|
BIRDS AS ART ON-LINE BULLETIN #35, NOVEMBER 7, 2000
JOE McDONALD'S COMMENTS ON HIS SWITCH FROM NIKON TO CANON
&
MOOSE PETERSON'S MOOSE NEWS ON THE NIKON 80-400 VR LENS
The following details Joe McDonald's reasons for
switching from Nikon to Canon. His comments are presented here in full and
without comment.
"There were several compelling reasons for our switching from Nikon to
Canon.
> They may be compelling to you, as well, but before you panic and
consider
> the switch for yourself, let me stress that both systems are
excellent.
> Although years ago I started shooting with Canon, I switched
to Nikon when
> Mary and I got together, since I had earlier convinced her
to go Nikon! At
> that time, Canon's EOS system was still in its infancy,
and they were
> basically coming out with an upgraded camera body every
few months. None of
> those bodies were especially good, and a
photographer could have gone broke
> upgrading to the latest each time.
Once the EOS 1N and 1N RS came out,
> things stabilized, and the EOS
system came into its own.
>
> Over the last several years I became
an advocate of EOS, recommending this
> system to our photo course
participants even though I was still shooting
> Nikon. People were amused
by this contradiction, but I explained that if you
> were a Minolta or
Pentax shooter and thinking of switching, Canon's EOS
> offered far more
than did Nikon. For reasons I'll soon explain. Last year,
> after a final
straw broke my camera's back, and with the availability of
> ebay for
selling my old gear, we decided it was time to practice what we
> were
preaching, and we too made the switch.
>
> Our reasons for
advocating EOS are multiple. Technology-wise, I think EOS
> has been, and
will continue to be, ahead of the game. Canon is an enormous
> company,
and has the working capital to invest and experiment, and to come
> up
with neat, new gadgets. Nikon is a much smaller company and, for the
most
> part, plays catch-up. However, I did love the NIKON F5, and I
wouldn't be
> surprised if true side-by-side tests may show that the
predictive autofocus
> on the F5 is more accurate than any offered by EOS.
That's a great thing,
> but not enough to keep me from switching.
>
> On a personal level, I already had a mini-EOS system. We own three EOS
1N
> RSs, which I use for high-speed flash and shutterbeam work. The RS
has the
> FASTEST RESPONSE TIME, the shortest lag time, of any 35mm
camera. When a
> camera tripper, like a Shutterbeam or PhotoTrap is
triggered, the RS
> responds in 6ms, or about 1/180th sec. That's fast
enough that a flying bird
> will only travel an inch or two before the
camera fires, so if a composition
> is designed so that there's a bird's
body length's space, you'll catch it in
> the frame. Nikon's lag time is
somewhere between 1/10th and 1/30th of a
> second, which translates into
quite a distance before the shutter fires. To
> go along with our RSs we
had a 35-350mm zoom, a 70-200 2.8 zoom, and 12,
> 25mm extension tubes and
1.4X and 2X tele-converters. Almost a core system!
>
> We also
shoot with a Canon XL-1 dv video camera, and it takes the Canon EOS
>
lenses. It made sense for us to consider having a larger variety of EOS
>
lenses to use with the video camera, as well as with our 35mm camera. So,
we
> had another reason.
>
> But that probably would not
have been enough, NOR would those reasons be of
> any real interest to you
or anyone else. Here's the other reasons, and why
> these might be of
interest to you. 1. The EOS lens mount and electronic
> aperture. 2. Lens
variety. 3. Excellent tele-converters. 4. Electronic
> Mirror lockup. 5.
IS, image-stabilization, technology. 6. Intelligent
> Multiple-exposure
options. 7. Depth of field preview. 8. 45 focusing points
> and
eye-control. 9. NPS vs CPS service.
>
> Our reasons for switching
were based upon the pro models offered by both
> systems (Nikon F5 and
N90, and now the F100, and Canons 1N RS and EOS 3). We
> weren't, and are
not, concerned about other models, like Nikons 6006 or EOSs
> 10s or Elan,
so our evaluation was based upon cameras wed own, not
> advertising hype
or promo. In other words, were not trying to sell you on a
> basic camera
line, but we have great thoughts about the EOS 3.
>
> 1. The EOS
lens mount and electronic aperture. Canon lost me as a FD mount
> user
(that's when I switched to Nikon) when they introduced this system.
>
However, time has proven them right, me wrong, and I'm back with Canon.
The
> electronic aperture is more reliable than Nikons mechanical
aperture, where
> the lens closes down via a lever on the camera body that
activates a lever
> in the lens that closes the aperture. With Nikon, when
you fire, or when you
> use the depth of field preview button (if that
Nikon camera has one!), the
> camera body lever pushes the lens aperture
lever and the aperture closes.
> Unless you use the depth of field preview
button you wont see this happen,
> so WHETHER OR NOT the pin is working is
a matter of faith.
>
> Sometimes it does not! Over the years I
have lost parts of several shoots
> when these levers did not couple
correctly. According to the camera, with
> full aperture metering,
everything looked OK and seemed to be OK, but in
> fact, the aperture
wasn't closing down. Consequently, if I wasn't shooting
> wide-open, I was
overexposed by whatever f-stop number I was down from
> maximum aperture!
So, for example, if I was shooting at f8 and I was using a
> F2.8 lens,
I'd be overexposed by three stops!
>
> Last March I was filming
eagles in Alaska in a perhaps once-in-a-lifetime
> opportunity. Luckily, I
periodically check my aperture and my depth of field
> preview button, and
as I did so three days into the trip I discovered that
> my 300mm F2.8
lens was not closing down! When Id mount the lens on the
> camera for the
first time, everything seemed to work, and checking the DofF
> button
confirmed this. However, if I checked it again, I found it did not.
>
Instead, once the aperture closed down, the aperture stuck! The camera
>
didn't sense this and indicated all was well.
>
> Now, three days
into the trip, I had to wonder, when did this happen? Had I
> ruined my
first three days of shooting, in the best light? I didn't know,
> and
would not, until I got home. Luckily, little film was ruined. I caught
>
it in time.
>
> To fix it, I had to wedge a piece of wood into the
aperture pin gap to keep
> the pin from going too far and jamming. When I
got home, I had the lens
> repaired.
>
> This problem cannot
happen with the EOS electronic aperture.
>
> 2. Lens variety.
Canon has 3 tilt-and-shift lenses; Nikon now has one.
> Canons offer all
standard features, except autofocus; while Nikons 85mm TS
> lens has an
antiquated preset aperture. Absurd. EOS offers a unique 65mm 5:1
> macro
lens, which I have mixed feelings about, but still represents a
>
wonderful option. The new IS technology is spectacular, and will be
covered
> later.
>
> More importantly, perhaps, are the zoom
options available. Our systems
> include a lot of zooms. My kit is
this: 17-35mm, 35-350mm, and the 400 2.8
> with converters. Mary's kit is:
20-35, 28-135, and 100 to 400, plus a 500mm
> f4.5 and converters. She is
fine-tuning her system, and will be using a
> 300mm 2.8 IS lens with a
1.4X and 2X tele-converter for trips, to shave weight.
>
> Mary
chose the older 500 F4.5 over the new IS 500 F4 because the new lens
>
weighs 2-3 pounds more, and weight was a real concern. The 4.5 is much
>
lighter and easier for her to handle, and I suspect well probably sell
that
> lens, eventually, as she shoots more and more with the 300 IS and
the
> converters. We have A LOT of faith in the converters, as you'll see
below.
>
> 3. Excellent tele-converters. Although I used a 1.4X
frequently, and with
> complete confidence, on my Nikon lenses, I was
never confident with the 2X
> converter. Photo friends of mine swear by
the 2X when coupled with a 300mm
> 2.8 lens, and I've used that combo, but
I never felt that my louped slides
> were truly RAZOR sharp. They lacked
something, and I think that was the
> definitive sense of sharpness.
>
> Also, I've been annoyed that Nikons converters don't work with
all lenses.
> Lenses shorter than 200mm required one converter (which I
never bought),
> lenses above that required another. Then, autofocus
lenses required still
> another converter, which wouldn't work with non AF
lenses! I was annoyed at
> this constant nickel-and-diming.
>
> I gambled when I purchased my EOS system, relying on the sworn words
of
> discerning friends who claimed that the 2X converter was razor sharp
with
> certain lenses. I can attest to that my 2X, when coupled with my
400mm F2.8,
> is absolutely RAZOR SHARP. It is at least as sharp (to a
Schneider 8X loupe)
> as my Nikon prime lenses. The combo is wonderful.
>
> This leads to another question many folks have had why did I
choose the
> 400mm F2.8 over other EOS lenses.
>
> Again the
reason for this was multi-faceted. Because of our frequent air
> travels,
we were beginning to worry about airline carry-on luggage
> regulations
and weight limitations. For our trips to Alaska or to Africa,
> for
example, I packed both a 300mm F2.8 and a 600mm F4. With my 1.4X Nikon
>
tele-converter, I then had 300 2.8, 420mm f4, 600mm f4, and 840mm f5.6
>
combos, but lugging two rather substantial lenses.
>
> With a
400mm F2.8 I was able to bridge the gap between a 300mm 2.8 and a 600
> F4
with just one lens. If I needed lens speed, and I often do, I had it at
>
2.8 with the straight 400. Granted, I was losing a 300 by now only having
a
> 400 for my minimum focal length, but I could get around that by
either
> adding a 1.4X to my 70-200 F2.8 (to make a 280mm F4 lens), or by
using my
> 35-350 or 100-400 zooms. So, the loss of the 300 was
inconsequential to me.
>
> More importantly, when I added
converters to the 400, I had amazing options.
> With a 1.4X I had a 560mm
F4 lens, just 40mm short of my Nikon 600mm F4
> lens. I could live with
the loss of 40mm to eliminate the weight of another
> big lens. And, with
the 2X, I had an 800mm F5.6 lens, just 40mm shy of the
> 840mm F5.6 lens I
had using the 600mm F4 with a 1.4X.
>
> Of course, I didn't have
1,200mm (600mm and 2X), but I rarely used this, and
> did so almost
exclusively for sunset shots where distant trees and huge suns
> were
combined. I did not use the 2X with my 600 for quality portraiture, it
>
didn't measure up. In my work, 840mm was my usual maximum, and I now had
>
this again with the 400mm and 2X tele-converter.
>
> The one
disadvantage to the 400mm F2.8 lens is the weight, which is about
> equal
to that of their 600mm F4. EOS has shaved nearly three pounds off
> each,
which helps, and is a real advantage over Nikons line, but the lens is
>
still heavy. Some photographers weigh the weight option and choose the
600mm
> over the 400, opting for maximum reach potential. However, doing
so
> eliminates the possibility of tapping into speed (the 400s 2.8) when
speed
> is needed.
>
> Further, and perhaps most important,
the 400 has a minimum focusing distance
> of 3 meters (from the film
plane), which translates into about 8 feet from
> the front of the lens!
The 600, in contrast, is 17 feet. So, add a 2X to the
> 400mm and you have
an 800mm lens that focuses to 8 feet, while adding a 1.4X
> to the 600 you
have a 840mm lens that focuses to 17 feet, or less if you use
> extension
tubes. I don't need the tubes!
>
> To point out the glory of this
arrangement, in Arizona recently I had a
> tarantula hawk wasp (about 2.5
inches long) drinking at our bird waterhole.
> I got half-size imagery, a
composition I would have chosen with any lens
> combo available to me, by
simply moving to minimum focus and shooting with
> the 800mm. I could not
have done so with a 600mm and a 1.4X without adding
> extension tubes as
well.
>
> My 400mm is a super zoom, a 400, a 560, and an 800, and
I juggle converters
> for the image size I need. And, believe me, the 2X
is sharp. Mary's super
> zoom will be the 300 2.8, 420mm F4, and 600mm
F5.6, so shell be compromised
> only by losing the 700mm she had when she
added a 1.4X to her 500mm, but now
> shell have eye-control AF at all
focal lengths.
>
> The tele-converters work with all lenses, so I
can use the 1.4X or the 2X
> with my 90mm TS lens to have a 180mm TS macro
lens, and they work
> excellently with the 70-200 2.8, too. I won't use
converters with the
> 35-350, and Id think twice about using the 1.4X with
the 100-400 and WOULD
> NOT use a 2X with that lens. But, the converters
are excellent, and only one
> set is needed for any or all lenses.
>
> 4. Electronic Mirror Lockup. Different EOS bodies have
different ways to
> accomplish this, but with the EOS 3 we simply activate
custom function 12-1
> and the mirror locks up at the first trigger,
whether that's by depressing
> the shutter button or pressing a remote
switch the first time. The second
> time the trigger is activated the
shutter fires and the mirror returns. With
> the RS, there is no mirror
issue; it's a pellicle mirror (a two-way mirror).
> I use it when I want
to see what my flash is doing, for example, when
> shooting hummingbirds
where I can see where the wings are at the moment of
> the exposure (if
the light is dim enough).
>
> The big thing about the electronic
mirror lockup is this: I do not have to
> touch the camera body and
possibly move the camera when locking up the
> mirror. Only Nikons top pro
cameras have mirror lockup, and it is activated
> by depressing the DofF
button and flipping a not-too-easy to reach lever to
> lock up the mirror,
and to bring it back down, later. That's not much of a
> problem if a
camera is tripod mounted, but it sure is if you're balancing a
> big lens
on a bean bag where the effort involved in flipping the mirror
> could
shift the cameras position. That cannot happen with the EOS cf function.
>
> I also like the fact that the mirror returns down after each
shot, since it
> allows me to check to make sure the subject hasn't moved,
or grass or other
> obstructions haven't shifted and now block my subject
(a common problem when
> doing macro).
>
> There is no
reason I can think of why Nikon hasn't incorporated this feature
> into
their bodies. It would allow them to offer mirror lockup in other
>
bodies, and it would solve many user headaches. Other EOS bodies have
mirror
> lockup options via CF functions that may negate default
functions, should
> you choose to use it.
>
> 5. IS,
image-stabilization, technology. A top pro recently knocked IS
>
technology, saying that if you use a tripod you don't need it. Not quite
>
true, and for several reasons. One, the latest IS lenses work on a
tripod
> (the 300 2.8, 400 2.8, 500 4, and 600 4), and this is a
MAGNIFICENT
> advantage, since it allows me to use a big lens on rickety,
bouncing
> platforms or walkways (the boardwalk at Corkscrew Swamp, for
example), or
> from a boat, and in heavy, buffeting winds, or with a
lighter weight,
> formerly insubstantial tripod, that can now handle an IS
lens.
>
> I am crazy about this technology and these lenses. I
have never been so
> excited about glass. This IS stuff really, really
works.
>
> With other IS lenses, the IS will be handy when,
indeed, hand-holding or
> bracing is the only option. Never shoot from a
tripod? Well, try shooting
> from a whale boat, or a canoe, or at a garden
where tripods are not allowed.
> Mary so loves her 100-400 and 28-135 IS
that she insists I have my own set
> for our 10 days of whale shooting in
Alaska this summer, where shooting off
> a tripod is impossible, and zooms
are extremely handy for the unpredictable
> working distances common to
whale photography.
>
> 6. Intelligent Multiple-exposure options.
The 3 and the RS have ME dials that
> allow you to shoot up to 9 frames on
a single frame, or more if you simply
> redial another 9 each time you get
to the last frame of a ME sequence. The
> Nikon F5 had two options, either
a double exposure, or a continuous ME
> sequence where you can keep
shooting the same frame until you clear that CF
> function. I stopped
using the CF when I forgot to clear it, and shot nearly
> a roll of
roadrunners on the same frame, number 21! I didn't catch it until
> I
stupidly pondered why I hadn't needed to change film yet! Duh!
>
>
I believe other EOS bodies have ME option, but that's moot. You'd want
an
> EOS 3 or RS.
>
> 7. Depth of field preview. On the 3
and RS there's a button for this. Other
> EOS bodies may have CF options.
It's nice to know that you can get DofF
> preview on other bodies somehow,
if you need it.
>
> I would not own a camera that did not have
DofF preview. Period.
>
> 8. 45 focusing points and eye-control.
Nikon F5s Cross pattern focusing
> sensors was a major advancement over
other cameras, until the 3. Although
> it'd have been great to have an
even larger area of the screen covered with
> focusing points, the ones
offered pretty much cover all Points of Power.
> Skeptics might wonder why
you need so many (well, in fact, we only use 11,
> scattered around the
screen, in one of the 3s CFs), but the reality is, if
> they're there,
you'll use them, and THEY OFFER A MAJOR ADVANTAGE FOR
> COMPOSING and
quick focusing to get the subject in focus where you want it
> to be.
>
> Even EOS 3 users knock eye-control, and admittedly I've had
problems with
> mine off and on, especially when I'm holding the camera
body in a vertical
> composition. However, when I take the time to
recalibrate the 3, and do so
> for several different lenses, I've found
eye-control fast and reliable, and
> IT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE for speedy
focus where you need it to be.
>
> In fact, unless Canon gives me
a 1V (not likely), I doubt very much if Ill
> choose to buy one. Id miss
the eye-control option of the 3, and for almost
> twice the cash, Id
rather have the insurance policy of a second (or fifth)
> EOS 3 body (two
3s for the price of one 1V).
>
> To sum this up, the 45 (or the 11
scattered) focusing points is a real
> asset, we use them often.
>
> When were doing birds in flight or other action subjects, however, we
often
> activate all 45 points and let the camera select the focusing
point
> (generally the nearest thing to the camera). This acts like a big
net to
> catch action, and I've shot fast-moving sequences that I didn't
even see,
> and that Id never have captured on manual focus, and may have
missed without
> the big net of a 45 focusing sensor area.
>
> 9. NPS vs CPS service. I'm sure Ill have horror stories eventually
about
> Canons Professional Services, but I have dozens about Nikons. The
worse:
> When I still shot Nikon, they held an N90 (pre F5 days) and a AF
300 2.8 for
> over two months, and when I called, telling them I needed
the equipment in
> two weeks for a month in Kenya, they told me I could
get one or the other,
> but not both! Why: Is only one guy working there?
Further, NPS would not
> loan equipment to me for longer than two weeks,
or let me take it out of the
> country. CPS loaned me an entire system,
for the length of my trip, and that
> loan, occurring just before the F5
was released, almost had me switching
> then. When the F5 came out, I only
asked that it would be as good as the EOS
> 1 or 1N, it didn't even have
to be as fast. I didn't think I could afford to
> switch, so, when the F5
proved to be as good as it was, I stayed with Nikon.
>
> But
things change, and suddenly switching became an affordable option: One
>
other point, Nikons Pro Services required a lot of documentation, and I
know
> some great pros who are published in major mags but did not have
the
> credentials for NPS. CPS, in contrast, almost seems too loose,
but
> bottom-line, if you need to be a CPS member you can be pretty
easily. That's
> a real advantage.
>
> 10. e-bay. E-bay and
other on-line auctions (photo.com, etc.) now offered us
> the chance to
sell our Nikon equipment at a reasonable price. We had so much
> Nikon
gear, as we upgraded as each new advancement occurred, that we had a
> lot
of unused inventory. When Mary first bought a Nikon lens Nikon had just
>
released their first AF version of the 300 2.8. Ill assume they had a
>
strictly MF version of that previously. Later I bought the next
generation;
> the AF-1 version I think it was called, and later still the
AF S version
> appeared. Their 80-200 2.8 fiasco was even worse, with a MF
version, then an
> AF version without a tripod collar, then I believe one
with, then a S
> version without, then another with. At $1,500 or so per
zoom, one could tie
> up $6,000 in just upgrades! To Canon EOSs credit,
they've had one great
> 70-200 2.8 that has a tripod collar and works
great with converters. I
> suspect they'll soon be upgrading to an IS
version, and that's OK. That IS
> stuff is worth it.
>
>
Anyway, because of our huge inventory, we could sell off our doubles and
>
triples of some lenses, or of the many camera bodies we evolved through
(F3,
> 8008, F4, N90, F5 and at least one each for both of us!), and we
could now
> buy (from our sales thru ebay) the newest EOS cameras and
lenses without
> barely spending any money that wasn't from our ebay
sales! So, in effect,
> our switch cost us nothing.
>
>
Speaking of which, I am going to be selling MINT Nikon gear from a
Chilean
> friend who is switching to EOS. Great AF lenses, and great
condition, if you
> are interested!
>
> I may have missed
some other points the good feel of the EOS 3, the sense
> that things were
really thought through, and that the controls and features
> where derived
after speaking with actual shooters, but the points made above
> where the
major ones that compelled us to switch.
>
> I don't think EOS is
going to make me a better shooter, but the diversity of
> equipment may
allow me to become one as I now have greater options. I get
> tired of
hearing people disparage brands oh, Nikons better! Or, Gag! You
>
shoot Nikon!, or EOS, or Minolta, or whatever. We wanted to shave weight
for
> travel, which we did via the zooms and our choices of telephotos,
with the
> addition of great tele-converters. Other features, like
mirror-lockup were
> known, but secondary, but have proved to be real
bonuses. While I was
> skeptical about the IS technology, I opted to go
for a big, expensive 400
> 2.8 because I figured Id go all the way, top of
the line, if Id switch, and
> I'm so glad that I made that decision.
Except of its obscene weight, I
> really love that lens.
>
>
I was hoping Canon would be interested in offering us some type of
>
sponsorship, since they've done so for other pros with far less exposure
>
than Mary and I. Too date, we've gotten nowhere with Canon, and I suspect
we
> never will. This report, then, is completely without bias, but you
can see
> were pretty psyched over our switch.
>
> If you
find this report useful, you can really do us a favor and let Canon
>
know. Tell them about this report, and how it helped you. Send a note to
>
Dave Metz at Canon, USA, One Canon Plaza, Lake Success, NY, 11042 or
>
> Email him at dmetz@cusa.canon.com
Here, again in it's entirety, is a recent MooseNews.
This post deals with the new Nikon 80-400mm Vibration Reduction lens. It
surely sounds like a great lens, especially it's small size and light
weight. For bird photographers, the question that remains to be answered
is "Will this lens, without AFS autofocus technology, be able to focus quickly
and accurately on birds in flight?" Moose ask me to add that he
feels that both the 80-400 VR and the Canon 100-400mm IS are both great lenses
for the wildlife photographer. It should be noted that availability
of this lens is extremely limited. One Bulletin subscriber wrote recently
that he had just received the 80-400 VR that he had ordered more than a
year ago! (Some folks were beginning to believe that this lens was only a
myth......)
Moose-News: #92 80-400VR shipped
Date: Tuesday, October 31,
2000 2:39 PM
Howdy!
You bet, pass it along. You might want to add that the
80-400VR and Canon
100-400IS in my opinion are both great lenses for the
wildlife photographer.
Travel in Good Health!
Moose
"Man can't live without nature, but nature can live without
man" Japanese
Proverb.
Howdy!
Snow now blankets the landscape as winter starts its grasp on
our
Sierra home. I'm looking forward to it as our new office has LOTS of
shooting windows, perfect for the new 80-400VR.
I received my
production line model a week ago and it's just as
beautiful as the prototype
I played with in Feb.! Store are now
receiving the lens, but in very limited
quantity it would appear. If you
have an order at Pro Photo, I'd give them a
call fast, it's a great lens.
I won't have a full review of the lens on
the website for a few weeks,
so wanted to give you some info now. Here it
is.
While I'm not a VR/IS fan, I am a giant fan of this lens which
is
tack sharp! It has: a length of 6.9", an aperture range
from f4.5-32, meter
coupling, a filter size of 77mm, an
angle of view of 6°-30°, a weight of
48oz (42.7oz without
tripod collar). Those familiar with lens specs can tell
just
from these numbers there is something special about the
80-
400VR!
The first and most eye catching aspect of the 80-400VR is
its
physical size, small! This is a small lens only 2/3 the size the
80-200f2.8AFS. This very small package makes this lens
extremely easy to
handhold which is a big plus for its
400mm focal length. The lens focuses
down to 7.5 feet
which is very impressive and make the lens extremely
versatile! If you want one wildlife lens to do all, this is it!
The
80-400VR has a number of new innovations for Nikon.
The most notable is the
inclusion of Vibration Reduction or
VR technology. This technology is said
to permit one to
handhold a lens at a shutter speed three times slower and
still capture sharp images. This whole phrase is a little out of
whack
so let me explain it. The normal school of thought
(which is bull) is that
if you have a 500mm focal length lens,
the slowest shutter speed you should
shoot at is 1/500
(which basically means you can only shoot when the full
sun
is out which is hogwash!). With the VR technology, you can
now shoot
at a shutter speed of 1/60 and capture the came
crisp image as if shooting
at 1/500. Of course, if the subject
is moving, this all goes out the
window!
The VR technology only works on camera bodies with the
five
AF sensors, the D1, F5, F100 and N80. The five sensors
are part of the VR
operation which is why it's required. The
lens itself has two "ON" switches.
ON with one symbol
(sorry, no other way to describe it) activates the VR
only
when the picture is taken. This is for folks who might get
"sea
sick" looking through the lens with the VR is active.
This mode also saves
on battery power as the lens is powered
via the body's battery. The other VR
mode, ON with two
symbols, has the VR on all the time so if you go not have
a
steady hand or platform, you can see the VR working. \
There are
some caveats in using the VR capabilities. In the
ON with two symbols mode,
you should wait one second
after activating the camera/VR before actually
taking the
photo. If you're panning, the VR technology will only work
in
for the opposite vector. For example if you're panning
horizontally, only
vibration in the vertical direction is
reduced. The makes panning smoother
because the lens isn't
fighting you. After you take the photo, the image in
the
viewfinder might blur, might not. Don't turn the power of
the camera
off while the lens is doing its VR thing. Doing so
might cause the lens to
talk back at you. It's not hurting the
lens and to stop it, just turn the
body back on. Same thing
goes for removing the lens from the body while the
lens is
operating. When the lens is mounted to a tripod, turn the VR
off.
Other cool innovations in the 80-400VR are the tripod
collar and A/M switch. The tripod collar rotates a full 360
degrees very
smoothly. It is also completely removable in a
entirely new way. There is an
arrow on the tripod collar and
when this arrow is lined up on the lens
barrel, the tripod
collar comes off. The lens can't be attached to a body at
the
time, but it's a really slick system providing great
performance.
The A/M autofocus / manual focus switch on
the lens has an added lock
feature. You can either lock it
easily into either focusing mode, or leave
it so you can
quickly switch between focusing modes. It's really well
thought out.
One other really cool thing about this lens is the lens
case,
totally unNikon! This case is hard to describe other then it's
like a long case made by Lowepro but smaller in size and
custom fitted
to the 80-400. It's nylon not leather, very
versatile and I'm sure will be a
hit in its own right. Only
took, what, forty year to get a good lens case
with a lens!
While not a fan of VR/IS I truly am a fan of this lens
because
of the lens itself. It zooms quickly, focuses reasonably fast
and if you know to prefocus, quite fast enough. It's light,
small and
compact and most importantly to me, sharp
through its range, corner to
corner. I knew when I played
with the first prototype I would be buying it,
and it would
become a main lens in my camera bag which it has.
Please
don't email with more questions, this is all I have to
offer at this
time.
Travel in good Health!
Moose
Mammoth Lakes,
CA USA
http://www.moose395.net
Best and great picture making to all,
Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART
|
