tim_klimowicz

<p>Mine has always creeped since I first got it, and has a couple spots of inconsistency where it catches just a bit rather than zoom smoothly. I've use another's 17-55mm that didn't creep at all, and actually felt a lot smoother, though.</p>

<p>My own 7D with a 24mm 1.4L II did just fine in about 2 hours of very heavy and very wet snow this past winter. For much of the time it wasn't looking too unlike the first picture in the article posted by David Storm further up-thread.</p>

<p>Sooner.</p>

<p>The 5D body has kept its value pretty damn well considering it was released 5 years ago (that's *forever* in terms of technology and especially digital photography). I have a feeling that won't be the case for much longer with all the recent innovations.</p>

<p>I agree with Peter: Sell it NOW, and use that money to fund the MkII purchase.</p>

<p>I've got the 7D, and have been a wee bit regretful that I didn't splurge on the 5D MkII (though, to be honest, the 7D was a splurge itself). If I had to do it again, I'd definitely get the MkII, even it it means waiting another month or two to save.</p>

<p>If you like shooting wide and wide open (at least in part for the DOF), I'd absolutely go with the MkII. There is a noticeable difference in DOF between the two at equivalent focal lengths (a 30mm 1.4 on crop versus 50mm 1.4 on FF), probably in the range of 2+ stops. So your 30mm 1.4 on a 7D would look close to a 50mm 2.8-ish on FF. Not the end of the world, but it could be better if you like the narrow DOF.</p>

<p>The 24mm 1.4L is unbeatable IMHO, both on an APS-C or full-frame.</p>

<p>On a FF body you get the unique combination of a wide angle and a very shallow DOF, and on an APS-C body you get a lens that is roughly equivalent to a 35mm lens (still a fairly wide "normal" lens); one of the few options for this on APS-C.</p>

<p>In both cases, you get an incredible lens that is fast, sharp, not too very big (relatively), and can hold up in all sorts of weather.</p>

<p>Thanks for the replies, everyone. Good info, and makes perfect sense.</p>

<p>It seems that 50mm is the sweet spot for a 1.4 or faster lens, and than any lower (24mm) or higher (85mm) results in a much more expensive lens.</p>

<p>I understand that longer lenses are harder (more expensive) to make fast because it demands an enormous amount of glass to match the length, but why does the opposite not seem to hold true for wider lenses?</p>

<p>I ask this because I guess I'm just trying to understand why 24mm seems to be the cut-off point for very fast wide lenses. Any wider and the aperture starts to creep up to the 2.8 (16-35mm) or even worse (10-22mm 3.5-4.5).</p>

<p>And I'm trying to understand this only because I wish there was an option even remotely close to the 24mm 1.4 on an APS-C body. There's options that are much wider, but at a pretty big loss of aperture. Is there just no market for something that fast and wide, or is there some sort of physical barrier which prohibits making such lenses with decent quality?</p>

<p>Having upgraded from a 30D to a 7D, I can say yes, the low-light performance is very much improved. It's still not in the arena of newer full-frame cameras, but I've heard people compare it to the 5DMk1 thanks to the newer DIGIC processing. Pixel for pixel it may not be quite as clean (noise-wise) as an image from the 5DMk1, but downsizing from 18MP to the 5D's 12MP will effectively throw out a lot of that noise, so for prints (as you do) that should be great.</p>

<p>I don't know about your 30D, but mine had that awful banding noise issue, which made me very reluctant to shoot at or beyond 800 ISO, or even push an 400 image too much. My 7D has something similar, but it's vertical banding instead, and is much finer (harder to spot), and generally never an issue unless I really push an image to an extreme in post. I now very confidently shoot at 1600 or even 3200, which looks much better on-screen than the 30D did at 800 IMHO. Personally, I wouldn't bother going from the 30D to the 40D, as was suggested above. I've used both cameras, and while the 40D is definitely a step up, it's not a large enough step to warrant upgrading IMHO.</p>

<p>If shooting wide and fast was your main (and very very critical) concern, I'd suggest the 5DMk1 simply because there's no option on the cropped bodies like the 7D for the wide/fast EF lenses like the 24mm 1.4 that you can use (and maintain the wide FOV) on full-frame bodies. But if you're intrigued by the video options of the 7D (which I didn't think I'd care much for until I actually got my hands on one) and can live without the fast/wide combination you'd get with fullframes, I'd definitely suggest the 7D. It's a really incredible camera for it's price. I've been impressed by every aspect of it.</p>

<p>Yes, read up on some basic exposure material to understand what's going on and why those highlights are blown.</p>

<p>Essentially, the flashing black spots indicate that the image is so bright (overexposed) in that area that there's is no more data -- it's basically pure white, void of any other color or detail.</p>

<p>However, if you're shooting RAW, this is not exactly always the case. The image you're seeing on the LCD is an 8-bit version (256 tones per RBG channel), where the highlights are indeed clipped. But depending on the camera, shooting in RAW captures more than 8-bits of information. With your 50D in RAW mode, you're actually capturing about 16k tones per RBG channel (14-bit), which means you actually often have more data in the image than the LCD is showing.</p>

<p>Put simply, this means you can bring the RAW file into Photoshop (or whatever you're using to process them) and change the exposure in post to pull back in some of that information that is otherwise lost. With the 7D I can typically get about 1.5 to 2 stops of highlight detail back if needed, and your should be able to do the same.</p>

<p>Absolutely rent the 24 1.4L II as well. I recently rented one (twice) for an extended period and it was every bit as good as I was hoping it would be.</p>

<p>On the 7D it's roughly 38mm, which puts it quite close to the 35mm 1.4 on a FF body, and being that the 24mm 1.4 has always been quite magical itself, that's probably as close as we can get to the 35mm 1.4 on a cropped body.</p>

<p>Really cool info, Michael. In my own totally-unscientific tests with my 7D I was able to pretty clearly see the difference in sharpness between 5.6 and 8, where it got sharper and shaper as I went from 1.4 to 5.6, but then seemed to degrade as I went to 8 and beyond. It's interesting to see that the math backs it up with that figure of f/6.9.</p>

<p>Fortunately for me, I very rarely shoot beyond f/1.4 or f/2, so it's not really a concern for me 99.9% of the time.</p>

<p>Why is there so much ego here?</p>

<p>As a 7D owner (moving up from the previous 30D), I agree completely that there's a big hole in the market where a fast, wide APS-C lens should be. Something that us cropped-sensor people could have that would be even remotely comparable to the 24 1.4L on a full-frame would be nice (even without the L).</p>

<p>As for a "normal" lens....I've had the Sigma 30 1.4 for a while now, along with the 17-55 2.8 IS. I recently brought those two and a rented 24 1.4L II with me for 2 weeks out west....and the 24 1.4 didn't leave by body the entire time.</p>

<p>It might be a weee bit out of your budget, but if you want a *good*, solid "normal" lens for your APS-C that would also be very useful on a full-frame that might be in your future, I wouldn't hesitate. It's roughly 38mm, which is about as close as you can get to 35mm 1.4 on a cropped camera.</p>

<p>Has it been damaged in some way?</p>

<p>I've owned the 17-55mm 2.8 IS for 2.5 years now and originally I'd noticed a very tiny shift when you begin metering/focusing, but in the last few months it's turned into quite a huge jump at times. So much in fact that I'm fearing it's slowly breaking, so I now try to shoot without the IS when I use that lens. The image shift is disturbing large, and also more audible.</p>

<p>I haven't done anything (lately) to effect this that I know of. In October of 2007 -- about 2 months after I bought the lens -- I dropped it from about knee-level onto a wooden plank floor while it was on my old 30D. No visible damage at all, and it continued to work perfectly fine for 2+ years, right up until recently when I began noticing the bigger jump.</p>

<p>EDIT: Doh, just re-read what Juergen wrote. I'm now shooting on a 7D as well, and hadn't considered that... I'm going to test it out between the 30D and the 7D when I get the chance to see if there's a difference.</p>

<p>I have the 7D and the 17-55 2.8, and depending on your shooting style and preferences I'd suggest considering maybe the 17-35 2.8L or just a couple fast primes. I rarely ever use the 17-55, in part because it's just enormous as a carry-everywhere walk-around lens, but also because it feels a bit flimsy and I feel like any exposure to the elements might kill it (it has a minor dust issue, and the seals don't strike me as something I'd want much water on). It's an absolutely dynamite lens when it comes to the image quality, but it just bums me out that a $1000 lens can be built so seemingly questionably.</p>

<p>Instead, I've been using the Sigma 30mm 1.4 because it's far more compact and faster. Just recently I rented the 24mm 1.4L II, and I've got to say....if I could do it all over again I'd save the ~$1000 spent on the 17-55 and the ~450 spent on the 30mm 1.4 and just buy this 24mm.</p>

<p>Of course, this all depends on your own style and preference. I prefer primes over zooms any day, and the extra speed is icing on the cake.</p>

<p>Jeff, you've got that right about the lack of understanding with DoF and background blur. I'd like to think I'm pretty technically sound with a lot of areas of photography and light (though that can't be said about the application of these things -- much to learn after so many years!), mostly because I try to really gain an understanding beyond the abstract; that is, I almost *need* to know not only that something works because of X, but *why* it works because of X. That said, I've still never been able to wrap my head fully around DoF as it relates to different formats and multipliers. On the surface I get it, but without understanding the physics on even a basic level, I'm lost. :)</p>

<p>Anyway, I took Michael's advice and ran out to Adorama after work tonight to rent the 24mm 1.4L II for a week. I'm almost hoping to be underwhelmed so I don't binge on a very much not-needed purchase I really shouldn't be making in the first place....</p>

<p>Thanks again everyone. I'm going to re-read this thread and Bob's links a few times to maybe finally understand it fully.</p>

<p>Wow, excellent responses so fast. Thanks, everyone. I was afraid of that, but it's good to know for sure. I know the cropped cameras come with some limitations (though they also have their strengths), and it's a bummer to know that this is another one that just can't be made up for in some other way.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>I *love* the look of the 35mm 1.4L on the full frame bodies, but I own the 7D and have no plans to go full-frame any time soon.</p>

<p>Part of the look I like of the 35mm 1.4 (in addition to the sharpness and contrast, as well as the happy-medium not-too-wide-not-too-tight FOV) is, of course, the tight depth of field wide open, and how a fairly wide-ish lens can still achieve pretty amazing separation from a distant background even when the subject is a pretty good distance away.</p>

<p>So, my question is: Could I expect a relatively similar narrow depth of field with the 24mm 1.4 on the 7D's cropped sensor? The focal length winds up being about 38mm, which is close enough to 35mm for me, but are the depth of field characteristics altered in some way, or would the 35mm 1.4 on a 5D look very close to the the 24mm 1.4 on a 7D?</p>

<p>Relatively minor issue, I know....but it's not every day I even think about spending $1700 on a lens. :)</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Please forgive me if this isn't the right forum; it's the closest match I can find.</p>

<p>I've been shooting with a Canon 30D for a few years now, and just yesterday I received the new Canon 7D. I don't plan on giving up shooting on the 30D entirely, so I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions for how I should organize the files on my drive between two cameras.</p>

<p>Currently, I use the YYYY_MM_DD folder structure for all files from the 30D (assigned by Canon's EOS Utility app, which I use to pull the images from the cards), so each day's shooting sits in a unique dated subdirectory of my 'Pictures' directory. If I use the same structure with the 7D's files, I'm worried there will be directory conflicts (both cameras used on the same day), and possibly even naming conflicts.</p>

<p>How is this best solved?</p>

<p>I shoot RAW exclusively and use Apple's Aperture, if that matters, and use references to the files rather than import them into the library. I will be pulling both camera's images into the same library. Also, this mostly for personal usage, so there shouldn't be any really hardcore commercial considerations, but I shoot quite often so I'd appreciate something pretty solid.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Having owned a 30D that has serious noise banding issues that begin at ISO 400 and get progressively worse the higher you go (or the more you push in post), I definitely have no problems with this sort of test. I like shooting a lot of low-light, and I don't mind noise at all. What I *don't* like is when my images look like they were shot with a crappy mobile phone camera because there's ugly horizontal bands of noise in the shadows.</p>

<p>All of the 7D pictures I've seen until now seem to lack this banding noise, but you're damned right this will be one of the first things I test when mine finally arrives tomorrow.</p>

<p>I see curved banding that matches the gradient of the sky, but otherwise nothing else.</p>

<p>I think you may be confusing the terms here. Horizontal banding typically happens in the last stop or so of shadows for some cameras (my 30D, for instance), and is usually only seen starting around ISO 400, getting worse with every extra stop of ISO increase, or with any pushing, even with ISO 200 images pushed a rather extreme 2-3 stops.</p>

 

<p>The one bit of information I wish was more easily available was the relationship of guide number/f-stop, distance, and zoom, and how the change of each effects the other (inverse-square stuff).<br>

You could also always troll strobist.com and see what articles get the most attention, and "borrow" some ideas from there as to what to cover.</p>

<p>That's the one real big gripe I have about the APS-C sensors: the lack of wide, fast, quality lenses. I wish Canon would have put some energy into making, say, a 15mm 1.4 instead of that new *cringe* 15-85 3.5-5.6 lens. I know I must be in the minority based on their market research, but eh. Seems like there's sooooo many EF-S zoom options in that range -- some poor quality, some better quality -- but nothing wide & fast at all.</p>

<p>Anyway, my Sigma 30mm 1.4 may as well be welded to my camera despite having the 17-55 2.8 IS at my disposal as well. If you don't mind a bit of softness wide open (I like it) and a slightly slower AF motor, you'll like the 30mm. Either that or the older Canon 28mm 2.8 which many people compare it to, or, as Puppy Face recommends, the 35mm 2.0, or even better the 1.4L if you have ~$1500 to drop.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For all of you wondering how the camera manages the High ISOs, check this link out:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10042-10239" target="_blank">http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10042-10239</a><br>

At the very end, you will see link of images shot at 3200/6400/12800 from both the 7D and the 5D, for comparison purposes.<br>

In my personal opinion, this new camera proves to be the next big thing. Think I'll be getting one as soon as it comes out into the market.<br>

Erwin Marlin.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>More importantly (to me, at least), they seem to *finally* have done away with the horizontal banding issue in the high ISO image shadows. I've been flamed here for suggesting there's an issue with them, but my very own 30D is proof when used anywhere above 400 (or when "pushing" 100-200 a few stops), and I'm certainly not alone. You can even see it in the 5D MkII 12800 ISO image in the review you link to, though, admittedly, it's very faint even at the ridiculously-high 12800 ISO. That said, the fact that it's there *at all* is pretty distressing to me considering the price of this kind of equipment.</p>

<p>With the 7D, I have yet to see the same sort of banding anywhere. I only wish it was FF (and I'd gladly give up 10+ MP along with that, if it helps keep the price down), though the slightly larger viewfinder image is *very* encouraging. Not quite yet in FF territory, but getting closer...</p>