wingell

<p>No. After shooting with Leica Ms for 35 years, I bought, with some trepidation, a 10D and the three essential 2.8L zooms. It was liberating. Then, two days after the model's issuance, I bought a 5D. It answered the need and still does.</p>

<p>I'm considering the purchase of a Dell Studio XPS 16 with the RGBLED 1080 display and am interested in hearing about any issues such as callibration or brightness. Thanks.</p>

<p>Linda, the suggestion of using f2.8 for the depth of field is good, and I would add that the consideration of DOF leads me to make a 70-200 2.8L lens my default street-shooting glass. Yes, it's heavy, but so??? :) Of course I have no idea what was happening directly in front of the couple in the image you posted, but if shot vertically, you might have moved the male subject's back off toward the left edge and been able to give the female subject just a bit more "breathing room." It's a sweet capture. All the best...Bill</p>

<p>And then there's the 70-200 2.8L, my default portrait lens--especially on the street. It's a handful but then that's what strong backs are for. Most users agree that its background blur can't be beat. Cheers...Bill</p>

<p>Philadelphia and New York City work for me as street-shooting locales, and that's with either the 24-70 or 70-200 on the body--not exactly discreet gear. But at other times I'm carrying the three essential zooms, two bodies and two flashes, so it's all relative, isn't it? Working discreetly is a state of mind.</p>

<p>Thanks for the link, Rumelo. It's a powerful folder.<br>

While visiting the Pulitzer site, viewers can also check out the work of New York Times photographer Damon Winter, who won this year's Pulitzer for feature photography with his series on the presidential campaign of Barack Obama.</p>

<p>Sarah: I agree with with the previous poster about using zooms for news work. I have the same three "essential" zooms for use on my 10D and 5D and find they pretty well cover the shooting situations I encounter. I'm not looking for "prime-lens performance"; I'm looking for the most efficient and timely way to get the job done. Recently, on a two-day assignment, I found myself using the 70-200 2.8L on street and press conference podium work and the 16-35 and 24-70 on aftermath interviews with a reporter in a variety of settings. The zooms provided the versatility I needed. All the best...Bill</p>

<p>B&H in New York lists a $200 Canon rebate on the purchase of a DSLR plus one of an assortment of "L" series lenses (mostly zooms) plus a 580EXII flash. Seems to me that's a pretty hefty list of requirements. The offer runs through March 1.</p>

<p>James, you're obviously familiar with copyright protection procedures, having had your photos licensed for publication in at least three books previously. And you're aware that the unlicensed use of your very unique image by a fourth publisher is a blatant violation of the copyright protection you've put in place. I don't understand why you hesitate to use whatever means you have available to demand fair compensation for such misuse. If you send the publisher a letter asking for $1,000, the company will send the check in the return mail (the same thing happened to me 40 years ago; I still can't believe my naivete!). In my opinion, the $1,000 fee for the image and use you describe is far too low, and the prospect of having to pay substantial damages will probably lead to the publisher settling for a far-greater amount than you currently envision. Contact a copyright/intellectual property rights attorney and get some initial advice. I can refer you to an outstanding attorney in Philadelphia; she very successfully represented my former studio partner who took the much-misused photo of John Kerry seated not far from Jane Fonda at an anti-war rally in Valley Forge. Good luck...Bill</p>

<p>What Ton said.</p>

<p>Thanks for the link, Ellis. And do ferry boats and waterfront piers have wi-fi now? Maybe there's a Starbucks on the dock.</p>

<p>"Another Ford v. Chevy thread"...<br>

Go for the Mitsubishi turbo.</p>

<p>I second Ellis's recommendation of the DigitalJournalist, and, just a little off-topic, be sure to read Bill Pierce's column in the January edition--and make it to the bottom of the piece. Talk about a troublemaker! Happy New Year...Bill</p>

<p>Lucky, I also have to say that the response of your 5D to the temperature and handling you describe seems odd. I recently did two jobs for a major daily (photographing a cabbage farmer and his frozen crop and later an ice rink), both of which involved working in cold temperatures (the cabbage shoot was in the low 20s with a freakin' 30-mile-an-hour wind near Geneva, NY) and having to dash inside occasionally without time to adjust either my 5D or 10D to the change. There was no problem with either body or any lens. Here in northern New York, shooting in those conditions is routine. Should I consider myself "lucky"?</p>

<p>Miles: Thanks for this excellent test series. It's nice to know the 5D holds up so well against its new "sibling," especially at the high ISO comparison. Your effort is much appreciated.</p>

In order of most frequent use (mostly feature work) on my 5D: 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 2.8Ls.

I'm guessing that there won't be much price change--if any--on the new 5D after a year. The camera is already $600 less than the first 5D and is enormously improved. Waiting for the price to come down is pointless.

Four quarters in the dryer should do it.

The 5D has been on the market for almost three years. Heavy shooters who bought the camera when it first

appeared can easily have tallied over 200,000 images--some perhaps 300,000. I'm interested in hearing about

wear-connected problems these shooters may have encountered on their 5D bodies. What should other heavy users be

anticipating? And are there many of you out there who have remained trouble-free? (I include myself in this last

category--knock wood!) Thanks...Bill

Yes! Thank you.

I have to second Birte's note. Shouldn't fixing the tabs be a priority?

Josh--I'm talking about the tab that says "Details" and the "E-card" tab. I didn't try the other two. I use Firefox.

Okay--what's the secret to opening the "details" and other tabs?

A beautiful cover shot! Well done, Michael.

I have to agree with the contributors who think you should buy the 16-35 but keep the 24-70 for a while. I think you're correct in adding the 16-35: the full-frame 5D was made for that lens. But the 24-70 is indeed a very versatile piece of glass. As a feature shooter, I have all three of the essential zooms. The 24-70 seems to me to have the edge in critical performance. As for the weight issue, I can only say: if the lens is right for the occasion, grin and bear it. Wait until you spend six or eight hours hauling around both the 24-70 on the 5D and the 70-200 2.8L IS on a 10D, with two zooms and the 16-35 in your bag. That weighty combination gives you legitimate whining rights. Cheers...Bill