<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Three Full-Frame DSLR Cameras</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.a1phototips.com/three-full-frame-dslr-cameras/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.a1phototips.com/three-full-frame-dslr-cameras</link>
	<description>Digital Photography Tips</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:16:09 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: rimbaud</title>
		<link>http://www.a1phototips.com/three-full-frame-dslr-cameras#comment-35</link>
		<dc:creator>rimbaud</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:56:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.a1phototips.com/?p=361#comment-35</guid>
		<description>I'd like to see a compact (micro four thirds?) camera with a full sensor.  Using a purely LCD viewfinder may need some getting used to, but I like the idea of the reduction in moving parts (mirror mechanism) in front of the sensor. Isn't it the wysiwyg future?  What are the good reasons for retaining an optical Thru The Lens viewfinder?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d like to see a compact (micro four thirds?) camera with a full sensor.  Using a purely LCD viewfinder may need some getting used to, but I like the idea of the reduction in moving parts (mirror mechanism) in front of the sensor. Isn&#8217;t it the wysiwyg future?  What are the good reasons for retaining an optical Thru The Lens viewfinder?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.a1phototips.com/three-full-frame-dslr-cameras#comment-26</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:17:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.a1phototips.com/?p=361#comment-26</guid>
		<description>@&lt;a href="#comment-25" rel="nofollow"&gt;John&lt;/a&gt;:  I see... yes, I just wrote about these since it's interesting to me and the entry-level market is so complex. There are others who specialize on camera reviews, I don't. 
I think the point about good quality at high ISO is rather important though, like keeping an eye on what lenses you can get.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@<a href="#comment-25" rel="nofollow">John</a>:  I see&#8230; yes, I just wrote about these since it&#8217;s interesting to me and the entry-level market is so complex. There are others who specialize on camera reviews, I don&#8217;t.<br />
I think the point about good quality at high ISO is rather important though, like keeping an eye on what lenses you can get.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://www.a1phototips.com/three-full-frame-dslr-cameras#comment-25</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:48:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.a1phototips.com/?p=361#comment-25</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the info on the new models. I am looking at Digital SLR cameras, but do you think the higher price is really worth the improved picture? This site http://www.dslrcamerareviews.com was OK, but looking for more advice. I would be more into entry level, and not those more expensive ones you touched on. thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the info on the new models. I am looking at Digital SLR cameras, but do you think the higher price is really worth the improved picture? This site <a href="http://www.dslrcamerareviews.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.dslrcamerareviews.com</a> was OK, but looking for more advice. I would be more into entry level, and not those more expensive ones you touched on. thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
