Though just to show how using those feature can put you out of practice, I was showing some folk how I speed focus my MX and noticed that because I have not been shooting a lot lately I had to really think about what I was doing. If I was shooting a lot, but using an autofocus camera I would find myself in even worse condition. It is so easy to fall out-of-practice at things you are not doing all the time. There are a lot of highly developed skills in serious photography that very easily become rusty if you are not using them constantly.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: John Mustarde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
As a long time owner of big glass, and admirer of Art Morris' work and
teachings, I agree: anyone wanting to be a player in the nature
photography field needs to go head to head with the equipment used by
his peers. As of today this means Canon and only Canon. 600/4 IS
USM plus 1.4 and 2x TC, flash bracket and flash extender, Wimberly
head or video head, top line Gitzo tripod, then after receiving that
multi-thousand dollar lens go buy some camo tape and wrap it up.
Why do you need IS with the Rock of Gibraltar under your lens?
All the big-glass pros I know that use Canon don't have the IS versions
of the lenses yet, and some of them are bird photographers.
For most other kinds of action photography, I understand that most
pros have the IS taped "off" as all it does is eat batteries.
BTW, almost none of the guys I have talked to use the "manual override"
feature of USM lenses much if at all because the AF is usually right--maybe it's different with bird photography. If your MF skills
are inferior to the camera's AF, overriding the AF normally gets you
in trouble anyway.
If you don't need IS, Nikon has competitive glass and other system
features. Minolta might have the glass, AF, and drive speed too--I haven't looked lately. If you don't need AF, Pentax and probably Leica
are viable. Remember, prior to the EOS system people DID make a living
at nature photography. It may still be possible if you are skilled enough, I don't know. I'll admit that with a 400 my MF isn't great, and
I've never played with a 600 or 800. I've always found that a working
automobile is a more critical business investment for me than a telescope.
The 400/4 DO is a neat lens, but has not been widely adopted yet by those in the know.
I've heard nasty rumors about the sharpness of the DO lenses, which may
have something to do with it. The primary advantage of DO--small size--does not seem to be a major issue to guys who carry a 600/4 into
the field.
If one wants to go be serious about nature photography as a business, or a form of self-employment, Pentax would not be the system of choice. However, that does not mean that Pentax can't match photo for photo with Canon and Nikon - it's just not the best business decision.
I'll agree here that at the long focal lengths it makes more sense for
a professional action photographer to buy Canon or Nikon to get better AF and motor drive ability. Given what you can sell big Pentax glass for, I suspect that it might even make sense to sell a big Pentax lens to help
pay for a big N or C lens. Lets face it, compared to a $6500-8000 lens
investment most of us don't have enough money tied up in our Pentax systems to not switch under these conditions.
That does not mean that you can't get great pix with the big Pentax glass if you happen to have it.
DJE
-- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
