Nikon 8800

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I want something I can keep "on" me and get decent shots when I can't haul
around my whole kit...DSLR and includes lenses from itsy-close on up to 'way
off. (sorry, I get tired of techno-speak(-; ) The point is, it's lots o'
gear.
I have been doing a lot of documentary work lately, and I am already hauling
a camcorder around.
Anyway, I am looking at the Nikon 8800. Or the 8400. Any comments?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Nancy C Kenfield wrote:
> I want something I can keep "on" me and get decent shots when I can't
> haul around my whole kit...DSLR and includes lenses from itsy-close
> on up to 'way off. (sorry, I get tired of techno-speak(-; ) The
> point is, it's lots o' gear.
> I have been doing a lot of documentary work lately, and I am already
> hauling a camcorder around.
> Anyway, I am looking at the Nikon 8800. Or the 8400. Any comments?

Mainly wide-angle and fast focussing? 8400.

Mainly telephoto? 8800

The 8400 may well be the more general purpose camera, and it's smaller and
lighter. The 24mm wide-angle may get you more involved with your subject.

Cheers,
David

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 1/11/05 2:05 PM, in article 34ips7F4c0vkoU1@individual.net, "David J
Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

> Nancy C Kenfield wrote:
>> I want something I can keep "on" me and get decent shots when I can't
>> haul around my whole kit...DSLR and includes lenses from itsy-close
>> on up to 'way off. (sorry, I get tired of techno-speak(-; ) The
>> point is, it's lots o' gear.
>> I have been doing a lot of documentary work lately, and I am already
>> hauling a camcorder around.
>> Anyway, I am looking at the Nikon 8800. Or the 8400. Any comments?
>
> Mainly wide-angle and fast focussing? 8400.
>
> Mainly telephoto? 8800
>
> The 8400 may well be the more general purpose camera, and it's smaller and
> lighter. The 24mm wide-angle may get you more involved with your subject.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
Thanks!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Nancy C Kenfield wrote:
> I want something I can keep "on" me and get decent shots when I can't haul
> around my whole kit...DSLR and includes lenses from itsy-close on up to 'way
> off. (sorry, I get tired of techno-speak(-; ) The point is, it's lots o'
> gear.
> I have been doing a lot of documentary work lately, and I am already hauling
> a camcorder around.
> Anyway, I am looking at the Nikon 8800. Or the 8400. Any comments?
>

It's the camera I'd buy if I wasn't going to buy a Pentax *ist DS. I preferred
the 8800 over the Oly 8080.

--
--
Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia

My Digital World:
Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

 

[Tellme]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:05:26 -0000, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

>Nancy C Kenfield wrote:
>> I want something I can keep "on" me and get decent shots when I can't
>> haul around my whole kit...DSLR and includes lenses from itsy-close
>> on up to 'way off. (sorry, I get tired of techno-speak(-; ) The
>> point is, it's lots o' gear.
>> I have been doing a lot of documentary work lately, and I am already
>> hauling a camcorder around.
>> Anyway, I am looking at the Nikon 8800. Or the 8400. Any comments?
>
>Mainly wide-angle and fast focussing? 8400.
>
>Mainly telephoto? 8800
>
>The 8400 may well be the more general purpose camera, and it's smaller and
>lighter. The 24mm wide-angle may get you more involved with your subject.
>
>Cheers,
>David
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Please don't put your question in the title.

If you have a long zoom lens, do you want to be without image
stabilisation?

You could also ask for comparative comments in:

rec.photo.digital.zlr

David

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Why should a person not put a question in the subject?




"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:36pleeF4ur4smU1@individual.net...
> Please don't put your question in the title.
>
> If you have a long zoom lens, do you want to be without image
> stabilisation?
>
> You could also ask for comparative comments in:
>
> rec.photo.digital.zlr
>
> David
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 00:28:54 GMT, in rec.photo.digital "cambium"
<info@bimo.com> wrote:

>Why should a person not put a question in the subject?

Specifically, in this case you replied to a message, changed the
subject and put absolutely nothing in the message itself. People who
use a real threaded newsreader will have it listed under the thread of
the original subject. There is absolutely nothing to quote in the
reply as well.
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http/EdwardGRuf.com