nonac said:The danger factor depends on the type of bear as well. For example, brown bears are much more dangerous than black bears.
HeWhoShoots said:nonac said:The danger factor depends on the type of bear as well. For example, brown bears are much more dangerous than black bears.
False. Black bear.
I will be in Katmai in late August to shoot bears...I always take the biggest lens that I have with me, my 500.....but I also take my 100-400 along with my extenders. I have gotten a lot of great shots with my 100-400 with the 1.4x and have been plenty close to the bears on many occasions to get great shots....having said that if I had an 800 I would never go there without it, with or without the extender....on the MK IV that gives you a lot of distance. Really depends on where you go and just how close you can get to the bears....I really prefer to be able to get within 50 yds of the bears....makes for some awesome stuff!dilbert said:Mick said:Lets hope the 200-400 f4 is one of the len's announced. I need one for October as im off to the forest to shoot bears, with a camera not a gun.
Mick
400 + 1.4x is not enough for close ups at a safe distance of bears in the wild.
You need 700mm or more in glass.
kdsand said:Reminds me of the fellow who had his gear chewed up by a bear last month (there abouts). It chewed up a new 400mm - so even 400 is not long enough when he comes up to you from behind.![]()
![]()
Bob Howland said:If you're talking about the one on the lensrental.com blog, it was a 600.
Stop. See Leica M9 / upcoming M10.pdirestajr said:Isn't the mirrorless "ILC" category basically an evolution of the Point-and-shoot category? Why are so many people throwing around the "full frame" term in the same sentence, and making statements like, "FF or bust for me!"
.........
pdirestajr said:Isn't the mirrorless "ILC" category basically an evolution of the Point-and-shoot category? Why are so many people throwing around the "full frame" term in the same sentence, and making statements like, "FF or bust for me!", or,
"Another disappointment from Canon"....
Why will anyone be shocked or complain when it is not FF? Maybe there will be a "higher end" version too, but isn't one of those Ashton Kutcher mini fashion cameras also a "high-end" model???
Y'all new to relaxo.
And while I'm on a rant, why do people consider 35mm "full-frame" to be a "Pro" size? My EOS Rebel G is plastic all the way with 3 focusing points and a FULL FRAME image area!
FF is just another size, it ain't the holy grail.
Ricku said:Stop. See Leica M9 / upcoming M10.pdirestajr said:Isn't the mirrorless "ILC" category basically an evolution of the Point-and-shoot category? Why are so many people throwing around the "full frame" term in the same sentence, and making statements like, "FF or bust for me!"
.........
A highly desirable camera at a very undesirable price. The camera is a little bit bigger than other mirrorless cameras, but still smaller and lighter than a DSLR, and the lenses are fairly small too.
If Canon can make a camera like this with an "affordable" pricetag (around 3.5K instead of Leicas 7K), it will be a huge success! Especially among people who wants to go mirrorless without sacrificing image quality, thin DOF capabilities and high ISO performance.
pdirestajr said:My EOS Rebel G is plastic all the way with 3 focusing points and a FULL FRAME image area!
true, but I'm not sure I agree that the market is large enough to make it very cheap. For people who use the camera for several hours at a time or who have large tele lenses, the ergonomics would suck and they wouldn't use it. So cutting out that audience raises the price. And full frame raises the cost, so the audience was limited already.AvTvM said:Best thing is: such a camera can be made today. Even by Canon, if we - the market - push 'em hard enough.
Don Haines said:"New and Inovative" does not mean "more of the same"
The first digital cameras were 320 by 200 pixels in 16 colours. That is a laughable resolution. At the time, some of us said to wait and see, the resolution would become better than 35mm film. Who's laughing now?
Digital is not film. To treat it like film to apply restrictions to it that need not apply. To expect that an optical viewfinder technology is the best solution for a digital camera is flawed logic. Look at the latest generation of Apple products.... the Retina display is made up of finer pixels than the eye can detect.... this technology will give you as good of a viewfinder as optical because it is the human eye that is the limiting factor..... not the optics and not the display.
The digital viewfinder has a multitude of advantages over the optical viewfinder. First, by leaving it in the same spot as the optical viewfinder we can retain a familiar form factor yet eliminate most of the mechanicals of the camera... no more shutter... longer battery life, longer camera life... and you can adjust brightness/contrast/gamma on a digital viewfinder... try that on optical!
By putting an additional digital viewfinder on the back of the camera, the 3" or so tilt/swivel/touch screen, we open up a lot of new possibilities to see the image and control the camera.
And who says that the viewfinder has to be on the cameras? Ever hear of tethered shooting? I use it a lot for astrophotography.... and it's great for bird pictures too, set the camera up near the nest and step WAY back... How long before there is a wireless interface to the camera and you can use a smart phone or tablet?
Mirrorless is the way of the future. Don't expect the first ones out to be the "best camera ever", but just watch how soon they eclipse APSC and full frame...
Don Haines said:"New and Inovative" does not mean "more of the same"
The first digital cameras were 320 by 200 pixels in 16 colours. That is a laughable resolution. At the time, some of us said to wait and see, the resolution would become better than 35mm film. Who's laughing now?
Digital is not film. To treat it like film is to apply restrictions to it that need not apply. To expect that an optical viewfinder technology is the best solution for a digital camera is flawed logic. Look at the latest generation of Apple products.... the Retina display is made up of finer pixels than the eye can detect.... this technology will give you as good of a viewfinder as optical because it is the human eye that is the limiting factor..... not the optics and not the display.
The digital viewfinder has a multitude of advantages over the optical viewfinder. First, by leaving it in the same spot as the optical viewfinder we can retain a familiar form factor yet eliminate most of the mechanicals of the camera... no more shutter... longer battery life, longer camera life... and you can adjust brightness/contrast/gamma on a digital viewfinder... try that on optical!
By putting an additional digital viewfinder on the back of the camera, the 3" or so tilt/swivel/touch screen, we open up a lot of new possibilities to see the image and control the camera.
And who says that the viewfinder has to be on the cameras? Ever hear of tethered shooting? I use it a lot for astrophotography.... and it's great for bird pictures too, set the camera up near the nest and step WAY back... How long before there is a wireless interface to the camera and you can use a smart phone or tablet?
Mirrorless is the way of the future. Don't expect the first ones out to be the "best camera ever", but just watch how soon they eclipse APSC and full frame...
You cannot use the size of film camera as reference. Olympus is well known to make the camera as small as possible in the film days and digital now. Just look at the Om-D 50M. It is the size of the old OM4. But it only has a M4/3 sensor. So you just cannot expect to have a APS-C or FFsensor in the same size body as a film camera.Stevo2008 said:pdirestajr said:My EOS Rebel G is plastic all the way with 3 focusing points and a FULL FRAME image area!
Good point! A new full-frame DSLR in a Rebel G body wouldn't be any larger than some mirrorless out there.