Shun Cheung , Most participants used the D700 and D300 or Canon 1D/1Ds Mark III and 40D/50D. Lanting himself was using a D300 although I know he has a D3. Apparently he prefers the crop factor for the longer reach (as some wildlife photographers do). Lanting was also using a 200-400mm/f4 AF-S with a 1.7x TC, stopped down a bit at higher ISO (e.g. 1600) during the day. I asked him about that, and he does not mind using high ISO outdoors. I think he is right that it is more important to get the right shot than worrying about small quality differences. I tried the same thing with a 1.4x on my 200-400 at effective f8 (stopped down 1 stop), 1/500 sec and ISO 800 and got pretty good results at 9 to 10am.This is an excerpt from a post over at Photo.net Nature Forum. I found this interesting for many reasons. 1) Frans Lanting is one of the worlds best landscape and wildlife photogs. His images speak for themselves, so he isn't a lab rat who test cameras rather than creating images with them. If you are not familar with his work go to any bookstore, and the photography section will be filled with his books. 2) The goes against the popular sentiment that using a full frame sensor and cropping down yields the same or better image as a native cropped sensor. Afterall, I am willing to bet Frans Lanting has compared the two options in real world shooting. 3) It verifies the fact that high ISO mainly falters in "bad" light. As I've noted the K10D (as an example) is quite clean if the exposure is spot on, and even cleaner if the lighting is good. Where it breaks down is in the shadows or in marginal lighting where camera movement coupled with noise erode IQ significantly. I found it interesting but not surprising from the text that he was advocating going with a higher ISO rather than pushing the limits of camera shake and mirror vibration with a super tele. 4) Finally, this is like pouring gasoline on a fire as it fuels the debate of whether full frame sensors are infact so superior that camera companies will be doing us an injustice by continuing to produce cropped sensors, all the while keeping us down with inferior hardware. I've noted a few times that APS-C sales have not taken a hit in market share despite there being 4-7 (4 from Canon and Nikon, 1 from sony, 1 in 2 mounts available on the used market from Kodak) full frame cameras available. My thoughts are if full frame was so vastly superior, no one would use APS-C sensors, and yet we have a clear example of someone who is at the top of his field of photography prefering this size sensor. Your thoughts?