Resolved Initial thoughts about the Canon T3i?

[100Teraflops]

I am researching an entry level DSLR and the Canon T2i is my first choice, but what about the T3i? So what's the scoop with the T3i? Who has bought one and what are your thoughts? The swivel screen on the T3i should be a welcomed feature, as I have read people complain that the swivel or rotating screen was a feature excluded from the T2i.

I am considering the Nikon D3100 as well. I have had good expereinces with Canon through the years. However, I currently shoot with a digital Sony. Thanks in advance!

If this topic has been debated, I apologize!

 

[TheSVD]

If I were you, I'd just get the t2i. Perhaps I'm a bit biased as I own one, but I can personally recommend it as a fantastic camera.

The t3i is a bit gimmicky I think, it has an articulating screen and the ability to use some flashes as a remote trigger as well.

I'd go for the t2i as you can pick them up really really cheap nowadays!

Happy hunting

 

[habubauza]

I am researching an entry level DSLR and the Canon T2i is my first choice, but what about the T3i? So what's the scoop with the T3i? Who has bought one and what are your thoughts? The swivel screen on the T3i should be a welcomed feature, as I have read people complain that the swivel or rotating screen was a feature excluded from the T2i.

I am considering the Nikon D3100 as well. I have had good expereinces with Canon through the years. However, I currently shoot with a digital Sony. Thanks in advance!

If this topic has been debated, I apologize!

The articulating screen and the ability to control canon speedlites without adding additional accessories is a huge plus. Also I think Canon has the advantage when it comes to lenses. Nikon seems not too interested in updating their lens lineup.

 

[Ruahrc]

The articulating screen and the ability to control canon speedlites without adding additional accessories is a huge plus. Also I think Canon has the advantage when it comes to lenses. Nikon seems not too interested in updating their lens lineup.

What exactly do you mean by this? Nikon released something like 10 lenses in 2010, more than any previous year I think. 2009 also had a lot of lens releases as well.

 

[tmagman]

i find the vari-angle screen a bit of a gimmick that is often useless. I bought an A80 6 years ago partially because of the flip screen but found it to be a pain and bulky after very little use. I found myself just keeping it folded in but with the screen visible, 99% of the time. I also found that later in the life of the camera, the screen's hinge became a weak point and the contacts to power the screen became screwed up. Save the money and buy a t2i...

 

[El Cabong]

An articulating screen is useful for shooting video. Otherwise, I don't see much of a reason to choose the T3i over the T2i.

What exactly do you mean by this? Nikon released something like 10 lenses in 2010, more than any previous year I think. 2009 also had a lot of lens releases as well.

Agreed. For a company uninterested in updating their lens lineup, Nikon has been pretty busy doing exactly that, starting with the f/2.8 zooms (14-24-70-200), followed by the fast primes (24, 35, 50, 85 f/1.4, 200 f/2) and new FX zooms (16-35, 24-120, 28-300), not to mention DX lenses, exotic telephotos,m PC-E lenses, etc. To my knowledge, Canon's updates over the past few years have been dwarfed by Nikon's, which is not to say that one or the other is better, especially since quite a few of the above-mentioned lenses didn't exist until recently.

 

[100Teraflops]

If I were you, I'd just get the t2i. Perhaps I'm a bit biased as I own one, but I can personally recommend it as a fantastic camera.

The t3i is a bit gimmicky I think, it has an articulating screen and the ability to use some flashes as a remote trigger as well.

I'd go for the t2i as you can pick them up really really cheap nowadays!

Happy hunting

Thank you Sir, your feedback is appreciated! So, other than the articulating screen the cameras are very similar? I compared the two on Canon's web-site and aside from the scream, which might not of been included in the comparison, the cameras are closely related spec wise.

The articulating screen and the ability to control canon speedlites without adding additional accessories is a huge plus. Also I think Canon has the advantage when it comes to lenses. Nikon seems not too interested in updating their lens lineup.

Thanks! So far you are the sole supporter of the articulating screen. Maybe I need to handle the T3i! Noted

 

[100Teraflops]

i find the vari-angle screen a bit of a gimmick that is often useless. I bought an A80 6 years ago partially because of the flip screen but found it to be a pain and bulky after very little use. I found myself just keeping it folded in but with the screen visible, 99% of the time. I also found that later in the life of the camera, the screen's hinge became a weak point and the contacts to power the screen became screwed up. Save the money and buy a t2i...

Good analysis about the hinge breaking. I am debating the T3i because of the articulating screen. I need to handle the T3i or even better handle both and see if Canon changed the size etc... Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

An articulating screen is useful for shooting video. Otherwise, I don't see much of a reason to choose the T3i over the T2i.



Agreed. For a company uninterested in updating their lens lineup, Nikon has been pretty busy doing exactly that, starting with the f/2.8 zooms (14-24-70-200), followed by the fast primes (24, 35, 50, 85 f/1.4, 200 f/2) and new FX zooms (16-35, 24-120, 28-300), not to mention DX lenses, exotic telephotos,m PC-E lenses, etc. To my knowledge, Canon's updates over the past few years have been dwarfed by Nikon's, which is not to say that one or the other is better, especially since quite a few of the above-mentioned lenses didn't exist until recently.

Thanks for the Nikon based data. I am still debating the purchase of a Nikon, as it is cheaper than the Canon. However, I might not be comparing Apples to Apples, no pun intended. I need to handle the Nikon D3100, the t2i, and the t3i.

Is the photo quality of the Canon's the same? I am sure that all the cameras are top notch and my intentions are not to start another Canon vs. Nikon war of words! Thanks again to those who replied!

 

[tmagman]

Is the photo quality of the Canon's the same? I am sure that all the cameras are top notch and my intentions are not to start another Canon vs. Nikon war of words! Thanks again to those who replied!

Concur on the Nikon vs. Canon debate. You cannot go wrong with either one- they're both awesome

Its going to come down to what feels better in your hands and the interface. The grips both feel very different IMO, and the layout of the buttons has to fit your fingers. (I picked the Canon but would have no problem picking up a Nikon if it fit my hands better).

The only thing I can think of (and somebody please correct me if I'm wrong), is that the Canon imaging processors are a bit faster than the Nikons. (spec for spec)

 

[100Teraflops]

Concur on the Nikon vs. Canon debate. You cannot go wrong with either one- they're both awesome

Its going to come down to what feels better in your hands and the interface. The grips both feel very different IMO, and the layout of the buttons has to fit your fingers. (I picked the Canon but would have no problem picking up a Nikon if it fit my hands better).

The only thing I can think of (and somebody please correct me if I'm wrong), is that the Canon imaging processors are a bit faster than the Nikons. (spec for spec)

I hope to handle all three soon. Also, thanks for mentioning the interface, because that is important too. Like the Windows and Mac great debate. Thanks again tmagman!

 

[habubauza]

What exactly do you mean by this? Nikon released something like 10 lenses in 2010, more than any previous year I think. 2009 also had a lot of lens releases as well.

Sorry, I should have been a little more detailed. I am disappointed that there is no Nikon equivalent to the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. Emphasis obviously on the Image Stabilization. I also find it frustrating that they see no need to make an equivalent to the 70-200 f/4.0L IS USM. How about the 100mm f/2.8 Macro IS USM?

In my opinion I think Nikon needs to step up their game when it comes to lenses. They have phenomenal camera systems, but they just seem to be lacking a bit when it comes to a variety of high quality, fast lenses with stabilization.

It's frustrating that when you are shooting telephoto in lower light and you don't have the option to either open up to f4 or the 2-3 stop benefit of image stabilization, unless of course you shell out $2500 for the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 ED VR II.

I'm just a little disappointed about that.

 

[marsmissions]

The T3i is an updated version of the T2i. If you want the features, go for it.

That being said, the T3i and the T2i have the same sensor, and can produce just as good of a photo quality of the 7D by canon.

The nikon d3100 is designed to compete with the low end canon rebels, that being said it's image quality will not be NEARLY as good as the T2i and the T3i.

As someone who has recently upgraded from a camera of that range to a 7D, I recommend spending the extra for a better camera....Also....canon is just nicer..


Nikon's are fugly.

 

[Ruahrc]

In my opinion I think Nikon needs to step up their game when it comes to lenses. They have phenomenal camera systems, but they just seem to be lacking a bit when it comes to a variety of high quality, fast lenses with stabilization.

Unfortunately I can't reconcile this statement with the facts. There is only maybe 1 lens that Canon has IS on that the Nikon equivalent does not, the 17-55 2.8, and that lens is getting on almost a decade old now. There are also Nikon lenses out there that have IS that Canon do not- the 16-35 f/4 VR for example, so it goes both ways. Show me Canon's list of high quality, fast lenses with stabilization and beyond the 17-55 f2.8, all you will come up with are telephotos, just like Nikon.

Also consider the quality of the recent Nikon releases. The 24, 35, 85mm 1.4Gs are all class-leading optics, the 50 while not as legendary as the other 1.4 AFS primes, is still a worthy lens. As are the 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 pro zooms all of which are generally viewed as equal and often superior to the Canon equivalents (especially the 14-24 and 24-70).

A 70-200 f/4 would be a nice option, and it is not a stretch of the imagination to say that there is a good chance that we'll see a 70-200/4 Nikkor equivalent this year. They have already started to fill out an f/4 line last year starting with the 16-35/4 and the 24-120 (both with VR I might add), so a telephoto option on the same line would seem to follow next. But frankly, even f/4 is not going to cut it in many low light situations, and VR won't stop subject movement, so even if one were available it would not really address that problem.

Your complaints center mainly around one specific lens among an entire lineup that lacks VR, another lens that you can't afford, and a third lens which in fact does have a nikon equivalent (Nikon has always had a 100mm macro, the latest one is the 105mm f2.8 macro VR, released in 2006- it's actually Canon who has played catch-up with the IS here). It's fair for you to say that there are one or two gaps in Nikon's product line that don't line up with your needs, but I don't see how you can conclude from these 3 isolated examples that Nikon's lens lineup as a whole is lacking in selection or quality.

Ruahrc

 

[mtbdudex]

I have a T1i and have used it for astrophotography, live view and 10x for focusing are very handy.
When shooting on tripod looking upwards I'd love to have a swivel screen, that would save the knees from being on the ground.
Something to consider.

 

[habubauza]

Unfortunately I can't reconcile this statement with the facts. There is only maybe 1 lens that Canon has IS on that the Nikon equivalent does not, the 17-55 2.8, and that lens is getting on almost a decade old now. There are also Nikon lenses out there that have IS that Canon do not- the 16-35 f/4 VR for example, so it goes both ways. Show me Canon's list of high quality, fast lenses with stabilization and beyond the 17-55 f2.8, all you will come up with are telephotos, just like Nikon.

Also consider the quality of the recent Nikon releases. The 24, 35, 85mm 1.4Gs are all class-leading optics, the 50 while not as legendary as the other 1.4 AFS primes, is still a worthy lens. As are the 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 pro zooms all of which are generally viewed as equal and often superior to the Canon equivalents (especially the 14-24 and 24-70).

A 70-200 f/4 would be a nice option, and it is not a stretch of the imagination to say that there is a good chance that we'll see a 70-200/4 Nikkor equivalent this year. They have already started to fill out an f/4 line last year starting with the 16-35/4 and the 24-120 (both with VR I might add), so a telephoto option on the same line would seem to follow next. But frankly, even f/4 is not going to cut it in many low light situations, and VR won't stop subject movement, so even if one were available it would not really address that problem.

Your complaints center mainly around one specific lens among an entire lineup that lacks VR, another lens that you can't afford, and a third lens which in fact does have a nikon equivalent (Nikon has always had a 100mm macro, the latest one is the 105mm f2.8 macro VR, released in 2006- it's actually Canon who has played catch-up with the IS here). It's fair for you to say that there are one or two gaps in Nikon's product line that don't line up with your needs, but I don't see how you can conclude from these 3 isolated examples that Nikon's lens lineup as a whole is lacking in selection or quality.

Ruahrc

You are right about the macro lens, I am mistaken. However, I am not just theorizing here, this is real day to day shooting. I want a walk around fast lens, with image stabilization that goes from 17-55 that's made for a cropped sensor. Canon has it, Nikon does not. I don't want to spend $2,000+ for a fast super-telephoto zoom lens with image stabilization. I will however spend $1200 get image stabilization and sacrifice a stop of aperture. Canon has that lens, Nikon does not. We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I am not a professional photographer. I shoot for a hobby. I can't get the shot I need with the Nikon lenses available on my D7000 unless I spend $2400. I can get the shot I need on my7D and only spend $1200. I respect your opinion, but I am just saying that as a person who loves to take pictures of things varying from landscapes to my buddies soccer games, I have more flexibility with Canon lenses. Your mileage may vary and I respect that. We just have different opinions.
Cheers.

 

[100Teraflops]

Thanks to those who posted! Once again I am blown away with the professionalism in the digital photography forum. You folks are a tight knit group of people! As I stated, I will handle a couple of cameras from Canon's and Nikon's lineups respectively. The comparison of the lenses available is interesting, but I know very little or nothing, so I am on the sidelines.

I think the t3i and Nikon's equivalent are the models I seek. Noted, the Nikon d3100 is not an apples to apples comparison with neither the t3i nor the t2i. Thanks for straighten me out.

Northern Ohio is supposedly getting bombed with snow, so I am charging my camera battery in order to take a few pixs later today. If the Apple store were not so far away, then I would take a few pixs of the folks waiting for the iPad 2! Kinda like spy vs. spy, LOL.

Also, mtbdudex, I saw your photos of the moon in other threads! Nice work and I must say that your photos influenced me to take pictures of the moon! Two thumbs up! I will keep me eye open by reviewing the pix of the day threads etc, as there is a lot to learn from the grizzled veterans in the forum. Also, I have checked a few individual's links from their signature and I am very impressed with the quality of photos. Shoot on folks!

Thanks again to all of the photographers, whether you are novices or pros! I appreciate rubbing elbows and learning the ropes from first class people.

 

[OreoCookie]

I can't get the shot I need with the Nikon lenses available on my D7000 unless I spend $2400. I can get the shot I need on my7D and only spend $1200.

With all due respect, but that's incorrect: you can always get a Tamron 17-50 mm f/2.8 VC (the link isn't correctly parsed by the forum, so I've removed it) or a Sigma 17-50 mm f/2.8 OS. Of course, these lenses are available for all major mounts.

Unless you're looking at very special types of lenses, I don't see how one manufacturer has an edge over the other.

 

[OreoCookie]

I think the t3i and Nikon's equivalent are the models I seek. Noted, the Nikon d3100 is not an apples to apples comparison with neither the t3i nor the t2i. Thanks for straighten me out.

As pointed out by others, either camera will be fine. Once you've chosen your poison, nobody will say to you `Oh, that shot was clearly made by a Canon/Nikon/Sony/Olympus!' You should choose what feels most comfortable in your hands and the best camera is the one you have with you. My best friend owns a D70 and he bought a GF-1. Before getting the GF-1, he would often not take his camera with him. Now, he almost always takes the GF-1 with the pancake attached to each and every occasion.

If I were you, I'd go to a decent shop and try cameras from all manufacturers. The only thing you should know in advance is the total budget. Manufacturers other than Canon and Nikon may be worth a look, too. I'd also look at micro-4/3 cameras as well. The second piece of advice: get a cheap, fast prime lens (e. g. a 50 mm f/1.8).

 

[cnolan011]

You are right about the macro lens, I am mistaken. However, I am not just theorizing here, this is real day to day shooting. I want a walk around fast lens, with image stabilization that goes from 17-55 that's made for a cropped sensor. Canon has it, Nikon does not. I don't want to spend $2,000+ for a fast super-telephoto zoom lens with image stabilization. I will however spend $1200 get image stabilization and sacrifice a stop of aperture. Canon has that lens, Nikon does not. We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I am not a professional photographer. I shoot for a hobby. I can't get the shot I need with the Nikon lenses available on my D7000 unless I spend $2400. I can get the shot I need on my7D and only spend $1200. I respect your opinion, but I am just saying that as a person who loves to take pictures of things varying from landscapes to my buddies soccer games, I have more flexibility with Canon lenses. Your mileage may vary and I respect that. We just have different opinions.
Cheers.

I shoot with a D7000
I am curious why you need IS on a lens that short? I shoot sports with a couple different lenses, one my favorite it the 85mm f/1.4, no problem getting crisp, sharp, in focus images of people moving fast, or getting great panning shots of people at 1/30sec. Also, depending on the day, you can get the 70-200 VRII for around 2100, but that is expensive too. I am a hobbyist too, but i realized that their were shots that i wanted to take, so i had to invest in better, more expensive lenses.
I wont mock Cannon, i am thinking about purchasing one for video only as Cannon wins in that arena.

 

[compuwar]

The only thing I can think of (and somebody please correct me if I'm wrong), is that the Canon imaging processors are a bit faster than the Nikons. (spec for spec)

Since nobody knows everything that's going on in-camera, broad sweeping statements like that tend to be wrong almost every time for a line of cameras as wide as Canon and Nikon have. I've had no speed issues on my cameras that weren't frame-rate related, but I didn't choose my cameras for frame rates (the rare times I shoot sports, I'm perfectly happy to time the shots.)

Sorry, I should have been a little more detailed. I am disappointed that there is no Nikon equivalent to the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. Emphasis obviously on the Image Stabilization. I also find it frustrating that they see no need to make an equivalent to the 70-200 f/4.0L IS USM. How about the 100mm f/2.8 Macro IS USM?

In my opinion I think Nikon needs to step up their game when it comes to lenses. They have phenomenal camera systems, but they just seem to be lacking a bit when it comes to a variety of high quality, fast lenses with stabilization.

It's frustrating that when you are shooting telephoto in lower light and you don't have the option to either open up to f4 or the 2-3 stop benefit of image stabilization, unless of course you shell out $2500 for the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 ED VR II.

I'm just a little disappointed about that.

Seriously? IS at 55mm? What the heck are you shooting with any regularity that has low to no subject movement that you can't get to 1/60th of a second with any modern DLSR at that wide an range?

Personally, I find the 80-200 f/2.8 to be a decent lens, and again have difficulty finding a subject that wouldn't show motion blur at 1/125th that would be fine at 1/60th due to the extra stop of an f/4 lens at 200mm- I'd much rather have the f/2.8 lens than a stabilized lens at f/4 both for depth of field and the extra stop of shutter speed. I'd also bet money that the extra stop with a monopod would beat the IS lens every time because of subject motion blur for most subjects that you'd want to shoot in EV 6 or below. I think you're way too focused on IS- it's only good for camera motion, and a wall, railing, monopod or other support combined with good technique will do more for most images than IS.

IS is good when you're shooting static subjects in low light without support- if your subject is alive and not at rest then the stop of shutter speed will win over IS almost every time. If you're shooting soccer and you think any number of stops of IS is better than a stop of shutter speed then you're wrong, and I'd encourage you to rent an f/2.8 lens and see for yourself the difference.

If you shoot statues, paintings and static vehicles inside in low light, then IS helps a lot- otherwise you're in a strange place where a stop of shutter speed doesn't outweigh a couple of stops of camera shake. IS is useful for tracking moving subjects in good enough light to freeze them, or where you want the subject motion blur of a low shutter speed while you're tracking them- but good technique can match that most of the time.

Personally, I also find that I want the subject isolation of f/2.8 a lot more often than I'd want stabilization.

Finally , Nikon's 105mm Micro appeared in 1984, got AF in 1990, had AF-D added in 1993 and VR in 2006. Canon didn't add IS to the 100mm Macro until three years later in 2009.

Paul

 

[compuwar]

The swivel screen on the T3i should be a welcomed feature, as I have read people complain that the swivel or rotating screen was a feature excluded from the T2i.

Almost every time you use the screen instead of the viewfinder, you'll be in a much less stable shooting position. Hand-held, you're much, much better off using the viewfinder on a DSLR. As a bonus, using the viewfinder will also help with your shutter lifetime. If you're using live view, then your shutter needs to open one additional time per shot- that will (obviously) halve the shutter's lifetime.

You really can't go wrong with any modern DSLR, enjoy whichever camera you pick. If you're going to handle them, I'd advise handling 3 models from each manufacturer so that you get a feel for the line as a whole.

Paul

 

[OreoCookie]

The only thing I can think of (and somebody please correct me if I'm wrong), is that the Canon imaging processors are a bit faster than the Nikons. (spec for spec)

I haven't heard that. Manufacturers match the processing power to the needs of the camera (resolution, bit depth and fps for the most part). I haven't seen any serious delays in operation ever since I put my hands on a D70. My Olympus E-20 took two or three seconds to `boot up' or wake up from sleep. With any modern dslr, the time it takes for the camera to wake up is smaller than switching it on and putting the viewfinder to my eyes.

Some slowness you may experience is related to buffer size rather than cpu power: if the buffer fills up, you have to wait until it clears and the camera may be slower. But buffer size and fps depend on the model. I don't think you can make any sweeping statement in that area.

 

[habubauza]

With all due respect, but that's incorrect: you can always get a Tamron 17-50 mm f/2.8 VC (the link isn't correctly parsed by the forum, so I've removed it) or a Sigma 17-50 mm f/2.8 OS. Of course, these lenses are available for all major mounts.

Unless you're looking at very special types of lenses, I don't see how one manufacturer has an edge over the other.

Thanks for the input, Tamron and Sigma have some decent lenses but I was specifically talking about Canon vs. Nikon lens selections.

 

[habubauza]

Since nobody knows everything that's going on in-camera, broad sweeping statements like that tend to be wrong almost every time for a line of cameras as wide as Canon and Nikon have. I've had no speed issues on my cameras that weren't frame-rate related, but I didn't choose my cameras for frame rates (the rare times I shoot sports, I'm perfectly happy to time the shots.)



Seriously? IS at 55mm? What the heck are you shooting with any regularity that has low to no subject movement that you can't get to 1/60th of a second with any modern DLSR at that wide an range?

Personally, I find the 80-200 f/2.8 to be a decent lens, and again have difficulty finding a subject that wouldn't show motion blur at 1/125th that would be fine at 1/60th due to the extra stop of an f/4 lens at 200mm- I'd much rather have the f/2.8 lens than a stabilized lens at f/4 both for depth of field and the extra stop of shutter speed. I'd also bet money that the extra stop with a monopod would beat the IS lens every time because of subject motion blur for most subjects that you'd want to shoot in EV 6 or below. I think you're way too focused on IS- it's only good for camera motion, and a wall, railing, monopod or other support combined with good technique will do more for most images than IS.

IS is good when you're shooting static subjects in low light without support- if your subject is alive and not at rest then the stop of shutter speed will win over IS almost every time. If you're shooting soccer and you think any number of stops of IS is better than a stop of shutter speed then you're wrong, and I'd encourage you to rent an f/2.8 lens and see for yourself the difference.

If you shoot statues, paintings and static vehicles inside in low light, then IS helps a lot- otherwise you're in a strange place where a stop of shutter speed doesn't outweigh a couple of stops of camera shake. IS is useful for tracking moving subjects in good enough light to freeze them, or where you want the subject motion blur of a low shutter speed while you're tracking them- but good technique can match that most of the time.

Personally, I also find that I want the subject isolation of f/2.8 a lot more often than I'd want stabilization.

Finally , Nikon's 105mm Micro appeared in 1984, got AF in 1990, had AF-D added in 1993 and VR in 2006. Canon didn't add IS to the 100mm Macro until three years later in 2009.

Paul

I want to have the choice available to me to shoot at slower shutter speeds that would otherwise be extremely difficult without Image Stabilization. That's why many manufacturers make image stabilization for shorter focal lengths.

The 80-200 f/2.8 you speak of is going to require a tripod and a monopod. I don't want to have to carry that around with me all the time. I have a cropped sensor camera so using lenses designed for full frame sensors mean that I have to be even more careful with handheld shots. That's too much work for me. If I ever considered taking photography beyond a novice level, I may consider it.

 

[compuwar]

I want to have the choice available to me to shoot at slower shutter speeds that would otherwise be extremely difficult without Image Stabilization. That's why many manufacturers make image stabilization for shorter focal lengths.

Once again, what are you shooting that you won't get motion blur at under 1/60th of a second? What is this "extremely difficult" challenge? I shoot fairly often under 70mm, and I can't for the life of me imagine a subject that would occasionally want to be shot that slowly that wouldn't give motion blur, so I'm curious, please share this challenge with us. More importantly, please share some images of this challenge- I'd like to understand your argument, because unlike you, I believe that many manufacturers add stabilization to shorter focal length lenses simply for marketing purposes, but I haven't shot everything under the roof, so please share some of these wide angle challenges. If it's routine enough to be important to you, then it should be relatively easy to show some examples and enlighten us all.

The 80-200 f/2.8 you speak of is going to require a tripod and a monopod. I don't want to have to carry that around with me all the time. I have a cropped sensor camera so using lenses designed for full frame sensors mean that I have to be even more careful with handheld shots. That's too much work for me. If I ever considered taking photography beyond a novice level, I may consider it.

Actually, the reciprocal of the focal length rule works no matter if the camera is a crop sensor or not. A 200mm lens is a 200mm lens- if it were designed for a crop sensor, it would just have a smaller image circle, not less magnification.

Since my 80-200 doesn't fit into my Wimberly II, I usually shoot with it hand held (it and the slow 300/4 are the two lenses I tend to use hand-held, as everything else will work on the L bracket on the Wimberly other than the 400/2.8 which has a nice foot to balance on the gimball head.) So, no- it doesn't "require" a tripod or a monopod. If being "careful" is too much work for you- and let's face it, it's just acquiring good technique, then probably framing, lighting and all the other "work" involved in getting good shots are "too much work" too- but that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong about Nikon's lenses.

Frankly though, for what I use a 200mm lens for I don't find it all that difficult to shoot at 1/250th of a second zoomed all the way in- which is fast enough to require no support at all with either my full frame or DX crop bodies. At 1/125th, I need good technique or something to brace against- but again, I'd be at 1/60th with an f/4 lens, so I'd be looking at subject motion blur for most moving subjects at that point. For me, that's too slow for say a drummer in motion- where I'd want to be around 1/125th to 1/250th depending. So once again, I ask what are you shooting with a 70-200/4 that makes IS advantageous, because other than tracking moving subjects with some calculated motion blur, I don't see a huge advantage- and I find f/4 enough of a disadvantage that I'd rather have the subject isolation >95% of the time (and I do a fair amount of panning of moving subjects.)

Paul