don_baccus

<p>"long for a digital sensor that gives me the DR of the Kodak Ektar 100 film that I use (all too rarely these days)."<br> <br> Just found one article touting dynamic range of ektar being "between 8 and 12 stops", Canon sensors currently average around 11.7 stops if my information is correct. Sony supposedly is 14 stops. What are you doing that boosts that DR of ektar? You're not printing it on photo paper...</p>

<p>In anticipation of your next question, it's an *adult* black-crowned night heron :)</p>

<p>You can't sex it. On a notecard, I'd just say "green heron". </p>

<p>"Interesting that they do not seem intent on replacing the 5DIII."<br> <br> The door's open for a 5D4, rumored to be announced later this year. It's pretty obvious both from the specs and from Canon's announcement materials and interviews that they didn't intend that the 5DS be a replacement for the 5D3, but rather a high megapixel alternative for those who feel like they need it.<br> <br> I don't at the moment, I'm very happy with my 7D2, but if I choose to get back to selling landscapes in galleries again I would find it very interesting. Canon's typical 11+ stops DR has never felt particularly limiting to me having grown up shooting slide film for publication ...<br> </p>

<p>It could be just as simple as the fact that it's a 5DIII chassis with just a few changes made internally - different sensor, different mirror box, different connector (for USB3), different processors. Each of these changes directly support the higher MP spec of the camera. I suspect they just vetoed anything that didn't do so, and keeping the same chassis without any modifications lowers costs. And the introductory price of this thing is very reasonable considering B&H still lists the 5DIII at $3099 (yes, other places have it cheaper, but also yes, I think the 5DS will drop in price in the first year after release unless the yen makes a spectacular recovery).</p> <p>I'll be amazed if the upcoming (rumored) 5DIV doesn't have GPS. That's where I'd expect to see wholesale changes on the scale of, say, the 7D to 7D II.</p>

<p>Along with second-hand lenses (my 600/4 MK II was bought used from KEH, and I've bought two used items from Lens Authority, and a used 85/1.8 from a private seller, all are in excellent condition), consider Canon refurbished lenses. </p>

<p>Joseph Dickerson, no, I don't know him. Looks like he retired some time ago, and I only started coming down here (from Portland, OR) regularly for weeks at a time about 3-4 years ago (and am just completing my move down here).</p>

<p>JDM von Weinberg:</p> <p>"EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS <strong>II</strong> USM = $2,199.00<br> EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS (I) USM = $1,699.00"<br> While I don't know what Antonio is paying for his Antarctic trip, most pay $10K+ if traveling from the US (not including airfare), which is why it is a once-in-a-lifetime experience for most.<br> So if he's thinking of selling the 70-200/2.8 I'd suggest he buy the new 100-400L. As others have noted, it appears as though it will be about as good with the 1.4x as the old one was without.<br> I photograph a lot from boats ranging from about 70 feet to much smaller zodiac-style ones on often fairly rough sea water on a frequent basis. I think the twist style zoom's better for shooting on a boat (and while at antarctica there are landings, there are also typically times when one shoots whales and other marine mammals from zodiacs, and opportunities for photographing pelagic birds from the ship itself). The reason I feel this way (and I owned a copy of the push-pull 100-400 for awhile) is that you can securely brace yourself and zoom without shifting your hand position with the twister, while pushing and pulling requires moving your front hand back-and-forth. Turning a ring just seems easier to me, and as I say, I've used both.<br> Antonio, I use the 300/4 on salt water a lot and I've been very happy with it. Good quality, it has survived bumps and drops without a problem (well, the built-in lens hood is a mess, but we'll ignore that, stuff happens when you drop things and it's just the hood's locking ring). But I'm switching to the new 100-400 for my boat work.<br> Remember, you're going to be in a harsh environment, so you want to avoid changing lenses as much as possible. If you can possibly take two bodies, one with something shorter, then the 100-400, the only lens-changing you'd probably need to do would be to add/remove the 1.4x depending on the situation.</p>

<p>I'll add my two bits - I use my 70-200/4L IS two-to-several times a week photographing marine wildlife on Monterey Bay, this year from a 33-foot rigid-hull inflatable ("big zodiac-style") boat, previous couple of years on larger boats, frequently from fairly wildly-swinging upper decks. I also use longer glass, this acts as my lens for those times when things approach closely.<br> Lots of bumps against hulls, superstructures, rails, etc - Monterey Bay often has swell in the 6-10 foot range with wind chop on top. Dropped it very recently a few days after I got my 7D MK II (oops) on the boat, and both camera and lens bounced harmlessly (it took my heart a bit longer to retract itself from high up in my throat ...).<br> So I wouldn't worry about its build quality. It's also very sharp. I like the lightness of it.</p>

<p>I also suggest spending time in Canyonlands if you have the time and don't mind hiking with your 4x5 and other gear. Especially the Needles district. A lot of spectacular stuff and not many people. There's a small campground you can use as a base there.</p> <p>But if your time is limited, the eye candy in Arches is more accessible, and of course the number of arches is unsurpassed.</p>