snubbr.com

What lenses would I need for a good start?
Hello all,.

Been considering the step from a bridge (Sony H2) camera to a DSLR for quite some time now, and can't decide. Trying to gather more information..

I love my bridge camera for being able to go from a close-up mode to a huge zoommode without changing lenses. But: imagequality at higher ISO is becoming more of a problem to me. In all the latest reviews I've read on new bridge/superzoom camera's this remains an issue. Besides, I just feel I would like a step up in general IQ..

I'm considering the new Canon 450 or 1000 when it comes, or the Sony Alpha 300/350. But in the end I would like to be able to get the same reach I got with my H2 when it comes to telephoto. If I would go for the typical kitlens of these camera's, what would I need as a second lens? And will I be able to do the same I can do with my H2?.

Oh: I mainly shoot animal close-ups (both tiny and wildlife), landscapes, buildings and occasionaly a portrait..

Help is much appreciated, since I'm new to DSLR-equipment..

Greetings,Erwin_________________________________________________The world can be beautiful if you know how to use the right equipment..

My Pbase is finally online:http://www.pbase.com/ed197907/..

Comments (31)

All lenses are a compromise. If you really want full range up front, Sony and Tamron (for Canon) have digital-only lenses in the 18-250mm area. Wide to extreme telephoto. The Tamron model isn't -bad-, but it isn't the best lens you could put on your camera (but at the price it's harder to go wrong)..

EDirkx wrote:.

Hello all,.

Been considering the step from a bridge (Sony H2) camera to a DSLRfor quite some time now, and can't decide. Trying to gather moreinformation..

I love my bridge camera for being able to go from a close-up mode toa huge zoommode without changing lenses. But: imagequality at higherISO is becoming more of a problem to me. In all the latest reviewsI've read on new bridge/superzoom camera's this remains an issue.Besides, I just feel I would like a step up in general IQ..

I'm considering the new Canon 450 or 1000 when it comes, or the SonyAlpha 300/350. But in the end I would like to be able to get the samereach I got with my H2 when it comes to telephoto. If I would go forthe typical kitlens of these camera's, what would I need as a secondlens? And will I be able to do the same I can do with my H2?.

Oh: I mainly shoot animal close-ups (both tiny and wildlife),landscapes, buildings and occasionaly a portrait..

Help is much appreciated, since I'm new to DSLR-equipment..

Greetings,Erwin_________________________________________________The world can be beautiful if you know how to use the right equipment..

My Pbase is finally online:http://www.pbase.com/ed197907/..

Comment #1

A good start is to decide what you are shooting the most. I use wide angle lenses the most because I shoot landscape. I also have a 70-200 zoom for the longer end. The lens I use least is the 50...

Comment #2

But what does 18-250mm mean? Dpreview says the H2 goes from 36 to 432 mm. Isn't the 18-250mm a lot wider with a lot less zoom?.

I guess I'm missing something?_________________________________________________The world can be beautiful if you know how to use the right equipment..

My Pbase is finally online:http://www.pbase.com/ed197907/..

Comment #3

Thank you, I missed the special lenses-forums. Will do some reading there too..

Greetings,Erwin_________________________________________________The world can be beautiful if you know how to use the right equipment..

My Pbase is finally online:http://www.pbase.com/ed197907/..

Comment #4

That really depends on the occasion. Most of the time landscapes and buildings. But if I see a nice bug or bird I want to be able to take a good picture without having to change lens. Carrying two camera's is not an option for me..

Greetings,Erwin.

Flbrit wrote:.

A good start is to decide what you are shooting the most. I use wideangle lenses the most because I shoot landscape. I also have a 70-200zoom for the longer end. The lens I use least is the 50..

_________________________________________________The world can be beautiful if you know how to use the right equipment..

My Pbase is finally online:http://www.pbase.com/ed197907/..

Comment #5

EDirkx wrote:.

But what does 18-250mm mean? Dpreview says the H2 goes from 36 to 432mm. Isn't the 18-250mm a lot wider with a lot less zoom?.

I guess I'm missing something?_________________________________________________The world can be beautiful if you know how to use the right equipment..

My Pbase is finally online:http://www.pbase.com/ed197907/.

The 18-250 would be wider but the zoom is 13.8x within the range. Of couse the H2 is 432/36= 12x zoom. It's going to cost you to match the range of the h2 with any dslr...

Comment #6

You are also going to be disappointed when in comes in taking pictures of "tiny" closeups and "bugs." You will need a macro lens; e.g., a 60 2.8 macro @$400. Even then you will have difficulty with the depth of field. You current camera will maintain a better DOF...

Comment #7

EDirkx wrote:.

But what does 18-250mm mean? Dpreview says the H2 goes from 36 to 432mm. Isn't the 18-250mm a lot wider with a lot less zoom?.

H2 isn't really 36mm-432mm, Its probably really a 6mm-72mm, The 36-432mm is roughly what the field of view (FoV) is on a 35mm camera. Since all the models you mention are not 35mm size sensor you need a crop factor to figure out what the FoV is like in 35mm terms. Canon 40D and lower use 1.6, Sony, Pentax, Nikon use 1.5. Olympus uses 2. 18-250 on a Sony ends up being like a 27mm-375mm. So it's not so different after all.



I only zoom to 50mm at this point until I can afford more lenses. If I need to zoom in more I use my feet to zoom in the old fashion way ;p.

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

Comment #8

Thanks so far,.

So if I'm correct the best option (to get close to my H2 reach) is the kitlens (usually around 17-55 I believe) and a second lens that can go from 55 to above 400?? Or just buy the body only with a 18-250 with an extra lens for telezoom (250 to 400 or higher? Are these available at a reasonable price? Could a good teleconverter perhaps do the trick on the 18-250? So I can get a one-lens solution?.

I'm in even more doubt now.....

Erwin_________________________________________________The world can be beautiful if you know how to use the right equipment..

My Pbase is finally online:http://www.pbase.com/ed197907/..

Comment #9

That is very, very helpfull information. Makes me feel at ease a little. That means there is a more then reasonable one lens solution to my 'problem'..

Thank you, I will sleep much better now..

You say you only zoom in to 50mm now. Is that because you use the kitlens, or do you have a lens that goes to 250mm but you don't like the results? Zooming with my feet is often an option, but for birds and large wildlife that can be dangerous (not much of a climber, and not as strong as BA).

Greetings,Erwin.

BA baracus wrote:.

EDirkx wrote:.

But what does 18-250mm mean? Dpreview says the H2 goes from 36 to 432mm. Isn't the 18-250mm a lot wider with a lot less zoom?.

H2 isn't really 36mm-432mm, Its probably really a 6mm-72mm, The36-432mm is roughly what the field of view (FoV) is on a 35mm camera.Since all the models you mention are not 35mm size sensor you need acrop factor to figure out what the FoV is like in 35mm terms. Canon40D and lower use 1.6, Sony, Pentax, Nikon use 1.5. Olympus uses 2.18-250 on a Sony ends up being like a 27mm-375mm. So it's not sodifferent after all. The gain at the wide end is way more valuablethan the loss on the tele in the real world..

I only zoom to 50mm at this point until I can afford more lenses. IfI need to zoom in more I use my feet to zoom in the old fashion way ;p.

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

_________________________________________________The world can be beautiful if you know how to use the right equipment..

My Pbase is finally online:http://www.pbase.com/ed197907/..

Comment #10

The important thing to realize is that NO DSLR LENS GEAR WILL DO WHAT THE LENS ON YOUR P&S DOES NOW. YOU HAVE A 36-432 PLUS MACRO. you cannot get dslr gear that does that in one lens. you will have to split up the uses into multiple lenses..

The VERY MOST IMPORTANT ITEM to consider is to answer a question: do you constantly use the full 36-432 range or are the pics coming from a much smaller part of that range? the closest you can get to that range is to get 18-250mm lens but you loose the macro with it. some lenses have macro ability but are not true macro lenses and cannot get to 1:1 size. the 1:1 is true macro. also the 18-250 will work and take fine pics, but you can do better than that is terms of image quality by going to more lenses of less zoom..

The 36mm end of your current lens is BARELY touching the wideangle end the range. wideangle is thought of to start at 35mm..

A lens selection that could work, but it means having to carry more gear. this is a 10-12 to 20-24mm wideangle zoom, a 16-18 to 50-70mm normal kit lens, and then a 70-75 to 300mm telephoto zoom. if macro is desired a 90-105mm macro lens is added. (note the macro lens will far outperform your current lens at macro work.) I do not carry my macro with me unless I know I will want/need it. beyond the 300mm mark you have to decide how much photography you really do. any lens that works well at those sizes is going to cost large dollars.

And it is by no means the most expensive, but has a good reputation and works well for me. you can purchase big telephotos of excellent quality in the $10000 mark and more..

Also as you add lens speed, that go closer to f1.0, you are talking more and more dollars at the same mm. or zoom range. a 50mm f1.4 is more expensive than a 50mm f2.0. a 16-50mm f4.0 zoom is cheaper than a 16-50mm f2.8 zoom. the normal practice is to get 1 fast lens for dim light conditions. that is the 50mm f1.4 or the 35mm f2.0..

This holds unless you have special uses for the lens, like weddings or indoor sporting events or outdoor events at night. though remember that with dslr you have the extremely usable option of upping the iso to 1600 sometimes 3200 and still get good pics. this is the same as going to faster lens. this is also unlike a p&s which really has unusable fast iso speeds due to noise..

This shot was at iso1600. what noise. shot at the nigara falls butterfly conservatory. light condition due to glass but not clear ceiling are dim..

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

Comment #11

EDirkx wrote:.

Hello all,.

Been considering the step from a bridge (Sony H2) camera to a DSLRfor quite some time now, and can't decide. Trying to gather moreinformation..

I love my bridge camera for being able to go from a close-up mode toa huge zoommode without changing lenses. But: imagequality at higherISO is becoming more of a problem to me. In all the latest reviewsI've read on new bridge/superzoom camera's this remains an issue.Besides, I just feel I would like a step up in general IQ..

I'm considering the new Canon 450 or 1000 when it comes, or the SonyAlpha 300/350. But in the end I would like to be able to get the samereach I got with my H2 when it comes to telephoto. If I would go forthe typical kitlens of these camera's, what would I need as a secondlens? And will I be able to do the same I can do with my H2?.

Oh: I mainly shoot animal close-ups (both tiny and wildlife),landscapes, buildings and occasionaly a portrait..

Help is much appreciated, since I'm new to DSLR-equipment..

Greetings,Erwin_________________________________________________The world can be beautiful if you know how to use the right equipment..

My Pbase is finally online:http://www.pbase.com/ed197907/.

I can recommend the first and third of these lenses personally since I have them..

1. Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6.

2. Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 macro.

3. Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3.

Three quality lenses to cover 12-500mm + macro. Reasonably priced too..

Of course all three of these lenses would be stabilized on the Sony..

For more info, read Dyxum's lens site.http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp..

Comment #12

Gary,.

Thank you for your excellent explaination. Since I'm on a tight start-budget, I would consider a 18-250 lens to start with. It will not be the best choice for IQ, but I assume that with a 450D the result will be much, much better then my H2? And for starting it's a very versatile lens I guess?.

Loosing the macro would be a problem, but with my H2 it is also hardly possible to do real macro. The close-uplens gives some good results, but there is probably a way to get the similar results with a macro capable lens on the 450d? Also read something about reversing-rings, so you can turn around your lens for macro-use? Is that any good?.

Greetings,Erwin_________________________________________________The world can be beautiful if you know how to use the right equipment..

My Pbase is finally online:http://www.pbase.com/ed197907/..

Comment #13

Do you mean they are stabilized by the Sony? Does it have IS in the body? Or do I need another way of stabilizing? No worries, I will look that up..

Thanks for the advise,Erwin_________________________________________________The world can be beautiful if you know how to use the right equipment..

My Pbase is finally online:http://www.pbase.com/ed197907/..

Comment #14

EDirkx wrote:.

Gary,.

Thank you for your excellent explaination. Since I'm on a tightstart-budget, I would consider a 18-250 lens to start with. It willnot be the best choice for IQ, but I assume that with a 450D theresult will be much, much better then my H2? And for starting it's avery versatile lens I guess?.

Loosing the macro would be a problem, but with my H2 it is alsohardly possible to do real macro. The close-uplens gives some goodresults, but there is probably a way to get the similar results witha macro capable lens on the 450d? Also read something aboutreversing-rings, so you can turn around your lens for macro-use? Isthat any good?.

With the 450d the results wuth the 18-2t90 will be far more than the h2. if you wish real macro cheap then think about using a macro addon lens of good quality. you do not have the veratility of a true macro but they work. and are far cheaper. reversing rings will work but the lens becomes a full manual lens including aperture. that etup can be a real technical pistol to use unless you really know what you are doing.

The possible route to go is get the 18-250 and the fast 50mm then get the addon lens which is mounted to front of the 50mm via the filter threads..

Greetings,Erwin_________________________________________________The world can be beautiful if you know how to use the right equipment..

My Pbase is finally online:http://www.pbase.com/ed197907/..

Comment #15

Kind-off like I'm doing now with the H2, using it with the 3358-close-up. Thanks for your very helpfull advise. Full manual is indeed still a little to much for me. Just getting started on this... .

Going to the store this afternoon to see it all in reallife, so I know better what I'm talking about..

Thank you very much!Erwin.

GaryDeM wrote:.

With the 450d the results wuth the 18-2t90 will be far more than theh2. if you wish real macro cheap then think about using a macro addonlens of good quality. you do not have the veratility of a true macrobut they work. and are far cheaper. reversing rings will work butthe lens becomes a full manual lens including aperture. that etup canbe a real technical pistol to use unless you really know what you aredoing.

The possible route to go is get the 18-250 and thefast 50mm then get the addon lens which is mounted to front of the50mm via the filter threads..

The world can be beautiful if you know how to use the right equipment..

My Pbase is finally online:http://www.pbase.com/ed197907/.

_________________________________________________The world can be beautiful if you know how to use the right equipment..

My Pbase is finally online:http://www.pbase.com/ed197907/..

Comment #16

EDirkx wrote:.

I love my bridge camera for being able to go from a close-up mode toa huge zoommode without changing lenses. But: imagequality at higherISO is becoming more of a problem to me. In all the latest reviewsI've read on new bridge/superzoom camera's this remains an issue.Besides, I just feel I would like a step up in general IQ..

I just had a quick look at your pbase gallery. The photos there are not bad at all. They show some care and effort to getting it right..

In what particular aspects of IQ do you think you want to "step up". Could you take one of your shots and ask whether a DSLR would improve on this?.

In the sizes for web display and screen display, a well taken shot from a superzoom, under correct exposure and ISO 100 is pretty much as good as a DSLR. A DSLR will give less image noise above ISO 100 and if you print or display big, then, the IQ of a DSLR *should* show..

HOWEVER, a DSLR compared to a bridge camera is a money sink. Whilst a bridge camera, you spend your money at one go, you will find a DSLR only really starts showing substantial improvement (other than the ISO business) in sharpness etc... when you invest in more lenses, better lenses than the kit lenses. Also you will find that for $X, you buy one small range lens compared to say even buying a whole ultrazoom camera..

Some people will show you proof that their DSLR kit lens can do this and that - yes, some brands actually have a good kit lens. But in general, more $ in glass is the better / only way to make a DSLR show better results..

I'm considering the new Canon 450 or 1000 when it comes, or the SonyAlpha 300/350. But in the end I would like to be able to get the samereach I got with my H2 when it comes to telephoto. If I would go forthe typical kitlens of these camera's, what would I need as a secondlens? And will I be able to do the same I can do with my H2?.

See my writing above. You can get the reach of your H2 in tele and beyond. You can reach 500mm, 1000mm even longer. You can go on the wide side down to 14mm. So you can reach 14mm to 1000mm - but to many people this is nonsense because they have to buy expensive 14mm lens, expensive 1000mm lens and a bunch of other lenses in between..

Oh: I mainly shoot animal close-ups (both tiny and wildlife),landscapes, buildings and occasionaly a portrait..

So you are looking for several things:.

A. a good macro lens with tripodb. a tele lens of at least 300mm and longer, maybe up to 500mm for wildlifec. a wide angle zoom of say 24mm to 28mm.

If you try to buy one lens that covers all these functions in one DSLR lens, it:.

A. will be expensiveb. it will not be as sharp as separate lenses.

C. there is nothing that goes from 24mm to 500mm - so you need to buy a few lenses..

D. it will "dark" if it is cheap and expensive if it is bright e.g. f/2.8 all through or f/2 all through..

Also, with the wide angle and the macro, the DSLR will have a shallower DOF than you superzoom. Meaning that for example on a wide angle on the superzoom, you could shoot with f/4 of a scene with foreground and background objects, you may need f/8 to get the same DOF..

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

Anandahttp://anandasim.spaces.live.com/http://olympuse510.wikispaces.com/http://picasaweb.google.com/AnandaSim/http://www.flickr.com/photos/32554587@N00/..

Comment #17

More about addon macro lens. sometime ago there was an article about this. and it was thought that the nikon macro addon via filter thread was the best of the bunch. the reason was the nikon was multielement the rest were not. cost was higher but then results better. if it was me and I wanted macro addons I would check out the nikon ones first.

They come in different strengths, so you would be getting the one or ones you want for the amount of magnification and subject that you are interested in..

As long as the filter threads are the same they would also work on any other lenses that you wish. there are also fiter thread size converters available to get from one filter size to another...

Comment #18

Thank you, I will be looking into that too..

Erwin_________________________________________________The world can be beautiful if you know how to use the right equipment..

My Pbase is finally online:http://www.pbase.com/ed197907/..

Comment #19

That is the first time I ever heard anyone assert that the depth of field will differ between a fixed focal length lens and a zoom when shooting at the same focal length and aperture. I don't think that is accurate - maybe that's not what you intended to say?.

Oh, and to the original poster, a great starter lens is new Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC LD Aspherical IF Macro vibration reduction lens - it's had very good reviews for a superzoom and can't ask for more value and versatility for the price. Even if you invest in more lenses, this one is a great all-around when you can take just one; it deserves a serious look..

Mike..

Comment #20

Thanks for mentioning the elephant. I've been making pro and cons lists for the past weeks. Weight, different lenses, time lost with changing lenses and expenses are definitely the biggest cons on buying a DSLR. As you can see on my pbase most of my pictures are taken outside under good light-conditions. Not only because that is the only thing I like shooting, but also because my current camera sucks at everything above ISO 200. For a normal indoor shot without flash it needs 320 ISO to get a decent exposed picture.

Not to mention evening outdoor shots, in which the flash is useless most of the time..

I would consider a new Bridgecamera (Fuji's S100 seems great) if the IQ would be usable upto at least 400 ISO without noise or details lost because of noise-reduction. Problem is: no Bridgecamera will do that. Took a beautiful picture of a colorful duck the other day, in the beginning evening at full zoom using a monopod, ISO 200. With a decent camera it would have been an excellent picture, now I was afraid to post it because of the lack of details and noise..

Don;t get me wrong, I love my H2. Fantastic for macro's and good light-conditions. Very little CA and PF and a fantastic zoom. I would never sell this camera, but the 6 MP is not enough for really large prints, another reason I want a new camera..

Greetings and thanks for mentioning the elephant..Erwin.

_________________________________________________The world can be beautiful if you know how to use the right equipment..

My Pbase is finally online:http://www.pbase.com/ed197907/..

Comment #21

Been looking at that lens, there is also a version without VC, it;s a lot cheaper. What is VC?.

Greetings,Erwin_________________________________________________The world can be beautiful if you know how to use the right equipment..

My Pbase is finally online:http://www.pbase.com/ed197907/..

Comment #22

VC is Tamron's shorthand for vibration reduction - and it's nice implementation; it does't give you that 'sea-sick' feeling that some VR lenses do..

Practially speaking, the extra cost is small when you consider it effectively makes the base f/3.5-6.3 at least two stops faster. Thus, if at 250mm you'd need to shoot at least 1/250 of a second for hand held shooting, you could probably get away with hand-holding it at 1/60th and still get a sharp shot - maybe 1/30 if you have a very steady hand..

Mike..

Comment #23

But if I would go for the Sony-camera, it already has a built in image stabilizer, so I wouldn;t need it in the lens right? Or is it better to have it in the camera AND in the lens?.

Erwin_________________________________________________The world can be beautiful if you know how to use the right equipment..

My Pbase is finally online:http://www.pbase.com/ed197907/..

Comment #24

Ahh, true. If you have in cam stabilzation, I guess that would suffice. I don't know which is better and if you can defeat the in cam IS. So the non-VR would be a deal then..

Mike..

Comment #25

EDirkx wrote:.

But if I would go for the Sony-camera, it already has a built inimage stabilizer, so I wouldn;t need it in the lens right? Or is itbetter to have it in the camera AND in the lens?.

Erwin.

There's a You Tube example of a camera that has both in-body and in-lens stabilization. They are not additive..

Http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=KPdy52mR6Io..

Comment #26

Michael Firstlight wrote:.

That is the first time I ever heard anyone assert that the depth offield will differ between a fixed focal length lens and a zoom whenshooting at the same focal length and aperture. I don't think that isaccurate - maybe that's not what you intended to say?.

I can't see where he wrote that. He did write "...the DSLR will have a shallower DOF than your superzoom ..." which is OK..

Richard..

Comment #27

18-250 mm means 29-400 mm to compare with the advertised 36-432 mm of Sony H2 (in fact it's a 6-72 mm lens).VictorBucuresti, Romaniahttp://s106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/victor_petcu/http://picasaweb.google.com/teodor.nitica/..

Comment #28

EDirkx wrote:.

Don;t get me wrong, I love my H2. Fantastic for macro's and goodlight-conditions. Very little CA and PF and a fantastic zoom. I wouldnever sell this camera, but the 6 MP is not enough for really largeprints, another reason I want a new camera..

Greetings and thanks for mentioning the elephant..Erwin.

Keep your H2 for the tele. Use the dslr for the other stuff. I saw the elephant in the room, but I'm not qualified to warn convincingly..

For some reason the 18-250 lens don't move me. For me, dslrs shine using those "special" lenses. I have a Minolta 5d and the Sony A300. The lenses I love are the 50 mm 1.7 for low light, the 70-210 f4 beercan (LOVE THIS LENS) and my current joy the Tamron SP 90 macro lens. I also have the Sony 11-18 that I'm waiting to put to good use. I bought all my lens used, except for the 11-18 when Best Buy had a temporary fire sale on them.

Changing lenses is a hassle, each glass performs special magic...

Comment #29

Thank you, a very educative video. Also about pro's and con's on both systems..

Greetings,Erwin.

Dennis Phillips wrote:.

EDirkx wrote:.

But if I would go for the Sony-camera, it already has a built inimage stabilizer, so I wouldn;t need it in the lens right? Or is itbetter to have it in the camera AND in the lens?.

Erwin.

There's a You Tube example of a camera that has both in-body andin-lens stabilization. They are not additive..

Http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=KPdy52mR6Io.

_________________________________________________The world can be beautiful if you know how to use the right equipment..

My Pbase is finally online:http://www.pbase.com/ed197907/..

Comment #30

I would not like to carry around 2 camera's. So that is not an option. I do understand that an all-in-one lens on a dslr will produce less good then different lenses for each situation. At this point however, I don;t want to invest in more then 2 lenses (kit and one for extra zoom). Maybe a teleconverter for some extra reach, and a close-up add-on lens. But that's the maximum I want to go for in the beginning..

Thanks for your advice, will be looking at the lenses you mentioned..

Greetings,Erwin_________________________________________________The world can be beautiful if you know how to use the right equipment..

My Pbase is finally online:http://www.pbase.com/ed197907/..

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.