Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
machohorn

What to buy

7 posts in this topic

I need a recomendation. I am looking at getting a new camera, however I also want some thingthat I can add/change lenses. After looking at all your wonderful pictures day after day I want to get back into this hobby. I now have a pocket Canon point and shoot digital. I am looking to up grade in a camera in the $600.00 range ( lenses extra) I use to shoot a Minolta X70 a. Please recomend me to a good camera that is easy to use but will give me room to expand and grow.P.S. I do like the Canon lines

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can get a Canon XT close to that price and it will probably come with a lens as well. Thats the camera I use and I am happy with it. I am not sure what they Canon XSi is going for but its the newer version so you might want to look into that as well. Steve explains the differences is a post below, you might want to check that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

machohorn, the Canon Digital Rebel XTi has come way down in price now that the new XSi has come out. The XTi is an excellent 10 Mp DSLR that will deliver great image quality, and I'm pretty sure a couple folks on this board use them.

The price at Canoga Camera, where I do all my online photography gear buying, is $529.

If you're using a compact flash style card in your point and shoot you'll be good to go. If not, you'll need to buy a CF style card. But memory card prices have come down so far that you can get a great 2 Gb card for about $25.

As for lenses, what is your lens price range and what types of photography do you want to do? Lenses can run a LOT of money, although of course one can start slow and decide whether they want to upgrade lenses as time goes on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, actually I want all and every option with lenses, but reality ( wifey) sets in and mentions bugets. What I would like is a telephoto and the other side something for close up, portraits of grand kids social gatherings etc. Also because I am photo challenged some call it telephoto some say zoom. same or different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Telephoto is a lens that is longer in focal length. You can have a fixed focal length telephoto (300/2.8) and a zoom telephoto which will give you a range of focal length (100-400mm). A zoom lens is one in which you can change the focal length, it can be a wide zoom like a 10-22mm or longer like a 50-500mm.

Sure wish there was a lens that was a perfect do all but it has yet to be made. Start with the lens that comes with the camera and use it for a bit. As you become more familiar with the camera and how you will use it you can begin to explore other options. Good luck with your search.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought my Canon 10D off of hsolist, delivered to my door for approximately $300.00, it was the L series lenses that took a major chomp out of my bill fold!

I bought a 17-40, the 70-200 IS and this past week I bought the 100-400 IS. In time I plan to purchase one more camera, the 30D. It only makes sense to have a 2nd camera in which case my 10D will then act as a back up.

I shot this yesterday with my 100-400 mounted on the 10D. You decide weather or not the outdated 10D still has what it takes to get the job done.

267_6740-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now thats what I'm talkin about!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    •     I believe you said it was "libertarian" drivel, actually, so you dismissed it out of hand...          
    •   You posted about neither.     But if you would read the article, my commentary and TJ's commentary you would know that's not really what the article is about.     You have to be kidding, right? Just about everyone who has an opinion on politics at all is this sort of person. Do you look at social media at all?
    •     Ok, now getting back to whether Trump will win the War on Drugs, do you think he will take any steps at all to decriminalize drugs, such as reclassifying marijuana, and recognizing state laws and programs designed to move towards the decriminalization of drugs?   Or do you think he will take steps to protect vested interests, such as prisons and the pharmaceutical. industry?   Just going off his rhetoric and his choice for a drug czar, I'm guessing he much prefers the latter, and will end up spending a bunch of taxpayer's money, and actually lose ground by continuing on with the brute force/criminalization approach.        
    • Because at the time, I don't have anything better to do.   I posted about the article, and you wanted to talk about the topic.  I posted about the topic and you want to discuss the article.    Which is it?     I support a particular candidate because their positions, taken as a whole, are preferable to me as compared to the other candidate(s).   In a few years I get to do it over.     I don't think there are really that many ardent "rah rah for my party" type folks out there, in spite of what we see on TV, or the occasional people we meet.     So the article is basically drivel, as I said before, based on a false premise.   
    • Borch I just signed up Ryan, Morgan, and me but I only see my name listed in the summary. Do my kids not show up because they don't have hso usernames?  Or did I not enter it right?     Please let me know how to fix it and I'll do so.  Thanks!
    •   Because I think self reflection is good for all of us from time to time.   If you don't wan't to discuss this article, why do you persist in posting here?           No one is disputing that at all. The premise of the author's article is in regards to the hypocrisy of then justifying everything your chosen candidate or party does blindly while vilifying the other candidates or party. It's the "all in" sports like mentality that is being discussed here.  
    • There is a really excellent book called "The Righteous Mind" that approaches this tribalist mindset from an evolutionary psychology standpoint. The author, Jonathan Haidt, does a remarkable job of unpacking why people persist in truly irrational defense of the indefensible - when it's their team doing the stupid stuff. I highly highly highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in lessening the hyperpartisan idiocy we have today.

      The trouble is that the closed-off mindset that lends itself to reflexive support for Obama/Hillary/Trump/whomever also tends to preclude any serious engagement in self-examination that the book is designed to provoke. Really good read, though.
    •   I get what your saying here but I think what Dave is talking about is the willingness of some to blindly follow, without question, their party or candidate. I saw this first hand during the primary with some of my own relatives, for example. I had a SIL who was a huge Bernie backer. The things she said about Hillary were worse than anything said here. As far as she was concerned, Hillary should be tarred and feathered and ran out on a rail. Then Bernie loses the nomination. She then became Hillary's biggest defender. Everything she said about her during the primary was instantly washed away. Even her own husband called her out. She wasn't simply voting for her because she found Trump worse. That's understandable. She defended or at least tried to deflect the issues with Hillary when just a few months prior, she said things that would make even Cooter or Bill say, "man you're harsh on her."   I don't think this is a new phenomenon. I also don't think it's widespread. Like everything else, access to more and diverse information just makes it possible to hear more about it than before. I think human nature causes people to internalize candidates and/.or elected officials. It's a "if you're critical of my candidate, you're critical of me," kind of thinking.   I don't fault anyone for voting for a candidate that one feels best represents their line of thinking. Or even defending their candidate from detractors. I don't think that is what Dave is talking about here. It's also the flipping of political opinions just because the candidate you voted for or support is supporting certain positions. For example, many conservatives opposed BHO's stimulus, including myself. It didn't work  as promised and we just added more on to the debt. So on the campaign trail, Trump also spoke of a stimulus plan that was even more expensive than BHO's and  those same people not only supported it but are justifying it. In summary, one can vote for a candidate without defending everything that person does        
    •  Come on.   The world, life is a bit more complicated then that.          Quit passing the blame. Your whole thesis is on choice and owning it.   Let me guess, you hate big banking also since they made it easy to refinance and purchase.   It just proves that general society is incapable of making the right decisions as a whole.   Sorry, you go down with the ship.    
  • Our Sponsors