Eric DeWitt
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I agree with tim, by mid october it has usually settled down quite a bit up there. Honestly, its been about 8 years since i have fished salmon up there, it just ins’t worth it to me for fish that don’t bite. Although, i may take a shot at some of browns behind the spawners this year. If you can push the trip back into november, you will have a much better chance at at steelhead.
If your interested in a guide, which i really do recommend for the river, especially since most of the water is private, and not accessible without tresspassing, talk to Walt Grau, or Jeff Hubbard as was mentioned earlier. The guys at BBT are good too. And, if tyour after steel, they will have a real good handle on where to find them.
Here’s a couple shots of Jeff’s fly boxes.
Touch base with me when your getting closer to the trip, if i’m up there, i’ll give you the tour and maybe even show you a couple secrets.
John, as you can see from the shots, i spent a couple weeks in africa, and it was in the dry season and dang dusty. The camera mostly say along side me or in my lap during the day when we were in the truck, and i didn’t really notice any problems with sucking anything in. I do like the slide zoom too. The ring can be loosened or tightened to the point of locking out movement so that when you are walking aournd/not shooting or whatever, the lens won’t creep out on you.
As far as the 2.8 vs 5.6, when i am shooting wildlife, i usually find myself wishing for more reach alot more often than i am wishing for more light. If its dusk or whatever, i am usually on a tripod anyway, so it becomes a non-issue.
The IS works pretty good, giving you at least a couple stops worth of hand holdability more than normal.
I think if you were doing portraits and maybe “light wildlife”, the 70-200 would be fine. But for serious stuff, i think you will be happier with the 100-400.
Dusty, thanks! Just ignore the dust spots.
John, i can’t say a whole lot about the 70-200 since i don’t have alot of time with it, but i can give a huge thumbs up for the 100-400. If you look at the sizes, 70 is pretty close to 100, but 400 is a long ways from 200, so in that respect maybe the 100-400 is a little more versatile with just having to buy one thing. I also thought when i did the research a couple years ago and don’t you lose some of the AF stuff or something with the converter?
The sharpness, contrast, AF, color of the 100-400 is awesome, but i know the 70-200 is probably in the same class too.
Heres some shots from it.. let me know if you want to see some full size and i will email them over.
You are absolutely right Will, i have been pretty impressed with it so far, too. Since i am certainly not a pro making a living off photo’s, i am usually pretty slow to upgrade, especially if its just for a couple megapixels or a bigger preview screen or something.
These guys have called it right on the PM, there are already a few salmon in the system, and they should really start arriving in the next week or two.
I’m not going to go reread this whole thread to make sure, but i think where you are mixed up john, is that Jay’s quote above was in reference to the 5d”MkII”, not the 1d”MkII”. As far as i know, nobody in this thread is throwing mud on the AF system of the 1D series… and i just saw the d700 for 2300 on amazon, and 2700 on adorama – 2300 is a heck of a deal!
Regardless, and as you said, both are great systems, and the intent of the original question to Jay was to get some input from a real world user on some of the subtle differences between them that can make a difference depending on your intended use for the camera.
/edit.
Thanks jay, it looks like it is going to arrive on saturday, which is a bummer because i will be heading north for the cottage friday afternoon. Maybe i will have to call in sick a day next week!
And John, with all due respect to your fantastic images, I don’t think its fair to compare a $2500 (nikon) camera with one that costs 3 or 4 times as much.
Ok… so getting back to what we were originally talking about here, thanks for the tips on checking shutter count.
Kurt, that is exactly why i usually am not the type to jump on every new release of a camera… there has to be some pretty substantial improvements for me to take a look at upgrading a body, thats why i have been shooting the 30d for so long.
hey John.. even though we weren’t really talking about the pro bodies from canon, you do emphasize one of the major sticking points alot of people seem to have with the 5d series:
H Jay, i stumbled across your site a while back, i don’t remember if it wa linked off of here, or i got to it from flickr or something, but nice work.
Thanks Kurt, I’m glad to see someone is have good luck with it, sometimes its tough to weed thru the BS with all of the internet hype out there.
Kurt, any thoughts on the AF performance of the m2? That is one of my bigger concerns – doing kid photos and the like, as well as anything else that moves, alot of people seem to be saying the better AF sensors, as well as them being spread our more in the frame (actually, i don’t think they are really spread out, its just that the 1.6x frame is smaller), make for quite a bit better focusing. Again.. goes back to m2 is great for things that stand still i guess, and 50d is great for things that move. I sure wish canon would have dropped the 1d type focusing system into 5d, like nikon did with the d700.
I found this image comparing the 2 focus screens:
Article it came from:
http://blog.duncandavidson.com/2008/09/the-5d-mark-ii-af-angst.html
