joelh47

<p>The bottom line, as always in photography, is what best suits YOUR needs and what makes YOU feel the most comfortable with your photographic style. There are equally valid arguments for both scenarios of one body or two. If you've never shot with two bodies before, I have a suggestion: Buy, borrow or rent a 5D MKII. Use it with your Rebel XTi for a few weeks, and see if carrying two bodies with different lenses attached works for you. If it does, you could at some point upgrade the XTi to a 7D, or keep the XTi and buy the 5D MkIII, or what ever combination best suits your budget. I personally use a 5D MkII with a 60D for my second body, but would like to upgrade the 60D to the 7D within the next year. Maybe when they come out with the 7D MkII...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Joel, you can probably sell the '2' for a good price if you really want a '3'.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The problem with that is, I would probably lose at least a couple of hundred dollars selling the MkII. The net difference to buy the MkIII would then be around $1200-1400, way way over what I can afford at present. Maybe in another year or two, if business picks up really well...</p>

<p>I <em>knew</em> this would happen! After months of agonizing and re-analyzing my finances, I finally upgraded from a 5D MkI to the 5D MkII, only to have the 5D MkIII announced less than a week after my purchase. I don't really regret it, though; The 5D MkII is such a terrific upgrade (for me) from the 5D MkI that I am totally satisfied, for the moment anyway:-) The only things the 5D MKIII has that I really would like to have are the expanded auto-bracketing feature and the in-camera HDR. That would make shooting the virtual tours I do a lot more efficient. I'm sure this will be a great camera, but I'm also glad to see they aren't discontinuing the 5D MkII line just yet. Maybe that will mean they will continue to provide support and firmware upgrades for the MkII awhile longer.</p>

<p>I own the 17-40 f4L, and absolutely love it for landscape and group photos on my 5DMkI. It also make a great mid-range zoom on a crop-factor camera, though a bit too short on the telephoto end for most use. Other third-party lenses I have used and really like are the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and the Tamron 10-24 f3.5-5.5. Both are very sharp, and have color and conrast very close to my L-series lenses. The 10-24 can only be used on a crop factor camera, but is much less expensive than comparable Canon lenses, and when used on your 7D, may reduce your need/desire for the 5DMkII.</p>

<p>So here's a thought--Before you spend $3000 or so on a FF body and lenses, buy the Canon 17-40 and Tamron 10-24 for around $1000 total and use them with the 7D for awhile. That would give you excellent optical coverage from 16 to 64mm (35mm equivalent), and you already have other excellent lenses to cover the upper range. Then you can decide if you really still want a FF camera, or if you just want a second body, you could opt for a second crop factor camera instead. If you decided on the 5DMkII with the 24-105, you could sell the 15-85 and 10-24 for enough to recover the kit-lens cost of the 24-105.</p>

<p>Hope this helps.</p>

<p>I too can recommend Corel's AfterShot Pro as a possibility. If you can get past the "clunkiness" that has been mentioned, I think you will find it is a very capable and fast RAW converter. I used it as Bibble Pro for years, before switching to Lightroom 3 last year. The only reason I switched was because Lightroom's Digital Asset Management features are far superior to just about anything out there. ASP's DAM has improved considerably, though, from what it was like when Bibble 5 came out. One unique feature that ASP has compared to most other 3rd party RAW converters is what it refers to as "Layers," which work a lot like LR's adjustment brush. Also, at $99, 1/3 the price of Lightroom, I think it is one of the best Lightroom alternatives out there. The only thing that comes close that I have personally tried is ACDsee Pro, which has excellent DAM, but on my system was just too unstable; i.e. it would crash about every other time I would open it.</p>

<p>Although the consensus seems to be that this thread has gone on long enough, and that the question has been answered, I wanted to throw in a suggestion based on my experiences with both the 5D MkI and the 60D. </p>

<p>I've had the 5D since I bought it new in 2007, and it has never let me down mechanically, or optically, when used with good lenses. I bought the 60D recently to replace an aging 30D that still preformed very well, but the resolution was lacking for my needs, and the features of the 60D (larger, articulated LCD, Live View, grid display, leveling dispaly, etc, etc.) were very attractive, not to mention the 18MP vs 8MP sensor.</p>

<p>Over the course of my experience with both full frame and crop frame cameras, I have become addicted to both for most of the reasons already stated, e.g FF makes better use of wide angle lenses and has better <em>control</em> of DOF; CF give you more reach with telephotos, generally higher frame rates, and the newer CF sensors rival the older FF for resolution and high ISO capabilities. Since I shoot a mix of photo genres (portraits, landscapes, virtual tours, macro, wildlife), I have resigned myself to always needing one of each type of camera.</p>

<p>This brings me (finally:-) to my suggestion, which is to point out that the combined cost for a used 5D MkI plus a new 60D would be about the same, or slightly more, than a new 7D. If you can afford it, why not buy one of each? Then you would have the opportunity to get some real experience with both cameras, and can decide for yourself if you really need or want both FF and CF formats. If you find you are always using one more than the other, you can sell the less used camera, and buy another lens, or something.</p>

<p>With all that said, if and when I decide to replace my 5D, I may very well get another CF camera, such as the 7D. So, why would I change my opinion that I already stated above? I purchased a Tamron 10-24, f3.5-4.5 to use with my 60D that gives me about the same FOV that I have on the 5D with my Canon 17-40 f4L, and I can see very little difference in the images I get with either lens. I'm sure that in-depth IQ and resolution tests will show measureable differences, but to the eye at normal viewing sizes, especially with lens corrections applied, I just can't see a significant difference. Even the color is closer to L-glass than Canon's own consumer grade lenses.</p>

<p>So my secondary suggestion would be, if you can really only afford one camera at the 60D price level, then I would definitely go with the 60D, plus a good quality wide angle lens designed for a crop frame camera. Whatever you get for your standard or "normal" zoom is up to you, and any discussions on that can certainly be found in other threads.</p>

<p>Thanks guys. David, the crop showing the blurry corner is at 100%, so in the "zoomed out" frame, it's not that noticeable, unless you are looking for it, which I was of course, since I was evaluating the lens' sharpness at different points in the frame. I have a bit of a reputation of sometimes going into too much detail, but that has often paid off in not blowing something that required real accuracy. I was an electronics technician before I became a photographer, so it goes with the territory.</p>

<p>Nadine, you told me what I needed to hear, that this is a common flaw in this lens, but that it can be corrected, or at least improved, by Tamron. Overall, I do like the lens, and will probably keep it as long as it can be fixed if the softness in the UL corner ever becomes an on-going issue. I do mostly portrait photography professionally, where, as for your weddings, it's fairly easy to avoid putting anything important in that corner. For the landscapes and macro work I do, I use different lenses anyway.</p>

<p>A.N.K., I think your advice is good too, and hadn't really considered the multiple shipping charges in trying several copies of the lens. Tamron's 6 year warranty was a factor in my purchase of this less expensive lens.</p>

<p>Joel</p>

<p>Based on many glowing professional and user reviews, I purchased a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di lens for my Canon 5D. I wanted a faster "normal" zoom to replace, or at least supplement, my faithful old Canon 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS lens, but didn't want to spend the money for a 24-105 f4L or a 24-70 f2.8L. Upon receiving the lens, I did a fairly thorough test of corner and center sharpness at various apertures and focal lengths. Although most areas of the frame compared very well, I was very disappointed with the sharpness in the upper left corner. You can see what I mean from the photos in the following folder.<br /> http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=929393<br /> <br /> These samples were all at 28mm and f4. I included crops from both the upper left and upper right corners. The upper right shows nearly equivalent sharpness between the two lenses, but the Tamron is clearly inferior in the upper left crop. It is even worse at f2.8. I included the (almost) full frame crop for both lenses at the end of the sequence, so you can see that otherwise, the Tamron is as good, if not better than the Canon. I do like that the Tamron seems to have less barrel distortion at 28mm, and less light falloff in the corners. By f8, the difference in the upper left corner sharpness is just about gone, while the rest of the frame remains as good as, or better than the Canon.<br /> <br /> My question is, am I nit-picking too much over this loss of sharpness in one corner of the frame at f5.6 and lower, or is this fairly common for this Tamron lens? In other words, if I wanted to try to get a sharper copy, is it worth sending this one back to B&H and trying another one? Or would I possibly be trading one problem for a different one? In my research before buying, I was aware that there was some variability between different copies of the lens, but I didn't expect it to be this extreme. Also, one of the reviews I linked to from photo.net, http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-28-75mm-F-2.8-XR-Di-Lens-Review.aspx, seemed to describe my current copy of the lens perfectly. Again, I didn't expect the loss of sharpness in the upper left corner, as described in the review, to be as severe as what I've actually observed.</p>

<p>I would appreciate any opinions.<br /> Joel Holcomb</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Wow, this stirred up many more comments and differences of opinion than I had anticipated. In response to Alec Myers points, the owner of the lighthouse is a well known New York interior designer, and presumably has "deep pockets." However, I do not know if he has a "litigous and combative frame of mind" or not. In any event, I doubt that copyright is any issue because the lighthouse was built and owned by the US Government before this person was born. In addition, the photos I've taken cannot be construed to defame the owner or endorse any other commercial business. It does sound, however, like a release would be needed if I were approached by, say, some seafood business to use the photo in one of their sales ads.</p>

<p>I just did a wider spread Google search using some of the terms in the above replies, and found this very useful treatise on releases on the American Society of Media Photographers website:<br>

http://www.asmp.org/tutorials/property-and-model-releases.html</p>

<p>They confirm what John said, about "Buildings are objects, not people. Objects don't have privacy rights." However, they go on to say that the owners, who may be identified with the property, may view any use of the images as some form of violation of their privacy, and may be inclined to sue, whether they have a case or not. They acknowledge this is a gray area, but caution anyone who is unsure of exactly where they stand on the issue to get a release.</p>

<p>Again, thanks to all for your replies. To be safe, I am going to try to get the release.<br>

Joel Holcomb</p>

<p>Thanks for your answer Chuck. Better safe than sorry is no doubt the best course where legal matters are concerned. I will track down the owner and get a release.</p>

<p>Joel</p>

<p>If I make a large print or postcards of a privately owned lighthouse and offer them for sale or other commercial use, should I get a property release for it? This particular lighthouse is in a bay off the Maine coast. It used to be government owned when it was in use, but is now privately owned. The only access to it is by boat, however, it is clearly visible to the public from many vantage points in and around Acadia National Park. The photograph was taken from the park during a period of high winds and rough seas (Not that that's relevant, but just to describe why I think the photo is somewhat special).</p>

<p>My inclination is to not bother with the release, since the lighthouse is easily seen by the public, and it was photographed from a public location. Also, considering it's location, it has no doubt been photographed tens of thousands of times before. However, since I plan to try selling this photograph in the general area around Acadia National Park, it is quite possible the owner will see it, and whether he has any legal recourse or not, may kick up a stink about it.</p>

<p>I have researched this question on both photo.net and the web, but haven't found a specific enough answer yet. I would appreciate any advice on this.</p>

<p>Joel Holcomb</p>

<p>Beth, that was one thought I had too, what if this was some father who had recently immigrated to this country, and was legitimately looking for a wedding photographer? But I was still suspicious enough that I did the Google search. The important thing with that type of search is to not be satisfied with the first result you find. If I hadn't kept looking after I found the link to the wedding registry with Mark Pilger on it, I might have been fooled anyway. In 100% of the emails that I suspected might be fraudulent, I've found some reference to it on Google.</p>

<p>Joel</p>

<p>Yeah, Jerry, that plus the fact that it landed in my inbox addressed to someone who wasn't me. I know it was wishful thinking that almost lured me in, but fortunately I smartened up before biting on it. It's another version of the theme "if it sounds too good to be true, it proabably is."</p>

<p>Joel</p>

<p>OK, so I know there are many posts on photo.net warning about various email scams sent to photographers. However, this one almost drew me in because it was short, and didn't ask for any details that I wouldn't be willing to discuss with a real client anyway. Also, I am trying very hard to build a client base as I begin a second career in photography. The message read "hello, this is mark pilger,i will like to book you for my son wedding on the 7th of march by 11.00am. can you give me the price range for your photo service and what type of payment do you accept,thanks. best regards." One thing that almost convinced me this might be for real was that I actually found a Mark Pilger associated with a wedding registry search on Google. That said, a few search items after the one that appeared for the wedding registry, I found this link to the exact same message in a dpreview.com forum:</p>

<p><a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=30922460">http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=30922460</a></p>

<p>This particular scam seems to be a new one, since the above post was only last night, and I couldn't find any reference to it on photo.net. I hope it's worth the warning to others on this forum.</p>

<p>Joel holcomb</p>

 

Hmm, this sounds a bit like what has happened to my 5D, but only about 3 or 4 times in the year that I have had it.

However, I haven't related it to a CF card change. It locks up at the point that the mirror flips up (mirror lock-up is

NOT on), and then nothing further happens until I power it down. It will usually lock up again on the first shot after

turning the power back on. Removing and replacing BOTH batteries in the battery grip will usually fix the issue,

though once I had to remove and replace the battery grip. I have never had the problem when not using the battery

grip, so I suspect it has something to do with the grip. You might try using the camera without the grip for a few

days to see if the problem goes away.

 

Joel

There is no question in my mind that this is the pending shutter failure mentioned by James. I had the exact same

problem with my 30D a little over a year ago. Here is the link to the post I made about it at the time, including links

to example photos.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Kisc

 

I wound up sending the camera to Canon to have the shutter replaced. It has been fine since. Hopefully you still

have some of the refurb warranty left. A shutter replacement is a bit over $200, I think. Don't put it off too long before

you get it fixed--I read about one individual who waited and later suffered a catastrophic shutter failure, blades

mangled, etc. It required a much more expensive repair than the simple shutter replacement.

 

This seemd to be a fairly common problem with 10/20/30 D series cameras. Hopefully, Canon have improved the

shutter reliability with the 40D.

Yep, no question about it, it is the shutter going bad. I had the exact same issue with my 30D a little over a year ago. Fortunately I still had two weeks to go on the warranty when I sent it to Canon for repair. It was gone about two weeks as I recall. This seems to have been a fairly common failure for 10/20/30D's. I hope the 40D is better. Be sure to get this taken care of before using the camera again. I read one post (not on photo.net) where someone didn't get it fixed right away, and suffered a catastrophic shutter failure where the shutter blades got all scrunched up. It turned out to be a much more expensive repair than if he had sent it in earlier. If your 30D is out-of-warranty, I think the repair cost is around $250, but best to get an estimate from Canon.

 

Joel

I use a combination of a Giottos Rocket Blower and the LensPen DigiClear system sold by Arthur Morris at www.birdsasart.com. I tried the Copperhill wet cleaning method, but found the swabs they use to be too bulky for accurate cleaning, at least for my fingers. With the LensPens, I get virtually 100% of the dust spots, but I still keep the wet cleaning supplies on hand in case I get anything too stubborn for the LensPens. I also use Visible Dust's Sensor Loupe to be able to see the dust directly on the sensor filter. That greatly increases my confidence level when trying to see what is actually happening to the sensor when I am cleaning it.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Joel

Actually, if Jeret is using Manual mode as stated, he doesn't need to hold the shutter half pressed while reframing to take the shot. Just adjust the shutter and aperture with the shutter button half pressed while aiming at the corner target. Since shutter and aperture won't change once set in manual, you can release the shutter button at this point. Then, as Mark U says (with CF4=1), reframe and focus using the * button.

 

That's one thing I miss from my EOS-3, the ability to have the spot meter follow the focus point. Although you couldn't get to the extreme corners, when on a tripod, it was often easier to meter a different part of the scene just by selecting a focal point over your metering target, then change the focal point to where you actually wanted it to take the shot. One more reason to get a 1-model DSLR I guess.

Well, I just fired off three bracketed frames at 1/40th +/- 2/3 on my 5D. It took about 1 second, as you would expect at 3 frames per second. Besides shutter speed alone, if you happen to have long exposure noise reduction turned on (CF 2), the time for each exposure will double for any given shutter speed. If that is not your situation, it does sound like you may have a problem. I suppose it's possible a weak battery could be involved too.

I'm not sure about the colors in this, particularly the blue. I think that may have been photoshopped. But the overal effect of a sharp/soft appearence reminds me of a technique I learned in Brenda Tharp's "Art of Nature" photo workshop--Many multiple exposures (10-20) coupled with tiny movements of the camera after each exposure, or even just let the wind move the subject between exposures. This is easy to do with most modern film SLR's, but not so with digital, except through combining several shots in photoshop. Check out this link to an article Brenda wrote for Apogee Photo Magazine. Section 5 talks about multiple exposures. It should give you some other ideas too:

http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag4-6/mag4-6BT-1.shtml

My 17-40L has no movement like you describe at all. The only movement I can see of the lens elements is when zooming the lens between 17 and 40--Then you see the front elements retract about 1/4 inch into the barrel, but no lateral movement at all. It's solid as a rock. Did this lens by any chance come with a filter attached? That could be loose and moving around somewhat as you describe. If so, then either tighten the filter down, or if it won't tighten properly, remove it and get a better quality one. If it isn't a filter, then I concur with others who suggest that you try to get a refund.

Harry,

 

I'm surprised that no one mentioned using Custom Function 4 (unless I missed it) to change the button you autofocus with. By setting CF4=1, you enable AF with the * button on the back of the camera. This makes it very easy to position the camera so you can focus once where you want to, then recompose without having to hold anything down or switch to manual focus. Then you can take your picture normally with the shutter button or a cable release and the camera won't refocus. I use my cameras this way all the time, except when I have any action shooting to do. Even then, it's not too hard to focus with the * button, it just takes a little pracice using thumb and index finger at the same time.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Joel

I bought the 70-200 f4 a couple of years ago, and was pleasantly surprised to find that the tripod ring from my 400/5.6L fit it perfectly. Having used the lens both with and without the ring, I would have to say that I would NOT want to be without it. It's just so much easier to rotate the camera/lens combination, whether you have to work quickly or not, and it does greatly improve the balance. I highly recommend getting one, even if they are expensive, as long as it fits your budget of course.

I have owned the 20/2.8, bought used on eBay over 6 years ago, and think it is an excellent lens. Although I've used it very little in the past few years since acquiring a 17-40 f4 L, I've held onto it because it is relatively light and is the fastest wide angle lens I have. I still bring it out every so often to use with my 30D and 5D, and am still very happy with the image quality. There is the distortion you would expect of a wide angle in this range, and as someone mentioned, it is a bit soft wide open, but stopped down to f4 or 5.6, it is a very capable lens. This plus my 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 gives me a nice set of fast prime lenses to use in many low-light situations.