my new Canon 40D - what am I doing wrong?

[squareframe]

I took a five-year hiatus from photography and photo.net. I've been busy sailing

and getting our 42' sailboat ready for a round-the-world cruise. as many

experience, the ebb & flow of life and our passions, I found a budding interest

again in photography .. and bought a Canon 40D.

 

it arrives within the next few hours, and guess what? I have six EOS lenses, and

I don't care to pixel-peep, or agonize over less-than-sharp corner definition,

overall resolution, vignetting, noise, or fixate on locking the mirror up. I'm

going to attach a lens and express myself photographically.

 

truthfully ... I've moved way beyond that. I am going to take photographs. I

will ponder some ideas in my mind, identify subjects and techniques that

interest me, and then I will go out with my new camera and explore. and take

photographs!

 

it is that simple .. divorce yourself from the arcane and minutiae of

dissection, and capture what is in your mind and heart. I too, believe, that we

all know deep-down that the issues are not full-frame, 1.6x crop-factor, the

perfect lens (is there one?) or the ultimate printer gamut.

 

it's much deeper and personal than all of that. isn't it?

 

daniel taylor

[erik_poirier]

I like the approach... too much is pure technical and consumerism. I think it's in the eye of the beholder. Have a fun and safe trip, you'll surely have the chance to capture some incredible scenery!

[johnson_d.]

Nothing is wrong, in fact that's probably how most people feel. It just isn't the mindset of the EOS forum.

[tdigi]

Well put Daniel and the thought of sailing or even a vacation right now gives me butterflies

since I am in an office (yuk) and its freezing in chicago. anyway. I do agree with you but it

is useful to get other opinions on lenses and gear to make a good purchase.

 

Photo.net has helped me a great deal in getting the best gear for my $$ but that said, you

can use a point and click and still get a great shot and people do get a little caught up in

the "perfect setup"

 

I shot this attached photo while on a camping trip where I made a wrong turn and as I

came back to the main road I saw this awesome farm. I only had a point and click so I

shot away.<div></div>

[squareframe]

I shouldn't diminish the notion of discussing equipment. it is truly needed to inform us, and photo.net is the perfect venue. however, if I am reading so many posts correctly, I am tending to believe that some of us have long-forgotten about photography!

 

I have large-format Linhof Technikarden 45s, Hasselblad's, EOS everything, and yet I can truly say that my favourite photographic times came about with nothing else than a Canon G2 (with the four-way switch malfunctioning).

 

I am excited to see what I can do with this 40D. hopefully, I never have to be too aware of pixels, lens-plots, or raw/jpeg wars. at the end of the day, I would just love to gaze over a few images I have made and feel good. preferably, darn good!

[squareframe]

and Tommy ... you hit a home-run!

[anthony_zipple]

Well said, Daniel! Does anyone really believe that middle of the road gear today is optically less adequate than the gear used by people who shot he great images 30, 40, 50 years ago that we now revere? The better the gear gets, the more that we seem to obsess about minor issues. It is our mind's eye that is important, not the lens bokeh. Shoot more, think more, enjoy more.... obsess less.

[tdigi]

Anthony, thats right on. Its funny, I am always saying that about great old photos.

 

and thanks Daniel, that trip was terrible, that photo was my one highlight.

[KenPapai]

"I took a five-year hiatus from photography and photo.net..."

 

?

Who was frequently posting under your name then these past five years?

 

Anyway, what's your question? This: "the perfect lens (is there one?)"

 

You already know that answer to that. No. There are two candiates possible though that might answer: the 16-35 2.8L and the 24-70 2.8L.

[squareframe]

well, I hope you will extend me the allowance for lurking once or twice a year. and maybe it has only been four years? I own the 17-35mm and the 28-70mm 'L' lenses, and find them perfectly serviceable. in fact, the difference that you might allude to will *never* make the difference between a saved-image and one deleted. no matter how strong your allegiance serves you or your justification for monies spent. the very notion that your lens selection is 'perfect' or changes the way we view an image is specious. the worst offenders here, are those that believe (blindly) that the red-ring somehow elevates their photography stratospherically .. when in reality, it becomes a lame topic of discussion .. at best.

[yakim_peled1]

I wholeheartedly agree that the photographer is much more important than his equipment but nevertheless, my idea of the perfect photograph involves a mixture of a good eye, good light, a good subject AND good equipment. I think that when a picture has good technical qualities, it's the final touch which upgrades a picture from good to excellent.

 

 

Naturally, YMMV.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[KenPapai]

So Daniel, what *is* your question, as you deny any possible attempted answers given? This is weird...

 

Everyone who has done photogrpahy for many years already knows: it's the final product (print) that counts. It's how YOU or I get to that final product and its seemingly infinite variations, as witnessed in this very technical forum, is what makes us all different.

[squareframe]

perhaps Ken. my assessment holds. we can obsess on the technical issues of our day, which honestly .. tend to distill into nothing really artistically tangible. so it is our focus, our vision, our direction that ultimately leads us to something of photographic interest and that which embraces something of ourselves. if pigment-inks and paper, and gamut, and resolution, and bokeh make the differences for you .. fine. I am just stating that I think that gets in the way of the real essence of the photographic pursuit, and in fact .. I find it at odds to what we should be consumed with.

 

daniel

[phule]

As long as it doesn't get in the way of /your/ photography, what does it really matter, Daniel?

 

Gear-heads have been around since before the Industrial Revolution. I don't think they're going away any time soon :)

 

Good luck on your cruise. Hopefully you'll be able to post updates to a website or even to photo.net during your travels!

[squareframe]

true .. but one does start to wonder if the fascination is good photography or just more-pixels? of course, they aren't related, so my point was made. if you want to argue feature-sets in lieu of photographic imagery then I have nothing more to add, other than the obvious observation.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>It just isn't the mindset of the EOS forum.</i></p><p>Yeah, isn't this more a question for "Casual Conversations"? ...or better yet, "Philosophy of Photography"? ;-)</p>

[squareframe]

why M Marbu? what is so threatening to discuss and recognize, that the obsessions here are displaced? I really don't understand why serious photography metrics and discussions should be excluded from a forum called 'Canon EOS'. why? isn't it all about photography? or is it about how many screws the average EOS camera body employs?

 

methinks you are askew ...

[phule]

[[but one does start to wonder if the fascination is good photography or just more-pixels? ]]

 

Yet, Daniel, the archives are littered with hundreds upon hundreds of discussions of which developers with which films leads to which level of results. What reels are better for loading what size film...what film is better for which applications. The whole Bokeh issue has certainly been around for a lot longer than digital cameras. Just look at the Leica forum.

 

I guess I don't see how things are actually /different/ than before. It's easy to be nostalgic about "the way things were" but really, these types of discussions have been held by amateurs and professionals alike for a lot longer than digital photography has been in existence. And, by my estimation at least, photography as a whole seems to be doing rather well.

 

B.t.w for your reference, the Canon EOS forum description specifically states:

 

"For questions concerning the Canon EOS SLR system. Questions about dedicated Canon EOS accessories are also appropriate."

 

So really, it should not be surprising that posts here are more about equipment than anything else. I think you've assumed too much about photographers and photography in general by using this one forum as a bellweather.

 

That being said, I would love to see more "serious photography metrics and discussions" in every forum on photo.net, not just Canon EOS. :)

[johnson_d.]

Now I'm curious to know how many screws the average EOS body contains. It that misplaced obsession? No, it's just simple curiosity.

 

There is nothing wrong with discussing anything you like but, given that this forum is listed as "Equipment, Canon EOS", I would expect and hope for a heavy bias toward discussions about equipment.

[squareframe]

well .. I guess I missed where the only sanctioned topic was '5D versus 40D' versus my Nikon F2. it's silly ... someone has to call it like it is. that isn't to say that those with nothing else to say and contribute would be better suited to remain quiet!

[squareframe]

could have sworn this was 'photo.net' and not 'photo-equipment.net'. silly me .. for wanting to discuss aspects of photography. ok .. I'll bite; which is better 'the 5D or the 40D?' I hope the irony doesn't escape you .. you figure that one out, and I'll go take photographs.

[jimstrutz]

<I>"I don't care to pixel-peep, or agonize over less-than-sharp corner definition, overall resolution, vignetting, noise, or fixate on locking the mirror up. I'm going to attach a lens and express myself photographically."</I>

<P>

Ohhhh Daniel! Now you're taking all the fun out of photography! What's the point of having six lenses if you're not going to obsess over them? BTW, they are the wrong six now that you've got a 40D. You should really consider the...

<P>

Oh never mind. What's the point of going on, and on, and on, and...

<P>

Have a great trip on the boat though. I can hardly imagine what that will be like. Next week I'll be spending some time on a 42 footer myself, sailing around Belize. I have no idea what I'm doing, have never sailed, and never even had a passport before, so I'll be totally out of my frozen element. I'm only taking a 20D, but you should see the glass in my bag. I measured every one of them for color, contrast, flare, and lines per mm. Yes, at corners,edges and center! Surely you can still appreciate that. I'm only taking what us photonetters know would impress each other. My wife thinks I'm nuts, but she has no appreciation for the finer points of optical disallusionment. She thinks this is just a warm, relaxing boat ride, but what does she know?

 

:)

[KenPapai]

"is good photography or just more-pixels"

 

You write as if these are mutually exclusive, they are not. The subject line you provided says, in essence, "40D -- help me!?" But nothing you "ask" as anything to do with your OP.

 

Canon EOS forum by definition a TECHNICAL forum; waxxing philosophic is obviously done in the appropriate forum.

 

Here's my answer: the 40D and your nice sailing trips, coupled with sealed pro lenses will be nirvana for you. Don't get all tripped up on the technical details; put it in Av mode at f/8 and let the AF and AE do so much for you. I wish I were retired and could sail with my camera for 6 mos or 5 years!

 

As a human you should be primarily interested in interesting compositions. Let the 40D's computer do the hard stuff for you! ;)

[squareframe]

first of all, I would *never* shoot at f8. I'm a 'f1.0 and be there' guy. and secondly .. I searched everywhere in hopes of finding a charter that stated this is 'equipment-angst only', and yet .. I am still searching. you see, photo.net implies to me that this should be more about photography with an EOS system, than how many screws the bodies contain, and how does that FF 5D really compare to what us miscreants who can only justify a 40D on our watery (and salty) voyage?

[squareframe]

I'm not feeling the love ... march into here talking photography and I should have known that soon I would be shackled to the walls. uh .. what is the best lens-cover? I am displeased with my Canon.

 

and can I still post pictures with a EF17-35mm f2.8 or should I toss it and buy the 16-35mm? I think I saw something in Luminous Landscapes reviews, except now I see that he says it is a POS and that nothing will do except the new Nikon. what to do?