This boring little guy would have been more interesting (to me) if I could
have framed a tight shot of hit face:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/60953123/original
I was as close as opportunity allowed...which was a LOT closer than 100
feet...AND...I was shooting on a 1.6 crop-factor 10D.  That's 200mm + the
crop factor.
Can you (in all your self-appointed-genius) guess how much more extension it
would have taken to get that shot given the fact that it was not possible to
get closer?

LOL!  Again, what's the size of the subject?  The term "wildlife"
encompasses many things.  Is he shooting an elephant or a chipmunk at 100'?
Is it a big bird or a small bird?

Taken with the world famous 70-200mm f/2.8 VR at 70mm.

LOL!  Don't flatter yourself.  I'm just trying to eradicate the spread of
misinformation and stupidity on the internet.  A team of 25 can be busy
keeping up with you for this task.

Rita

Can you read?
He said "100 feet or so", chump.

I'm not referring to shots like your cute little ducky shot.

Have you always been a stalker?

Please don't embarrass yourself by giving advice you haven't a clue on.  You
are assuming that he doesn't know how to use his equipment.  You still
haven't proven to yourself that you can take a useable image without IS.

BULLSHIT!  It all depends on how close you can get to the subject.  Your
statement is on par with "I'm such a shitty photographer that doesn't have
the skills so I have to use IS all the time as a Band-Aid to mask my poor
techniques."

Still trying to compensate for that little something missing between your
legs?

Rita

Clearly you're not accustomed to wildlife photography.
500mm on a full-frame body will NOT get you ALL that tight a
frame...especially for anything smallish...

No.  Try shooting birds with anything less than 400mm and you're in trouble
most of the time.
More likely, you'd wish for 600 or an extender.  Remember also that this
isn't with a 1.6 crop body.

At the zoo? Why would anyone need such a monstrosity when you're only
maybe a hundred or so feet away from the subjects?

Or is this just a case of "my lens is bigger than yours" syndrome run
amok?

-dms

That's the Totally Digital D60 to you, pal!

It all depends on what you shoot.  If you do sports go with the 400D.
If you shoot landscapes, portraits or indoor events, go with the 5D.
Don't worry about losing that extra stop down to f/2.8 because the 5D
will gain that back with better high ISO performance.  You can always
add the Fast 50mm f/1.8 for next to nothing.

You might even work your way up to the setup that I saw being carried
around the other day by a guy at the St. Louis Zoo:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/66500550

Hypothetically, which of these two "build paths" would be better for
the foreseeable future:

-FULL FRAME SET-
Canon 5D with
EF 24-105 f/4L IS
EF 70-200 f/4L

or

-CROPPED SENSOR SET-
Canon 30D (or 400D) with
EF-S 10-22mm
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
EF-L 70-200mm f/2.8 IS

Either build path will cost roughly the same.  Gut reaction of most
people will be the 5D, of course.  Full Frame superiority and all that.
But this full frame versus cropped sensor argument is only half the
battle.  The other half is between the lenses.  People are constantly
talking and talking about the importance of lens over body.  So this
may be time to walk the walk:

The lens set for the cropped sensor has Image Stabilization for 90% of
its focal range, instead of only 47% in the 5D lens set.  It has a
significantly more versatile focal range (16-320mm versus 24-200mm)
*and* it's one full stop faster (f/2.8 vs f/4).  All these things would
render the 5D at a disadvantage in many situations: low light,
handheld, stopping action, ultra wide angle, telephoto, or any
combination of these five things.  Having no weather sealing on two
EF-S lenses seems trivial in this instance, considering none of these
camera bodies (including the 5D) are sealed against the elements to
begin with.

Although both build paths cost the same, gut reaction says it's not
smart to plunk down $2700 on a cropped sensor body with 2 EF-S lenses.
You'll be sorry when full frame bodies become the norm.  But would
spending the same $2700 on the 5D be any smarter?  By the time EF-S
lenses are obsolete, the 5D body would also be outdated.  It'll
probably be at least three generations behind at that point.  The 5D
will be about as exciting to photographers then as the D60 is right
now.

I just don't see the appeal of a 5D right now, especially for hobbyists
without unlimited budgets.  It's nice to show off a full frame to your
friends, but it's not practical.  I think that camera would only make
sense for professionals, and for people who already possess an
extensive array of canon "L" lenses from their film days.  Otherwise,
bleh...