Search results

Or train people to use google. Anyway... All Nikon DSLR's summarised here: http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/body/chart/nikon_dslr_chart.html Canon website lets you compare models in the range...

a bit of a premium from the other place you've got it advertised?! I might've been interested but got a dead Astra rally car at the moment that I can't shift :(

Can't you shoot a RAW and a JPG at the same time with Canons?

Nope. D50 has a built in AF motor therefore can be used with all Nikon-fit lenses. D40 doesn't and therefore can only be used with Nikon AF-S lenses (unless you want to manually focus all the time) which are more expensive. So if you want a wider range of cheaper lenses then the D50 is the...

Performance is similar, unless you're a pro I doubt you'd notice any significant difference between the Canon and Nikon in performance terms. Go to a camera shop and see which feels best for you to use and hold.

Nikon D60 with 18-55VR lens ~ £290 + Nikon 55-200 lens for ~ £110.

I'm confused why you've got a Canon 40D in your list which is £500+ just for the body yet haven't got a Nikon D60/D80/D90, all of which are better than a D40. And why a 20D when it went out of production around 3 years ago? What's your budget?

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/ haven't used them myself but ukaskew has said they're good for selling (and buying) stuff.

depends what you mean by better, a RAW file straight off the camera may not be better but after tweaking sharpness and so on then it likely will be. a fairly decent comparison of jpg vs RAW here... http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/raw-vs-jpeg/

RAW files contain raw image data i.e. not compressed/processed. They are therefore more adjustable if you want to fiddle around with white balance and so on afterwards. If you have the camera set to save at jpg fine quality then the camera will process the RAW data and compress it down to a jpg.

The only ones I did recently were from the RAC rally, it was Isle of Man before then I think. Not sure what you mean by "clearer"? Lighting? Focus? As I've said, lighting is crap, they're sharp though - well the originals are, compressing a RAW file into a CS jpg rather loses the quality.

Same camera. Lighting was a bit poo compared to when I was last there, too many shadows and I didn't have my wireless flash controller with me. The scenery in Earlestown doesn't really compare to the Isle of Man or Cumbria either!

Earlestown, where there's a double mini-roundabout near Tesco.

Sorry :o it's just nearly everytime I post a pic I get "needs lowered, needs xenons, needs silvervisions" etc. My mods are inverted power supply, stove, kettle and bed, I don't need the rest! I had xenons on my 172 and for the type of driving I do normal adjustable lights are better as I can set...

Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 gets decent reviews too if you shoot more at the longer end of the zoom.

No silvervisions and hasn't been lowered either. I should be banned from the forum really :S

by the way, if you want to recreate the shot the industrial estate is only around 3 miles away from your location!

10mm lens, 1/125th, f4, ISO320, added vignetting effect afterwards to the RAW file, saved as jpg for here.

Last pics of the year (possibly)

Thanks, taken at various spots in Cumbria.

Took a few pics while driving around...

I heard about the price rise thing too, from someone who works for Jessops. And D300's have dipped below £900 now.... hmmmmm.

Can we have a side-on pan next year as my stickers are blurred on that one :rasp: Andy and Shell are hopefully doing the Sunseeker again in Feb :)

http://www.cliosport.net/forum/showthread.php?t=377352

Rarely, the pics look too "normal" at 20mm so I tend to use it the other end (Sigma 10-20 btw). Not sure if you already have one but what about getting a flashgun?

The 80-200 is built a lot better than the 70-200 from what I've seen. I'm not the only one who's had problems with the 70-200, at least three other rally phots have had to send them back for various repairs. It seems they're not built for frequent use. I have suggested to Nikon that they replace...

Yes and it's the most unreliable piece of crap I've ever owned. Excellent pics when it actually works... which isn't very often. So far it's been back to Nikon for a broken aperture control, corrosion on a supposedly sealed component inside the lens and AF problems. Used it for 2 months after...

thanks for those, is it ok to send them to him?

Nice pics, did you get any of Barry Clark over the Margam jump?