At 07:07 PM 6/18/01 , Pattie Anderson wrote:
>I was thinking I had until Christmas to talk him down to the EOS-3, but I've
>been doing some reading, and finding all kinds of good things about the
>1V -- especially for sports. If he's serious about getting me the 1V,
>should I talk him out of it?
Sports and wildlife are just about the only two subjects in which you're
always wishing for a longer, faster (and lighter) lens. Sure, your 300/4
is a nice start, but if you're taking pictures of sports indoors, you need
f/2.8 or better. Just one stop makes a huge difference when you're taking
pictures indoors, when you're sometimes pushing your film to EI 3200, and
still only getting 1/250th of a second, even with fast glass. And if
you're really going to get serious about sports, the thing to get is a
300/2.8 or better.
At twice the price, the 1V really isn't worth it unless you're earning a
living with it, and it certainly isn't twice the camera the 3 is. My
suggestion would be to save the whopping $800 difference between the two
bodies and start saving up for a long 2.8, 70-200/2.8 (if you don't already
have one), and Canon's 1.4x and 2x extenders. Don't forget the handheld
light meter, such as Minolta's Auto Meter IV F.
Don't make the very amateur mistake of thinking the body is more important
than the glass. The photo magazines love to push bodies because that's
where their ad revenue comes from, but it just ain't true. I've seen
someone with an F5 and a Tamron 200-400/5.6. Not smart at all.
Devin
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
