ruben leal

While there are 17-55mm and 17-85mm USM lenses, I can't find a 18-55mm USM lens. Do you know there is an USM version for the 18-55mm variety?

Thanks Jos, will follow your YouTube recommendation.

Thanks Jeff, will try that.

Most people here says the advantage of using LR over DPP is the workflow to manage large photo collections, but so far I been frustrated every time I try LR: I mostly do landscape photography, where I shot some 100 images, then I download to my laptop, also to an external USB drive, as well as to a network drive. In the laptop's internal hard drive are only my most recent images, as well as my historical most relevant ones. To process an old photo in DPP, I can just navigate to the proper directory (named with the date, location, and shoot name) containing the files I want to process, but in LR I need to synchronize everything, getting alerts because images are duplicated in all my drives, and also says it would need several days to add all my images (a few Teras) to it's library. What am I missing?

<p>Do you have a statistic of how many photos you took in the 16-23mm range?<br> My first SLR camera had a 50mm prime lens, and after several years I got my first Canon Rebel with the then standard kit lens, which was wide enough for most situations... a 35-80mm zoom lens! When I upgraded to an Elan with a 28-135mm lens, 28mm felt like a special purpose wide angle. Maybe that's the reason I find my current 24-105mm wide enough for most of my images, while I reserve the 16-35 for special purposes, even when I'm carry it (I don't like the distortion associated to close range photography for normal images, then I will do whatever possible to use a longer focal length from a larger distance, leaving the 16-24mm range for situation where isn't feasible to use the feet-zoom).</p>

<p>Why do you need to "upgrade to FF"? While a 650D isn't my kind of body, there are really capable APS bodies. My question is because you will lose about a stop of light if you want to keep the same depth of field in the kind of events you currently do. On the other hand you may compensate using a higher ISO, which would keep the image quality when done in a FF body, then you will end in the same situation you currently have.<br> I would only switch from APS to FF if I needed larger enlargements (like in landscapes), shallower DOF (portrait), higher usable ISO (considering what I already expressed in the previous paragraph regarding the ISO compensation needed to keep the same DOF in low light situations like churches).</p>

<p>I guess I'm also in the lucky bunch: I got my 7D in the Mexican presale, and never had a problem with it since Canon Mexicana delivered it (a few weeks later than promised, supposedly because they had a delay in the importation process... perhaps they were actually fixing the early bugs before delivering bad copies in the Mexican market).</p>

I guess the answer lies in your planned use for this second camera, as well as your set of lenses. An APS-C camera would give you more reach with the same lenses. The 7D is a great action (sports and wildlife) camera. A full frame camera would retain your field of view with the same lenses. The 5D is a great still (landscape and portraiture) camera. Some people believe you should have complementary camera bodies, such as the way the 6D and 7D complement each other. Other people believe you should have identical cameras, so you could switch between them without having to think in the differences.

From your initial post I understand you already used, and liked, the FD 35- 105mm f/3.5. While I hadn't use that lens, I would think the EF 24-105mm f/4 L should be a "better" lens. (Better is a subjective adjective, so it may mean something different for everyone.) My reasoning is that the FD wasn't a L lens, then it should compare in quality to some of the EF 28-105/135mm lenses, and the 24-105 L is definitely better than those. Also, every new lens is usually better than older designs. The other lenses suggested are very fine, but also very expensive lenses. If you are to consider such f/2.8 L lenses, then you should look into the Sony Zeiss f/2.8 lenses designed specifically for your camera.

While I don't like to do it, remember that you can use your camera to download the card directly to your computer. Once you have a safe copy you may start testing to solve the problem with the card reader.

If you use a remote trigger for the camera as well as a remote trigger for the flash (be it a cable or a wireless solution), you could set the flash in a separate position from the camera, and then turn the flash on and off as you take two sets of bracketed photographs.

<p>Hi Radhika, I don't have this lens, but you would be winning one f-stop going from f/4 to f/2.8, and losing a couple of stops without IS. You would also lose the 70-105mm range, which may imply you would need to carry another lens, adding weight to your bag.<br> Obviously only you can determine if IS would solve your needs, as it works for not moving subjects, while the additional aperture stop would allow you to freeze a moving subject, but at the cost of a reduced depth of field.<br> Many believe that Canon added the f/4 lenses to the L series because newer cameras allow us to use higher ISO sensitivities, have you tried that route?</p>

<p>Based on a calculator, such as the one in http://www.sceneplanner.com/tool2.php , I would think you need something in the range of 20mm to capture a full body of a seating pearson. I believe there are apps to help you previsualize your framing, but if you already have your own camera, perhaps with a kit lens, then you could do a test before spending on equipment suggested by people who hadn't seen your studio room.</p> <p>Once you have an idea of the needed focal length, I would suggest you to bump up the ISO in your camera and test with distinct f-stops to get an appropriate depth of field. The last step would be to find the appropriate lens and, perhaps, supplemental lighting equipment to get the best possible image for your video.</p>

<p>There are some accessories that may help you:<br> - A "sound blimp" is a shell that isolates the camera. These are used by "still photographers" during film making and photographers in quiet environments, like UN meetings.<br> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Sound-Blimps/ci/11818/N/4077634550<br> - A "LCD Hood" is a shade for a camera's LCD. These are mainly used by videographers, but also by photographers wanting to review an image in daylight.<br> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/LCD-Hoods-Shades/ci/4968/N/4077634554</p>

The good news is that it only applies for residents of the U.S. and Puerto Rico, then it won't affect my flashes because I don't live there, even while I buy my gear from B&H. Obviously kidding, but it's ridiculous how this kind of message gets such a footnote. Anyway, thanks for the info.

While we deviated from the original subject, I believe the question would be, "higher than what?" RAW files do store a lot more dynamic range than what an 8 bit JPEG can retain, so I also use single capture RAW file to improve over the reduced dynamic capabilities of a JPEG. On the other hand, there are times when a single RAW file can't capture the needed dynamic range and then we must resource to a multiple capture of the same scene. To me both can be called HDR, but in either scenario I rather like the results of a manual exposure blending.

Agree, the lack of new threads here, and some interesting articles over there, got me reading Clark's website, but have to admit I'm "lost in translation". Could someone help me understand how Clark says one is supposed to expose an image with a digital camera? Confusing, but interesting information.

Quite interesting indeed. Now I understand why Canon compared the sensor of the new 5Ds to the one in the 7D Mk II, as well as the reason for having a low top ISO in the 5Ds.

Regarding the flicker reduction function, I actually believe both the 7D Mk II and the 5Ds cameras are the proper cameras to get this function. Here's why: - 7D Mk II: Amateur indoor sports spaces many times use low quality litigating, including some which cause flickering; - 5Ds: Fluorescent lighting is very common now for portraiture and other studio work, which is a flickering source. I believe the intended target markets for these cameras are precisely the ones more benefitted from this new technology.

<p>While mines also only illuminate the original focus point, this may be model dependent, so maybe this is possible in a 1D series camera.</p>

<p>If you don't wan't to use a channel in the lights dimmer, you may use another AC source, such as a Paul C. Buff Vagabond Mini, or the equivalent Photogenic Lithium unit. I have never used mine to power a camera, but I used it to power other devices, and making such an investing for this kind of important event would be a minor expense (one that you could actually use in the future to power other devices, such as flashes).<br> You could also check what time-lapse photographers use for location power (I don't think there is a reliable 120 VAC source up in the mountains where many time-lapse videos are made, and transporting a generator isn't viable because of it's weight).</p>

<p>David, based on what William already stated, I would analyze what I really need for a first purchase (either a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom lens, or a telephoto prime lens, such as the 85mm f/1.8, the 100mm f/2.0, or even the 200mm f/2.8 L). For this you need to consider its extended use (the zoom is more versatile, but a lot heavier). While I usually recommend to plan for a complete system before start investing in separate pieces which won't part as parts of a system, in this case I would suggest that you wait until you see the results of this purchase, and then begin planning on your next piece of equipment, as only then you will see if having a heavy f/2.8 L zoom lens is what you really need, and what focal length is best to complement this purchase (you already have a 18-135mm zoom lens, why don't keep it and get into an ultra wide point of view, or why don't go into extreme telephoto territory?<br> Also, the second camera is a great suggestion: If you need to be accountable for your images, you can't trust a single camera to be 100% reliable. A second camera body, even a new Rebel or a used 60D, could give you more opportunities, as you won't need to keep changing lenses, and that will also give you another consideration point before deciding on your following lens' purchase.<br> I believe you need to see the results of your next purchase before begin driving yourself nuts on a purchase that may be actually executed until next year.</p>

It's interesting how the new T6s has some features I would expect from the new camera in the 5D series: GPS (while some consider this a gimmick, it should be useful to locate landscape locations, which it's supposed to be the 5Ds market), flash radio control (this is a must for wedding photographers, the other main market for the 5Ds). Any ideas on how is Canon segmenting their markets now? I started a new thread focusing on what the new Rebel may tell us about Canon's plans for the near future.

While the new 5Ds and 5DsR cought our attention, the also new T6s shows several major changes to the Rebel line: a price over US$1,000, top LCD display, Quick Control Dial, etc. Am I the only one thinking Canon's new customer verticalization may be the ending of the xxD (also known as "advanced amateur") DSLR series? Is there a market for an 80D after the T6s?

<p>Don't know when it will be available, and is out of your price range, but is also a lot wider and has the L construction you are used to with the 24-105: Had you consider the new 11-24mm f/4L?<br> Sorry, had to comment on the new super-wide, even while clearly out of place.</p>