastic shots, absolutley superb..

As promised and I feel embarrsed posting this having seen these type of pictures,.

Http://www.flickr.com/photos//Wildlife Photography is 60% Luck and 40% Patience...

Comment #13

Seiko4169 wrote:.

Fantastic shots, absolutley superb..

Thank you, I really appreciate it..

The image you posted is soft all over and looks like camera shake. I can see that the objects around the mouse(?) are sharper than the other branches and leaves. So it looks like it focused on or near the subject..

Try going out on a nice bright day and testing the focus or take some pictures inside with the flash and see if you get any sharp images. If you do get sharp images then you may want to look at getting a tripod or monopod to hold the camera still when you are in the darker areas..

Look at the bright side&.the hardest part of wildlife photography is finding good subjects, and you have a great one..

I hope this helps,Tony.

Http://www.acoomer.smugmug.com/Wildlife Photography is 60% Luck and 40% Patience...

Comment #14

Could you explain what all this means??? I know it's prob very simple to yuo all but I am a real newbie!! ..

Comment #15

Megsy wrote:.

Could you explain what all this means??? I know it's prob very simpleto yuo all but I am a real newbie!! .

It means that.

(i) you need a very long focal length (telephoto) to shoot small subjects that are distant or they will be tiny in the image..

(ii) this results in camera shake, because the more an image is magnified, the more the tiny tremors in your hands are magnified: if you look through a powerful telescope, for example, the image jumps all over the place unless you have it firmly mounted on a tripod..

(iii) to prevent (or minimise) blur due to camera shake, you need a very fast shutter speed. the longer the shutter is open, the more the camera shake will blur the picture so you want something like 1/500 sec or faster..

(iv) this in turn means that not much light gets in to the camera, so to compensate for the short shutter speed, you need a wider aperture on the lens. The trouble is that most cheap telephoto zooms do not have wide apertures, only fairly narrow ones. A 300mm lens that opens up to f/5.6 is very cheap (150); one that opens up to f/2.8 and lets 4x more light in is very much bigger, heavier and more expensive..

So this is the classic problem with cheap zooms: they don't let enough light in to allow you to use a fast enough shutter speed to prevent camera shake on the highly magnified images they provide. Which is why experienced photographers who want to take pictures of birds and wildlife (or sports, for that matter - same problem) spend a lot of money on wide-aperture tele lenses..

Best wishesMike..

Comment #16

Hi,.

Like you I have spent a lot of time stalking about wooded areas trying to make good wildelife photos. I have used various equipment and had some limited success..

I decided some time ago to discover how the professional wildlife shooters do it so I could get some new ideas and find better ways to get decent shots..

What I discovered was amazing. Here is some of it :.

- Wildlife pros do not stalk about in woods at all.

- They set up hides either near to where they know an animal will be or in a location where they can tempt animals (perhaps with food) to come to the hide..

- They leave the hide for a few days perhaps a week in the location empty so that the animals get used to the presence of the hide and the presence of the food..

- They use big lenses (400-600mm) despite that the animals will be very close to them..

- sometimes they set up their own props for the animals, for example a moss covered branch for a kingfisher to land on..

- sometimes they set up areas with hides and feeding drinking areas semi permanently and feed them all year round..

- I came to the conclusion that there is nothing it seems called "cheating" in wildlife photography.

Hope that helps..

Mark_A..

Comment #17

I would add that shooting non wild life is cruel too! LOL!!!!http://www.stan-pustylnik.smugmug.com..

Comment #18

Yep, I'm certainly coming to that conclusion too. I must confess though part of the thrill is the challenge and difficulty so I'm not going to adopt the 'hide' approach just yet..

My disappointment has been the realisation my expectatons of the camera where too high. I must note mind, I still think the woods where bright enough to take the shots and suspect the cameras auto settings didn't help. I went out shooting today and simply set the camera to 160th and left the camera on auto mode for the other settings. Although I didn't see anything on this occasion I did take a picture of a very small bug using manual focus! I can honestly say that the shot when cropping is very sharp and really surprised my daughter and I. Ignoring the fact that manual focus is very slow thus reducing the chance of catching the subject I might actually snap a sharp picture or two!.

I would like confirmation mind that 160th is going to be ok as a general rule of thumb to help find the balance between reducing camera shake, subject movement and still resulting in a relatively low ISO?.

Overall, I'm going to keep experimenting and hopefully learn the strengths of the camera..

Mark_A wrote:.

Hi,.

Like you I have spent a lot of time stalking about wooded areastrying to make good wildelife photos. I have used various equipmentand had some limited success..

I decided some time ago to discover how the professional wildlifeshooters do it so I could get some new ideas and find better ways toget decent shots..

What I discovered was amazing. Here is some of it :.

- Wildlife pros do not stalk about in woods at all.

- They set up hides either near to where they know an animal will beor in a location where they can tempt animals (perhaps with food) tocome to the hide..

- They leave the hide for a few days perhaps a week in the locationempty so that the animals get used to the presence of the hide andthe presence of the food..

- They use big lenses (400-600mm) despite that the animals will bevery close to them..

- sometimes they set up their own props for the animals, for examplea moss covered branch for a kingfisher to land on..

- sometimes they set up areas with hides and feeding drinking areassemi permanently and feed them all year round..

- I came to the conclusion that there is nothing it seems called"cheating" in wildlife photography.

Hope that helps..

Mark_A..

Comment #19

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.