robert_edelman1

<p>I have been very happy in my experience with Canon Irvine service.<br>

Robert</p>

<p>You can expand the possibilities of what equipment to use by renting. Try talking to the people at lensrentals.com after visiting their website. They might be able to offer suggestions as to what equipment would work best. You might be able to get the equipment you need for when you need it without spending a lot of money on purchasing.</p>

<p>Kacy, Your contract seems quite clear. By the date of your post, it seems that he is only giving you 5 working days to get the check to him. I would send him a letter by certified mail declining his request. Be polite, say as little as possible and only what is necessary. Tell him that the contract clearly states that the deposit is not refundable, so you are sorry but that you will not return the deposit. If this guy is an attorney worth anything, he won't bother you any more about this. I don't know about Arizona, but in California, this would go to small claims, and you could represent yourself. If he took it to a regular court, the judge would probably be upset that this guy was wasting the court's time. I suspect that he is just fishing for the money and that he won't pursue this any further. As a lawyer, he probably makes $200 in 40 minutes. Good luck.</p>

In comparing memory cards such as compact flash cards, with everything being equal, the larger the card capacity,

the more slowly the camera will write to the card. For example, your camera will take longer to write an image

to a SanDisk Extreme III 4 GB card than it will to a SanDisk Extreme III 2 GB card. For cards of smaller

capacity, you probably will not notice much or any difference in write time between cards of different speeds. I

suspect that the faster speeds are more important for the cards with much larger capacities. It also depends upon

your photography. Sports photography might need faster cards than landscape photography. I agree with the advice

of trying out the 4 GB card that you have. I think that you will be satisfied with the write time. The question

is of capacity. As far as brands are concerned, I have not yet had problems with any cards. I tend to buy

SanDisk and Lexar brand cards as they seem to have a lesser number of negative comments concerning their

reliability as posted by online reviewers/users compared to some other brands. I have also read that filling the

card up to maximum capacity might not be a good idea as it might lead to file corruption, or something like that.

If the card is nearing capacity, I will format the card in the camera after downloading the images onto a

computer. I recommend a card reader to download from the card, as it seems to be faster than using the camera.

If you want to review the write times of various cards, go to robgalbraith.com.

Robert

Imaging Resource has an article updating the Panasonic LX3 review. The Leica-designed lens on that camera actually has a fair amount of distortion. The distortion is corrected in the camera when it shoots jpegs. When you shoot RAW files, the Silkypix converter that is provided with the camera also automatically corrects the distortion. Imaging Resource was a bit put off by this. They felt that the photographer should be given the option to correct the distortion when processing the RAW files. The software doesn't let you see the distortion that is produced by the lens, which is a convenience for many, but which also masks the truth of the lens' performance. The Leica M8 also uses in-camera software to optimize images when the camera is used with coded lenses. I think that we will continue to see more use of in-camera correction as the processors become more powerful.

Scott, your answer is so true! Danielle, I just purchased a refurbished 5D Mk I. I just don't think that I personally will use all of the capabilities that the Mk II offers. New digital cameras depreciate quickly, and the more expensive they are when purchased new, the greater the dollar amount that it will depreciate. I figure that a 5D Mk I purchased now for $1500 or less (refurbished or clean used) will lose a smaller amount of money over the next 5 years than will a brand new 5D Mk II purchased for $2700. The difference will buy you a very nice L lens or two, which will not depreciate as much. Although the Mk II looks to be a fantastic camera, the 5D Mk I is still a great camera. Buy what you need. If you would use the HD video for weddings, or if you need the extra resolution, extra ISO, and increased bit color, by all means get the Mk II. Otherwise, the 5D Mk I might serve you well for many years. If you decide to move up from there, you can still sell the Mk I, and the money that you would lose would probably be made up by the lowered price that the then not-so-new Mk II would be selling for.

Thanks, Puppy, for the clarification concerning DPP. What I should have said is that some cameras such as the 5D do not send distance information to DPP. The distance slider is therefore set to gray. I believe that in those situations you can manually set the slider, although I think there is no scale on the slider. The newer cameras such as the 50D and the 5D mark II do communicate the distance to DPP, so the distance slider is automatically active. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

I own the 17-40 mm and I think that it is a very good lens. It exhibits excellent characteristics that are

associated with L lenses, such as sharpness, contrast, color balance and rugged build quality. If a filter is

kept on it, it should not suck dust into it when it zooms (Canon actually recommends using a filter for this

purpose). It does distort at the short end, but this as well as the light fall off in the periphery can be easily

corrected with software such as DPP, especially with the newer cameras that have the Digic IV processor. I think

that it is popular because of the relatively low price for an L lens, as well as the range it has when used on

cameras with APS-C sensors. This lens came out about the same time as the 10D, before the EF-S lenses were sold,

and was marketed as a popular lens to use on the 10D, much as the 24-105 L has been marketed to be used with the

5D. If you are doing landscapes, you most likely do not need a lens faster than f4.0. My lens has worked well on

my 10D as well as my 5D. Some of these lenses had a problem with banding when used with the 5D due to electrical

noise. This relates, I think, to earlier production lenses and can be verified with the lens serial number. There

is a

replacement electronics board for the lens that Canon can install for around $125.00 US (the last time I checked).

SanDisc and Lexar both make firewire card readers. Just check Amazon.com. I have a Microtech firewire reader which works well, but I am not sure if the company is still in business.

I have no experience with Canon refurbished lenses, but I did have my EF 50mm f1.4 repaired at Canon in Irvine, California, after it was damaged in a fall. The lens came back clean, working perfectly, and optically the same (or perhaps better) than before. If Canon's repair work is any indication of their refurbished work, you can probably purchase with confidence.

It might depend upon how good your Tamron copy is. I have a good copy that produces good images and has proven itself to be durable and reliable. Mine works well on my 5D, but of course who knows how well it will work on the Mk.II. Yes, images produced with the 17-40 have that wonderful "L" look to them. And the Tamron obviously is not as rugged as the L lenses, but it is more rugged that you would suspect (it surely is more rugged than the EF 50 mm f1.4, an optically excellent lens that is somewhat fragile). Another thing to consider is that you will be able to correct optical distortions and light falloff (vignetting) in Canon's DPP if you use a Canon EF lens with the MarkII. Canon L lenses also tend to keep their value. The advantages of the Tamron are that it has a lower price, it is smaller with a less conspicuous size, and its lower weight. It looks as if the Mk.II will be sold as a kit with the 24-105 f 4 L, with that lens adding around $800. That might be another way to go. If you are unsure, take photos using your own CF card with the Tamron mounted on a demo or a friend's MkII when it becomes available. You will then be able to do your own "pixel peeping" to determine how the performance of the lens holds up to the new sensor.

One of the constants in life is change. For me, digital imaging has been a positive revolution, both for my hobby photography and especially for my professional (medical) uses. Thanks to advances in microprocessors, digital imaging has made staggering advances in a relatively short period of time. Eventually, these changes might slow down, and model changes might become less frequent. Indeed, it is to Canon's credit that the 5D was such a good design that it remained current for 3 years. When you complain about these changes, you should take a look back. My 10D is a great camera, and I still use it. But I am actually grateful that Canon made the 5D, as it enables me to make photographs under circumstances that would not be possible with the 10D. As for features such as face detection, you might not need it, but lots of amateurs are now taking pictures of important events in their lives that with earlier technology would have been out of focus and poorly exposed.

Heck, without technology advances, we wouldn't have Photo.net!

You might want to consider a tripod, or the combination of a tabletop tripod and a monopod. Look for light weight

(carbon fiber is usually the lightest), fast and easy adjustments, and a quick release mount. You do not

necessarily have to spend a small fortune on these. There are some reasonably priced and relatively well made

monopods and tripods that should do a good job. I hike with a monopod, which is useful when there are clouds,

wind, shade, or other low light situations. At night I use a tripod. One is missing a lot of fantastic

opportunities by ignoring night photography. Night photographs are often very dramatic, and are unusual in that

the average photographer doesn't usually bother to learn how to take them. Instead of snapshots, you will get

very gratifying photos. Tripods are also helpful for macro photography, especially if the mounting pole can be

reversed so that the camera can be positioned close to ground level. There are also camera mounts that have

articulated legs that can be used to grasp onto benches, chairs, trees, poles, etc. One example is, I think,

trade named the Gorilla pod. These are light,

relatively small, and can be helpful in a pinch, but they may not be sturdy enough for a heavy DSLR outfit. Have

fun, and have a safe trip!

As I mentioned in a previous post, when my 50 mm EF 1.4 fell out of my camera backpack its innards got scrambled. I sent it to Canon in Irvine, which I highly recommend. As a registered 5D owner, I received professional priority. They had it repaired with a very short turn around time. The repair is excellent, and the lens works as well as a new lens. The 50 mm f1.4 lens is a valuable lens, and aside from shipping I think that it is free to have Canon estimate repairs. I think that you will find that it will be cost-effective to have the lens repaired. Besides, think of how "green" it is to repair the lens, and not have it in the landfill ;).

I suspect that tilt screens will become popular with organic LED (OLED) technology.

What struck me the most from a marketing standpoint is the $400 lower price on the Nikon D90 vs the Canon 50D. Does the 50D offer more robust construction or a better viewfinder than the D90? I know that the Canon has more pixels and a faster frame rate, but when people entering the dSLR market look at features such as movie mode on the Nikon, the lower price might seal the deal.

The 50D keeps the Compact Flash card format and the BP511A battery.That's kind of nice for those of us who have other EOS bodies that use CF cards and the BP511 batteries. What really caught my attention was the adjustment for front and back focus, seen first with the 1D series. Could this be the beginning of the end of "front focus" and "back focus" posts on this forum?

I have an EF 200 mm f2.8 L that I use for available light performance photography (concerts,plays). With the 5D I

can get great shots at ISO 3200 and f 2.8. The lens is sharp, its focus is fast and quiet, and the bokeh is

pleasing. It is not as big or heavy or as expensive as the EF 70-200 f2.8 L lenses. I am very happy with it,

although I do feel that a zoom would be helpful as I often am not able to change my location during these shows.

In those situations I use the EF 100 mm f 2.8 macro. Although I do think a zoom is helpful, I would not give up

the 2.8 aperture for the 4.0 aperture. If you need a wide aperture lens, go with the 200 mm f 2.8 or with the

70-200 f2.8. If you don't need the wider aperture, the 70-200 mm f 4.0 might be more versatile for you. Remember

that the wider the aperture of the lens, the brighter the view through the viewfinder will be, which is helpful

for manual focusing or for confirming the focus when using autofocus. I also use something to rest the camera on,

or a monopod or tripod, to avoid camera shake. Do not discount the value of a monopod or tripod in helping to get

sharp photos. They are definitely worth the extra hassle, especially if your camera or lens does not have image

stabilization.

I like to use f2.8 or faster lenses. If I am close to the stage I use a Tamron 28-75 mm f2.8, and occasionally a

Canon 50 mm f1.4. If I am stuck in the audience, I use a Canon EF 100 mm f 2.8 macro or a Canon 200mm f2.8 L. I

also bring either an easily adjustable monopod or a lightweight tripod. As the stage might have a variety of

light sources and colors, I always shoot in RAW, so that I can adjust the color temperature in post-processing,

as well as the picture styles. I often shoot in bursts rather than in single shot mode. Don't forget to

experiment with shooting from different angles, and tilting the camera off from the horizontal or vertical. The

latter can give an especially dynamic feel to the image. Have fun!

I, too, have a 10 D and an EOS 28-105 mm (first generation). As you asked about

the 28-105 mm, here are my impressions: 1. It is compact and light 2. It is

well built, and has a metal mount 3. There is barrel distortion at the wide

focal length 4. It is reasonably sharp, better than the 28-80 kit lens, but not

quite as sharp as the 28-135 IS. It is a good travel or "walk about" lens. I

hardly use mine now, preferring to use a Tamron 28-75 f2.8, which is optically

better and faster, although the Tamron is larger and does not have the telephoto

range that the 28-105 has. The 10D by the way is in my opinion an "oldie but a

goodie." Happy shooting! Robert

My 50 mm EF f/1.4 recently took a short fall out of my photo backpack. Its innards just disintegrated. No scratched lenses, but the plastic mechanical pieces came apart. I've seen other lenses from Canon and Tamron go through the same or worse trauma and not be bothered. So this particular model seems to be very fragile. By the way, although optically the 50 mm EF f/1.4 is very good, I liked my the images from my FD 50 f/1.4 a lot better. The FD seemed to have less distortion and better color. That FD lens was as good or better than a Contax 50 f1.7 that I compared it to.

I actually have both lenses. The Canon is a series I, which I purchased in 1994, along with an Elan IIe. It's relatively small and light, and it focuses quickly, but it has barrel distortion at the wide end. Two years ago I purchased the Tamron used at a photo swap meet. I did an on-the-spot comparison: I took photos with the Canon and the Tamron, and compared them on the camera's LCD, where I could zoom in and move around on the picture. It was obvious even on the LCD that the Tamron was sharper than the Canon, so I bought the Tamron. I still have the Canon, but I never use it, preferring instead to use the Tamron. I like the lighter weight of the Tamron compared to an L lens, and I did luck into a sharp sample, so the image quality is good. Perhaps I keep the Canon for nostalgia, but I really out to sell it. I'd say that unless you need the extra focal length at the telephoto end, the Tamron would be the better pick.

Have fun with your "new to you" 10D! As all of the posts attest, they're really nice cameras, and bargains at today's prices. As far as RAW conversion is concerned, Canon's DPP can batch process RAW, saving you time. It's easy to do on DPP, and the program is free. You can then use other programs to process the tif or jpeg files which have been converted in DPP from the original RAW files.

Susan, my compliments on your web site, and your wonderful photos. I think that you would do well with either a 5D or a 40D.

Personally, I think that as a pro you should not restrict yourself. The camera is a business expense, but that's not much help if your business is not yet profitable.

You should try shooting in RAW. Except for quick throw-away pictures, I shoot almost everything in RAW, even with my S70 (I was one of those people who wrote to Canon telling them that I would never buy a camera for myself that did not have RAW). The results are rewarding, and it is interesting to try different shooting styles and color temperatures. It's not difficult, and only adds a step or two to the workflow. I use DPP (it's free!)for RAW conversion and for color balance, picture styles, sharpening, etc., with good results. Your enlargements might be of better quality with tif files from converted RAW files, rather than from jpegs. Just remember to sharpen or unsharp mask the images from the 10D as a last step.

You might try the Rebel XTi to save some money, if the ergonomics and handling are suitable to you and the 24-70 mm lens.

Remember that the 5D does not have a built in flash, so if you are used to having one, you might miss it.

By the way, I still use my 10D, although I have to admit the newer cameras represent major advances in handling and imaging. (I also have a 5D).

Whatever camera that you use, your talent will allow you to continue to make great photographs.

Thanks for your advice!

Robert

I am shopping for a colorimeter to calibrate my computer monitors. I do not work

with a dual display, but I do have several computers, some with LCD (including

laptops) and one CRT. I notice that there are colorimeters that are inexpensive

but that do not monitor ambient light. The ones that do monitor ambient light

are, as expected, more expensive. How important is this feature? Thanks for your

help.

Robert