Canuck57 wrote:
On 26/03/2011 11:01 AM, Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:

Given it has a 55 - 200mm VR lens, that is crap to drive up the price.
Better off with a 70-300mm as digital can do the low end without a fuss
using the regular lenses.

Might you translate that paragraph into standard English?

Are you saying VR is "crap," simply there "to drive up the price?"
If so, on what basis would you make such a statement? What does that
statement mean?

And what does "digital can do the low end without a fuss using the
regular lenses" mean?

The low end of what? Fuss about what? Are you trying to say it would be
better using a fixed focal length prime lens? What focal length? 35mm?
On a Nikon SLR crop sensor, that would be the equivalent of a 52.5 mm or
"normal" lens. It's also a $250 lens.

No, not saying VR is crap. But my not be what she wants/needs. Just that
I would rather have a 70-300mm than a 55-200mm. For others it may be
different. Buying cameras if you are a "pro" is like buying cloths, a
mine field to get it right. One size or style does not fit all.

Means most digital cameras can zoom without lens, thus a low end zoom
becomes obsolete.

Still need to know what she wants it for? Pretty hard to discuss without
knowing why it is needed.


A 70-300 lens without VR is a lot to handhold. So is a 55-200. I have
a Canon 55-250, and even though it is a lighter, consumer lens, it is a
lot to handhold. Fortunately, it has Canon's version of VR.

The little pocket cameras, which I, too, like have optical zooms, but
you can still get better results with a digital SLR, its larger sensor
and larger glass.

I am not going to sit here and try to guess what Herring's adult
daughter might prefer. I suggested a G12 alternative. But Herring's
daughter has a generous father and I'm sure he is attuned to her, and
what sorts of cameras she might prefer.