tim_klimowicz

<p>What a huge let down. Two crappy EF-S lenses and yet another APS-C with a trillion megapixels.<br>

I just don't get it....</p>

<p>Apologies if I came off pompous by using the word "crap" to describe features that many people (obviously) desire in a camera. As was mentioned, I'm sure there's plenty of people who'd consider my own desires "crap".</p>

<p>And I understand that there's already a camera available that fits my description (the original 5D)...but what seriously confuses me is that it's no longer being produced. There's a healthy market out there for used 5Ds, and I'm frankly surprised they're selling for as much as they still are even used...but I assume that's because there's still a relatively strong demand for the camera (plus it's still damn good), and being that there's still such a strong demand despite the release of the MkII and the passage of 3-4 years of time, I'm really surprised that Canon doesn't still manufacture them and sell them like hotcakes for quite a bit less. I understand that would eat into their competitive MkII sales (which I agree is a great value, it's just a bit beyond my means as a serious non-pro), but I figured there *has* to be a large part of the market that would eat them up, thus making it worthwhile.</p>

<p>Or I could just be wrong.</p>

<p>Why can't Canon make a decent full-frame body that's quite a bit cheaper than the 5d Mk II? I'd be thrilled without all the extra crap -- the video, the live view, the trillion MP and drive FPS, etc. I'd just like a decent full-frame workhorse (weather-sealed to at least some degree) camera, ~12MP full-frame, that takes solid pictures.</p>

<p>Why couldn't they just revamp the original 5D (new digic, etc) and sell it for what I assume would be quite a bit cheaper now that the technology is 4 years old (and presumably much cheaper to produce)?</p>

<p>Currently the only choices are the wee-bit-expensive MkII, a used Mk I, or something totally not full-frame. How could this be? Is there really just *no* market for such a camera?</p>

<p>Great, thanks for the info, everyone. I admit I don't know the ins and outs of all the different RAW conversion solutions there are out there (I use only Photoshop and Aperture, depending on what I'm going for), so it may be worth it to check out DPP to at least see its capabilities.</p>

<div></div>

<p>As someone who has been using Photoshop since 1995 (in other words, I'm very comfortable with it), is there any reason I should use Canon's DPP?</p>

<p>Is there anything DPP can do that Photoshop can't (even if it takes a couple extra steps)? Or is it an entirely different tool?</p>

<p>Just wondering because I see a lot of talk about it here in the EOS forums, and I feel like I must be missing something.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>It could just be me, but I don't find the 17-55mm 2.8 IS to be a good walk-around lens. Sure, it has a common focal range, is fast, and is complimented by IS, but it's just too big and heavy for my personal liking. I'd much rather (and do) use a smaller, lighter, more compact prime like the Sigma 30mm 1.4 (my favorite walk-around).<br>

The 17-55 also has some annoying zoom creep if it's hanging around your neck/shoulder and bouncing a bit.</p>

<p>That said, it IS a really great lens that lives up to the hype....it's just way too long and bulky for me to use as a go-to walk-around lens, which is why I actually originally purchased it.</p>

"Can you play a tune on it ... there's the thing."

 

Mmmmm, I'd have mine play Paul Simon's 'Kodachrome' with every shutter press.

 

"Mama don't take my Kodachrome, mama don't take my Kodachrome, mama don't take my Kodachrome away!"

Wow.

15mm 1.4.

 

...for us 20/30/40/50D users that want something similar to the 24mm 1.4.

 

and, maybe a 30mm 1.4 to compete with Sigma's version of the same, which can only be a good thing for us.

 

Basically, more fast lenses for cropped sensors.

Again, apologies if I underestimated your skill/knowledge level.<br>

<br>

Have you checked out the site <a href="http://strobist.com" target="_blank">strobist.com</a>?<br>

<br>

There's tons of really useful information there, specifically with regard to portable lighting solutions, and DIY. Look in

'Lighting 101' and 'Lighting 102' dropdown lists on the right side, specifically. So much great information there for so many

circumstances.

Crisp edges will eventually turn into ragged, undefined edges when enough grain (and a higher ISO) is introduced. In addition (from what I

understand), the linear nature of these digital sensors means that for every f-stop lower you go, you're only capturing 1/2 as

much information as the f-stop above, so in the shadowy or darker areas of even a well-exposed image (relatively

speaking) you're simply not going to see the same dynamic range as you'll see at the highlights end.

 

As for the perceived clarity of studio-lit images (and forgive me if I'm getting way too sophomoric here)...I wonder if this just

has more to do with the quality of the light? The very definition of photography is the recording of light, and poorer light will

just produce a poorer picture no matter what. An example I used to consider is from when I used to do a lot of 3D work (the

computer kind, like CAD). I can spend weeks modeling and texturing and composing a scene that is as photorealistic as I

could ever expect -- good scale, good textures, good detail, etc -- but when it comes down to it, when I hit the 'render'

button and forget to add lights, the scene will render, literally, as an empty black screen. It's not until I start adding lights to

the scene that it starts to actually materialize, because absent of light there's just *nothing* there in a photographic/imaging

sense.

 

Anyway, long, silly example, but I'm sure you know what I mean. Light, of course, is everything in photography, and often

natural light without any modifiers or other methods to tame it just is never perfect.

This has bothered me for some time as well.

 

It shows up in the shadows of some of my 30D images at 800 ISO even without "pushing", and I really find it hard to

believe it still has yet to be fixed in even the 50D (though, to Canon's credit, it seems more controlled).

 

As someone who shoots a lot of low-light and heavily-shadowed images (which ARE properly exposed, I should add), it

really bums me out and almost makes me want to pick up the old film camera again at times.

That vignette is dreamy.

Another vote for the 30D. I've got one (was my first DSLR, too, purchased ~14 months ago), and though I sometimes yearn

for something that has better high-ISO performance (the noise doesn't bother me so much as the banding in the noise that

is introduced at higher ISOs with my copy and many others -- do a search), it's really a solid camera that can produce great

images.

 

And I actually like the relative simplicity of it compared to some of the newer cameras with all their bells and whistles.

Sure, that stuff is nice, but there's a weird purist quality to it in my mind.

I don't mean to ruffle any feathers, but it's much more of a "street photograph" than I often see posted here and elsewhere.

 

I'm not too fond of most of the from-the-hip stuff that has absolutely no redeeming artistic or emotional value. If the light plays oddly in

the scene, then sure, it's definitely a bit more interesting. But if I want to see random people walking on the street, I'll step outside and

look at them with my eyes. A monkey can walk around pointing the camera at things/people that catch their eye and grab frames, entirely

detached from the situation and without injecting any interpretation of what they're seeing. Once in a while chance may catch something

interesting, but most of it done in this fashion is just boring.

 

But when a picture is considered even a little bit, and a story is being told, I'm much more interested in it.

 

Your picture is very simple, but I definitely feel there might be an inkling of a story there, whether it's one I'm really seeing or just

perceiving based on my own interpretation. The body language, the composition, the environment, the garb...

 

All that said, it could also be my own bias. I was born and spent my entire life so far here in NYC, so most "street" photography of urban

areas that have none of the above attributes really do bore me. Perhaps if I grew up on a farm out west I'd find the boring ones a bit more

exciting, and instead find your boots picture very very mundane.

I've done lots of research on this as well, as I've been interested, and have come up with the same: Alien Bees

Cybersyncs.

 

On the high end is the Pocket Wizards, which are very expensive, but are extremely reliable. On the low end is the

cheap Ebay / Cactus triggers, which are very cheap, but you get what you pay for (they are said to mis-fire roughly 5-

10% of the time, from what I've read).

 

The Alien Bees -- from what I've read -- are both very reliable, and relatively cheap. Also, I've read a couple accounts of

them actually out-performing the Pocket Wizards (in terms of range).

 

When I'm finally ready to invest in a set of wireless triggers, I'll certainly go for the Cybersyncs.

I don't think it's fair to compare older film cameras to older digital cameras. The film they shoot have [mostly] gone

unchanged, and the newer film that has been developed can still be used. Older digital bodies still contain older digital

sensors, and the development of them over even the last half-decade has been enormous.

 

That said, unless you feel your 20D is holding you back for any reason (do you like shooting low light / high ISO most of

the time?), I wouldn't worry about it at all. I'm still shooting with the 30D, and the only thing that bothers me is the

relatively poor low-light capabilities. My camera is still affected by the noise banding issue in the lower range at and

above ISO 400, exasperated by going even higher to 800+, or by "pushing" a stop or 2 in post. Still, I find no strong

reason to upgrade.

 

If you have money to blow, then sure, pick up a new 5D MkII (any "upgrade" other than the new 5D probably wouldn't be

worth it, really, since your camera is still roughly on par with most everything else). Otherwise, hold out until you really

need one.

"They can give us back manual aperture control on lenses too."

 

You're probably joking about that, but my god how I wish that was the case. There is something very unintuitive about

changing the aperture on the camera body (especially when Canon switches the buttons all around on you as you switch

from M to Av to Tv).

 

At the same time, though having both dials accessible on the body DOES make one-handed shooting much easier...

I'm with Phil, as I'm sure many other people are.

 

I really can't fathom how such a huge, huge, huge design flaw made it past the early stages, and into every camera

since....what, the 10D? Earlier, even?

 

I'm not one to get tripped up on gadgets (grew up with em!), but the differing functions of the main wheel and the thumb

wheel absolutely KILL me when I switch from mode to mode. One wheel should ALWAYS be just one function

regardless of mode, and offering the simple custom function of swapping would be sufficient enough for those who prefer

it different, I think.

Never bothered to use any of it (except EOS Utility to download the images, since I've never owned a card reader), and

instead favor Aperture and Photoshop.

 

I can't see any "real" studio photographers using any of it, either....but maybe I'm wrong. There's much better workflow

solutions out there, as you know.

Can't go wrong with a 50mm 1.4.

 

The new Sigma is supposed to be a great lens, but it's also about twice the weight and has a huge front element. For what

you're looking for, the Canon seems like a better choice.

I know manuals are generally no fun to read, but seriously, take a look at the manual.

 

I spent a couple hours with the manual when I first got the 30D, which was a huge (and slightly more complicated) step up

from the old AE-1 Program film camera I shot with previously, and it really paid off, getting me comfortable with literally

every little setting on the camera in no time. I'd hate to think of how much more of a struggle it would have been since then

if I hadn't invested the short amount of time.

Nothing wrong with bringing a camera to the reception. So long as you do your best to stay out of the hired photographer's

way (including not stealing the attention of the bridge & groom constantly), you should be fine. Bring what you want, shoot

how you'd like, but maybe don't overdo it.

 

Some people's idea of fun at a reception is to dance. For me, I wander around with the camera and interact with people.

Everyone's saying you should just have fun at the reception, and I agree: if taking pictures is your type of fun, then have at

it & enjoy.

I dreamt for a while of somehow converting my old Canon AE-1 Program camera into a digicam by basically removing the

film loading door and creating a digital back of sorts for it. All manual, of course. Of course, this is infinitely behind my

ability, but I figured that if something like this was even technically possible, I'd pay pretty big bucks for it.