I was looking at reviews of the Nikkor 500mm f5.6 prime and they are pretty good. One of my first posts asked why Canon and Nikon did not make a f5.6 prime since it would be much lighter and cheaper than an f4 or f2.8. I had a fair amount of responses just mocking me for the question. However, it looks like this lens is a very good one at a reasonable (if $3600 is reasonable) price and it is considerably lighter than my Canon 100-400 ii. Do people know/think if Canon is considering a similar lens??

If you plan to shoot birds and monkeys they both can move quickly and tend not to stay in one place. Therefore, you will need quick and reliable autofocus or you will miss many shots. You will also need to crop most of your shots significantly so sharpness is an issue. Rent if you intend never to shoot birds or wildlife again. If not, then buy the Nikon 200-500. After all, you are spending a lot of money to go to Costa Rica so maximize the experience. This is a great lens and you will probably use it a lot when you get back and/or go on vacation again. Look into used or refurbished from reputable dealers like KEH or MPB or Canon (for refurbished). Point and shoot and cheaper lenses can get decent photos but the Nikon lens will always outperform them. The Nikon lens is a great deal even at full price.

I have had that problem Goes away when I shut the engine off. Could be the high frequency vibrations.

Thanks. I actually haven't tried CSR in Photoshop, will give it a go.

So what do folks think of ACR's new "enhance details" feature. It seems to me that the effect is so minimal as to be useless. Sure, you can detect the difference when you pixel peep but regular, careful sharpening seems to be just as good or better.

I often do that. However, if you have a very shallow depth of field, i.e. when I use my 100-400 as a macro lens, and your object of focus is too far to the left or right in the recomposed frame it may be a little out of focus. Assuming you have the time you should move the point focus in the viewfinder to wherever you want to be in perfect focus.

Having had some experience with park rangers I can tell you that some know what they are talking about and some don't. The rules are quite clear and if you are not reserving a location you are free to take all the pictures you want and do whatever you would like with them. I would bring a copy of the rules and talk to another ranger, preferably someone higher up, and see what they say.

It depends on the lens. After 2000 Canon added a feature to IS lenses that detected when a tripod was being used and locked the IS group. Check your manual or look online for each of your lenses. Of course, it never hurts to turn it off while on the tripod.

I have used both cameras and the Mark ii is around one stop better, maybe more, depending on the actual iso range you are using. Noise does not seem to increase linearly with iso so the Mark ii may give a bigger difference in noise at 6400 than at 800. Of course, the Mark ii has other significant advantages, for instance, the AF is much better.

I am not a pro photographer, but I am a scientist and understand light. All of the previous replies have valid points. So let me summarize. Shooting RAW files will allow you to produce the same image as if you shoot in JPEG. Shooting JPEG files will not allow you to produce the same image(s) that shooting in RAW will. The ONLY advantage that shooting in JPEG gives you is the time advantage. If you shoot in a studio and can control every aspect of your lighting then you can certainly shoot in JPEG. If you have to shoot a lot of images with quick turnaround then JPEG may be better (although) you can convert to JPEG with preset pp very quickly. If you are looking for the ONE exceptional image of many subjects and are willing to spend some time to get it, shoot RAW for the creative control of exposure of different areas of the image, contrast, color correction, etc., etc. Not sure why so many on this forum are so prejudiced against pp, after all there was a lot of pp in the old film days.

Professionals in every area of endeavor tend to have the best tools they can get. While you do not need the best camera to take excellent photographs, a lesser camera will give you fewer options in the types of photography you choose to do. Whether it is portraits, scenery, wildlife, birds, or street photography a better camera will most often give you better results. It will not supply knowledge or artistry and, if you have neither of those, you will be wasting your money on an expensive camera. Just like if you have a handicap of 30 the most expensive golf clubs in the world will not enable you to shoot par.

Nice job. This is exactly what I am looking for in answers to these kinds of questions. Reasonable testing as opposed to unsupported opinion. I would be interested in the test of the lower pixel crop vs. full frame higher pixel cameras. I would expect, of course, that you would lose the full frame advantage in ISO, unless an improvement in sensor technology has occurred in the newer high mp full frame since the pixel size would be about equal.

B&H has a number of reviews from verified buyers so I figured some have received it.

A local photographer in my area posted a couple of pics he said was taken with it.

Has anyone had a chance to compare the new Sigma 60-600 to the older Sigma 150-600 lenses. I am particularly interested in their performance at 600mm with wide open aperture as I, personally, found the older lenses were not that great at those settings.