Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
It doesn't mean that it isn't, though - does it come with the 16-day return? If so, then it can be worth a look in the box - you never know..Well spotted!
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
It doesn't mean that it isn't, though - does it come with the 16-day return? If so, then it can be worth a look in the box - you never know..Well spotted!
You did misunderstand completely. It's a choice between a Nikon and a Canon camera - both come with a lens, and I don't have any lenses as I've never owned an SLR before, so it's a simple case of choosing which camera.Hi Lunar Scorpion
If I've understood correctly, you are looking at a Nikon camera and a Canon lens? Do check, before you part with your money, that they are compatible. I am definitely not an expert like some of the other people on this thread, I just need to know enough to cover when our 'proper' photographer isn't available to take a shot for us at College. When I was going through the same choosing-process as you, Canon and Nikon had different mounts. So one of the deciding factors was which lenses I wanted to use. For instance, you might want to think about which lenses you already have, which lenses you might be able to borrow/hire and whether those are mostly Nikon or Canon. Things might have changed, you might be able to buy some kind of adaptor and I might have misunderstood your post completely but wanted to warn you, just in case!
I can't be the only person concerned about the thought of the Scorp getting an SLR, surely..?I've never owned an SLR before..
it's a simple case of choosing which camera.
STOP!
Do NOT under any circumstance purchase the 3100 from Nikon, it is a steaming pile of turd. I have it's predecessor, the D40, and you would do much better sourcing a second hand one of those in my opinion. I borrowed a 3100 for a shoot and frankly I was appalled at how much worse Nikon had made it in order to expand their range (at the time the D40 came out the consumer range was two cameras, when moving to the next era they introduced five cameras and had to really cut back on the low end to make any sort of differentiation at all.
I would thoroughly recommend a Nikon, but I can't recommend to anyone, even someone who I've argued with bitterly in the past, the 3100.
That was close... Just so happens the Canon is cheaper now anyway! http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Browse/ID72/33026565/c_1/1|category_root|Technology|33006169/c_2/2|33006169|Cameras and camcorders|33008331/c_3/3|cat_33008331|Cameras|33012615/c_4/4|cat_33012615|Digital SLR cameras|33026565.htmAs big a fan of Nikon as I am, between the two you have posted, in your position (i.e. with no lenses or other proprietary equipment) I'd spend the money on the Canon.
I'm sure that somebody who really knows will be along in a minute, but that looks non-IS to me - the IS lens looks like this.
..with "IS II" after the f-rating.
What about this one? http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/5778959.htm
I keep meaning to upgrade my Canon 400D, but whenever I compare the image quality to new equipment, the difference simply doesn't justify spending the extra. In fact, often as not, to my eye at least, it is just as good.
Well my 400 seems to go round corners as well as any other camera, as far as I can tell.Image quality peaked ages ago in this market segment, it's all about handling now.
Well my 400 seems to go round corners as well as any other camera, as far as I can tell.