[Tweeters] Re: camera gear

Jim Greaves lbviman at blackfoot.net
Mon Mar 15 09:44:22 PDT 2010

Thanks John. Good points! Another good average consumer priced camera
is a Sony (which has its own image stabilization, so you don't need
to buy expensive stabilized lenses), for under $500 at Walmart, it is
by far superior to the 6 megapixels of my Nikon... It has 10
megapixels (which is important for image resolution - the higher the
pixel count the farther away one can be for good results). And,
because of the IS onboard, it is not limited to Sony lenses - Vivitar
and others make MUCH less expensive and WELL made teles and zooms. I
have no argument with Canon as John notes - it is the one I see most
often with "shorter" zooms (80-400 range) or with the expensive
bazookas on tripods; results I've seen have been, as John says, the
result of the photographer, and not the equipment, as I've seen
terrible stuff from some folks with apparently endless expense
accounts, and tack sharp, cover-quality results from "little old
people" with just a camera and IS lens slung over the shoulder! The
eye of the bee holder is the critical element in all image making - Jim Greaves

At 01:00 PM 3/14/2010, John Puschock at Tweeters wrote:

>If you're convinced you want to get into the "art" aspects of bird

>photography but aren't already invested in a SLR system, get a

>decent lens and one of the cheaper DSLR bodies and see how you like

>it. Nikon may be beating Canon in image quality at the prosumer

>price point, but for the budget-conscious, I'd still recommend

>Canon. I believe they have a better selection of affordable

>(relatively speaking) lenses.

More information about the Tweeters mailing list