bob stewart jacksonville

I've used an 8gb card in my 10d

I want a compact Point and Shoot, with a reasonable wide angle (at least 28mm equivalent, preferably 24mm) optical

view finder, ability to shoot in in RAW, and a size close to a Canon Digital ELPH.

 

I've got a Canon 5D, and a 10D, and array of EOS lenses. Thus if the camera isn't truly compact, I might as well

carry the DSLR. What I want is a truly pocketable camera that still gives the ability to shoot RAW.

 

A Canon G9 would be the answer, but it's just a tad too big for my purpose. (typically this camera will get tossed

into the back of a bike jersey.

 

Does anybody make a compact P&S with RAW capture?

Perhaps the 540 EZ will work at other than full power on digital bodies.

 

However, having just gone through this, the 430 EZ won't so I'm thinking the 540EZ as well may fire at full power on a Canon digital slr.

Not sure I get the dislike of the 24-105.

 

1) if you're getting the 50 1.4 anyway, that would give you good low light capacity in the middle of that range.

 

2) f/4 with 1600 ISO, and IS will let you shoot in pretty low light

 

3) if you don't like the quality of the 24-105L, I can't imagine you'll be satisfied with the 70/300

 

4) even if you might think the 24-105 is overrated, and not worth the price, if you get $400 off the price, it's tough to find something better in that range for $600.

 

My 2 cents.

Nature/wildlife. I'd be using the lens mostly for landscapes, stopped down for depth of field.

My Sigma 18-35 gives the dreaded ERR 99 on my 5D. According to Sigma, their

are no longer parts available for the lens, and therefore it cannot be

upgraded.

 

Sigma is willing to give me trade in credit toward a new lens. For example

they will sell me a new 12-22mm for $560. This however does not strike me as

a great deal, since you can get it from B&H for $689 anyway.

 

So I'm considering a few options. I'd like to get down to at least 18mm ( I

have 24mm covered with a 24-105L, and a Canon 24mm prime.)

 

Various options:

 

12-22 Sigma with the credit.

 

17-40 Canon

 

16-35 Canon

 

20 prime (either Sigma with a credit, or Canon.)

 

I'll use the lens mostly on a tripod stopped down, so max apperture is not a

big issue.

 

Any thoughts? How does the 12-22 perform at the 12 end?

 

Is there any real use for the 12-18 range on a full frame camera?

The software on the CD not only has DPP, but also EOS Utility, and a driver for the 5D, (as well as photo stitch assists, and Zoom Browser EX)

I have the 28-135 lens. It's very nice from a practical point of view, but there's a definite dropoff in the build quality of the lens from Canon's L lenses. After a number of years of use, the focusing mechanism in mine is starting to get balky.

 

When I got my 5D, I boughit with the 24-105L lens. It's definitely much higher quality than the 28-135, and one stop faster. If you want borader focal length coverage than the 28-70, and also want to step up to an "L" lens, you should consider the 24-105.

 

In fact, if the price of the "L" lens is not an issue for you, I'd say the decision is between the 28-70, and the 24-105

I can tell you from personal experience that a 420 EZ fires at full intensity on both a 5D, and a 10D.

 

Only way to use it would be to manually calculate exposure, and in many circumstances, it would still overexpose on the minimum apperture.

Long, big lenses are very helpful doing wildlife, but they aren't cheap.

300mm f/4 IS would be a very good lens for wildlife, and is about the starting price point for a serious wild life lens.

 

It doesn't give you more reach than your current 75-300, but it will be much sharper.

 

And you can get very good results with a 1.4 tele converter with it, and acceptable with a 2x teleconverter.

 

Thus the 300 f/4 and the 1.4 tc gets you out to 420, which will be a big improvement over what you've got.

 

Personally, I prefer the 300 f/4 over the 100-400, One because it's sharper, and Two, you can use with it both teleconverters.

Just got a 5D. I already have a 550EX. I need to have another flash

available for a backup, and would like to have another flash to do 2 flash

setups.

 

One approach would be to buy a 580 EXII, and use the 550EX as the backup.

This gets me the up to date top of the line flash, but is the costly option.

 

Another approach would be to get a 430EX and use it as the backup. This

approach is cheaper, but would I be giving up anything important, compared to

the 580 EXII.

 

Or another way to phrase this would be, is there any important advantage to

the 580EXII compared to the 550EX?

I just got a Canon 5D. I have a 550EX, and an Off Camera Shoe Cord2.

 

When I use the OFSC2, the flash fires at full power, the minimum apperture

flashes on the camera, and the photo is grossly overexposed.

 

While the flash indicates that it's firing in TTL mode, it's clear that it is

in fact firing at full power.

 

The information, I've read in this forum, and the static content would

indicate that my set up should work in ETTL, albeit without distance

information.

 

I've tried every setting on the flash, and various shooting modes on the

camera, all to no avail.

 

Any ideas?

Here's my dillema. I have to shoot a family wedding at the end of May. I want

to shoot digital. I currently have a 10D which will be the backup camera. (

I've shot weddings and don't need the don't do it speech, given that I'm

already unavoidably committed.)

 

I'm thinking about buying a 5D. I like the 5D because of the full frame, and

better image quality. I have an array of EF lenses from 18mm to 600mm.

 

However, after the wedding my primary use for the camera will be nature

photography (mostly birds). For that use, faster focus, and to a lesser degree

the 1.6x teleconverter effect, are attractive.

 

Is it true the 40D focuses faster?

I could do it with the 10D. However, I'd like to have a second digital body, so I don't have to use film as the backup.

 

Mostly it's a reason to go ahead and update with the 10D getting a little long in the tooth.

 

Nothing specific about the wedding that would require the 5D. However, I would think group shots would be easier without the 1.6 multiplier.

Currently, I have a 10D (in addition to several EOS 35mm bodies , and wide

assortment of lenses).

 

I've got myself roped into to shooting a wedding in May 2008. (a whole nother

story, and yes I do have experience shooting weddings.)

 

I'd like to upgrade, as well as have a backup digital body for the wedding.

 

So my question is whether I buy a 5D now (leaving ample time to work with it,

and take advantage of low pricing, in anticipation of the 5d MKII)

 

Or do I wait a bit, and see if the 5D's replacement comes out before May.

 

The pricing on the 5D seems amazing with on line prices below the 40D

 

($949 at Expresscameras.com)

Hyun,

I don't think you quite understand the product. The server physically resides with you, not Mirra. The server connects to your computer as part of a network. While the files are accesible through Mirra's website, to anyone with a password controlled by you, its not my understanding that Mirra can acess your files without your approval. My question was whether anyone has any practical experience with the product.

Has anyone tried using Mirra's personal server to back up their

digital files? (www.mirra.com) I'm wondering if there is enough

advantage to it, over just using an external hard drive, to justify

the additional expense.

The answer to this partially depends on what you're trying to shoot. The 200 is going to almost always be too short without the tc unless you're shooting large tame wildlife. The 300 f/4 has the advantage that you'll be able to use it more often without a tc. I use a 300 f/4 IS hanhled to do bird flight photography, on a 10D. I find that with the 1.4 tc the autofocus is slow enough that I miss shots (At least compared to the same lens set up on an EOS 3) Thus I try to shoot without the tc whenever possible.

I find that autofocus with a 10D, 600 f/4 and a 1.4 to be on the edge of acceptable, particularly for bird photos. I haven't tried taping the contact on the 2x because based on the experience with the 1.4, I can't imagine it would be sufficiently fast to be worthwhile.

here's a link to tide chart: < http://tbone.biol.sc.edu/tide/index.html>

Travel is also a consideration. As the last post indicated, you need a big back pack for the 600 f/4. I use a Lowe pro super trekker. Unfortunately it doesn't meet the airline's definition of an acceptable carry on. Given a one carry one limit, I end up with a choice of packing the 600 f/4 in a lens case and carrying it on, and checking the other lenses and bodies, or checking the 600 f/4. Neither of these are great options. If you're going to travel a lot, the additional size of the 600 is a consideration.

The St Augustine Alligator Farm should just be starting to get going now, and should be productive at least through May

I have the 300f/4 IS, and Canon's 1.4tc and 2x, and a 10D. I use these to shoot from a kayak where a tripod is not an otpion. In my experience, 300 f/4 by itself produces very good results. With the 1.4 the results are still pretty good, although autofocus is relatively slow for fast moving subjects. With the 2x, in addition to not having autofocus, the sharpness of the results is often not acceptable, leading to very few keepers.

THe Wimberly folks are very helpful and pleasant to deal with, which is worth something

Jeff, I think the assumption in your question that the 70-200 f/4l is better optically than the 80-200 2.8L is backward. I have the 80-200 2.8L and it is a fine lens. Based on MTF scores at photodo, the 80-200 beats the 70-200 4 at f/4. At f/8, they are essentially the same, and of course the 80-200 is superior at 2.8.

The draw backs to the 80-200 are weight, compared to the 70-200 f/4,

and it doesn't take Canon extenders, but it doesn't sound like you plan to use extenders with it anyway.

If you don't mind the weight, and get a good price used on the 80-200, its nice to have the added flexibility of the 2.8