jay dougherty

Now that a few people have this camera, can you give some feedback.

Hoe long is battery life? How about dust on the sensor? Rear lcd?

General operation? Good points? Would love to get feedback before

plunking down big bucks on this. Is the D60 good enough?

My opinion: $50 for a plate is absurd, insulting, ridiculous. That's one reason why I went with the Bogen QR system. $10 for a plate is just overpriced, not absurd.

Canon 500mm: 8.5 lbs. Canon 600mm: 11.8 lbs. Is the extra weight that big a deal?

Why 3 500 lenses?

This might sound like a buyer's remorse question, but it is only

partially. I got the Canon 500mm f/4 IS lens thinking that the larger

600 would be too heavy and therefore left at home in the end. But I

do find myself wanting to photograph small birds and get close, and

it's clear to me early on that the 500 is too short for this, even

with the 1.4x, if I want to get in tight. On the other hand, I'm

liking the mfd of the lens and its *relative* portability. I have a

Wimberley and am very happy with that, as well as a Gitzo 1329 - like

that as well. Should I just invest more in technique, blinds, etc.,

to get closer, or am I really just putting off the inevitable and

sacrificing the quality of my shots by not going directly to the

600mm f/4 IS? What have been your thoughts / experiences with this

dilemma?

I have the 500mm f/4L IS and the 1.4x. I know that with the 2x I'll

lose autofocus, but could anyone who has used this combo comment on

the pros and cons of the setup? Is image quality maintained to some

reasonable degree?

Wimberley tripod head.

>>Let me inflame a lot of people by made a definitive statement: at the end of the day there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the two: the differences are imperceptable.<<

 

I use both Canon and Nikon systems, and I disagree totally. There's as much substantive difference between Canon and Nikon as there is between the words "dimes" and "dime's." Ahem.

 

Photos coming from Canon systems have a Canon look; Canon's IS lenses, especially the big glass, enable shots that the Nikon system cannot currently approach.

Shun, I already have both systems. I've done and do macro work with both and don't prefer one over the other. I bought into Canon primarily for its long IS lenses, which Nikon hasn't deigned to offer. The long macro lenses from both companies seem a toss-up on paper. Pity that we don't have IS on these long lenses. I feel it helps - certainly doesn't hurt.

I'm in the enviable (I suppose) position of being able to choose a

long macro lens for the work I do. I can use either Canon or Nikon.

What I'm wondering is, after reading all the threads that deal with

either but not both together, which one is better? Has anyone used

both and walked away with a preference?

Someone suggested I post this query here.

 

Does anyone know whether Canon silently "improves" its IS technology

without a major announcement. Take the 300 f/4L IS, for example. This

lens has been out for a few years. Has the original IS implementation

in this lens been upgraded in any way? Any info is appreciated.