Going to DL. Which to Bring PS or DSLR?

[MICKEY88]

If you can show me where Canon has issued that warning for a lens in the size range of the 70-200 f/2.8 on a 1 series body, I'll give that some credence. Even better, if you can find me an example somewhere of someone that suffered from the practice, I'll be even more swayed. The lens is 1.45kg and my camera body is 1.2kg, that's not a huge difference (although the center of mass of the lens is farther from the mount, so it would exert more torque).

Canon has, I believe, the largest lens mount of any DSLR. The 70-200 f/2.8 L lens and their 1 series bodies are built to be extremely durable. I'm personally convinced that the mount is up to it. In fact, I'd do the same with my old 10D. It's only the polycarbonate body Rebel series that would give me pause.

I wouldn't mount on a tripod that way, but I've never heard of any problems carrying the lens around that way. The tripod mount issue isn't a concern for the lens mount; it's a concern for ease of adjustment and vibration reduction.

Don't believe everything you read. Some warnings are dramatically over cautious and some posters do insane things without suffering negative consequences. I didn't see my post as an attempt to discredit yours so much as an offering of an alternate viewpoint. While you seem bothered by it, I would have felt remiss if I let your original post stand as gospel without pointing out that I ignore the advice with no harm (yet). We're each free to make our point and each reader is free to decide what is the best course of action for them.

Now, I have seen one case where a 1 series body failed. It was with a 500mm f/4 lens (considerably larger than a 70-200 f/2.8). It was the result of a fall rather than someone holding the body. Before following the link, let me warn you that it is extremely graphic and disturbing. I hesitate to link to it because it's far to horrifying for a family site. I certainly won't put the image in my thread. This is not a photo that should be seen by children or the under-insured. I had nightmares for days after seeing it.


http://www.sportsshooter.com/port_popup.html?mem_id=296&i_id=587123

Don't say I didn't warn you.

I know I've read about it on other message boards, I remember hearing about it when I worked in a caamera store and camera were sent out for repair for that very reason, just beacuse you've never seen it or heard of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, have you ever held 10 million dollars..?? yet it exists... I will not spend my time lookiing for the proof, because you would simply say that;s a 1 in a million chance or dispell it somehow, I stand by my original post I think it is a disservice to your fellow dissers to tell them it won't happen,, as for canon giving that warning,,,,do you have the lens...check the manual if they've issued such a warning it should be in there...


I know your camera is built strong, so are the 9000 maxxums I uses to use, but they are not invincible

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I know I've read about it on other message boards, I remember hearing about it when I worked in a caamera store and camera were sent out for repair for that very reason, just beacuse you've never seen it or heard of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, have you ever held 10 million dollars..?? yet it exists... I will not spend my time lookiing for the proof, because you would simply say that;s a 1 in a million chance or dispell it somehow, I stand by my original post I think it is a disservice to your fellow dissers to tell them it won't happen,, as for canon giving that warning,,,,do you have the lens...check the manual if they've issued such a warning it should be in there...


I know your camera is built strong, so are the 9000 maxxums I uses to use, but they are not invincible

I checked the manual for my 10D and my 1D. I couldn't find any related cautions. I even dug up the manual for my Canon EF70-200 f/2.8L IS USM lens. I have to confess that this is the first time I ever looked at the manual.

Here are the cautions I found in the lens manual:

Handling Cautions
If the lens is taken from a cold environment into a warm one, condesation may develop..........put the lens into an airtight plastic bag.......Do the same when taking the lens from a warm environment into a cold one.

There's a big Safety Precautions section, but it just prattles on about how the lens complies with Part 15 of the FCC Rules and how it might cause interference with my radio or television. So far, that hasn't been a problem. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

There's a warning about using the dust cap and keeping the contacts clean.

There's a warning that the rubber ring for water- and dust-resistance might cause slight abrasions around the camera's lens.

It warns me that zooming after focusing could affect the focus.

It warns me to use an external flash because a built in flash (which Canon was too cheap to include on my camera) might be blocked by the lens.

It gives me a whole page of warnings about the STABILIZER (not sure why it's in all caps). I learned something new here - I'm supposed to turn the stabilizer off when using the Bulb setting.

There's a section on the tripod mount, but no warnings of any kind.

It warns me not to put the hood on wrong.

It warns me not to use more than one extender.


I see nothing about how to hold it, how not to hold it, or any harm that could come holding it incorrectly. Of course, that doesn't prove anything. It also fails to warn me not to use it as a hammer, to prevent my car from rolling backwards, or as a disciplinary tool for wayward children, none of which I recommend.

I'm sorry that you think I'm doing a disservice to our fellow dissers. I thought I was offering the service an alternative viewpoint. I'll leave it to them to decide if they chose to accept my singular experience rather than your memories of other websites and a past problem at a camera store. At least now they've heard two different views on the subject. While I personally don't think that your warning is justified and might needless scare someone into needlessly buying other gear and compromising their use of their equipment, I'll respect your view enough not to call it a disservice. I'll just consider it an alternative viewpoint. You are, of course, welcome to see my opinion as a disservice. It's just another point on which we disagree.

 

[MICKEY88]

I checked the manual for my 10D and my 1D. I couldn't find any related cautions. I even dug up the manual for my Canon EF70-200 f/2.8L IS USM lens. I have to confess that this is the first time I ever looked at the manual.

Here are the cautions I found in the lens manual:

Handling Cautions
If the lens is taken from a cold environment into a warm one, condesation may develop..........put the lens into an airtight plastic bag.......Do the same when taking the lens from a warm environment into a cold one.

There's a big Safety Precautions section, but it just prattles on about how the lens complies with Part 15 of the FCC Rules and how it might cause interference with my radio or television. So far, that hasn't been a problem. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

There's a warning about using the dust cap and keeping the contacts clean.

There's a warning that the rubber ring for water- and dust-resistance might cause slight abrasions around the camera's lens.

It warns me that zooming after focusing could affect the focus.

It warns me to use an external flash because a built in flash (which Canon was too cheap to include on my camera) might be blocked by the lens.

It gives me a whole page of warnings about the STABILIZER (not sure why it's in all caps). I learned something new here - I'm supposed to turn the stabilizer off when using the Bulb setting.

There's a section on the tripod mount, but no warnings of any kind.

It warns me not to put the hood on wrong.

It warns me not to use more than one extender.


I see nothing about how to hold it, how not to hold it, or any harm that could come holding it incorrectly. Of course, that doesn't prove anything. It also fails to warn me not to use it as a hammer, to prevent my car from rolling backwards, or as a disciplinary tool for wayward children, none of which I recommend.this whole paragraph pointless , it has nothing to do with the issue.

I'm sorry that you think I'm doing a disservice to our fellow dissers. I thought I was offering the service an alternative viewpoint. I'll leave it to them to decide if they chose to accept my singular experience rather than your memories of other websites and a past problem at a camera store. past cases from the largest camera chain in the us, with one of the largest repair centers, At least now they've heard two different views on the subject. While I personally don't think that your warning is justified and might needless scare someone into needlessly buying other gear and compromising their use of their equipment, I'd rather see someone spend a few extra dollars for the lens cradle, than see them ruin their gear because of not knowing of the risk of mount damage........ in my first post I said you run the risk of damaging your mount if you only support the set up by the camera, I never said it would happen for sure... COLOR] I'll respect your view enough not to call it a disservice. I'll just consider it an alternative viewpoint. You are, of course, welcome to see my opinion as a disservice. It's just another point on which we disagree.

I merely offered a friendly caution, which will help people make a knowledgeable choice on how to carry their gear, no damage should occur from properly supporting one's gear, damage could occur{doesn't mean it will" but it can from supporting a long heavy lens by just holding the body,

so yes I still think that dispelling sound advice, just based on personal preference or experience, is a disservice, that could lead to someone experiencing the damage...

I earlier posted the link for the lens cradle, which in the add clearly mentions the possible damage I warned of, and just as an extra piece of info, I originally learned of the lens cradle on another message board where there was a discussion of mount damage., so it's not just the company trying to sell their device..


as you mentioned canon doesn't warn you about a lot of things, so the fact that they don't warn of mount damage doesn't mean it's non existant, it could mean they would prefer to make money selling new bodies or repairing damaged mounts{pure speculation but possible}

and just because canon doesn't warn about this while other manufacturers do, doesn't mean the risk is not there



copied from tokina 80-200 2.8 lens manual.

taken from lens cradle web site.

A common problem associated with using SLR cameras is the wear and tear caused by the weight of a large lens being supported solely by the strap on the camera body. This permits the lens to dangle down awkwardly applying undue stress on the camera to lens junction. It requires the use of your hands to stabilize and protect your investment. Not to mention the excess stress on your arm, neck and shoulders.

The Lens Cradle is designed to fit any lens with a tripod mount. It supports the camera and lens horizontally by utilizing the tripod mounting ring on the lens. Thereby, substantially reducing if not eliminating, the damage and stress that occurs to the camera body at the lens mounting junction. The Lens Cradle gives horizontal balance and stability that a camera strap alone does not provide. You no longer need to support the weight of a large lens with your hand. The natural horizontal position keeps the camera poised to be ready for the next elusive shot and prevents lens creep on push pull lenses.

With the supplied hardware the Lens Cradle can be used in conjunction with any tripod or mono pod that uses a quick release plate. Ideal for leaving your mono pod connected to the Lens Cradle and camera lens while walking. Literally eliminating the concern of weight and damage to your equipment.

 

[Groucho]

Now, I have seen one case where a 1 series body failed. It was with a 500mm f/4 lens (considerably larger than a 70-200 f/2.8). It was the result of a fall rather than someone holding the body. Before following the link, let me warn you that it is extremely graphic and disturbing. I hesitate to link to it because it's far to horrifying for a family site. I certainly won't put the image in my thread. This is not a photo that should be seen by children or the under-insured. I had nightmares for days after seeing it.


http://www.sportsshooter.com/port_popup.html?mem_id=296&i_id=587123

Don't say I didn't warn you.

I think I found my new desktop background.

Kidding, kidding!

 

[MICKEY88]

I think I found my new desktop background.

Kidding, kidding!

would you really want to look at a Canon all day...

 

[WillCAD]

would you really want to look at a Canon all day...

Only if you have good taste.

 

[MICKEY88]

Only if you have good taste.

I agree, those of us with better taste would rather look at something else...

 

[Groucho]

A broken Canon is not so bad. And looking at a Canon is better than actually having to use one.

I actually had a Main St Bakery cinnamon roll as a desktop background for a while... Now that's a "good taste" background!

 

[MICKEY88]

I actually had a Main St Bakery cinnamon roll as a desktop background for a while... Now that's a "good taste" background!

that sounds like torture

 

[MarkBarbieri]

this whole paragraph pointless , it has nothing to do with the issue.

The point was to show that Canon covered a very large number of warnings from the significant to the trivial but never mentioned your concern. It was in response to your suggestion that I check the manual.

so yes I still think that dispelling sound advice, just based on personal preference or experience, is a disservice, that could lead to someone experiencing the damage...

You appear to have appointed yourself the arbiter of what is sound advice. Using the same logic, I guess my other threads in which I tell people I don't use a UV filter, take pictures on water rides, leave my camera in a hot car, buy Canon equipment, and use my camera at the beach (all in defiance of advice that others think is sound) are also a disservice. I never realized that telling people how I treat my equipment was such a problem.

I really don't think continuing the debate is going to add any value to this board. You've made your point, quite vehemently that you think people should never support a 70-200 f/2.8 lens with the camera body. I've let people know, apparently to your dismay, that I do exactly that. I've made it clear that your haughty (IMO) characterization of my post as a "disservice" bothers me. You've made it clear that you think its appropriate. If there is anything else useful to be said on the subject, I'll leave it to you to add it.

and all that.

 

[Master Mason]

Mark,

I bet you run with sissors and walk under ladders too

I have walked around with my 70-200 f/2.8L hanging from my XT, which is not built near as well as yours, for many hours with no problems whatsoever, other than a little tennis elbow that flairs up from time to time.

Some folks treat their cameras as tools, and others baby them. I don't think either side is particularly correct or incorrect. Whoever coughed up the money for it should decided how they wish to use them.

Now lets go back to talking about how much better Canon is than the compitition those are always a lot more fun to watch

 

[MICKEY88]

Mark,

I bet you run with sissors and walk under ladders too

I have walked around with my 70-200 f/2.8L hanging from my XT, which is not built near as well as yours, for many hours with no problems whatsoever, other than a little tennis elbow that flairs up from time to time.

Some folks treat their cameras as tools, and others baby them. I don't think either side is particularly correct or incorrect. Whoever coughed up the money for it should decided how they wish to use them.

Now lets go back to talking about how much better Canon is than the compitition those are always a lot more fun to watch

I agree 100 percent the owner should decide how they treat what they've paid for, but I see no harm in them being informed of the risk , so that they can make an informed decision,

i don't baby my gear, but I also don't choose to abuse it or put it at unneccessary risk....

in this debate I've provided several sources to back my belief, no one has provided any source to the contrary,, other than personal belief or practice, but apparently I am wrong, I find that interesting..

 

[Master Mason]

I agree 100 percent the owner should decide how they treat what they've paid for, but I see no harm in them being informed of the risk , so that they can make an informed decision,

i don't baby my gear, but I also don't choose to abuse it or put it at unneccessary risk....

in this debate I've provided several sources to back my belief, no one has provided any source to the contrary,, other than personal belief or practice, but apparently I am wrong, I find that interesting..

Mickey88,

I am not saying your wrong, infact, your most likely right, as all that weight hanging from, in my case a relatively flimsy mount, probably isn't good for the mount. It is a good warning.

Mark has made the point that he doesn't heed the warning and has never experienced a problem, nor in this case have I. That also doesn't mean that the next time I do so, my precious lens might hit the deck when the mount breaks, just that it hasn't in the past.

In the end, the warnings are fine, and true, but if all the warnings were followed, think of the shots that people would miss. I would warn someone that going down splash mountain taking pictures isn't a good idea, but I have seen a gif image that is amazing of someone that took just that chance with their SLR....

 

[MICKEY88]

QUOTE=MarkBarbieri;19009384]The point was to show that Canon covered a very large number of warnings from the significant to the trivial but never mentioned your concern. It was in response to your suggestion that I check the manual.
if you read my post carefully I suggested checking the manual for the lens, since that is where I saw the warning, I never mentioned the camera manual., [
..


You appear to have appointed yourself the arbiter of what is sound advice.

I have not appointed myself anything I just think people should be able to make an informed decision.. ... Using the same logic, I guess my other threads in which I tell people I don't use a UV filter, take pictures on water rides, leave my camera in a hot car, buy Canon equipment, and use my camera at the beach (all in defiance of advice that others think is sound) are also a disservice. that is your logic, not mine I also don't use filters, I've taken pics on water rides, and walked the beach at Clearwater with my camera... and the conversation on leaving cameras in hot cars I admitted to doing so, but I also gave a tip on keeping the temp in your car trunk significanly lower than the rest of the carI never realized that telling people how I treat my equipment was such a problem.you can tell people anything you want about your gear, I shared your posts with a fellow photographer and he also thought your posts were dispelling my info as false, and to be ignored, that's where I have the problem, I backed my opinion with info from other sources, you based yours on your beliefs..and practices

I really don't think continuing the debate is going to add any value to this board. You've made your point, quite vehemently that you think people should never support a 70-200 f/2.8 lens with the camera body. I've let people know, apparently to your dismay, that I do exactly that. I've made it clear that your haughty (IMO) characterization of my post as a "disservice" bothers me. You've made it clear that you think its appropriate. If there is anything else useful to be said on the subject, I'll leave it to you to add it.

and all that.[/QUOTE]
thanks for the personal attack, I only debated dismissing my info as not true, I never attacked you,and I will not now...

I respect you and your knowledge greatly but on this I totally disagree..
anyone who knows me, knows I am far from arrogant,,, calling the dispelling of info that is readily available knowledge in the photography world, a diservice is far from haughty as you choose to put it, , do you believe that telling people it is safe to do something that may very well damage their equipment, is a service to your fellow dissers, not everyone has the money to upgrade whenever something new comes out, some people expect a dlsr to last for many years..

 

[MICKEY88]

Mickey88,

I am not saying your wrong, infact, your most likely right, as all that weight hanging from, in my case a relatively flimsy mount, probably isn't good for the mount. It is a good warning.

Mark has made the point that he doesn't heed the warning and has never experienced a problem, nor in this case have I. That also doesn't mean that the next time I do so, my precious lens might hit the deck when the mount breaks, just that it hasn't in the past.

In the end, the warnings are fine, and true, but if all the warnings were followed, think of the shots that people would miss. I would warn someone that going down splash mountain taking pictures isn't a good idea, but I have seen a gif image that is amazing of someone that took just that chance with their SLR....

I remember a post a few months ago where someone stated that rapid fire flash shots, is a good way to toast a flash, I stated that I had done that for years with no problem.

2 weeks later I toasted my flash during a photo shoot of a singer..
so I now take such warnings more seriously,

so perhaps the best thing to do is share the warnings yet give people good advice on how to still protect their gear.


I leave my gear in my hot trunk sometimes, but if possible I also have a garbage bag with 2 bags of ice...that keeps the trunk temp down..

I've gone on water rides and taken pics, but have been careful not to let the camera get drenched...

I've had my camera on the beach, but am careful to shield it from salt spray which is the worst cause of damage


as far as babying gear, not gonna happen...last september at the pa renn fairre i had my camera on my monopod, strap around my neck monopod was closed up, was talking to a performer and let the camera hang for just a second while I did something, the strap lug, tore out of the body, thank goodness I caught the camera just inches from the ground...

I had done that numerous times with no problem, but I had a heavier lens on that day, so come to think of it, it's just not a lens mount that could break..

on that note I just convinced myself to buy the lens cradle for my 80-200....

thanks for helping me think that one thru...LOL

 

[Anewman]

if you read my post carefully I suggested checking the manual for the lens, since that is where I saw the warning, I never mentioned the camera manual.,
..

Just to be accurate...

I even dug up the manual for my Canon EF70-200 f/2.8L IS USM lens. I have to confess that this is the first time I ever looked at the manual.

Here are the cautions I found in the lens manual:

Handling Cautions...

Without advising others to do it, I also suspend the camera at my side with Medium heavy lens attached to the camera while shooting with another body. When raising the lens to shooting position I obviously lift with both hands(one under lens), but when I switch to the body with a wider lens I pretty much let it hang from the strap.

Not that seeing hundreds if not THOUSANDS of sports shooters using multiple bodies and the above suspended by the camera strap technique is proof... But I have never seen a mount failure even with lenses much heavier than the one in question. There are countless images online of photographers shooting with one body while letting other(s) hang from the strap.

Is you warning valid??? Yes but with such a low actual failure rate, Marks points are also just as valid. We are talking about MILLIONS of cameras sold, and very few isolated reports of failure. It does not compare(IMO) to the amount of injuries that result from speeding.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I respect you and your knowledge greatly but on this I totally disagree..
anyone who knows me, knows I am far from arrogant,,, calling the dispelling of info that is readily available knowledge in the photography world, a diservice is far from haughty as you choose to put it, , do you believe that telling people it is safe to do something that may very well damage their equipment, is a service to your fellow dissers, not everyone has the money to upgrade whenever something new comes out, some people expect a dlsr to last for many years..

I don't think that either of us wants to engage in a shouting match and I don't think that we're as far apart as we seem. First, I apologize for saying that you were haughty. It was how I read your post, but I can see now that you did not intend it that way. I'm sorry.

Here is my original comment on the subject:

I lug my camera and 70-200 f/2.8 lens around holding only the body (using a handstrap) all the time and have never had any problems. Well, my hand gets sore, but the lens mount never complains.

I suppose it might depend on the body. I'm not sure that I'd do the same thing with a Rebel.

You appear to have interpreted this as a categorical refutation of your cautionary post. It was not intended as such. While fully respecting your view, I simply made the statement that I have not followed that advice and have not had any problems. Using the filter analogy that I later raised, I felt that I was doing the equivalent of responding to a post saying that you should always cover your lens with a UV filter by stating that I don't do so and have not scratched my lens. I wasn't saying that you could not damage your camera or lens, simply that it's a precaution I choose not to take and pointing out that I have, thus far, not been harmed by that choice.

I'm sorry if my contrary view bothered you. It wasn't intended as a slam, an attempt to say that your view was invalid, or a dismal of it. It was just my different viewpoint.

Where I got annoyed was with this statement:

stand by my original post I think it is a disservice to your fellow dissers to tell them it won't happen

First, I did not tell them that it won't happen. I simply said that it hasn't happened to me and that I don't believe that the warning applies to some Canon bodies. Presenting my experiences and giving my opinion are not at all the same as saying that "it won't happen." I also pointed out that I wasn't trying to discredit you but was offering a different viewpoint.

For this, I was told not simply that you disagreed, not simply you think I'm wrong, but that you think my description of my experience and my opinion constitute a "disservice to [my] fellow dissers." Having posted with the obvious intent to help inform my fellow "dissers", I found it very distateful to have my post referred to as (using the Merrian Webster definition) "an unhelpful, unkind, or harmful act." I see a profound and disturbing difference between disagreeing (however vigorously) with someone's opinion and saying that their statement of their opinion is a disservice. You say that you've not attacked me, but I think the accusation that my post was a disservice is just that. I certainly took it that way.

Once again, I apologize for mistakenly calling you haughty. I am sorry that you interpreted my posts as saying that you are wrong. I don't think that you are any more wrong that people who tell me to use a UV filter. I understand their concerns and choose not to follow their advice.

As for the core subject of how to carry the lens, I've said my piece. As you have said, I have only presented personal beliefs and practice. That's essentially true and I've never pretended otherwise.

not everyone has the money to upgrade whenever something new comes out, some people expect a dlsr to last for many years..

Should I not assume that this is a personal dig implying that I'm cavalier because the cost doesn't matter to me? It's certainly not true in my case. My camera, costly as it was, is now two models out of date and I have no intention of upgrading any time soon. As I've stated in other posts, I am not rich, I simply devote a higher percentage of my income to photography than most.

 

[MICKEY88]

Just to be accurate...thanks for pointing that out, but he also mentioned checking his camera manual.




Without advising others to do it, I also suspend the camera at my side with Medium heavy lens attached to the camera while shooting with another body. When raising the lens to shooting position I obviously lift with both hands(one under lens), but when I switch to the body with a wider lens I pretty much let it hang from the strap.

Not that seeing hundreds if not THOUSANDS of sports shooters using multiple bodies and the above suspended by the camera strap technique is proof... But I have never seen a mount failure even with lenses much heavier than the one in question. There are countless images online of photographers shooting with one body while letting other(s) hang from the strap.

Is you warning valid??? Yes but with such a low actual failure rate, Marks points are also just as valid. We are talking about MILLIONS of cameras sold, and very few isolated reports of failure. It does not compare(IMO) to the amount of injuries that result from speeding.

again, your opinion..as opposed to fact thatmount failure can occur, I never said will occur..I find it amusing that you are coming to mark's defense, he's doing quite alright by himself...LOL

 

[Anewman]

again, your opinion..as opposed to fact thatmount failure can occur, I never said will occur..I find it amusing that you are coming to mark's defense, he's doing quite alright by himself...LOL

If you reread my post I acknowledge the existance of reports of failure, I never stated an opinion that it could not happen.

But please feel free to post "facts" with the actual failure rates, not just YOUR opinion that it is unsafe. Yes it "can" occur, that does not exactly make it "unsafe."


Let me clear things up, I am not "defending" Mark since as you said he does not need it. More like defending my own actions since you have called them unsafe.

I called your warning VALID, but IMO(yes my opinion) the failure rate too low to change "MY SHOOTING" style. I have read about BENT pins suffered while inserting compact flash cards into their DSLR at a much higher rate, but nobody is warning anyone against doing so.

 

[MICKEY88]

I don't think that either of us wants to engage in a shouting match and I don't think that we're as far apart as we seem. First, I apologize for saying that you were haughty. It was how I read your post, but I can see now that you did not intend it that way. I'm sorry.

Here is my original comment on the subject:


You appear to have interpreted this as a categorical refutation of your cautionary post. It was not intended as such. While fully respecting your view, I simply made the statement that I have not followed that advice and have not had any problems. Using the filter analogy that I later raised, I felt that I was doing the equivalent of responding to a post saying that you should always cover your lens with a UV filter by stating that I don't do so and have not scratched my lens. I wasn't saying that you could not damage your camera or lens, simply that it's a precaution I choose not to take and pointing out that I have, thus far, not been harmed by that choice.
point taken, my mistake
I'm sorry if my contrary view bothered you. It wasn't intended as a slam, an attempt to say that your view was invalid, or a dismal of it. It was just my different viewpoint.

Where I got annoyed was with this statement:

First, I did not tell them that it won't happen. I simply said that it hasn't happened to me and that I don't believe that the warning applies to some Canon bodies. Presenting my experiences and giving my opinion are not at all the same as saying that "it won't happen." I also pointed out that I wasn't trying to discredit you but was offering a different viewpoint.

For this, I was told not simply that you disagreed, not simply you think I'm wrong, but that you think my description of my experience and my opinion constitute a "disservice to [my] fellow dissers." Having posted with the obvious intent to help inform my fellow "dissers", I found it very distateful to have my post referred to as (using the Merrian Webster definition) "an unhelpful, unkind, or harmful act." I see a profound and disturbing difference between disagreeing (however vigorously) with someone's opinion and saying that their statement of their opinion is a disservice. You say that you've not attacked me, but I think the accusation that my post was a disservice is just that. I certainly took it that way.not the way it was intended, poor word choice on my part and for that I apologize.

Once again, I apologize for mistakenly calling you haughty. I am sorry that you interpreted my posts as saying that you are wrong. I don't think that you are any more wrong that people who tell me to use a UV filter. I understand their concerns and choose not to follow their advice.

As for the core subject of how to carry the lens, I've said my piece. As you have said, I have only presented personal beliefs and practice. That's essentially true and I've never pretended otherwise.


Should I not assume that this is a personal dig implying that I'm cavalier because the cost doesn't matter to me? It's certainly not true in my case. My camera, costly as it was, is now two models out of date and I have no intention of upgrading any time soon. As I've stated in other posts, I am not rich, I simply devote a higher percentage of my income to photography than most.

, that wasn't directed at you nor anyone in particular, I'm the same as you when it comes to gear, I budget carefully to get what I want, I'll skip meals, heck I've attempted to trade or sell my mickeymobile to get a minolta 80-200 2.8,

once sony comes out with their pro model dslr, if i like it I'll own it no matter what it takes, if I don't like it, then I'll start thinking about jumping ship,,don't tell anyone but I could then possibly become a canon owner...

I just meant that some people such as we've all seen on here, make a dslr decision based on cost, and will buy a body and maybe 1 or 2 lenses and be content for a long time...because they have different priorities than we do, so for those people I think the warnings are important,

if it seemed like slam on you I apologize whole heartedly, it ws never meant that way...