I recently purchased a Canon Rebel 350XT with the 18-85 IS USM. I also purchased the 70-300 DO IS USM . I need some advice on the digital media. Sandisk extreme III, 1G. or the Lexar pro 80x 1G. I plan on buying two of them for my trip. Is this the way to go? Any suggestions???? I am also looking a longer range lens and was considering the Canon 100-400 IS USM L. Is there anything that is after market that is as good or better???

I have a goodly number of Canon Lenses and cameras. I don't think that the speed of the CF is going to make a whole lot of difference for most pictures. I have done pretty well with Microdrives which I assume would be slower.

I think if you already have a 70-300 lens, you would gain little by going to a 100-400. The 100-400 weighs nearly 2 pounds more and this could be a hassle. Don't get weighted down or you will not carry the stuff. Having said that, L glass is awfully nice and I would doubt if any after market lens would compare. I am very biased towards L glass.

On my trip, I left my SLR's at home and carried a Canon Powershot Pro1. It was so convenient and light. I was actually able to carry it. It does not compare to a SLR in terms of action picture taking.

I would make sure that you have either multiple CF's or a laptop or some storage device to down load the files. With the size of digital files it is very easy to use up 1 gig.

Richard, thanks for the reply. I always take a small point and shoot in the day pack, however, I also find myself shooting far more pictures as I like hunting two on one with my wife or my friend. I was going to buy at least two of the one gig CF cards for the trip as well as the Epson 2000 for more storage as well as being able to see the pictures in larger size. We took a lap top before, not again. I bought a better camera to take more and better photos of the safari. If the less speedy CF cards that cost about 70-80 $$$ I could probably buy more and not be restricted on my picture count. What do you think? Higher speed or does it really matter?

I was glancing at the 1 gig $80 ones at Costco's Sunday evening and I think they are a good bit faster than the state of the art ones a few years ago. I have an EOS 1D and it is fine with some of the lesser CF's (not bottom end ones) and microdrives. I was very happy taking college baseball pics for my personal use. I think if you were taking pics of a Cheetah chasing an animal, you might want the fastest kid on the block. I think you would be more likely to run out of memory than needing the fastest.

You might want to buy one of the lesser priced ones and play around at a baseball field and just get an idea of the speed is adequate.

I have used microdrives a lot and have never had trouble with them. The cost per size of storage is a good bit cheaper. Some people question their reliability--I have some that are 4-5 years old and not having problems.

I would carry more than one of any CF even with the Epson 2000. I like the idea of having multiple copies of pictures until I can get home. I would imagine that the 40 gig's would satisfy your storage needs. :-)

I have always carried a laptop and like that option--I can give away pics on cd's and such. The Epson option seems very convenient and would save space. You wouldn't be able to read Accurate reloading with it though. :-))))

When is your trip?

I can't help you with the lens situation other than to say I've heard the 100-400 is a better lens than the 70-300. If you buy the 100-400 are you returning the 70-300?

I was at a bird photography workshop last month and one of the guys had the Epson 2000. Great little machine. The screen is large enough to really see the pictures and they show up beautifully. Great color and clarity.

Good Luck!
Cindy

My trip is in late August. Plenty of time to shop and for prices to drop a bit if they are going to. I bought the 70-300 DO IS USM because it seemed to be the biggest bang for the buck with reduced size and weight. My other lense is the 18-85 IS USM. This pair appeared to be one of the better traveling kits that Canon had to offer. Picture quality is supposed to be good but not quite L quality. While hunting, I would think that the 100-400 would be bulkier and much heavier. I want one lense to pretty much stay on the camera for wildlife scenes. If I need the wider angle lense I can switch. My shots at game always seem to be at almost maximum telephoto. My older camera, the Canon Pro 90 IS just didn't have the reach. This one should do pretty well, I hope. I also thought about taking one of the small Epson printers along to print stuff to give as gifts to the staff. The price isn't all isn't all that bad. What do you think of the plan so far?

I wouldn't think I would want both the 70-300 and the 100-400. I would pick one or the other. How much heavier is the 100-400? Is it enough to make that much difference?

As for taking a printer - at the photography workshop I was at last month they had a Canon i90. That was so cool! Very good quality prints. I can't remember if it uses archival ink but they did say it uses lots of ink. I can't remember which one was used the most so test it before you go. I imagine people will love you if you can take their pictures and print them!


Some random statements I've read by semi/pro-photographers regarding the lenses are:

1. "I owned the 70-300 do for a while, but sold it (no regret there). The construction does not allow for extenders unless you use third party, you need to step down two stops before it has reasonable sharpness, it is very expensive given it's limitations. The only thing that it has going for it is that it is small. You would be better off getting the 100-400 which IMHO is a better lens, though larger and heavier, or the 70-200 f/2.8 IS with a multiplier, which is much better than either."

"Or if you want superior optics in a lighter package than the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, get the 70-200 f/4L - I am just floored with the quality of this lens - hands down the best zoom lens for sharpness I have ever owned and its very light."

2. "I would not describe the 70-300 DO lens as critically sharp especially at either end (70 or 300). It is a useful lens because of its size. As you can see, it is a nice lens for throwing it in your pack when you go out. Sorry I don't have a nature shot at 300mm as you requested."

3. "I have found the 100-400 very sharp but extra slow in initial focus acquisition, not very good with the 1.4X and poorly built. Mine has been rebuilt twice. It also sucks in dust when moving in/out Handling is not as good since the lens changes length balancing is not as easy.

The 70-200 might be the sharpest zoom Canon Makes? and the 400 5.6 acquire focus about as fast as any lens Canon makes. Partly to the poor minimum focussing distance.

Neither of these two can do what the 100-400 does without changing lenses and it is lighter than the other two. I guess it is all a matter of compromises. There is no best just what fits the circumstances ....... I have no plans in selling my 100-400 I'm sure they will be a time when it will be handy and would not hesitate to use it !!!!"

4. "I bought a 100-400mm about at year ago and I love it! I takes exellent pictures and works well with the 1.4x converter (manual focus). The IS really makes a difference early in the morning and late in the day when you want to keep the ISO low. It works okay for flight shots of slower moving birds (herons, egrets). For flight, I would either lock down the lens at 300mm and turn the IS off, or place the IS in mode 2 and find the bird in the frame at 100mm, and slowly zoom to 400mm, before taking the shot. I've used this lens extensively with my Digital Rebel and my 20D."


5. "I purchased a 10D and a 100-400mm in April of 2003. Since then I have used the 100-400mm, often in combination with the 1.4xTC, to shoot over 80,000 images. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the 100-400mm lens."

I haven't seen much info posted about the 70-300. Maybe you have. Whichever lens you choose you will use the maximum focal distance. I've only been on one hunting safari and would have loved the 100-400 because the game was mostly far away. (I had a something-200mm.) Since that trip in 2002 I bought the 70-200mm and a fixed 300mm ( and a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter) and have been back to Africa 2 more times for photo safaris. You get much closer to game when they haven't been hunted so the lenses I have are great for me. Good luck with whatever you choose!

Lexar 80X and i would wait a bit on the 1GB versions as the prices will come down quickly. Get two of the 512s for the extra versatility. Lexar is, as far as I know, the only storage media that will give a decent chance of recovering any photos you might dlete by mistake. Hasn't happened to me yet but several friends have actually recovered deleted material. I think they're the best and they only cost a bit more.

I just bought two Lexar 128 mb SD cards and had to take them both back as they were defective. They were the cheapest, but as it turns out, not worth having. Tried a Kodak version and am completely satisfied.

I just got back my Hitachi 4GB microdirve after it took a dump on me while on vacation a month ago. It was about a week old. They replaced it under warranty in a little over 2 weeks. I replaced it with 2 1 gig Lexar cards from Sam's. So far they have done OK (they haven't broke!). The Hitachi is going to stay in its package until I REALLY need it. I ain't gonna give it a chance to fail twice!.

Catmandu

You are better off staying away from Microdrives altogether. In my experience they do not take very kindly to rough handling.