eric_altherr

<p>I've owned every xxD line camera: you can't go wrong here, but after testing them side by side for about 6 months, I went 60D and sold the 50D. If you are a studio shooter or subject to extreme conditions, the 50D is the way to go. Want superior images, low noise in a reliable, sturdy body, get the 60D. The 50D is very capable and has a few features for studio shooters that the 60D doesn't, however, I found the 60D focus and image quality just a tad better. At 400ISO and up there was a noticeable noise difference.<br> The 60D does not have the magnesium alloy body, but still feels solid and reliable. I used 70-200mm 2.8s on both and felt confident. <br> If you were using the dual wheel/joystick interface now (as on Canon 50D), the transition could be difficult to go to the 60D, however, the 60D has an interface that is superior but more similar to the t3i - might make the transition easier if you are jumping back and forth.<br> I don't really shoot video, but the articulated screen has come in handy more than expected.<br> If you can get your hands on both, its worth trying them out - the difference is more than just a few megapixels and an alloy body.</p>

<p>Lots of consumer cameras do this ("digital" zoom), but I don't see the point of it. You can't replicate the effect of a longer lens by cropping a shorter one. As an extreme example, if you shoot a 28mm at f3.5 and shoot a 200mm lens at f3.5, cropping the 28mm to display the same area as the 200mm won't give you the same image (DOF, etc.). <br> The result is not carrying less lenses and getting the same images, it would be cranking out cropped images while missing out on all a good zoom or selection of primes have to offer, in which case you might as well buy a really nice consumer camera, really save on the weight and at least have a decent optical zoom.</p>

<p>Perhaps there were some quality control issues (or user issues), but I've seen very good reviews of the 24-105.<br> If you love the 24-70, you may just want to look into the 24-70 2.8 II. The newer version is 145 grams lighter than the older version, making it just about a .3 of a pound heavier than the 24-105 (1.48lbs vs. 1.77 lbs.). Or the 24-70 f4L is 70grams less than the 24-105 and you get IS - although personally, I'd go with the 24-105 at that point.</p>

<p>Seems like you can't go wrong with either, but if you have 2 shooters you need 2 cameras. Take the grip off your 7D and the space/weight savings will let you justify taking both.</p>

<p>Possibly a poor lens sample? If you are getting poor images, it is likely due to technique or lens quality. I've owned 2 copies of the 18-55 IS II, and while it won't compare to more expensive glass, it is not a bad lens. They are cheap, consumer grade lenses, but you should be able to take a good, sharp image. If you can post a picture that might help.</p>

<p>I've owned the lens for several years: serviceable but not overly impressive. Soft wide open. Focus was general good but could be hit or miss, would hunt at times and not as fast as USM/HSM. Like a lot of Tamrons, the build quality seemed sketchy, although it never let me down. On a crop body, it just wasn't wide enough.<br> The recommendation for the 17-50 is a good one (including the recommendation to stay away from the Tamron VC version of the 17-50). I owned the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS for a while, but the OS stopped working so I "upgraded" to the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS. Its nice, but I wish I'd purchased another Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS instead. The sigma was sharp, slightly more compact, and the focus was good. <br> The trade off you have to consider is that 28 on a crop body is equivalent to a 45mm. Sure, you get the extra reach (75 equivalent to a 120), but in a lot of settings, a 45 just won't cut it. Remember, you can crop in, but you can't crop out. If you can live with that, its a decent lens at the right price. For not much more, you could do better.</p>

<p>Anyone use and recommend a variable ND filter?</p>

<p>If you can feel movement, it is likely the battery has leaked and/or the is corrosion to the bottom contact. Marcus' suggestion is excellent. An alternative if all else fails: Spray some wd40 into a small container (don't spray directly into the camera.) Pour the liquid slowly over the battery so it runs down the sides, let soak for a little bit, and work the battery back and forth and rotationally as much as possible. with any luck, this will weaken the bond at the bottom and the battery will come free.<br> Clean up well after the battery is removed, and if the lower contact is corroded, clean it as well.</p>

<p>I own the 17-55 and it has to be stopped down 1 stop to get a really sharp image. Does a great job in all other aspects. I had a chance to play with the Sigma - build quality is amazing, smooth as butter, and sharp wide open. Painfully sharp down a stop. Wider aperture and less distortion, at the expensive of a smaller zoom range. I don't shoot much video, so maybe I'm not the best guy to answer. For weddings, I like the 17-55 on a crop body. For video, I would suspect the Sigma is the way to go.<br> I did own the Tamron 28-75. It was serviceable but not impressive. Focus a tad slow, would hunt sometimes, and was soft wide open. I did used it for several years, but would not buy it again.</p>

<p>Canon 6D is the better camera, but for strictly video, I'd go 70D with one of those lenses mentioned. I love the 17-55, but Sigma's probably the better lens (sharper, less distortion). Keep in mind the Sigma has no IS, if that's of value to you. 70D also has the flip out screen that the 6D does not, handy for video.</p>

<p>I own 2 YN560s ii, same flash but without the wireless. Not even close to being a 580exii replacement, or an Canon with ETTL. They are wonderful for manual off camera flash - at those prices, they are almost disposable. I use them with a wireless trigger system; hand held/tripod mounted softbox for portraits or 2 of them with umbrellas for group shots. If budget is the issue, you would be better off buying a 550Ex. Not as feature rich as the 580ex, but has proven to be reliable.</p>

<p>Lots of great feedback here. I haven't seen it mentioned, but I would throw the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS lens in the mix. I'm very pleased with its performance and IQ for general portraiture and weddings. Affordable, but something you can build on. Paired with the Sigma 50-150 2.8, you are covered for 95% of the shots you'd take (crop body camera only, of course).</p>

<p>I'm still shooting with a 60D and 50D, so won't comment on camera, but will on lens. The Sigma 17-70 is a 2.8-4.0. I wanted to love this lens because of the range, but it isn't a fast aperture all the way through, and the image quality was not great.</p> <p>I do still own the Sigma 18-250. I wouldn't take it on a paying gig, but when I just want to take some casual shots and can only carry one lens, that's my go to. Strong image quality for a consumer lens with the added benefit of stabilization. Wide enough and long enough to serve many purposes.</p>

<p>I second Sarah's opinion. Over 10 years in the business and never have I purchased a new camera and only twice a brand new lens (and in retrospect, I'd have waited on those). Refurb lenses, and even used for that matter, will have some kind of warranty and return policy if purchased from a reputable retailer.</p>

<p>You are correct Rob. My error. My reaction was that its the wrong lens for the application. The STM version may have improved IQ and video focusing performance, but won't get the job done based on the OP's indicated use.</p>