jay_horton

Don't forget that Art has about a billion slides in inventory already, which is a major factor considering that many markets still want slides.

I believe that the statement about Canon forcing him to switch is completely erroneous and non-sensical. A photographer of that caliber would NEVER allow equipment discounts to dictate the direction of his work. The idea is lucdicrous.

Sorry I don't know the answer to your tripod question.

Just wanted to make sure you knew that B & H currently has three like-new, 600 f4L non-IS lenses in the used department for $ 5,495.

Only you can decide if IS on that lens is worth $ 1,500 to you, but I personally can not imagine handholding that beast anyways.

While I think the 1V is worth every penny of it's lofty price tag, I would not recommned springing for it unless you already have every single top quality lens you will need.

Don't be one of those geeks with a two-thousand dollar body and a hundred-dollar zoom lens. You know the ones I mean, you can see them leaving any Ritz camera most every day.

I bought two 3's from B&H for $ 599 each as, ' Factory Refurbs.' This was when the 3's were $ 1,100 each new. One had a hinky film transport right out of the box and was promptly replaced under warranty.

I can't imagine that there will be another generation of pro film cameras with any sort of substantial improvement over what is currently available.

Where would the market be for such a camera????

A digicam with all the features and specs of the 1VHS and a price under two-grand. That is my guess at the next, big thing. Even I would have to go digital......

I know nothing abut the camera business, but I find it impossible to believe that Nikon or Canon produce pro bodies which are not profitable??????? What would the point be?

Uhhh...Every potential combo you mention is as slow or slower than your current lens.

VR will gain you hand-holding ability at slightly slower shutter speeds, the others will gain you a lighter wallet.

Marcus, the speed only matters if you need it. A soft picture in natural light is better than no picture, or a blurry picture fron not enough shutter speed, or worse yet, having to resort to flash.

If you are looking for a landscape lens in good light, I would stick with the Canon, no doubt.

Just for giggles, here is a quick and dirty scan of one of a herd of giraffes, shot with the Sigma 20 wide open on Reala:

http://home.attbi.com/~jayhorton/giraffe600.jpg

Here is one stopped down to 5.6:

http://home.attbi.com/~jayhorton/epcot600.jpeg

I own the Sigma 20 f1.8 for EOS. It is a fine lens for the $$. As many say, it is soft wide open, but you do gain a stop and a half over the Canon with it. It is fine when stopped down. My impression is that it generates slightly warmer tones than my Canon lenses.

The 24 also has the advantage of taking 77mm filters, which match all of the Canon L zooms, while the Canon 24 takes 67 or 72, ( I forget which?)

The build quality seems what you would expect for the money, not on par with the L lenses, but at least the equal of the Canon consumer lenses.

The Sigmas have one odd handling defect, in that you have to move two switches to change from AF to MF.

Expect to lose some money if you decide to resell it.

My prediction: Canon will keep making film bodies as long as people will buy them.

Prediction Two: People will keep buying them until the entire print industry goes digital. And then some.

Prediction Three: We are at least five, and maybe as many as ten years away from a full-frame digital SLR that will contain all the functionality of an EOS 3 and sell for the same amount of money, currently around $ 800.

Observation: Statements like, " There is really nothing else they can do to improve film cameras," really make me scratch my head.

How about a film camera as well-built as the 1Vs which retails for under a grand, for starters? How about focus points placed where you can really use them, instead of cramming 45 in the center of the frame? How about combining that with 100% consistent ECF? How about voice-controlled selection of all those things that are now controlled by the ludicrous double wheel system?

Have some imagination...........

I use both the 300 F4 IS and the 70-200 f2.8 non-IS, along with TC 1.4x version I. I switched over from Contax RX about 18 months ago, primarily due to Contax weakness at 200mm and up.

I know nothing about lens testing and ratings. 300 IS is remarkably sharp, much more so thatn Zeiss 180 f2.8 Sonnar, and 70-200 f4 Vario Sonnar. 300 f4 IS plus TC 1.4 is still very sharp, more so than 180 Sonnar plus Mutar II. It is especially sharp with the TC if you stop down even a tad to f6.3 or 7.1.

If you will always shoot from a tripod, you could save a couple of bucks with 300 non-IS, but don't overlook the improved close-focus ability of the IS version. It is very useful for shooting things like close-ups of flowers, etc.

Some people purport that 70-200 plus TC 1.4 combo to be sharp, but that is not my experience.

Another major consideration when going from Contax to Canon is color rendition and contrast. The Canon lenses are excellent in this respect, but I fear that you would not be happy with the third-party lenses, regardless of the increases speed.

I had the exact same problem with a new in box Canon re-furb that I bought from B & H. They replaced it for me with another one.

My guess is that you will need to send this camera to Canon service department.

No, no, no.

" L," stands for, " Lotsa."

It is a reference to the amount of cash you are going to have to part with;-)

If you already have the 70-200, why not get either the 400 f5.6 or 300 f4 IS plus TC 1.4? Both will give you better sharpness and less weight.

Everybody has gone zoom crazy, that's why.

How did anyone ever get good pictures prior to the zoom era??

I think you are mistaken in the concept that wide-angle lenses are used mostly for landscapes. They are indispensible for journalistic-type photography of people. In that situation, a wide aperture becomes very useful in low light.

I recently did Disney World with the Sigma 20mm f1.8 as my only lens. It is my new favorite travel lens, ( Although next time, I will carry something around 100mm too.) Shooting inside stores, rides, etc., with 100-speed film, the meter was often suggesting f1.8 at 1/30. If my max aperture had been f2.8, the necessary shutter speed would have been between 1/15th and 1/6th. Because I was forced to shoot handheld, I would have missed some great shots, or I would have been forced to shoot the dreaded 400-speed film.

I shoot a pair of EOS 3's one with PB-E1. I use the big one for long lenses or if I need the FPS, and shoot static subjects with the body with no booster.

Except for the previously mentioned battery advantage in cold weather, I would avoid the PB for most landscape situations.

It works really well for me at times, but does require quitea bit of calibration.

It also helped to cut back the number of active focus points from 45 to 11.

There is one major advantage to the 1v over the 3 and that is the speed of AF and especially focus tracking. If you want to shoot moving subjects, birds, animals, sports, etc., I think there is plenty of reason to spring for the 1v. The AF speed, combined with the film advance speed will defiitely get you more keepers.

Focus tracking with EOS 3 and lenses of max aperture of f4 or greater is so slow as to be nearly useless.

ECF is very handy though, and if you are shooting static/slow subjects, there is a lot of value in the 3.

I shoot two 3's and one PB-E1 booster. A booster is really necessary if you are shooting long lenses/IS a lot.

And now for something completely different:

Used 200 f2.8

Used 300 f4

Used TC 1.4 I

500+650+200=$ 1,550.

No compromises in image quality.

If you can afford it, and prefer a zoom in those handy lengths, substitute the 70-200 f2.8 for the prime.

Regarding the incompatibility issues between Sigma lenses and Canon bodies, there are really only a few instances of this which have been repeated so many times on photo.net, that it seems like there are a lot more of them.

Still, in this instance, I would definitely buy the Canon f4, unless you really need the speed. If you need to polarize frequently, it gets hard to focus such a small lens. It also gets tricky/impossible to hand hold at the long end in low light if you like slower-speed films.

Too many people on this forum just don't seem to realize that everyone can't afford all Canon L glass.

I would buy the Sigma before I would buy the old Canon 80-200 f2.8.

Yes.

This thing is a mess, and virtually nothing is being added to the long-term database.

The Moderated DB is woefully short on up to date info on lots of stuff, and as long as there is an un-moderated DB, I don't see that changing.

I use my 300 f4 IS primarily on windswept sandy beaches, and so far no, ' Horrifying scratching noises,' for me.

I think it is fairly obvious that if you are only going to shoot from a tripod, there is no benefit to IS, but there is still benefit to close focus.

IS allos you to shoot sharp pictures hand-held at 1/125, sometimes even 1/60.

Clive, that is a beautiful head shot of the kestrel.

Good enough to convince me to go out and buy a 2x TC II.

Any extension, or just the lens & TC?

Have you tried stacking it with the 1.4 on the 300 f4?

I would agree with a lot of what has already been said.

FYI the Canon 400 f5.6 can be had for around $ 600 used, and is a tack sharp lens, although a bit slow.

I feel that you have been misinformed with regards to the 300 f4 IS. It is an extremely sharp lens, and the IS is quite useful. It also focuses much closer than the old non-IS. This is important when you are trying to fill a 35mm frame with a bird! It also functions very well with both Tc's.

With regards to the durability issue, I think that you may be mistaken. The 300 IS is an, ' L,' lens with superior build quality to the consumer grade 28-135. Pros are lugging these lenses all over the globe, and I have not seen or heard anything negative about their durability.

As has been previously stated, whatever you buy, you are always going to wish that it was at least 500mm!