Felix
> Do you prefer pathetic red, or pathetic pink or any other pathetic
color?
No: black will do. It's good enough for N*k*n ...
Pink would be even dumber than white ;o)
> Cosmetic is really so important?
If you have to ask that you probably will not understand the answer.
For many types of photography WHITE gets you noticed more than BLACK.
It stands out as different when you want to merge in. As to why
white:
The heat excuse is little more than that, an excuse. The real reason I
suspect is for Canon's benefit, to make the lenses stand out in a
crowd.
>Most of us have used Canon lenses without IS, Nikon owners do still,
and some of us
>taking nice pics. Take advantage of what you have.
Since 99% of my photos are taken from a tripod / beanbag I'm wondering
where to start answering your *statement*. At present I spend a lot
of time "taking advantage of what I have". I don't have any IS and
for most purposes consider it incredibly inferior to a decent tripod.
Indeed, for close-up / macro I doubt very much if it will ever be of
use.
But: there is one area where I would like the IS. That is for
panning flight shots of birds where a tripod does not give the
flexibility to smoothly follow the beastie. At present I do those
with a non-IS 200 (or 300).
Where is the URL of your web site btw: I'd like to see some examples
of your work. Often the use people put their cameras to explains
their stances on issues like this ;o)
Bob
http://www.st-abbs.fsnet.co.uk/pf/
>
> Kind regards
>
> Felix
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
