gdanmitchell

I'm with Geoff. While today I mostly use a 5D, I also brutalized a digital Rebel XT (350D) for

two years, frequently throwing it into a pack for hiking, skiing, and backpacking. It _never_

let me down and I got a lot of wonderful photographs with it - a number of which I've sold in

various forms.

I don't know why they would bother with spot metering on such a camera.

(Frankly, not sure why they bother on the XXD series, when most people would rather use

the more effective histogram to determine the ideal exposure.)

If you would buy a 450D but don't want to wait, why wouldn't you just get a 400D now? The

differences are likely to be quite small, bordering on completely insignificant.

the jpg artifacts are in the original file from the OP that everyone is working with. Can't

blame Nikon for that!

To comment on responses to some of what I posted above, I agree that the "rule of

thumb" shutter speed of 1/focal length (with FF) will perhaps not stop the action in a

basketball shoot. If you are looking for action stopping shutter speeds, I agree that faster

would be better.

(If your aesthetic is OK with some motion blur, you might feel different - but you will get

some motion blur.)

Dan

<p>Regarding your large shot of the horses...

<p>You were shooting at 250mm at 1/100 second. This is a marginal shutter speed for such a long focal length and I do believe I see some minor motion blur in the image. I might have

bumped the ISO up from 100 to at least 200 (there would be no visible deterioration in image quality) and even consider 400.

<p>Your focus point seems to be on the pile of dirt or possibly the rock wall beyond.

<p>To my eyes, and despite what the histogram says, the scene looks a little over-exposed. I'm not losing the shadows anywhere,but the back of the cow in the middle foreground looks a bit

too "hot" for me. (It is also an unfortunate element in the photo - being closest and brightest and centered it tries to become the center of visual attention.)

<p>There are some compositional "challenges" in your photo as well. I hope you don't mind if I share a bit of what I observe when I look at it.

<p>It is hard to locate the subject of the photo. It is a nice pastoral scene, but it it about the two horses? The cow? The trees? The green color? I <i>think</i> that the two horses are probably

your main subject, but we are not looking at, ahem, the "best side" of the horses, if you get my drift. Same issue with the cow, though we have two other issues here also: the very bright

(perhaps overexposed) color of the cow draws my eyes, but it is noticeably out of focus. Then we have the distraction of the large dirt pile - which is almost as prominent as the horses and

which distracts from the somewhat interesting fences. (If I were reshooting this, I might try to position myself a bit more to the left, possibly removing the cow from the foreground and

repositioning the dirt pile relative to the horses. 20-20 hindsight and all that... :-) I wonder if by waiting for awhile you might have gotten a shot where the horses were in different "poses" -

perhaps lifting their heads up or possibly moving across the frame.

<p>The green color is tricky also, especially in this light. Again, you were shooting right an noon - at least judging from the EXIF on your image. I'll bet there would be a bit more magic in this

scene - and nicer colors - either a lot earlier in the day or a lot later.

<p>And, again, because I just can't help myself, here is my quickie reworking of the photo:

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6863878-lg.jpg">

<p>Yes, the cow is gone. That helps, doesn't it?

<p>Dan

<p>Is it this photo?

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6863640-md.jpg">

<p>If so, those lighter pixels appear to be so-called "hot pixels." They are a normal

feature in long exposures taken with Canon DSLR sensors. Enabling the long-exposure

noise reduction feature on your camera should significantly reduce them.

<p>Dan

Lose the filter. UV filters don't add anything in terms of removing UV light - that isn't an

issue with modern lens coatings and digital sensors. And, as this example suggests,

reflections, flare, and loss in contrast may be the side effects.

If you _must_ use a filter to protect your lens, make it a plain glass filter of the very

highest quality - and think about removing it in situations in which there is little risk of

damaging a front element. Also consider using a lens cap and hood instead of relying on

filters.

Dan

<p>Some things to consider...

<p>Shoot RAW and work the image in post-processing to get the most out of it.

<p>Metering a scene with dark shadows and open sunlight is very tricky. Make test shots and check the histogram to see if you can get a curve that is within the limits of the

display, particularly avoiding the flashing highlight indicator. I think your sky is a bit blown out. (Remember that your cameras meter is more or less trying to come up with an

"average gray" level that doesn't necessarily take into consideration what happens at the extremes.)

<p>Use a tripod and use image stabilized lenses and careful shooting technique.

<p>The subject is worth considering. Shooting at noon is tough, even in low winter light. Getting up very early can often lead to better and more compelling images shot in more

interesting light.

<p>Sometimes if the lighting and colors are not compelling you may have a better luck with a black and white rendering. Not only does that remove color from the equation, but it

may also give you in some ways more leeway for adjusting contrast, brightness, etc.

<p>I'd think about the format of the frame as well. The wide format is a tough choice when your main subject (the smokestack) is vertical and thin, and when there isn't a lot

elsewhere in the frame to share the interest. Maybe a vertical format of perhaps just a more square format might be worth a try.

<p>Finally, your subject/scene is, shall we say, challenging. To my eyes there isn't a whole lot to work with there. and it is a tough composition. You have the very dark and blocky

foreground area running slightly diagonally across the bottom, but then you have this vast expanse of - how to say it? - "boring" sky filling the larger part of the frame. I'd think

about framing this scene a lot more tightly, and letting some of the less interesting stuff go.

<p>Just for fun, here's a different interpretation of your photo:

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6863506-lg.jpg">

<p>Enjoy,

<p>Dan

27 "dead" pixels would be, indeed, a problem.

Can you share an example. If you are shooting long exposures, are you using your camera's

long exposure noise reduction feature? You definitely do want to do this - it maps out "hot"

pixels and so forth.

Again, please post a sample.

Basically you need to use a higher shutter speed - the person in the example is blurry from motion at a minimum. At 200mm you probably need a shutter of

at least 1/200 second to get a relatively good image and it could be higher. Try shooting at whatever ISO and aperture combination will let you get sufficiently

high shutter speed - unless you want the motion blur for aesthetic reasons.

The subject may also be misfocused, though it is hard to tell with the motion blur and not knowing if I'm looking at a 100% crop or the whole image. If you are

using AF in low light, you may want to try a few things to improve your results. You could try switching to the center AF point only and then being careful to

line it up on your subject. In very low light you may have to pre-focus on the spot where you intend to shoot and turn AF off.

If I couldn't balance out the requirements of ISO, aperture, and shutter speed in an ideal way, with moving subjects in low light I would compromise on the

other two in order to maintain shutter speed, even if that meant underexposing a little bit. (Shooting RAW may give you a bit more recovery latitude if you do

this.)

Electronic flash would help with all of this, but I suspect that you perhaps aren't supposed to use that here? If you can, that would possibly solve a bunch of

the issues all at once.

If it turns out that you just plain need wider aperture, primes may be the only way to get there. You could go the the more expensive f/2.8 version of your

current 70-200mm lens, but that still only gains you one stop.

If you are new to photography, mind if I ask why you chose the 5D? If it was because "it costs more so it must be better," it isn't quite that simple. You could well be

_better_ served by a different body, depending...

The 5D is, indeed, a fine camera for many purposes. But it seems like a bit of overkill for a beginner. Please don't take that as an insult; it isn't meant that way at all. But

what the 5D does will probably not be of much utility to you as you learn, and by the time you do learn (more about photography and more about what gear is right for

you) something even more advanced will come along.

There are no "best" cameras and "best" lenses in photography in a generic or global sense. While you might assume that a 5D is "better" than the much less expensive

40D, for some kinds of photography and some circumstances the counterintuitive opposite is actually the case. The "best" camera/lens is the one best suited to the

subjects you shoot and your own style of shooting.

The fact that you are very confused about what lenses might be right is a reason for concern. If your question had been (rather than essentially 'what lens should I get')

something like, "what advantages does the 24-70 f/2.8 L lens have over the 24-105 f/4 IS L lens for landscape photography?" I might feel a bit more confident about

your readiness to be making very large investments in cameras and lenses.

Take care,

Dan

One advantage of the f/2.8 non-IS could be for getting a slightly faster (one stop) shutter speed with an active subject, but you sort of

discount that by saying "no sports photography." Another could be in providing a slightly narrower DOF for some kinds of shots.

For other kinds of handheld photography the f/4 could make it the better choice, but with some caveats:

The IS stops camera shake blur at shutter speeds that are a few stops slower, but it doesn't do anything for a moving subject - in fact, it

can make this worse if you are inclined to shoot at slower shutter speeds rather than raising the ISO.

I wonder how much of your work the weddings will comprise, and if you plan to use flash for that. If you don't use flash, the f/2.8

aperture could be useful there in some situations. If you do use flash, then the f/4 should be fine.

I wonder if loading the images in some quantity smaller than the whole 330 GB at once might

a) work, or b) let you figure out where the "bad" files are.

Dan

Shoot RAW and in the widest color space and continue this way in your post processing.

Once you make a smaller version of an image for web display, change that _copy_ of your

file to the sRGB color space and "Save as..." jpg.

Keep your RAW originals. Keep your 16-bit photoshop files. From these make other files in

the sRGB jpg format for uploading. Yes, you'll have a lot of files. But you won't lose the

high quality originals every time you make lower quality web files.

Dan

<p>Crystal, I'd sympathize with your feeling that some responses here have been a bit "brutal" - perhaps to an inappropriate and/or

unnecessary extent.

<p>You didn't ask for a critique of your photography. You asked a question about where to go next with your equipment ("I think I'm ready

to upgrade to a more professional camera.") and got a range of responses which, in some cases, veered off in the direction of evaluating your

potential as a photographer based on a small sample of images.

<p>In my view, if you are selling some of your work and like what you are doing, that is great and you should look to expand the niche

where your photography sells.

<p>Regarding the original question about equipment, rather than focusing too much on what <i>other people say that you'll need</i>

(stick around - you'll see a ton of amazingly diverse opinions on that!) try to analyze your own work with the goals of becoming aware of: in

what ways is my equipment limiting me? what limitations are most relevant to my type of photography? what equipment acquisitions could

address this?

<p>Take care,

<p>Dan

Just a little semantic thing... When I read the title of the post I thought you might be asking about a lens with more zoom

RANGE. I might have asked instead about a "longer" zoom lens or a lens with "more magnification." :-)

If you are looking for a high quality telephoto zoom at a good price, Ken's suggestion is a fine lens, and it would

complement the focal length of your kit lens nicely.

Dan

David wrote: "Buch I am just looking for some help and I am not an expert. I want a nice wide lens for scenic views with

good quality for my 20D"

David, that helps.

If you are new to this whole DSLR thing and mainly want to take some "good" but perhaps semi-casual photographs of

places you visit and things you see... consider the inexpensive but apparently quite decent NEW image-stabilized version of

the 18-55 EFS kit lens. It lists for less than $200 and should do quite well for what you describe.

There are other more expensive and more versatile options, but unless you have some specific idea of what you want and

how these other lenses will provide that for you, I recommend starting with the less expensive lens.

Shoot a lot of photos with that camera/lens combination. You'll learn a lot about the equipment, technique, and about your

own photographic preferences and needs. At that point - could be as soon as a few months - you will begin to zero in on

some more specific notions of what sort of equipment is right for you.

There is a decent chance that you'll decide that the 18-55 IS kit lens does the job nicely for you. You might decide that it

would useful to add a longer or shorter lens - but you'll know this yourself rather than buying stuff now based on our

hunches. If it turns out that you develop a more critical eye and/or become increasingly serious about your photography,

you'll start to identify other lenses that might enhance your work.

You don't have to get it all right now. Get a good starter lens and learn from it.

Take care,

Dan

Crystal, without making this too complicated or trying to make the subjective judgment about whether you

"have it" or not, let's try this.

You have taken a lot of photographs with your current gear. As you have done so you have likely encountered

situations in which it limited you in some way - you needed wider/longer, IS, larger aperture, faster burst,

better resolution to make a very large print, etc., etc.

A good starting place for considering upgrades is to first think carefully about this. In this way you can

identify specific things that will let you be more effective and flexible in your chosen type of photographic

work, and than plan your equipment acquisitions accordingly. Heck, it might even turn out that for the

particular niches you work in your current gear or something very similar might be OK for now.

It is great to consider the equipment lists that other photographers provide. You can learn a lot about what

works for them, and consider why many use certain pieces of gear and few use others - and compare their

circumstances to your own.

Good luck,

Dan

I think I'm going to agree with Roger here. It looks to me like the distant grass is close to

equally in focus in the two images, suggesting that the near subjects shot at f/4.5 are mainly

out of focus because of the narrower DOF.

Still, you are likely to see a bit more sharpness at about f/8 on the crop body.

Dan

Yes, the 24-105 can be a great lens - it is the lens most often on my 5D.

Dan

<p>Let me try again. And despite the fact that my conclusions may differ from yours, I hope that you can regard my response as being

"positive" in character.

<p>In the reading I've done (and I'm sorry but I no longer have the specific references) I have come across seemingly informed writers who

have stated that the internal lens element coatings on modern lenses already filter for UV light. This makes sense to me.

<p>As to the question of how to reconcile this with the fact that filter manufacturers produce and market UV filters, there are a number of

possible explanations.

<p>Possibilities include:

<ol>

<li>I'm wrong, and the filters actually do substantially improve your photographs by means of filtering UV light. (If you have a UV filter it should

be easy to test this - make some photographs under controlled conditions with and without the UV filter and compare the results. An even

better test would also include a high quality clear glass "filter" as one of the options.)</li>

<li>Perhaps UV filters <i>did make a difference</i> at some time in the past when lenses may not have incorporated the same sorts of

coatings that are used today or when film media responded differently to UV. The advice to get a UV filter might have made sense then, and

perhaps people continue to recommend UV filters out of habit.

<li>Perhaps the filter manufacturers continue to manufacture and sell UV filters simply because there is a demand for the product. It wouldn't

be the first time that people purchased a product because of an unsubstantiated belief that it would do something for them.

<li>It is a sales opportunity. If everyone buys a filter for their lens, that adds up to a lot of filters. (Hence the marketing of "camera kits" that

include inexpensive filters with the camera along with inexpensive camera bags and so forth.)

<li>Other possibilities I haven't thought of...

</ol>

<p>I've <a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2007/12/27/uv-filter-or-not/">thought about this a bit</a>, and I lean toward accepting

some combination of #2, #3, and #4 above.

<p>Take care,

<p>Other Dan

You are probably going to get an astonishingly wide range of responses to this question if

we don't know what you mean by "wide angle," whether you are interested in primes

and/or zooms, and perhaps even how you'll use the lens.

Example: There are two fine L zooms that are used by many photographers, the 17-40mm

f/4 and the (two versions of the) 16-35mm f/2.8. Depending upon what you intend to do

with the lens, it would be possible to recommend either one over the other. Without

knowing, all one can say is "both are fine lenses."

Or maybe you want an ultrawide lens? If so, Canon does not produce any L zooms that will

be ultrawide on a crop sensor body.

Or maybe you are interested in primes? In this case there are quite a few choices in the

wide range, though not so many in the ultrawide range. If you want a sort of "normal wide"

for street photography, certain lenses come to mind. If you want a very wide lens for, say,

landscape others might be worth considering.

I guess what I'm saying is that asking "what is a good lens?" is such a general question

that it is very difficult to give you useful information. Asking, "What is a good Canon

ultrawide zoom for shooting landscape on a crop sensor body?" - or similar for some

other prospective use - can elicit more useful responses.

Take care,

Dan