I'd definitely go with 6D and 70-200mm. No doubt. It is in a different class than the 70-300mm (non-L). I would keep the AF point in the center and shoot away in AI-SERVO.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The news Gitzo 3 series from a weight handling perspective should work fine. Especially since the new 600 II weighs about the same as the v1 500mm IS. I had the 800mm before the 600 II, so the greater weight of that lens and all the other stuff that bolts on was a concern. That is what swayed me to get the 4 Series. Most folks I spoke with actually recommended a 5 Series, but I did not want the added weight and girth (5 series is huge).
All I would say is, for the amount of mula you are spending for a new tripod, I would look to the future and get something that you will not have to replace (unless it breaks). If you think that one day you will want to get a RRS tripod, I'd suggest just getting one now. You might save some $$$ now by getting a 3 series on Amazon, but will loose a lot if you try selling it later to get the RRS. Buy once, not twice or three times.
You could always save your Amazon points to purchase things like a Lenscoat for the 600mm or a replacement foot, or Don Zeck front cap, etc.
Well, I guess I am not quite convinced that the RRS is enough better than the Gitzos, which are themselves very good, that it warrants paying almost double the price. The Gitzo will certainly do the job, and as I mentioned before, all of the professional or other highly skilled bird and wildlife photographers I follow seem to use Gitzo exclusively, so it can't be all that bad of a brand. I also have no doubts that the Gitzo will last me for...well, forever, barring some random unknown event that breaks it for me ( ).
On top of that, I have a bunch of Gitzo parts and cleaning supplies, such as the grease used for the joints and such, that came with my other Gitzo Series 0 Mountaineer (GT0541). I guess I also feel it would be nice to stay within the family.
Surely they wouldn't price it above the 6D?
Of course they would ...
Of course they wouldn't.
The 7DII will be cheaper than the 6D. That's for sure.
There's a reason the 6D is named '6D': to signify that it is positioned above the 7D.
The marketing message here is that a FF camera is a always a step up from a crop camera, regardless of specs.
This message is needed to assert the premium-ness of FF; without it, it's hard to charge a (hefty) premium for FF.
So its going to be very expensive, heavy and slow at the top end.
Same price as the one stop faster 600/4 II maybe.
If this lens is not sharp at 560/5.6 it will bomb.
Even the extremely sharp 300/2.8 II prime has to be stopped down to get half decent images with matching 1.4X converter. So how useful will a 560/8 be on this new zoom?
Well the big worry is will that 560mm be as clean as the old 500mm? If it is, then that old heavy 500 will be less missed than I thought.
And will I want to shoot at f5.6 for the duration of a day in shadows and late afternoons?....back to shooting at 400mm. Not that big of a deal. I do find when shooting with my 300, I am always wishing for a 400. 400 is useful for sports and larger wildlife. Quite a few times I had to run backwards so I could get far enough away for a full shot of a close Bobcat. Tree shooting would be great at 400 also.
Air shows, well 500mm was tight. I had myself wishing for a 400 a few times. It's too bad they could apply that inboard teleconverter to a 500mm. That would be a big seller. Sure, I prefer 500mm, but there are quite a few uses for 400. A revamp of the 400DO would have been great. I'm tired of my shoulders hurting! So the 200-400 still doesn't help that much.