fu_ren

Get $10,000 worth of Canon stuff and enjoy the rest of the money.

If Henry Cartier Bresson swore by the 50mm for general photography, I swear by this 400 for nature & wildlife.

Tired of waiting for the D200, I bought the 20D instead. It's one heck of camera, man! Took a while to get used to the feel of a Canon body ... I mean haven't held, cuddled, stroke and gripped Nikons for almost three decades.

Invest in a 20D and get that Canon 400mm F5.6L USM. I don't think anyone will ever regret it. It focusses with lightning speed and if you are well-versed with it, your misses will very, very small.

So does that mean that this coating will result in better quality photos? Does this happen

often in digital images? I would really like to see an example of this defect in a photo.

So presumably the rear element of this lens (and perhaps many others) aren't seriously

coating meaning just an anti-reflective coating and not full multi-coating permitting 99%

of light transmission. Is Canon 100-400L's rear element(s) fully multi-coated?

Thanks Jean. Wonder what the extra rear coating(s) does to the image? I haven't got this

lens but curious to know if the existing ones not have any coating or just not multi-

coated?

Any optical explanation as why this is necessary for digital images? Presumably all the

more expensive lenses have

this as standard feature. Or is it just a marketing ploy?

Hi Guys and Gals,

 

Can anyone comment on this newly released Sigma 50-500? I know it's a bit early but has

anyone actually got his or her hands on it yet? It's supposed to have a new type of coating

but not sure if the groupings are the same as its predecessor.

Perhaps a fair approach to this question is toughness and durability.

If you are into rough usage - shooting thousands of photos a week with the drive, bashing

about in the bush, working in extreme weather conditions amongst other things, then at

the end of the day the D70 wouldn't be much of a camera left. But the D2 will still be

around ... and still working.

 

If you are like me, now an amateur, who shoots only about 300 frames a week (or less),

never expose the camera to rain or snow, keeps it in nice camera bag and treats it like a

fair lady, then you would be better off with a D70.

Hopefully more goodies will be produced in Thailand and China because it will be cheaper

for everybody - the production costs (wages, land cost, etc) are lower.

 

So long as there is good QC and well trained local people, I can assure you NO PROBLEMS.

The head office (Japan) carrying the name of the brand will never allow things to go out of

hand for it's to their detriment. Zeiss microscopes are now made in China.

 

And BTW, it does not mean that anything made in the developed countries are always

superior..

Hi, all you people out here, has anyone heard any more about this Tamron lens like when

is it going to be released, a detailed review, etc?

Those Nikon lenses that are designed for professional use are really solid in construction

and produces superb picture quality with excellent contrast second to none.. They are

durable and reliable in those crucial moments. So is their professional line of cameras.

Nikon is consistent in producing good quality stuff although they may be a bit slower in

incorporating high tech stuff in their production line than Canon.

 

Nikon used to have (still have?) a slogan that says, "We take the world's greatest pictures."

You can't fault this statement because it's not untrue.

 

I am a Nikon user and often marveled (even envious at times) at Canon's rather lavish

venture into innovations which tend to produce products that often are inconsistent like

they would use a CCD chip for models at 35 mm format, others at 1.6x or 1.3x of that

frame size.

 

Nikon, on the hand, adheres strictly to a format 1.5x that of a 35 mm frame.

 

I mean, as a analogy, Tokina is more like Nikon and Sigma more like Canon.

 

 

At the end of the day, photographers will decide whether they prefer lavish innovation or

conservative adherence. Or both.

What sort of birds are you primarily interested in photographing? Shore birds, forest birds,

birds of open country, garden birds or urban birds?