santa1

<p>Amazing. Using that many batteries per wedding? And still buying non-rechargeables? Wow. I also do weddings and I use a Digital Camera Battery. It provides fast recharging and lasts for hundreds and hundreds of shots. I also use rechargeable batteries in my flash and haven't spent a penny on AA batteries in a longgg time. The Canon battery pack is indeed a good investment. The Digital Camera Battery has connectors available to power many many things and is much more versitile and I think...holds a larger charge.</p>

<p>Kite surfing photog with a 400mm? Well...maybe...if they are abnormally close but frankly I think it's too short unless they are getting really close in as compared to any kite surfing I've ever seen. I have the lens and its design does lend itself to being somewhat more susceptible to dust than a non push pull but in normal use it's not a problem. For your use I wouldn't venture a guess. I'd take a shot with the 200mm and then figure out exactly what the same shot with a 400 would look like. You can probably find a reference somewhere on the net that would tell you precisely what part of your 200mm crop a 400 would be and you could get a good idea if that was adequate. It's a great lens for outdoor sports on small fields. It's too short for most wildlife but as always, it completely depends on your particular use. All in all it's a versatile lens. I use it more often than I do my 400 prime. </p>

<p>and even consider USING reflections. if the display is sports...and you shoot from an angle so your reflection is not in the shot, you might have a kid looking into the display with him/her placed so you ONLY see their reflection. you always want to avoid problems...unless you can make the problem into something unusually creative...the reflection of a child looking up in awe...Other than that...polarizer as mentioned...</p>

<p>If you do a 30 min exposure, then a 30min dark frame, it will certainly help but noise at 30 minutes will be a problem regardless so i recommend using something like Noise Ninja. It does wonderfully on these kinds of images, leaving the star trails sharp and reducing noise on the background. Using noise reduction in the camera does help a lot but does make for a long exposure. Stacking multiple images is fine but the little gaps between images really does ruin the trail as far as I am concerned. Star trails is one area where film has it all over todays cameras. There is no way I know of to truly do a nice, clean 4 hour exposure with digital cameras like one might with a film camera. Anyone who wants to specialize in star trails might do well to use film. If you can stand the gaps created by stacking it is a great technique. In fact it's really the only technique for a 4-6 hour exposure.</p>

<p>most indoor hs gyms will be barely usable with an f2.8 for sports action unless you crank your ISO to 800 or more likely 1600. The 135 f2 is too short for most action but at least you'll get better sharpness from what you can capture. Personally I'd look around for a 400 f1.4 :)</p>

<p>the 7d hit the nail on the head for a crop camera. I'll be getting one. When the 5D series has AF sensors further out to allow me a decent focus without recomposing, I'll get one of them. Till then I'll wait on Canon's FF cameras.</p>

<p> I also vote for enloops. the slow discharge batteries will hold their charge for a month so when you forget to charge a battery set they will most likely still be good to use. I'm slowly replacing all my rechargables with long-life slow discharge batteries like the enloops.</p>

<p> Failing a solid answer here, record two minutes of video and then pull that into your computer and open it with iMovie or FCPro or whatever you use to find out for sure if you are getting the recording you need. </p>

<p> I shoot a lot of aurora images and typically shoot 15-30sec exposures. I have found I cannot tell any difference between shots done with mirror lockup, even when blown up to very large sizes.</p>

<p> I hope the presentation is better than what is described in the link above.</p>

<p> Night photography is normally done with a tripod. If you can get a light reading in Av mode it won't make much difference if you use Av or Tv or Manual. Night photography often involves long exposures with a bulb setting using a wired or wireless electronic "cable" release for a long shutter speed but if that's not required, it doesn't really make any difference if you get the correct exposure setting from Av or Tv or manual. Simply keep in mind the effect of the Aperture vs Shutter speed balance and how the combination might effect the image. A shot at night of a downtown city area at f2.8 1/8 will be very different than f11 2sec because of the difference in the movement of foreground objects.<br>

Night photography is often best done an hour or so after sunset when the sky is a dark blue and not a full black. Regardless of HOW you get to the correct exposure setting, control it thoughtfully, varying the aperture/shutter combinations to create the effect you want with longer or shorter shutter speeds, and always use a tripod.</p>

<p>In addition to a rain jacket (there are several makes and models - search the net) you might want to buy some desiccant that can be recharged in an oven. It can be useful if the interior of the camera becomes wet from condensation. Internal condensation can happen easily when going from a colder, drier place (air conditioned room) to a much warmer, more humid place (outdoors on a hot, humid day). Allow the camera to warm up slowly by having it in a camera bag for a while before opening the bag. </p>

<p> For bird photography you have a very short lens. Be that as it may, your question was self contradictory. You should -not- want or need to control the shutter speed if your goal is bird photography with a blurred background. What you want is to shoot "wide open", at f5.6 (assuming you are at 300mm). That will give you the most blur to the background. It also lets in the most light possible for that lens at that focal length, so setting Av to f4 at 70mm will ensure the camera will always be using the widest Aperture and thus the highest shutterspeed it can achieve, which is also desirable. This is one common bird shooting methodology.<br>

You must, however, also take into account the lighting and the brightness of the background when setting your Av, because if, for instance, you are shooting a dark bird that only takes up a small portion of the viewfinder, and you are shooting up to bright, white clouds. You will most likely need to dial in +1.5 to +2 stops of exposure compensation because the camera will try to get you to expose for the entire scene and it will select too fast of a shutter speed. Similarly if you were shooting a white bird flying against a black mountainside in shadow, you might have to stop down. You can set your Av to + or - exposure to compenstate for this. In most settings you can set it and forget it for a while. In the old days you just had only experience to go by. Now you can take a test shot or two and chimp the histogram (view the results of the picture on the histogram) to learn if you have set a proper level of exposure compensation.<br>

You can, of course do the exact same thing by setting the camera to manual and setting the Aperture and Shutter Speed manually and invidividually. The best way to learn which is best and when is to just go out and shoot. Start by using Av and then experiment with Exp. Comp. . Use those settings and set the camera to Manual. You will find there are times when allowing the camera to choose different shutter speeds can be very useful but there are other conditions that make it prudent to set an exposure manually and lock it in.<br>

Your choice of Av. vs Manual is also affected by whether you choose to use spot metering or not.<br>

Keep in mind that Av must be adjusted if the background changes luminance. If you shoot a white dove in front of a black cliff you may have to set -1 exp compensation. If that dove flies out so a bright white sky is now the background, your -1 exp compensation will be a horrible mistake. You must always be aware of any changes to the lighting as you shoot birds and be ready to compsensate for it.</p>

<p>absolutely send it to canon and include a print and written explanation. I'm confident your camera is not typical.</p>

<p>If your goal is to light a cloth background at night you will most likely need more than just an off-camera flash. For a reasonably workable system that can be used outdoors and not break the bank look at www.alienbees.com and check out their battery packs. With two light on the background (to get a balanced coverage) and two lights on the subject (if you are willing to sacrifice a hair light) and the necessary battery packs, you can use full strobes at a reasonable price without concern for electricity. You could do similarly with Canon flashes and the new (not yet for sale) pocketwizards. tough call as to which is better.</p>

I just got a 50D and the LCD is amazing. The extra pixels will be useful to me because I often shoot horizontal and crop to vertical when forced to use on-camera flash. For most people, the extra pixels won't really be important and the better LCD won't be THAT big of a deal. A 40D plus some other really useful tool like a good flash, or a 1.4 converter, or more memory for a computer etc etc would probably be more functional. If you have a half dozen lenses and this is your main camera then the micro-adjust might be worth it all by itself, but in terms of basic IQ and noise, the 50D is virtually indistinguishable from the 40D (yeah...I have both) so you gain pixels, not high ISO noise free shooting. Just what I didn't want :).

another option is to convert to dng and then you'll be able to use it.

scared it reasonable. just shot a race with a friend. loaded hundreds of his images in LR. Not only were there spots but he scratched the sensor (cover..whatever) badly when he tried to clean it earlier. back to canon it will go for a replacement of that sensor cover or whatever they have to replace on a MKII.

when shooting formals, live view and its ability to allow you to manually focus with great precision is a big help. it may take a little more time but for important shots it's worth it. no way to tell what your issue may be without pics and full exif data. the lack of good af points spread out is an issue with the non 1D series cameras and it's why I hesitated greatly before biting the bullet and ordering a 5DMKII. focus recompose works reasonably well when the target is at a distance; the angle is pretty small, but even then shooting wide open will mean the focus point will not be exact. Up close focus recompose results in really bad results for objects in the corners. when light allows it, shoot a backup shot with manual focusing.

In 1970 or so, I traded up from a Kowa SLR to a Beseler Topcon SuperD. I couldn't afford a Nikon, but worked and saved to be able to afford the Topcon with my parents permission. I got that permission because I was honestly able to say I thought I would never need to buy another camera and that it should last a lifetime. It's on my shelf today, nearly 40 years later, damaged from my mother dropping it at some point, but probably fixable. But it won't get fixed. It's just a piece of nostalgia now. I also thought my wife's 5MB hard drive bought at the cost of nearly $1000 would "last a lifetime". I mean...how many letters can you possibly need to store at one time ? So now I never think that way. Ever. Except maybe for the 5DMKII I have on order. I doubt I'll ever need more than 21mp. :)

For birding the 300 is better because you can get to 600 with a 2x and it's acceptable to most people. For general wildlife the 100-400 is better because of the greater flexibility of the zoom and the ability to go down to 100 for a nearby large animal. The 100-400 can be used with a 1.4x if you have a 1 series camera. The 300 is superior to the 100-400 in general terms.

Go to one of the games with any of your lenses and set things for Av f5.6. Be sure you aren't getting lights in the frame and find out if it is bright enough to allow you to get a decent shutter speed with a workable ISO. That's the problem with the 100-400; it's relatively slow. If the stadium is lit enough to allow you to get 1/500 or better (hopefully better) at f5.6 then the 100-400 will work and that depends on what camera you have and how high an ISO you are willing to shoot at. The 70-200 is NOT long enough, but it can be used by cropping your shots and you can get a very good 8x10 even from a 1/4 crop. Maybe not perfect, but good. If you can walk the sideline you can pre-position yourself for desired action but you won't be able to shoot end-to-end with the 70. Night games with anything less than a 300 or 400f2.8 can be a challenge. stadiums vary greatly in how brightly they are lit.

drags

http://www.pbase.com/santa/image/102971360.jpg

you guys must not know much about how to blow up a photograph and get detail. detectives on TV can take a picture of a car mirror 50 feet away and use some secret program to be able to read a page from a book in the reflection of the mirror...even if the book is a half mile away! get that program and all will be revealed....

From my personal experience the difference between the two is huge. I like the lightness of the 40D but in terms of keepers during fast action there is no comparison. I would never consider using the 40D for professional sports. Not only is it much faster and more accurate, the smaller number of focusing points on the 40D is a real limitation. Either you set the AF point to the center or the person you focus on is too far to the side for good composition. The 40D (I think...) has no way to set the AI tracking sensitivity. Often i want a low sensitivity to allow another player to run in front of my object in focus. The 40D just gets confused. There are a plethora of issues with regard to the 40D including the limitations of the vertical grip. I can't speak to the 1DMKIII because I thankfully passed on that iteration. I have never tested or tried to quantify the difference between the two cameras, but I would generally agree with Rob's evaluation, as least as it pertains to my experience with the MKII vs 40D.