> > >From: Chip Louie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >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. >
Having recently changed from Nikon to Canon, I have some feelings about this too. I needed (wanted?) a 300/2.8 lens. We all know how costly these are. I was faced with a decision: 1/ Do the obvious thing and buy an Nikon 300/2.8? After all I had three N bodies and many lenses, admittedly many uite venerable in age but perfectly functional. Or . . . 2/ Buy the new Canon IS model. Prices were not much different. Cost of a body is almost negligible compared to the price of the lens. All my decisions should be so tough! Seems to me Canon includes IS on their lenses at a very small premium over what Nikon charges for their non-VR big teles. Other than that the two systems are like peas in a pod, IMO. There is no great ergonomic advantage one over the other and I found no difficulty going from Nikon controls to Canon's. So, Chip, I disagree quite viscerally with your assesment. Image stabilization technology is the one overwhelming advantage offered by Canon over all others makers. I was sufficiently impressed with IS in my Canon binoculars, I retired my Leicas. I was sufficiently impressed with the EF300/2.8L IS, I bought the EF600/4L IS too and sold off all my Nikon AF gear. I could care less if I was shooting Nikon, or Canon . . . other than the IS factor that is! It is the ONLY really significant difference between the two systems as far as I am concerned. Everything else in the N vs C debate is relegated to trivialities. -- Terry Danks Wildlife and Nature Photography http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/danksta/home/htm * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
