steve_k.1

Thanks for the replies everyone - it has made me think twice about switching. It was a little surprising, I expected more of a "come to the dark side Luke" type of agenda. However, I'm re-researching options on the Canon side, that way I get to keep my remaining decent long lens, and can probably stay within budget. I'll keep monitoring the forum, and put up another post when I decide, which will probably be soon.

Here are some additional thoughts, that aren't really directly related to my original question. Feel free to add or ignore as needed. When I started my original reply, I began rambling and typed out most of what is below, then re-read it and found that it was, well, rambling, and didn't need to be in the reply. Instead of just deleting it, I thought someone might find it interesting or useful. Naaah, but here it is anyway...

I don't care too much about most of the advanced features on modern cameras, the electronic features anyway. A full manual with DOF preview and auto-focus would be OK with me most of the time.

Some features like auto advance, auto-rewind and the easier film loading that comes with new cameras are really nice though. Hmmm. Am I just lazy? Maybe they will add an "auto-composure" mode on one of the new cameras. I could then put it on a robot, attach a cell phone then let it drive around taking great shots and transmitting them to my laptop while lying in bed watching Opra, CNN and FNN. Better yet, transmit them to agencies directly, who will then automatically deposit funds into my account. That would be a truly advanced film transport.

Sorry about the sidetrack there. Anyway, I rarely use the "program" (I Don't Care) modes and could very easily go without them. Its too bad you can't buy cameras like cars, where you add the options you want. If the Rebel had DOF preview and was smart with a shoe-flash I might go with it. They're inexpensive enough that if it really doesn't work out, then at least you have a good backup.

In this case, "good" excludes cheaper construction of the Rebel which I have heard a couple stories about, like cracked cases and such. If Craftsman made cameras, I'd buy that brand instead. Find yourself stuck in the woods camping without your hammer? No problem, just use your Shiny New Craftsman SLR to hammer the tent pegs in, then on the way home drop in to Sears and exchange it for a new one. Great multipurpose cameras they are, good for wheel chocks if you find yourself with a flat tire, and work sufficiently as a spare ball at little league, although knuckle-balls are a challenge. There was a Sears lens on eBay last week, but it wasn't a Craftsman so I passed it up.

Seriously though, have you ever taken a look at the Rebels? For what is supposed to be a beginner camera, it seems to have all the basic features and more. Some of the features are nice, but having already had an Elan IIe with all of them plus, I found they were rarely used. The same situation probably exists for the Nikon series too.

So, what are the differences that make you pay hundreds of dollars more for one of the higher end cameras? For example, the N65 vs the N100 or the Rebel vs the EOS 3? With the price difference you could get a really nice lens or two. Its harder than it should be to buy a camera. It isn't any easier when major makers like Canon put camera specifications on their website with each in a vastly different format so you can't easily see the differences. Nikon isn't as bad about this, but they aren't good about it either.

I didn't mean to pollute the Nikon forums with ramblings about Canon, but wanted to close my question out after getting some good feedback. Perhaps I should wonder over to the Canon forum to see if anyone knows some really good reasons for the price differences on their line.

Thanks again for the inputs, hope to hear from you again in the forums.

Steve

Hi, I'm new to the site as well as to Nikon equipment. I'm replacing

a recently stolen Canon Elan IIe and am thinking of jumping ship and

giving Nikon a try, but need some advice on what to get. I do

different shots, from landscape to wildlife which causes grief to my

wallet, as I want to cover wide through tele lenses if I can. My

canon collection included a 100-300 L series zoom (for sale if you

know anyone...) with a 1.4x teleconverter. For my budget that was

about as long as I could go, which does introduce limits with

wildlife photos. My whole budget is to stay under $1500. I want to

try to go with lenses that can produce image quality good enough for

stock photo selling. I shoot both slide and print, but recently have

decided to stay mostly with slide, to accomodate sellability and to

avoid poor print processing.

<p>Anyway, here are some things I'm thinking of (pricing I found on

net after Nikon rebates):<br><br>

Nikon N80 body $320<br>

Nikon 18-35mm/3.5-4.5 ED-IF AF-D $430<br>

Nikon 50mm/1.8 $100<br>

<p>Possibly one or more of the following:<br><br>

Nikon 60mm/2.8 macro $325<br>

Tokina ATX Pro 28-70/2.8 $520 (instead of 18-35)<br>

Sigma 20-40 EX DF $530 (instead of nikon 18-35)<br>

Lens reversal adapter for macro $??? (instead of 60mm macro)<br>

<br>

I expect that 22-24mm would be the widest I would go, with either the

sigma or nikon wide zooms, for need as well as avoiding abberation.

Possibly could go with fixed 24mm instead of wide zoom.

<p>The nikon compatible tele lens seem pricey. Any opinions on the

Nikon 70-300 ED AF-D (~$260)?

<p>Also, what kind of speedlights would be good? I'd like to have one

that works with TTL and has bounce.

<p>Any help or opinions is appreciated.

<p>Thanks!