ed_okie

Excellent directive and answer Bob. A wealth of resource information. Keep up the good work.

Sheldon provided the true answer - there's no need for a so-called "protection shield" over the LCD surface. It's pure marketing hype. An unnecessary item. The existing surface is rock-hard and durable.

Overall balance is the key reason to lens-mounting, vs. camera mounting. Seemingly a token item... but it's a huge advantage out in the field. And more stable in terms of camera vibration. Ability to rotate, vertical to horizontal, you have no idea how invaluable this is until you've experienced it! Bottom line: don't even think about camera-mounting.

As others have intimated, the quick-clamp brackets, Arca, RRS, etc. are a godsend. Context needs application when addressing cost: "good stuff" is a lifetime investment, applies in particular to tripods and heads. I happen to use RRS equipment, a Gitzo tripod. Superb stuff. RRS's service and product availability is top notch, too.

One key suggestion I might add: instead of the 70-200 f2.8, get the f/4 version which is a superb instrument, and far lighter, more easily handled, plus is less expensive.

Put the price difference into a noteworthy tripod and head. $1,000 will get you started. It'll last a lifetime. Cheaper in the long run.

Over-saturated reds - turn the camera's Saturation down, -1 or -2. And use Neutral or Faithful as a PhotoStyle.

b.t.w.... the "red" issue is not just a 40D problem, but prevails throughout the Canon line. Same can be said for most televisions - red is the most difficult color to represent well (or correctly).

Adding to Puppy Faces' observation. What are your expectations of difference between the two cameras?

 

As to "fine detail" (recording ability, and implied "better results")... one might suggest that either instrument's capability exceeds more numerous "other weak links" in the through-put chain, especially errors created by the person holding the camera. Will one camera, or the other, make you look good? Not a chance!

If there is one basic theme that prevails in all responses it is the implication that "the lens" takes the magical picture of perfection. Truth is, it's the person behind the camera. Likewise, "fixing it later in Photoshop." Ugh. Don't even go there; get it right when shooting with the camera.

Studio or outdoor portrait situation... you didn't say. Likewise, how often? Is "the portrait" a full-time endeavor, or an occasional instance? All are questions that lead to - your - right choice, er-r-r-r, better choice that fits various situations.

Unmentioned in anyones' advice: whatever the lens purchased to suit your purpose - absolutely get an IS (image stabilizing) lens. Worth its weight in gold. With portrait photography, outdoors in particular, it can be a godsend! Actually make you look good while using equipment not perfectly suited to the job at hand. As to the specific lens, focal length or f/stop that's "best"... all are really secondary issues, none will deliver "the answer" nor the exquisite image. It's the person behind the camera.

Different situation, but same fundamental story: working in a fully light-controlled indoor studio shooting with WhiteLightning strobes, direct flash... requires the Canon 5D whitebalance compensation be set at B3, G1 to achieve "on the money" results. Change to WhiteLightning's softbox or umbrellas and they require different color compensation values. It's a headache!

 

Other "continuous" lighting settings (the gym, etc.) lighting is afflicted by ceiling lights rapidly sweeping through their normal sine-wave on-off sequence (unseen by the human eye). Higher shutter speeds can often capture irregular coloration, frame to frame, though you're shooting in what is otherwise perceived as a "fixed lighting" situation.

If we're talking about the same 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS Canon lens I own... it will NOT work with the 1.4x converter; the rear element of the 70-300 is very near the camera mounting surface and physically hits the 1.4x converter. The two are NOT compatible.

 

As to image degradation caused by the 1.4x Canon converter - it simply isn't true. Theoretically, yes, as with anything placed in front of any lens. But in actual field work, image reproduction is excellent - assuming the user's skill and technique is flawless, plus he or she is using a very solid tripod, mirror lockup, cable release, etc. It gets down to basics: the person behind the camera... not the camera nor the lens.

 

Be aware that the Canon 10D produces a significant amount of mirror-flip-up vibration if the lock-up function is not used with longer telephoto combinations, converter or not.

 

Close up/macro work: extension tubes do work reasonably well with some prime (fixed length) lenses, but rarely with zoom lenses - in terms of image quality, and that of user-functionality. Canon's 100mm f/2.8 is the best choice and is specifically made for close up work down to 1:1 (and equally suitable for portraits, etc, but it has no "IS" feature). Also keep in mind that a very good tripod and head is necessary, and also a sliding rail for distance adjustments... if one expects to accomplish close-up excellence and deal with these issues frequently.

Framing and matting prints is a huge enhancement for photographs. But the

expense for large prints ($100-150+) sometimes is a roadblock, especially when

multiple prints are needed, or when there's a donation need.

 

Arguably the best is QuickMats 3 by John Hartman (www.jhartman.com). Somewhat

pricey ($230-300) it's very noteworthy in quality and adaptability. Sole

downside: it mandates headache-inducing PhotoShop 7 or higher and will - not -

work with PS Elements. QuickMats 3 plus Photoshop approaches $1,000

 

Some printing sites offer adding borders... but the vast majority are garish,

over-stylized, etc. Rarely are mitered cut mats offered. Yet, when done well

(QuickMats 3) the software-created mat approaches authentic in appearance.

 

Does anyone know of a noteworthy mat-adding software with cut-miters that works

with PS Elements, or as a stand-alone program?

Bob Atkins' answer is dead accurate.

"With any image you see on the web, intrinsic image quality from the camera or lens counts for MUCH less than post-exposure processing.

"With a properly processed web sized image, you'd be hard pressed to tell a shot made with a Rebel XT and an 18-55 kit lens from one shot with a 1Ds MkII and a 24-70/2.8L."

 

Left unspoken in Bob's missive-with-wisdom: it's not "the camera" nor "the lens" but simply that of the person holding (whatever) camera. The thorough understanding of light, composition, camera adjustments, etc.

 

"I'll fix it later in PhotoShop" is the biggest trap faced by today's onslaught of camera-holders. The other well-worn half-truth is "shoot RAW"... as though it was some miracle drug or camera-cure. It ain't. Garbage in, garbage out - still applies, be it RAW or Jpeg.

 

My hearthfelt suggestion gleaned from years of professional work: shoot Jpegs (superb images are equally possibile). Play with the many camera adjustments available, i.e., get a thorough understanding of what happens and why. To really discipline yourself in the learning stages (which is most of our lives) - shoot in manual mode so that you are forced to think and see the consequences of shutter speed and f/stops and color balance.

Paul, back to your original question - here's a noteworthy starting point for 5D settings: Jpeg, PhotoStyle Neutral, Sharpness 1 or 0, Contrast -4, Saturation neutral 0, Tone neutral 0.

And if you really wish to surprise yourself with the 5D... set the ISO at (godforbid) 640. When the exposure is spot-on... the images will be butter-smooth, noise or grain virtually invisible. ISO 100 is not a miracle drug either, 50 is even worse.

Here's a bit of "rule breaking" that works well in providing an immediate pseudo gimbal unit with the BH-55 head. Flip the head to either of the two side notches (for vertical shooting). Reposition the lens' clamp back to a horizontal format for the camera. Fully release the ball head's friction knob -and- the panning knob. Overall lens/camera balance is near perfect (hands off the 5D + 400 lens stays in position with both knobs released) and the gimbal "point-anywhere" effect is smooth as butter. I find it an excellent combination when shooting unpredictable wildlife. (I also have the Sidekick which is a fine unit, but adds additional bulk, weight and specific mounting criteria. Whereas, the BH-55 side-flip is "free," built in and always available. (I've actually lined the bottom of the drop-down "U" cup with a piece of frictionless tape where it cradles the ball-head's shaft.

 

Another modification I've done that improves smoothness in the BH-55's panning function: take apart the bottom bearing, clean out the thick grease and replace it with "teflon-type" spray typically used in a wood or machine shops for table-top or cutting-blade surfaces.)

Keep in mind that "Raw" is simply a tool... not an answer, as is oft touted. Shoot it now, fix it later is often a fatal trap - gleaned experience is never gained. Same can be said for "PhotoShop"... shoot anything and "I'll fix it later in PS."

Jpeg isn't your enemy. Composition, content, expression, exposure, etc. IS far, far more important in the learning process.

Suggestion as a starting point with the 5D, Shoot Jpegs with "Netural" PhotoStyle, try Contrast at -4, Saturation at "0" or possibly "-1". Sharpness, your choice... are you going "direct to print" or tweaking it in a software program? Use 3 to 4 if direct to print or view; Sharpness at 1 for post processing work.

extension rings don't work well with zoom lenses... yes, they work, but the procedure often is time consuming if not frustrating; image quality often suffers. As Bob points out they work better with telephoto lenses - fixed prime lenses, not zooms. (With the 400mm 5.6 is an example).

Hands down the dedicated macro lens is the ticket, Canon's 100mm f/2.8 hard to beat. Once a month use or less... ring(s) offer a reasonable substitute, but one that is not perfect. Bottom line: how dedicated are you towards macro work? Only you have the answer.

Possibly overlooked is the 5D's "White Balance Correction" on the setup menu... that you've bumped it off "normal" from a year ago. Page 64 in the manual.

This allows custom and specific color shifts as desired.

 

Example: when shooting studio strobes (White Lightnings and their softboxes) I achieve near perfect color balance (jpeg or raw) with the camera on "flash" and the above WBC set to +4G (green), PhotoStyle set to Neutral.

Scott's suggestion of "...just roll through all the settings of color/white balance [etc.]) is well taken: shoot hundreds of picture variations. But it can be greatly simplified, and accomplished with repeatable accuracy.

 

Shoot a few sample subject images in Raw. Then use a viewer program in the computer that reveals the camera setup used - and also allows the user to change each setup control. If memory serves correctly, ZoomBrowser does it. Same with Digital Photo Professional (that comes free with the camera). Same with Chris Breeze's highly-regarded software, BreezeBrowser and BreezeBrowser Pro (very moderately priced). Adobe products, unfortunately, don't provide this significant advantage.

Extension tubes + zoom lens... yes the combination does work as a "macro-capable" setup. But the results leave much to be desired in terms of sharpness (in the center, yes, not toward the sides.) Plus the significant confusion that occurs in focusing with the combination of zoom-power and focus ring itself.

The 100mm f/2.8 is a winner by itself. Stick with it. If even more closeness is required (and an enormous amount of patience on your part), add an extension tube.

"Custom Function" isn't necessary nor directly applicable for general shooting. The prime use of the "C" on the dial is for instantly returning all functions and settings to a custom/special setup. General shooting is typically accomplished with the "Av" (aperture fixed), or with "Tv" (shutter speed fixed). 5D settings I find "best": Sharpness 3 Contrast -4 Saturation 0 or +1 Tone 0 I highly recommend that you use and learn well only one PhotoStyle choice, not jump around to various PhotoStyle selections - they effect significant differences. My PhotoStyle recommendation is "Neutral," use it for everything.

The question well might be asked (and answered) another way:

 

Are - people - weatherproof or waterproof?

Canon's off-shoe camera 2' extension cord is notorious for breakage under moderate to heavy use. Far more durable and better quality is the Promaster flash extension cord, about the same price as Canon's offering.

"Puppy Face: I much prefer to save time and have the exact picture style transfer as set in-camera, rather than diddling ACR to approximate it. Also I greatly prefer the DPP 3 RAW interface over PS. PS is great for layers, masking, cloning, etc., e.g., when you need major surgery. Otherwise it is best avoided."

 

PF's approach and use of DPP is particularly noteworthy in several respects: By retaining camera settings in the raw conversion that are known to produce excellent images... the time required to tweak the final image is far less, compared to dealing with ACR's multitude of sliders (worthy as they may be, applicable in a few instances). ACR, unfortunately, totally ignores camera settings, gives you no clue about how the camera was adjusted.

A secondary and important long-term learning aspect: when one learns to genuinely setup and adjust a camera for a given shooting situation (including basic elements of exposure and focus), shooting skills increase dramatically because 95% of the creative energy goes into capturing the desired image, action, or expression.

The opposite and common path taken by today's photographer is also known as "digital disease." Shoot anything... I'll fix it later in Photoshop. Or should we say "attempt" to fix it later. Truth is, once an image is botched - it is forever botched.

DPP's simplicity also is a huge bonus, totally opposite time-consuming ACR (and Lightroom). Ironically, because DPP is free... and all other programs cost mega-dollars, DPP is typically overlooked. Yet, DPP is written by the very engineers who designed the camera, sensor and proprietary algorithms - the heart and soul of the camera. All other raw-conversion programs ignore these fundamental truths.

Viewfinder (and rear LCD) "invisibility" confirms my use with the 5D for the past 1.5 years - can't see it in Florida's sunshine, but works flawlessly indoors or outside in early hours around sunrise. "Grin & bear it" is the only answer I've found. A year ago when I called Canon tech support three times (plus sending e-mails)... their response was "we've never heard of the problem." One tech-supervisor even suggested I had my brightness level turned too high!... that if I turned it down (darker) the image would be -more- visible in sunshine.

Simply incredible! "We've never heard of it."

It also makes one wonder what the same situation is with Canon's new Mk III. If moving from $3000 to a $4500 item actually fixes something so basic as viewfinder visibility and LCD viewability? Most incredulous: my wife's point-&-shoot Canon 710 IS ($275) is far better in this department than my mega-bucks 5D! Who woulda' thunk!

Didn't really grasp the breadth of information and resources available on the website... until all of a sudden it wasn't there!

Keep up the great work, Bob! It is a noteworthy contribution to the photographic information age. Your efforts are truly appreciated; the vast majority of us often forget to say thank you.

Andy, your response, "good post - however none of the in-camera settings you mention are applied to the RAW files, only JPEG ...."

 

Canon's Digital Photo Professional, DPP, -does- reveal and reads pre-established camera settings in Raw, such as Faithful, Contrast, Tone, Sharpness, etc. They're on the DPP screen exactly as set by the camera. That function alone is a gold-mine of information and help... it leads to establishing solid working settings for the camera when you're out in the field. Once zeroed in this gives you the ability to go back and forth, Raw or Jpeg, trouble free and without further adjustment. Most important: results are consistent! It's a godsend.

BreezeBrowser Pro does the exact same thing, even better, with better clarity plus more choices. BB is a remarkable product, and is inexpensive.

Whereas, both of Adobe's $$PhotoShop products, the ACR 4.1 converter and that of Lightroom ignore camera inputs. Worse, both give erroneous Kelvin value readings when left at factory-default settings (far too warm and red by about 500K)

DPP is faster to use of all four programs. Sharpness and noise control capability is stellar, dare I suggest better than even ACR 4.1 (which is a bit complex).

The most remarkable thing about DPP: it is free, download the latest version from Canon's website (V3.0.1.5)

Switching DPP to Windows' "XP2 compatibility mode" within Vista works like a charm! Trimming/cropping function now works.

 

Tim you deserve 5-Stars. Make 'em gold! It's been a royal pain to open PhotoShop just to crop an image.

Tim, I'll give your suggestion a try. I appreciate the input.

I correct my initial statement: DPP version 3.0.1.5 (the latest edition as Tim mentions) is already on my Workstation running Vista, the same program is on the PC with XP2. The trimming function works on the XP2 side, has not been fixed to operate under Vista.