Chip Louie (edited for space):
Hi Peter,
>Well yea, 1/2000 is pretty fast but I'm talking about shooting ISO 100 film
>in the fading light at 600mm and still getting a sharp image of a car
>traveling at 180mph. My use of long lenses are more along these lines.
Hi Chip,
Are you doing Racing photography? Then why F2.8? Most pros I know use the
mid apertures with fast film and rarely use a fixed focal length, especially
600mm. Do you own this lens? Or was this just a rebuttal on your part.
>As to the issue of IS and DOF there is no doubt that you can add DOF to an
>image in low light and still get an excellent image with IS. That is as
>long as you work within the limitations of your subject's motion which IS
>cannot fix no matter how well IS works. Nice, sharp images of church
>interiors with motion blurred brides, grooms and guests must be BIG sellers
>these days. Yes, IS may be able to save you if you didn't think to bring a
>monopod, but who's fault is that anyway?
Chip, that is why they make flash, to freeze the image even when you use
1/30 second to gain some more ambient light. Photography 101.
BTW, no one except amateurs would use a monopod at a wedding.
>I've had the opportunity to shoot out of helicopters with the doors off.
If
>any thing is going to cause blur it's a chopper ride. I had no problems
>without IS in the lenses I used (EF 20-35 3.5-4.5USM, EF 70-200 2.8L, EF
300
>2.8L), and the chromes all came out great. I was on Maui once shooting
>waterfalls and canyons that are only accessible by chopper or horseback, I
>was also over the south end of the island and shot some great white sharks
>swimming along just outside the surf line. Talk about scary, I didn't let
>the kids go out in surf for the rest of the week! I've also shot out of
>light aircraft windows and doors without IS and had no problems with
>airframe induced sharpness problems. Mostly problems caused by the wind
>blowing me and the lenses around, IS wouldn't fix that problem.
You are missing the point. I needed a slightly slower shutter speed to blur
the props but was still able to use it since IS stablized the camera and
lens. What you describe are situtaions a fast shutter speed would fix. Two
entirely different ideas.
>I thought that what makes the "pro" EOS bodies and lenses standout from
>other camera makers' similar offerings is the way Canon's camera body
>technology is so transparent in use, form and system flexibility and the
>incredible reliability of the pro series equipment. To me IS is just a
part
>of these system features and company design philosophy that is so
attractive
>to me.
When Canon had fast AF that was a prime selling point. Now the
differentiation is IS.
Nikon is winning digitally with their D1X and D1H. Nikon uses the Sony CCD,
Canon of course has to reinvent the wheel so they are behind the curve but
the D60 may be the beginning of a viable alternative family of D series
cameras. And yes, the 1D does not have as good image an image as the D1X or
for that matter the D60. Its just faster with a larger burst rate.
>IS or IS like technology is slowly (the NIKON way!), going to be available
>more widely in Nikon lenses. It will take some time but they will slowly
>increase the number of lenses they offer with IS, will you be chasing after
>these too? Myself, I'm more a broad look kid of guy and would never select
>anyone or anything based on only one issue like IS or say abortion.
Chip, I would have agreed except for your last line which you seem to have
put down to again try to discredit me as not "broad looking" as you put it.
Let me say this. I went to Canon because they had IS. Simple.
If this were not available as a differentiator then you look at other
things. Nikon always forgets a feature like mirror lock-up which is only
found in their current line in the F5. Canon has HSS flash but Minolta has
had that for years. Suffice it to say that I would not be as certain as you
in going Canon had it not been for IS. Perhaps the E-TTL would have sold
me? Not sure. HSS? Maybe but as I said Minolta has this as well as wireless
Flash years before it came to Canon. Who knows, maybe even Pentax.
Regards,
Peter K
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
