martin_doudoroff1

One significant difference in terms of the user's experience is that, with in-lens stabilization,

you can see the stabilized image in the viewfinder! With in-body stabilization, the sensor is

stabilized (its position is shifted around based on gyros), so when the shutter opens, hand

shake is accounted for, but that doesn't help you frame or time your shot.

A side-effect of the in-body approach is that the same equipment that shifts the sensor can

(in many bodies) also be used shake dust off the surface of the sensor on power-up.

This is probably not a good time to invest in a new mac mini, new ibook or new powerbook,

as all of these models are expected to be replaced within 6-8 months with Intel processors. I

would at least wait until after January 6, when Apple's intentions may be a bit clearer.

These two cameras are for completely different markets. It would make more sense to

compare the 5D and 1DSMk2 or the 1DMk2N with the 20D.

The 20D sounds like the camera for you. I doubt you'll be disappointed. If you want to hedge

your bets, wait 2-4 months and see if Canon introduces a new model.

Um. No. Will not help. You might get some interesting lens flare effects off the floodlights,

though.

Suman:

The bottom line is that it sounds like you just don't use your 300 f/4 L and 70-200 f/4 L.

If you cannot really imagine that situation changing, then they aren't doing you any good

and you might as well liquidate them.

Sure, you will loose something, in terms or optics, by replacing these two lenses with a

70-300, but would you notice? If you would be happier carrying around comparatively

small 70-300, and therefore USE it, then it makes perfect sense. A great example of why

Canon makes such a diverse range of lenses: photographer's needs are diverse.

I have a Digital Rebel (the original one) and a 5D. If possible, I encourage you to try out both

the 20D and 5D bodies at a camera store. You will find them very similar in most regards,

and their primary differences as machines are obvious. From the tenor of your question, I'd

say the most sensible choice is to buy a 20D (or wait for its rumored imminent replacement)

and save the balance for lenses, which are a MUCH more important set of choices than the

body will ever be. It doesn't sound like you already own a pile of Canon EF lenses, so I

recommend you start with either the kit lens or the 50mm f/1.8 and learn to use the camera

and sort out your needs before doing any serious lens shopping.

It's just an opinion, but this from The Digital Picture's review of the 300/4:

"There has been much talk about the Canon EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens being inferior

to the Canon EF 300 f/4.0 USM Non-IS Lens. I disagree with the rumor. And in my opinion,

IS more than offsets any image quality difference between these two fine lenses."

I can't confirm whether the tripod collars are exactly the same as I don't have the 300 f/4,

yet, but they sure do LOOK the same in side-by-side photos. (The 400 f/5.6 seems to

have a completely different collar.) If nobody here can confirm, then a trip to a large photo

dealer and hands-on comparison might be in order.

FWIW, I've shot a 300D for over two years with the even-larger-and-heavier 70-200mm f/2.8

both on a tripod and without, almost never using the tripod ring, and have not witnessed any

stressing of the 300D body.

I'm not sure I've seen a specific optical quality comparison of any of the 70-200 L lenses

WITH the 1.4x extender, against the various ~70-300mm lenses. It would be an

interesting test.

From all the reviews, the optics between the new 70-300mm IS lens and the 70-300 DO

lens seem to be a wash. For best sharpness, you've got to stop down, particularly at the

long end that you're so concerned with.

If you are willing to consider spending $1200 on a 70-300mm DO lens, maybe you should

consider the 70-200mm f/2.8 + 1.4x extender? That will buy you a very fast, as-good-as

-it-gets 70-200mm that's a joy to use and a reasonably fast 98-280mm f/4 lens that

gives you a little extra reach when you need it.

It seems pretty clear that DO lenses are fine lenses, but represent a compromise that

favors lens size and weight over sheer optical quality. They are not cheap lenses, but they

are compact.

In all the comparison tests I've seen around the web, DO lenses consistently fare worse

than L lenses that cover similar focal lengths, and they tend to exhibit a few peculiar

effects under particular circumstances that are all detailed sufficiently elsewhere.

You can certainly take great photos with a DO lens, and if compactness is a priority for

you, they might be worth looking into. If absolute optical performance is your only

priority, then you probably want to look at the L lenses, instead.

Keith's assertion about microdrives is incorrect. The XT uses Type I and Type II compact flash

cards, just like any other Canon DSLR and includes support for CF cards greater than 2GB.

From my perspective, the decision between the XT and 20D is a personal one based on

form factor or features. For example, I ruled out upgrading to the XT from my 300D

quickly, because the camera is simply too small for my hands and my big lenses. Besides, I

was also ready for user interface and viewfinder upgrades (I ended up buying a 5D, which

is very similar to the 20D, and I couldn't be happier.) You will have to make your own

decision. Yes there certainly is a price trade-off between all these bodies, and compared

with film bodies, these bodies cost a fortune. And in the end, the differences have

relatively little to do with image quality.

You've complicated your comparison by including two lenses in the scenario. Given that

you already have two Canon-compatible lenses, my recommendation would be to buy your

digital body without an additional lens. Use what you have with it until you know what

other lenses you want/need.

I like this thread.

What ever happened to eye-controlled autofocus?

I'd also like to see an AE system that provides more real-time metering feedback to the

users so he can set exposure compensation better in the first place (instead of taking a

picture, adjusting and taking another one). I understand that good photographers learn to

do this with their own eyes, but I guess I'm not that good.

I'm going to recommend you consider the 70-200 f/4. That will give you better telephoto

reach, solid image quality, and an extra stop over the 28-135 without being redundant with

the 50mm. If you can pick one up used, you might also be able afford a used wide angle

prime for photographing interiors and the odd landscape.

You're really talking about two switches: film -> digital and Nikon -> Canon. Both have

implications, and former is especially radical. In that light, the comparative nature of your

question doesn't make much sense to me. The first question you have to seriously

contemplate is the switch to digital and all that entails. The second question is whether to

stick with the Nikon system or switch to the Canon system, and all that entails. (Both systems

are excellent, but they are not the same.) Once you've chosen a system, then you can

determine the camera body most appropriate to your needs.

This sounds like a rather academic exercise. Is your camera not autoexposing correctly

under normal use?

Unless you REALLY know what you're doing, it seems pretty unlikely you will succeed in

printing a true 18% gray except by accident. Many variables there including the software,

paper, and ink. To eliminate all those variables, drop by a photo store and pick up a gray

card, which are quite cheap.

Next, there's the metering problem. I don't think the 350D has a spot meter. The camera

may outsmart you in various ways. Also be sure the camera is using the same metering

method in both P and M modes, which may well not be the case.

Lastly, how are determining that the gray subject was ultimately underexposed? Are there

further camera settings and software that may be interfering with your evaluation?

My speculation is that Canon will not invest much further in engineering for their film SLRs,

and that the existing models can be considered the apotheosis of 35mm SLR development.

<p>Fixed version of above link <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

Canon-EF-200mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">here</a></p>

<p>[it would sure be nice if they would fix the form processing code on this durned forum

system so that it would insert spurious spaces into URLs]</p>

This perspective on the 200/2.8L is that it's a good lens, but the author prefers the various

70-200mm zooms for their flexibility.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-

Review.aspx

Putting on my devil's advocate hat, here's a question for you: are you sure you really need a

zoom for this focal range? Will one of these fancy lenses be meaningfully more useful to you

than a 50mm prime on top of the two zooms you already have?

In addition to the 400mm f5.6 L, you might also consider the 300mm f/4 L IS and a 1.4X

extender.

24-70 f/2.8 is faster

24-105 f/4 has more reach

Which is more important to you?

By many accounts, both are excellent lenses.

I'm no optics expert, but I thought I'd read that more than 30-35 megapixels was probably

pointless with 35mm optics.