Matt… An alternative view. Spend the money on the glass rather than the camera. Even a 20D will be to an extent obsolete in a couple of years time the way the digital market is going, and the 350D is nearly as good as the 20D anyway (especially for lite use – the 20D is more robust but doesn’t offer that much more in functionality or usability as the 350D was a big step forward from the 300D). Lenses however, particularly good lenses, will last a long time and there’s a strong argument for buying the best early rather than buying cheap and then replacing sooner.

As to your lens choice… Plenty of reviews kicking around the net, and whilst a number of aviation photographers use the 50-500 my feeling is that the 170-500 is a better lens as well as being somewhat cheaper. I also don’t think that the 50-500 is a practical proposition for general photography, as its far too heavy and bulky for just casual carrying around when you don’t need the length. My recommendation would be to take a serious look at the 170-500 if you need the length, and use the money you save in comparison to buying the 50-500 ($300) to buy a good short zoom in the 28-135 type range.

If the choice was between 20D and 50-500, or [say] 350D, 24-135 and 170-500 I think I personally would go with the latter (which would give you more flexibility and cost a few less dollars).

Andy

This has been an interesting affair throughout. After the tragic accidents involving a Privateer and a Hercules, it was the Forestry Service that withdrew the heavy tanker contracts – the FAA did not pull the tickets, which were in the “experimental” category anyway. The Forestry Service therefore could, in some respects, be deemed to have created its own problem, and it caused surprise at the time because it was felt that the Forestry Service didn’t have the appropriate personnel with airframe experience to make decisions on the airworthiness or otherwise of heavy airplanes. It is indeed ironic that the state of Oregon, recongising the problem that had been created, contracted directly with Butler Aircraft for two DC-7 tankers a year or more ago, despite the other heavy tankers remaining grounded as a result of the Forestry Service decision. Even now, its notable that the Forrestry Service are saying that they’re going to inspect and make decisions on the heavy tankers, rather than deligating that sort of decision to the FAA. The Aero Union P-3 accident in April was, I believe, a training accident rather than another structural failure. I also find it interesting that the Forestry Service is prepared to allow Air Force C-130 tankers to be used, whilst commercial C-130s are still covered by a blanket ban – whilst I accept that the commercial a/c are somewhat older than those the military operates, outright airframe age isn’t the only concern.

On the subject of warbirds, it is indeed true that many an Avenger, Tigercat, B-17 and even the odd Constellation on the US show circuit today owes its intermediate existance to the tanking and/or spraying industry. The three extant Privateers however are more of a concern – thus far, little interest has been shown in taking on the now grounded Hawkins and Powers Privateers as “war-birds” or even as museum pieces. And whilst the future for the Mars appears to be fairly secure for now, I understand one or two spares are a concern and in the longer term when they are retired I really do wonder whether any museum would have the resources to take one on and actually look after it properly – I suspect Penscola would be the only safe-ish bet.

Andy

Trident: “At least I used to fly – he never will”

Oi!! Leave my 146’s alone! A rare thing of beauty she is, and British through and though (Apart from the engines, the APU, most of the avionics……..) 🙂

I didn’t realise that the 146 had engines – I thought it just had five APUs! 😉

Andy

Ford make more cars than Rolls Royce, but Ford is not a better product

Quite possibly Ford does make a better product, if you want a pick up or a van, for example.

OK, if Boeing and Airbus cost the same who do you think would sell more aircraft?

Fit for purpose, as above. Its always apples and oranges, so a quantative judgement is not really possible or viable.

Also, the bean counters are the ones choosing the aircraft types now and if you believe that they always make a correct decision may I suggest you wake up and smell the coffee.

Aha! In my experience, in the past many airlines were run by overgrown kids who wanted a giant train set. Now that commercial reality is seen as a higher priority in most airlines and more decisions are made by beancounters (usually in coordination with other interested parties), I’d suggest correct decisions are made, not always but certainly more often. Not always appreciated or agreed with by the people at the coal face, but more often correct for the long term viability of the airline non the less. To use the example above, in the past some airlines bought Rolls Royces when Fords would have done and would have offered a better return as far as the shareholders were concerned.

Andy