***This was one of my big issues, as the photography world is split over this and both sides seem very admit about their opinion.



Yes, they are split. The people who own camera brands that use in-lens (Canon/Nikon) say it is superior, the people who own in-body brands (the rest) say it is superior. Strange huh? LOL



***I planned on getting a good body with kit lens and one of the 90-105 macros that you have recommended to others so I think any of the major brands would have me covered.



I might consider getting just the body and the Sigma 17-70DG. It has decent macro capability and is supposed to be very sharp. With this one lens you could get all your needs met. Even if you want to get a dedicated macro later, the Sigma 17-70 is superior to all the kit lenses that cameras come with.





***I have played around with the Canon, Nikon and Sony a little. I did not care for the feel of the Canon. It just felt awkward for me, I am not sure what it was. The Nikon and the Sony felt great.



That's one of the primary reasons I have Sony. I just don't like the feel of most Canon cameras.



*** From what I have read, it seems the Sony A300 has one of the most logical "live view systems". How is this feature important in the scheme of things?



I think this is one of these features that you love if you have, but don't miss if you don't. It does make it easier to get down on ground level with herps.



*** Here is where I need the help. Which camera will do this the best indoors, with flash and outdoor herps? Everyone seems to have a different opinion, but they aren't herpers.



I have seen great herp shots taken with DSLRs from Minolta, Sony, Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Pentax. All of them make the things you need (except minolta anymore since they were bought by sony). Don't let this be a criterion - you can get great shots with any of these brands.



I have tentatively narrowed my choices to the Sony and the Nikon and am leaning toward the Sony. You recommend waiting for the A/350. Would you recommend paying the extra and getting the A700.



Well, I am biased since I have the 700 and it is the greatest camera I have ever owned, bar none. I wouldn't trade it for any other camera on the market. But, it is more expensive. If cost isn't a huge issue, then heck yeah, get the Alpha 700! Of course, the Nikon D300 is getting a LOT of good press, but again it is a little more expensive again.



Would the kit lens that comes with the A700 allow me to take pictures of hatchlings for my web site or would they be to small?



I don't like the kit lens that comes with the Sony cameras (the 18-70). I own it and don't use it. It doesn't get very close and it isn't sharp. Some kits come with the Zeiss 16-80 which is an excellent lens, but a bit more expensive.

Both of these focus down to 1:4 (which means you can fill the frame with something the size of about 4 inches across). Of course, with a 10MP or larger sensor, there is plenty of room to crop down to smaller sizes and still keep excellent quality.



Another lens to look at which gets good reviews is the new Tamron 18-250. It focuses down to 1:3.5 (about 3.5 inches will fill the width). But it also has the advantage of giving you the range of 27-375mm. That's impressive range for under $500 and it is apparently pretty sharp across that range.



Good luck with the decision. No matter what you choose, you should be very happy.



Chris
-----
Chris Harrison

San Antonio, Texas

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]