jonathan_bautista

these are very good points john. to be honest, i do believe that the new features are more of a nice to have rather than needs. the largest i printed my images are 10 x 12 (3 from the past 4 years). like you, i paid $2K from my 10d when it first came out. in fairness, it never let me down. no dust and no problems so far. i do have myself several L lenses, so it's really on whether this new body will get be better photos. i always tell myself that the next camera i'd get into is a full frame. but this one is just too good to pass. but then again, i will surely have to really think if it's worth the jump. i'm sure i'll have be so satisfied once i have it, but i'm just afraid that the IQ for the type of shooting i do will not jump out on me when i do upgrade. nothing compared to when you first move from p&s to dslr or from a 28-90 f4.5-5.6 to 28-70 f2.8 lens. maybe i'm mistaken. maybe images will be night and day from 10d to 40d.

 

i have to do a lot of thinkin.

i've been going back and forth between upgrading or staying put with my 10D.

it's pretty obvious that the 40D is so much better than my 10D from what i've

read. i even heard from people that there is a big difference between my 10d

vs 20D/30D. but really, should i jump the gun and get a 40D? will i be

missing a lot if i stick with my 10d? i'm a hobbyist who mainly do portrait,

family pix and sceneries when i get the chance. i love the images i get from

my 10d now, no complaints but it can be better. i just wonder if i'd really

notice the difference when I upgrade. is it worth the extra money? i have

weather the 20d and 30d storm. but for some reason, something is telling me

to not resist the urge on this one.

 

i wonder... for people who may be on the same boat as I am... what is the main

reason on why you would upgrade to 40D (other than having the latest)?

 

i would appreciate any insight you can give me as it will surely help me in

deciding.

Photography is a hobby. I don't make any money on my work. I thought that I

mention this as it may help you guys in helping me out. I am using a 10D with

17-40 4L, 50 1.4 and 40-200 f4L. I love the L lens glass. Will buy one in a

heart bit if I have the money. I've been happy with my set until several of

my recent shots. They were all indoor. I noticed that I was constantly

shooting at 1/15 f4 due to lighting condition. Several of my shots are not

sharp due to the shutter speed.. i'm suspecting. I often use my 50mm for low

lighting. However, the focal length is often restrictive for indoor group

shots. I've been wishing that I have a 24-70 f2.8 to give me the extra speed

I need to make the shot a bit sharper. The Canon 24-70L is a bit pricy. I

now wonder if Sigma is good enough as a substitute for my needs (i.e. indoor

photography... parties, birthdays, etc.). I would appreciate any suggestions

from you guys. I can either sell my 17-40 and get a Canon 24-70 or keep my 17-

40 and get a Sigma 24-70 for indoor shots (as needed).

 

Thanks.

Thanks a lot for all your help! I decided to hold on to both lenses.

Just to add more confusion to myself, I went through a couple of my images and realized that most of my shots are on the 17-30mm range. On my 70-200, 95% of my shot are on the 70mm range. I decide to keep the 17-40mm. Now, I'm not sure what to do with my 70-200mm.

Thank you for all your responses. As always, you guys are very helpfull in keeping me in-check before any purchases. It's always good to hear from somebody else's perspective. To answer some of the questions, I have a Canon 10D. I also have a 50mm f1.4 that I use for low light photography. I don't really mind dragging the 70-200/f4. It's the use that I question as I often have it with me and not use it. But then again, I may need it and not have it. 80% of the time, I have the 17-40 mounted on my camera. I love the lens. I don't really have any complaints until my last 3 outings (b-day, christening and another indoor party). A few extra stop would have given me a better exposure of the ambient light. A few extra stop would have frozen the hand of the priest. A few extra stop would have capture a sharper image. Sometimes, carrying a tripod is not an option. That started me thinking on whether I should keep my 17-40 f4 or trade it in (together with the 70-200 f4) to get a 24-70mm. My justification behind it... I will have one lens to drag around (and the 50mm in my pocket...just in case). But then again, how many times have I said that to myself?.. that I only need a single lens. I guess I need to go back to all my images and see where I'm shooting at. If it's in the 24-70mm range, then maybe I should trade it in. I just hope that I don't miss the 17-23mm and the 71-200mm range if I do decide to part with both my lenses.

 

Thanks!

I just wanted to get your opinion on this. As mentioned above, I

currently have 17-40 and 70-200 f4 lenses. I've been using the 17-40

a lot and I have no complains on it's quality. Recently, I did some

indoor photography and I got so bummed out by the f4 aperture. I've

been leaving my 70-200 most of the time due to it's size. Went

through shots taken in the past 6 months, 70-200mm are often used for

head shots. Nothing more than that. I am now starting to question

the equipment that I have. I am thingking of trading both lens to

get a 24-70mm f2.8 lens. This will address my speed issue and will

give me a portrait lens on the 70mm range. I will surely miss the

17mm range (as I use this often for groups shots), but I figure I can

get a 15mm f2.5 lens when I get a chance. Am I getting very

implusive on this move. Will I regret parting with my 17-40/70-200

and replacing it with a 24-70 lens. Truly, I am the only one who can

answer this question but I would appreciate if you have any thoughts

that you can offer.

 

Thanks!

Both of them are wonderful printers. If longevity is not an issue, then I will go for Canon's IP8500. I myself was at the same predicament 2 months ago. I've always used EPSON printers but I just had enough of the head clogging. So for my latest printer, I decided to try Canon. I went for the i9900 as I needed the larger print.

I just bought the Canon i9900. I love this printer. I need help on

printing techniques. I have a Canon 10D and normally shoot JPGs. My

workflow basically consist of uploading the image > adjusting the

levels/curves > applying the unsharp mask > saving the file at

quality level 12. I tried comparing prints from Canon's Photoprint

and Photshop CS, and I noticed that prints from Photoshop are

sharper. 80% of the time, the printer will be used for 4x6 prints.

With that said, I need your help in printing 4x6s through photoshop.

How should I be saving the files? How do I resize the files to 4x6?

Do I need to resize it? I was happy with my printout (from Adobe)

until I compared it to a print that was done by the lab. The color

is so much better on the i9900. Although I noticed that prints from

the lab are more sharper? Is that normal? Since I seldom save

modified files, I may have applied more sharpenning on the image that

was sent to the lab. Do I need to have a stable table to ensure

sharp prints? Does it matter? Bottom line, I don't think I am

getting the sharpest/optimal print from my printer. I need help on

how I should be manipulating my digital files, how should I be

printing them, what settings I need for my printer to have a sharp

print and where should I place it.

 

Thank you so much for any help you can provide.

 

Jonrey

I'm finally down to these 2 printers. I took the i9900 off my

selection as I don't really have a need for 13 x 19 printing. It's

nice to have, but I can live without it. Anyway, please help me in

deciding which one to get. Longevity is not really a concern, but I

guess Epson wins on that one. I was told that I have more medium

option with Epson. How important is that? Does canon really have

that limited selection of paper? Anyway, for any of you who had an

experience with either of these 2 printers, I would really appreciate

it if you can provide me with some information. Pros and Cons. Most

of my print will be 4 x 6's. I was going to settle for the i960, but

figure get to the next level so I can keep it longer. Between i960

and i8500, if the print quality is not a lot different, then maybe I

should just settle for i960. I'll wait for your thoughts.

It's time for an upgrade as my current printer is sucking the money

out of me. I have an Epson 780 and the print quality is excellent.

However, the fact that I have to replace the whole tank everytime I

ran out of one color is a waste of money. I would like to refill my

own cartridge with a third party ink. With that said, I would like

to stay away from Epson due to the chip that needs to be reset

everytime. With that said, can you please make some suggestion on

what printer I can get to satisfy my needs. Listed below are the

deciding factor in getting this new printer.

 

1. Print quality should be better that what I currently have (Epson

780).

2. I would like separate cartridges that I can either refill myself

or connect to an external ink supply

3. Printer head that is easily replacable or cleanable

 

Thanks in advance for any help. I am considering the i9900 but I

kind of find it quite pricy. I think with that printer, I am paying

for the 13 x 19 print capability. If i don't need a 13 x 19, do I

have any alternative that will give me the same print quality. What

about i960? Is it a decent printer? Any printer you can suggest

would be greatly appreciated. I will be printing mostly 4 x 6 and

maybe 8 x 10.

 

Cheers!

Try Humber College. I took 3 coursed in Humber (Photography 2, Photography 3 and Portrait 10). Lots of hands-on in the darkroom and studio. For the price per course, I would recommend it. Will definitely keep you busy with shooting assignments.

After going through a lot of visual comparison between a RAW and Large/Fine JPG on my 10D, printed at 4x6 or 5x7... I don't see much of a difference. I guess it all boils down on how you intend to use your images. If it's a weeks worth of vacation... that you'd have printed (4x6), used on your personal webpage or stored in your PC, I would go for Large/Fine JPG. For some shots that you are planning to take along the way (i.e. sceneries, landmarks, etc)... images that you may want to do extra post processing or want to get blown up to 8x10, I would shoot them in RAW. Fortunately, 10D has a function that allows you to switch between JPG and RAW on a flick of a switch.

 

I would be more worried about coming back with 400 images on my CF card that won't upload to my Computer (touch wood).

 

I'm going on a trip myself. I am shooting Large JPG for all family shots and RAW for my hobby shots.

 

Good Luck!