i'm sorry, but i forgot to mention:

if your price point is $700, you are probably going to buy too much
point-and-shoot camera, but you won't be buying nearly enough SLR...

most good point-and-shoots will cost less than $400... and, while you can
get a good film SLR body for $300-400, your quality long lens choices aren't
going to cost less than $1000-1500. there are some long lenses out there
for less than $1000, but the quality is VERY uneven. digital camera SLR
bodies will start in the $800 range, and most don't come with decent lenses
(if they come with lenses at all). ALWAYS TRY/RENT BEFORE YOU BUY.

00 caren
http://www.parkgallery.org
the old same place (anyone a firesign fan? :)


-----Original Message-----
From: tweeters-bounces at mailman1.u.washington.edu
[mailto:tweeters-bounces at mailman1.u.washington.edu]On Behalf Of carenp
Sent: Thursday, 2005 September 08 06:51
To: tweets
Subject: RE: [Tweeters] Re: Digital camera suggestion


Hello, Laurinda:

I suppose it depends on what kind of photography (1) you are comfortable
with, and/or (2) what your intentions are regarding your photography...

as an example, if you are already comfortable with your scope, and you are
looking for a camera that will digiscope those images, there are a number on
the market (with the attendent accessories) that are highly regarded... i
suggest you join the digiscope group
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digiscopingbirds/ ) at yahoo...

pro: point-and-shoot camera is easier to use than SLR, and *can* produce
nice photos
pro: camera is usually much less expensive than SLR
pro: camera is usually much smaller than SLR
pro: you can get closer to your subject with scope than an SLR
con: nice photos are much more difficult to achieve, usually due to
limitations in optics (the more glass you place between you and the object
in question, the less clarity you will get, and in most cases, the smaller
the "sweet spot" of the photo, where everything is clear and undistorted)
con: carrying scope can be unwieldly in some circumstances


if you are looking for higher quality more frequently, you will be looking
for an SLR camera of some type, probably with at least one VERY HIGH QUALITY
long lens. my current workhorse is the canon 10d with the 100-400L IS zoom
lens. even in almost no light, with the proper knowledge, you can get
amazingly sharp photos.

pro: photos are usually of a much higher quality (not always, but usually)
pro: moving subjects are easier to photograph with an SLR
con: you can't get as close with an SLR (normally) as you can with a good
scope
con: a fair amount of knowledge is necessary to getting a wider variety of
photos, but today's SLRs are getting more forgiving by the day...
neutral: the price of SLRs can range from very affordable to the GDP of a
small third-world country


00 caren
http://www.parkgallery.org
from the net near JBP

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/91 - Release Date: 2005.09.06

_______________________________________________
Tweeters mailing list
Tweeters at u.washington.edu
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/91 - Release Date: 2005.09.06

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/91 - Release Date: 2005.09.06