# Canon 500 availability ?



## Mick (Aug 1, 2012)

Hi ,all just wondered if anyone out their in rumours land knows when the new 500 or 600 will be dropping into the shop. I'm a cps gold member and have asked a guy at Canon, the answer is don't know when. Got sick of waiting for the 200-400 so went mad, got drunk to drown my sorrows and hit the deposit button at the local canon dealer for a new 500,oops! Ho hum the wife understands, just wondered if anyone knows? From what I was told its the Olympics that's delaying them hitting the streets for mere mortals like me.

Mick


----------



## Waterloo (Sep 11, 2012)

I just got an E-mail from Adorama. Mine should be here next Monday (Sep 17th). Ordered on July 14th. I think I have a buyer already for my "old 500". It's been my most used lens and one I couldn't do without. Hopping for good things with the new one!!!!


----------



## brant (Sep 23, 2012)

Any new word on the availability on these? I am ready to pull the trigger right now!!!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 23, 2012)

brant said:


> Any new word on the availability on these? I am ready to pull the trigger right now!!!


Pre Order, or wait for those that are ordering now. Your lens will then be shipped as soon as your number comes up. There is no telling when they will be freely available, but a pre-order wait shouldn't be long. Order from a local shop and you might get it sooner than from the big online stores.


----------



## Waterloo (Sep 23, 2012)

Waterloo said:


> I just got an E-mail from Adorama. Mine should be here next Monday (Sep 17th). Ordered on July 14th. I think I have a buyer already for my "old 500". It's been my most used lens and one I couldn't do without. Hopping for good things with the new one!!!!



I don't know about availability, but I'm loving mine. Have been out photographing the wild horses a few times. It's noticeably sharper than "old 500". I do have issues with the design of the tripod foot. The balance is wrong for me when using it on my video head. Curious if anyone else has seen this. I haven't read anything about it in any of the reviews.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 23, 2012)

Waterloo said:


> I do have issues with the design of the tripod foot. The balance is wrong for me when using it on my video head. Curious if anyone else has seen this. I haven't read anything about it in any of the reviews.



Are you directly mounting the foot, using a lens plate (which one?), or a replacement foot (which one?)?


----------



## Richard Lane (Sep 23, 2012)

Mick said:


> Hi ,all just wondered if anyone out their in rumours land knows when the new 500 or 600 will be dropping into the shop. I'm a cps gold member and have asked a guy at Canon, the answer is don't know when. Got sick of waiting for the 200-400 so went mad, got drunk to drown my sorrows and hit the deposit button at the local canon dealer for a new 500,oops! Ho hum the wife understands, just wondered if anyone knows? From what I was told its the Olympics that's delaying them hitting the streets for mere mortals like me.
> 
> Mick



That's awesome congrats!!


----------



## Richard Lane (Sep 23, 2012)

Waterloo said:


> It's noticeably sharper than "old 500". I do have issues with the design of the tripod foot. The balance is wrong for me when using it on my video head. Curious if anyone else has seen this. I haven't read anything about it in any of the reviews.



I also noticed that the center of gravity isn't exactly over the base of the tripod foot. It's more over the "heel" of the foot. I know Canon removed the front glass protective element on the 500mm to reduce weight. Perhaps that combined with the heavier 1DX tilts the balance towards the camera. The balance is further displaced rearwards with the teleconverter attached.

The only place that I've heard this mentioned was on the Really Right Stuff website and regarding their new replacement foot II version.

I was still able to balance the 500II and 1DX on the Wimberley gimbal head, but I was also using a long 6 inch Wimberley plate, which seemed to give me flexibility in adjusting the center of gravity, by sliding the lens forward. 

Here's a few picks of the set-up. Sorry about the poor quality, as it was extremely overcast.

Please note that the center of gravity was perfectly balanced as it was positioned in the photos, however I tilted the lens upward and locked the Wimberley head, just for the photos, as these were taken a few weeks ago.

Note that the lens plate is pushed fairly far forward to achieve balance and that the gimbal head knob in the last 2 photos is centered over the "heel of the lens foot and not the base of the lens foot."


----------



## brant (Sep 24, 2012)

Hey everyone. I just wanted to give you guys the head's up that I think this auction on eBay for a 500mm F4 is II is a scam. I double checked the guys pictures, and I have found each one of them existing somewhere else on the internet. This wouldn't be a big deal, but I private messaged him and specifically asked if the pictures were of HIS EXACT lens. He responded with a yes. Also the three pictures are pretty hard to find, but they are out there. Here is the link: http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-Canon-EF-500mm-f-4L-II-USM-Lens-/130769461345?_trksid=p5197.m1992&_trkparms=aid%3D111000%26algo%3DREC.CURRENT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D14%26meid%3D2263706411550888132%26pid%3D100015%26prg%3D1006%26rk%3D1%26sd%3D130769461345%26


----------



## Richard Lane (Sep 24, 2012)

brant said:


> Hey everyone. I just wanted to give you guys the head's up that I think this auction on eBay for a 500mm F4 is II is a scam. I double checked the guys pictures, and I have found each one of them existing somewhere else on the internet. This wouldn't be a big deal, but I private messaged him and specifically asked if the pictures were of HIS EXACT lens. He responded with a yes. Also the three pictures are pretty hard to find, but they are out there. Here is the link: http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-Canon-EF-500mm-f-4L-II-USM-Lens-/130769461345?_trksid=p5197.m1992&_trkparms=aid%3D111000%26algo%3DREC.CURRENT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D14%26meid%3D2263706411550888132%26pid%3D100015%26prg%3D1006%26rk%3D1%26sd%3D130769461345%26



Thanks for the heads-up! Not only that, but the 1st photo is the 500mm version II carrying case, and the 2nd photo is the version I carrying case. Also the cardboard shipping box is from version I. And he has negative feedback for selling a $6 book, now he's trying to sell a fake $10,000 lens. : I don't deal with ebay much, but can something like this be reported?

Rich


----------



## brant (Sep 24, 2012)

I did reply the auction as a fraudulent sale (There is a link that says report this item), but it wouldn't let me give any description or reason why, just a dropdown. I wish there was a better way to warn the bidders, but I don't think there is.


----------



## brant (Sep 24, 2012)

On another note, I finally pre-ordered this lens from B&H today. I was initially on the fence between this and the 600mm F4 IS II, and still kind of am. My sole use and interest for these lenses are video. So the upgraded IS over the old versions is a really big improvement for doing video. Also I am almost always going to be using a teleconverter, and for part of the time stacking teleconverters. This would make the 600mm a 2,400mm equivalent on a 5D3 with 2 2x teleconverters. I decided that at this length, for video, the atmospheric distortion would be too great. I am currently using 2 stacked 2x teleconverters on a 100-400, and am thrilled with the results at 400mm (1,600mm). I am expecting this to be increasingly better with the 500mm F4 IS II. Another factor in my decision is the portability of the new 500. The thing is very light, and I will still be able to use it with the Jobu Jr 3. I want a run and gun type of setup, where I can do a lot of moving around and setting things up quickly. While the 500m might be crazy for this type of setup, I think the 600mm would have been even crazier. I was also worried that the 600 would really limit my traveling capabilities if I ever take it on a plane. What are your thoughts on the 600 vs 500 given what I have said? Also, I would need to possibly purchase a new gimbal head, backpack, etc with the 600mm, but the 500mm will still work with everything I already have. Combined with the extra $2.5k for the 600mm, it just didn't seem worth it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2012)

brant said:


> Another factor in my decision is the portability of the new 500. The thing is very light, and I will still be able to use it with the Jobu Jr 3. I want a run and gun type of setup, where I can do a lot of moving around and setting things up quickly. While the 500m might be crazy for this type of setup, I think the 600mm would have been even crazier. I was also worried that the 600 would really limit my traveling capabilities if I ever take it on a plane. What are your thoughts on the 600 vs 500 given what I have said? Also, I would need to possible purchase a new gimbal head, backup, etc with the 600mm, but the 500mm will still work with everything I got. Combined with the extra $2.5k for the 600mm, it just didn't seem worth it.



Well, it seems you're pushing it with the 500 II and the Jobu Jr 3. For the Jr 3, they state, "_ Recommended for: 70-200 F2.8/F4, 300mm F2.8/F4, 100-400 zoom, 150-500 zoom, 400mm F5.6, 400mm DO, etc._" The new 500 II, while 1.5 lbs lighter than its predecessor, is still 50% heavier than the 400 DO. For the 500 II, Jobu recommends the BWG-LW3/HD3. Note that they state you _can_ use the Jr 3 with the 500/4, and they apparently mean the original 500/4...the new 600/4 II weighs the same as the original 500/4, so technically, either would work with the Jr 3, although they recommend a step up for routine use.

As for travel, the bare lenses are very simliar in diameter (yes, I know the Canon specs show a 1" difference, but Canon's specs do not include the tripod foot - TDP's _actual_ measurements, which include the tripod foot, show the 600 is only 0.14" larger in diameter than the 500). The 600 II is ~2.5" longer, but still under 18". So, either bare lens will fit in a Storm im2500 or Pelican 1510 airline carryon hard case. The 'problem' is the hoods - with the hood reversed, the 500 II will fit in a Peli 1510 (snugly) and probably in a Storm im2500 (not sure about that, the Storm is 0.4" shorter). The hood for the 600 II is approximately 8" x 8" and will not go in a carryon hard case. Still, personally I'd be fine putting the hood in checked luggage, and carrying on the lens itself in a hard case.

So, I do think in this case (as in most lens decisions) it comes down to what is the best focal length for you.


----------



## brant (Sep 24, 2012)

I guess one of my biggest fears is just pulling the 600mm out in populated places, and how everyone is going to react to it. I already get looks with the 100-400. I know there is not much difference in the 500mm vs 600mm (lengthwise or lookswise), but with the hood, the 600mm just seems so massive. I want to be able to quickly be able to setup in a location, and then pack it up quickly if I need to, and no, I am not paparazzi.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2012)

Yes, the supertele will get you noticed! I doubt there'd be much real difference between the 500 II and 600 II in terms of getting noticed. Having said that, with the hood in place, the 600/4 is the largest of the current Canon lenses (bigger than the 800/5.6). 

Personally, I shoot a lot of birds so the 600mm is the better choice. Combined with the 1.4x III, the resulting IQ at 840mm f/5.6 is equivalent to the 800/5.6 lens, and while no shorter, the combo is a lot lighter.


----------



## brant (Sep 25, 2012)

Ugh... it looks like the wait for both the 500s and 600s is 1 - 2 months. :-\ I was really hoping it would be sooner. I'm going to cancel my pre-order for the 500 and go with the 600. The one inch difference probably won't make a difference in the negative/positive attention you get in public.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 25, 2012)

brant said:


> it looks like the wait for both the 500s and 600s is 1 - 2 months.



The wait from whom? B&H, Adorama, etc.? Thanks!


----------



## brant (Sep 25, 2012)

B&H, Amazon, Adorama, Camera Canada... pretty much everybody.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 25, 2012)

brant said:


> B&H, Amazon, Adorama, Camera Canada... pretty much everybody.


Thanks. I ask because B&H and Adorama, at least, don't seem to give an actual delivery estimate. Nor does Amazon for the 600 II, although the 500 II indicates "Usually ships in 1-3 months," (but from what I've seen, Amazon's estimates are about as accurate as my local weather forecast - the one that says 'sunny' when I'm standing outside getting rained on...).

Have you spoken with a CSR at B&H or Adorama? I tried today with B&H, but they're closed until Thursday...


----------



## brant (Sep 25, 2012)

I only spoke with someone on the phone at B&H, but to be honest, I think it might have just been a sales representative. The other places I received email replies.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 25, 2012)

brant said:


> I only spoke with someone on the phone at B&H, but to be honest, I think it might have just been a sales representative. The other places I received email replies.



Good to know. I'll check with B&H when they re-open (my order was placed just over a month ago).


----------



## brant (Sep 25, 2012)

I think I am going to go crazy waiting for this.


----------



## zim (Sep 25, 2012)

I think you guy’s have waaay to much money….. where’s the green with envy icon :'(


----------



## Aaron78 (Sep 27, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, the supertele will get you noticed! I doubt there'd be much real difference between the 500 II and 600 II in terms of getting noticed. Having said that, with the hood in place, the 600/4 is the largest of the current Canon lenses (bigger than the 800/5.6).
> 
> Personally, I shoot a lot of birds so the 600mm is the better choice. Combined with the 1.4x III, the resulting IQ at 840mm f/5.6 is equivalent to the 800/5.6 lens, and while no shorter, the combo is a lot lighter.



And you can go back to just 600 with an extra stop of light, but not with the 800.


----------



## brant (Sep 27, 2012)

Well thanks to this thread and to a member on this forum (who shall remain anonymous), I now have a 600mm F4 is II on the way!! It's not from one of the big retailers, but a smaller family owned store. They got the lens in a few days ago, and I was lucky enough to grab it. It should be here sometime tomorrow!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2012)

B&H had both the 500/4 II and the 600/4 II listed as in stock for a brief period of time on Friday, 9/28. They went back out of stock very quickly. 

I take that to mean they filled all their pre-orders, and had a few left to sell. Unfortunately, they're closed until 10/9. But when they reopen, it means a short queue for their next delivery!


----------



## Richard Lane (Sep 30, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Unfortunately, they're closed until 10/9. But when they reopen, it means a short queue for their next delivery!



That's great news John and Brant!

Bummer, that they're closed now.., that's torture! :'(

I would definitely say that the queue is inversely proportional to the price!


----------



## Waterloo (Sep 30, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Waterloo said:
> 
> 
> > I do have issues with the design of the tripod foot. The balance is wrong for me when using it on my video head. Curious if anyone else has seen this. I haven't read anything about it in any of the reviews.
> ...



I'm using a Manfrotto 519 video head and one of their standard mounting plates. I've used the Canon supplied "Monopod Foot" mounted in reverse. As you can see the CG is near the center of the tripod collar. Not a big deal. I'm getting used to it and it works very well. Just not what you are used to seeing.


----------



## Waterloo (Sep 30, 2012)

Richard Lane said:


> Waterloo said:
> 
> 
> > It's noticeably sharper than "old 500". I do have issues with the design of the tripod foot. The balance is wrong for me when using it on my video head. Curious if anyone else has seen this. I haven't read anything about it in any of the reviews.
> ...



What do you do if you have either of the Extenders mounted to the lens? The lens needs to be slid forward. Seems you'd run out of mounting plate in the clamp.


----------



## Waterloo (Sep 30, 2012)

Actually if you scroll down a bit on this web page:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-500mm-f-4-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

You can see a comparison of the two 500mm lenses and the differences in the foot and its location. I never had trouble balancing the "old" 500.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2012)

Waterloo said:


> I'm using a Manfrotto 519 video head and one of their standard mounting plates. I've used the Canon supplied "Monopod Foot" mounted in reverse. As you can see the CG is near the center of the tripod collar. Not a big deal. I'm getting used to it and it works very well. Just not what you are used to seeing.



Yes, comparing the 500 MkI to MkII, it looks like they moved the tripod collar forward on the lens, while simultaneously removing the front meniscus lens and thus moving the CG backward. Thus the notation on the RRS foot - I expect with a heavy body, especially with a TC, the CG may end up _behind_ the tripod collar, or at least behind the forward-sweeping Canon foot (surprising they'd do that). Good to know the foot can be reversed. 

In my case with the 600 II, the foot mounting point is slightly forward on the 600mm vs. the 500mm, by about half the width of the tripod collar on the lens barrel. But the 600mm is 2.5" longer, has a bigger front element and a bigger, heavier hood - i.e. it's going to be front-heavy compared to the 500mm. So balance should be ok, especially with the RRS replacement foot (attachment for clamp is further back than the Canon foot).


----------



## Waterloo (Sep 30, 2012)

From the pictures it appears that Canon repurposed the foot from the 800. If you look at the pictures the foot on the 300 L II it appears to be the same as the "monopod" foot that Canon supplies with the 500 L II. 

Also the bushing in the "monopod" foot is 1/4 - 20. Why didn't the make it 3/8 - 16 for a little extra security. I drilled and taped a second 1/4 - 20 in mine, not trusting a single screw. I may at some point get a real machinist to install a 3/8 - 16 Helicoil for some extra strength.


----------



## Waterloo (Sep 30, 2012)

It also appears the both Kirk and ReallyRight have copied the Canon design without changes and consideration for the balance of the camera and lens when used on a gimbal or video head.


----------



## Richard Lane (Oct 1, 2012)

Waterloo said:


> What do you do if you have either of the Extenders mounted to the lens? The lens needs to be slid forward. Seems you'd run out of mounting plate in the clamp.



Yes, you're right I would run out of room on the gimbal mounting plate. So, if a 2x extender and heavy 1DX body were attached, then there wouldn't be a perfect 50-50 balance, and instead I would have a 60-40 balance, so I would have to provide slight support to the camera with my right shooting hand. 

I like you're idea of reversing the lens foot.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 1, 2012)

Waterloo said:


> It also appears the both Kirk and ReallyRight have copied the Canon design without changes and consideration for the balance of the camera and lens when used on a gimbal or video head.



Not sure I agree. The Kirk foot does mirror the Canon foot's forward-sweeping design. But, the RRS does not - the dovetail actually extends back farther, directly under and even slightly behind the mounting screws:







Granted, it may not be quite far enough back for the 500 II w/ a TC and heavy body. The RRS 300 II foot dovetail extends substantially behind the mounting screws, for example. However, apparently RRS designed the foot for the 400 II (before the 500/600 II's became available), then just declared the same foot was compatible with the longer lenses, and subsequently backpedaled with their note on the website. Perhaps they'll release a new foot designed for the longer lenses - if so, hopefully they'll do right by those who bought the maybe-not-so-compatible current foot (me, included).


----------



## Richard Lane (Oct 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps they'll release a new foot designed for the longer lenses - if so, hopefully they'll do right by those who bought the maybe-not-so-compatible current foot (me, included).


That's what they've done in the past, when they've changed their design midstream. 

RRS will have to redesign their foot, however what's even more strange is that the Canon stock foot won't balance either under the same circumstances.


----------



## Richard Lane (Oct 1, 2012)

John, you may just want to return the foot since it hasn't been used yet and I'm sure RRS will just re-sell it as a 400II foot.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 1, 2012)

Richard Lane said:


> That's what they've done in the past, when they've changed their design midstream.
> 
> RRS will have to redesign their foot, however what's even more strange is that the Canon stock foot won't balance either under the same circumstances.



Good to know, thanks, Rich!

I agree it's really odd that Canon didn't design the foot to balance their own lens properly. I suppose if necessary, one could use the RRS long lens support package, where the 10" camera bar would allow a longer traverse for balance. 



Richard Lane said:


> John, you may just want to return the foot since it hasn't been used yet and I'm sure RRS will just re-sell it as a 400II foot.



I'm going to give it a try first. As I stated above, I don't think it'll be an issue with the 600 II, since it's 2.5" longer, has a larger front element and heavier hood compared to the 500 II, meaning it should be relatively more front-heavy, shifting the CG forward. 

Please remind me, Rich - IIRC, you are talking about the 500 II running out of room on the clamp, with a 1D X and TC attached, correct?


----------



## Richard Lane (Oct 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Please remind me, Rich - IIRC, you are talking about the 500 II running out of room on the clamp, with a 1D X and TC attached, correct?



That's affirmative!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 1, 2012)

Richard Lane said:


> That's affirmative!



Thanks! I'll definitely test the 600 II with 1D X and the 1.4x as well as 2x TCs on the PG-02 LLR before deciding whether or not to keep the foot.


----------



## Waterloo (Oct 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Waterloo said:
> 
> 
> > It also appears the both Kirk and ReallyRight have copied the Canon design without changes and consideration for the balance of the camera and lens when used on a gimbal or video head.
> ...



You're right about the RRS foot. But, the Kirk foot looks like a copy to me. 

I might be able to use the RRS foot with the Kirk Arca to Manfrotto adapter. Or maybe the Manfrotto plate would attach to the RRS foot. Only problem: I only see one threaded hole. I'd rather have two for the security.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 1, 2012)

Waterloo said:


> Only problem: I only see one threaded hole. I'd rather have two for the security.



Yes, the RRS foot has only one accessory hole, presumably for attaching directly to a monopod stud (where only one screw is needed).


----------



## brant (Oct 1, 2012)

I have one of those foots for my Jobu and 600mm. It's really nice.


----------



## brant (Oct 1, 2012)

Here's a picture of me and my new baby


----------



## Waterloo (Oct 1, 2012)

brant said:


> Here's a picture of me and my new baby



Interesting!!! I keep mine in the laundry room too.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 1, 2012)

Waterloo said:


> I keep mine in the laundry room too.





Bad idea, IMO, for a couple of reasons. First, laundry rooms are a frequent site of water leaks in the home (usually resulting from a hot water hose bursting, which is why the better ones are wrapped with braided steel). Since the valve is inside the washer (no one turns the primary valve at the piping off, right?), a burst hose means water spraying everywhere. Not the best idea, even if the lens is technically weather sealed. 

Also, laundry rooms are generally pretty humid. Long term storage in high humidity can result in fungus inside the lens (apparently, mycetal organisms find lens coatings tasty - I wonder if Canon's SWC tastes even better to them?). 

I'd recommend reconsidering your storage location. Personally, I store my lenses in Storm hard cases with desiccant packs inside (the color indicator type, and I change them out when they reach capacity and turn pink).


----------



## Waterloo (Oct 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Waterloo said:
> 
> 
> > I keep mine in the laundry room too.
> ...



Funny!!!! You really make me laugh............


----------



## Mick (Oct 2, 2012)

Still waiting for mine. Had it on order for months. Canon service shop where i placed the order, third in line and still waiting. When will my misery end!!!

Mick


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2012)

Mick said:


> Still waiting for mine. Had it on order for months. Canon service shop where i placed the order, third in line and still waiting. When will my misery end!!!



Soon, I hope!

As for me... ;D


----------



## Mick (Oct 2, 2012)

I understand the "big" shops getting the stuff first but this is getting a little tirsome. Not tiresome enough to bail on the order, oh no. Then again my horrible evil mother (dont ask) died recently so for all the misery she caused ive been left with some money. Oh and a third of a house. So, whilst ill pay of the last of my depts ill have around £5000 left to spend which by a minor miracle is about the price of a new 300 f2.8. How weird is that? Ill be thinking of you mam every time i take a shot. And laughing. I could renovate my bathroom but hey, whats more important, new bath or new lens. Its a no brainer. Lens will still be worth 5000 in five years when the baths toast again. Feel free to agree with me my Canon chums. You know it makes sense.


----------



## applecider (Oct 3, 2012)

Anyone ever heard of Lens Horizon ?

<link removed by mod>

Sounds too good to be true.


----------



## koolkurkle (Oct 4, 2012)

applecider said:


> Anyone ever heard of Lens Horizon ?
> 
> <link removed by mod>
> 
> Sounds too good to be true.



Ya think? Run from anyone who doesn't take credit cards.
http://www.scambook.com/report/view/163671/Lens-Horizon-360-Designation-Complaint-163671-for-$1,200.00


----------



## sharky620ti (Oct 7, 2012)

Anyone know if another batch of 500 F/4 II's will be shipping anytime soon?

Here in the UK none of the major high street shops or large mail order companies have any in stock and none of them seem to have any idea of when they might get a delivery.

A few of the smaller independent shops seem to get the odd 1 or 2 delivered now and again but no real solid shipments.


----------



## Mick (Oct 7, 2012)

Im in the same place as you mate thats why i started this thread. Ive been waiting about three months at a canon pro network repair shop and still no joy. Even being a platinum member makes no differance. Had to hire an old one for next week. Misery is ongoing with no signs of abating. At least we brits are good at waiting in line for stuff and grumbling.

Mixk


----------



## sharky620ti (Oct 8, 2012)

I'm holding out til a more local shop to me gets some in as I think I'd rather collect it in person, plus it gives me time to save a bit more money for the gimble head and lenscoat too.

But if you're interested in cancelling the order you currently have I have been in contact with a few places that have them in stock.

Park cameras in west sussex have a few
Mifsuds in south Devon have 1
and Castle cameras in Bournemouth have some.

Warehouse express and Jessops dont have any and dont have a clue when they might get any.


----------



## brant (Oct 9, 2012)

fumfie.com messaged me on twitter and said they had some in


----------



## sharky620ti (Oct 18, 2012)

Just collected mine thismorning and loving it already, can't believe how light it is!


----------

