> > > 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. >
Yes, I like to shoot CART/IRL races and NHRA drag races, yacht racing etc. These are really the only times I need a 600mm or longer focal length lens. I very frequently shoot wide open or 1 stop down to get maximum isolation of the cars at speed. I don't own an EF 600 4L though I've exposed a few frames with one, it's too darned heavy to lug around. I use an EF 300 2.8L and EF 2x or an EF 400 2.8L and EF 1.4x and EF 2x for these long usually, head-on shots down a long straight. The EF 300 2.8L/EF 2x combo used wide-open is not as good optically as the EF 400 2.9L/EF 1.4x but can still produce impressive images on a moderate size print. I don't write anything just for the sake of argument but from draw on problems and successes I've had in shooting under certain conditions and situations. > > >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. > Oh, you didn't mention the use of flash. Using a flash and IS to improve the ratio of ambient to flash seems to work well. For flash use IS can definitely help to a limited degree to achieve this ratio improvement and the flash does freeze subject motion until they move faster than your shutter speed would normally allow. I suppose that to get the shot you can throw away any images where subject motion was a problem, I know I have. I've never shot a wedding ceremony but I have been to a whole bunch of them and every once in a while I have seen an assistant shooting candid off a monopod with available light usually during the ceremony. > >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 stabilized the camera and > lens. What you describe are situations a fast shutter speed would > fix. Two > entirely different ideas. > Okay. > >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. > Here we differ quite a bit. As I wrote before there is no one single feature that could make me buy into a camera system. I want and need more than this. Nikon fans usually will claim that Nikon AF is faster and better. From what I can tell the EOS line has pretty much always had an AF performance edge in the top models except for the period from the F5's intro to the time of the EOS 1v's intro. AF speed and IS are nice but I based my choice on are other things too like the body ergonomics and lens line-up, which IS became a big part of for many. I had an EF 300 4L IS and like I said have used EF 300 2.8L IS and EF 70-200 2.8L IS lenses but I'm not rushing out to replace my existing EF 300 2.8L and EF 70-200 2.8L any time soon based on what IS offers for my shooting situations and results on film. > 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. > I'm still waiting for Canon's digital cameras to get there though the resulting output of the D60 are fairly good though not good enough for me to buy one yet. I cannot say much on the subject of Nikon's D1X vs. EOS 1D but have seen a friend's D1X images and they are very good for digital but IMO still not quite there. > >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 > Please don't think there is any put down intended, I value like to enjoy hearing your ideas and opinions as I do many of the others who post here. You seem to have strong experience to support your arguments though sometimes our opinions will differ. That's why they are called opinions, we are all entitled to have them. 8^) Regards, Chip Louie * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
