wilfred_m_rand

The 580EX II is a much more intelligent flash unit than either the 550 or even the 580 EX that preceeded it.

 

In ETTL II mode, with a lens that reports distance information, this unit works seamlessly with the camera. FEC changes are easily implemented from the back of the flash, in the most intuitive way possible. Very fast recycle time, and seemingly infinite service time from a set of rechargable AA's.

 

Wait till you try daylight fills and balancing with ambient daylight. Sweeeet.

 

I just shot my first wedding with this flash atop my 5D (not my first career wedding, just my first with the 580EX II). I never broke a sweat, missed 0 shots, and have an unbelievably high keeper rate.

The 20D is a fantastic wedding camera, and I wouldn't worry about print size. I get up to 2x3 ft prints on LightJet and inkjet equipment with no visible pixels. AF system is exactly identical, except the 20D covers more of the frame as it's a 1.6 facor (advantage 20D!). The f/4 lens is an iffy proposition, especially at that money. I see a lot of the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and the new Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 at weddings, mounted on 20D and 10D's.

 

The 20D viewfinder has a higher magnification, too, so it's easier to focus manually.

I tested the Sigma 17-35 extensively and found it to be more decisive in AF than the Tamron 17-35, but I bought the Tamron for what I thought was somewhat better optical performance. I also liked the longer lens barrel - a better ergonomic fit for my XXL left hand. With my Tamron 28-75, a superb optic combination.

How big do you want to print? I sell 22x28 prints from my 6mpx 300D. The 20D has better high ISO performance than pretty much an DSLR on the market (including the Canon and Nikon ironclads). With the grip and two batteries it will not be any lighter than the ironclads. The Kodak 14n is actually quite light, and the images supplied by one of my subcontractors who use this camera always require some additional processing by me to shift color balance and to add a touch of contrast.

<i>I was going to but the 17- 85IS until I read all the opinions.</i>

 

<br><br>Don't believe <i>everything</i> you read. But also understand that there are no perfect zooms. But IS is no magic bullet, either. If you plan on photographing people at the wedding and reception and they are in motion (very likely!), IS will be of no assistance, and the aperture restriction will limit your shutter speed.

 

<br><br>My advice: go for an f/2.8 (or faster). Personally, I have found the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 to be an absolutely outstanding performer for 1/3 the cost of it's Canon equivalent. Sigma has a new 24-60 f/2.8 that also seems to be doing quite well. Now 28mm is not exactly wide, and you may find yourself wishing for a fast 17-35 to match, but then you're talking about two-lens solution to cover the 17-75 range....just the range of the 17-85IS!

 

<br><br>It's going to come down to the convenience of the 17-85IS or the added clarity of a pair of f/2.8 lenses. Your decision would be easier if you are confident there will be plenty of light so you don't have to worry about the one-half-to two-stop aperture loss of the IS lens.

 

<br><br>My personal choice at weddings and people events is to leave my IS lens in the gearbag and use a pair of Tamrons.

Funny, no one has inquired as to WHAT you shoot. The best quality lens is the one that works for you, and best captures what you want. If your work is casual, low light, indoors, tripod free then the 17-40 f/4L is NOT the best lens for you no matter how good it is. So be sure you give a lot of thought as to how you will use the lens, then buy the right one first....you can always double back and get the other lens later.

First off, the 350D is more of an update than an upgrade (as long as your 300D is running the hacked firmware). The key updates would be just as Jen noted: faster speed for AF and I/O. The potential tradeoff would be the ergonomics (a minus for some, welcome by others - but targeted at a certain 'class' of users). The extra two megapixels are the least important factor except for marketing purposes: there is no advantage until you get to very large print sizes, and even then it hardly matters. (I have used the 300D and 20D side by side in a controlled studio setting where 17x33 prints were used to observe the difference.)

I shoot the Tamron professionally, and I get prints that are sold commercially at 22x33 inches.

 

Bob Atkins is right. If you can get to a pro shop, try the two candidates out side by side and check the results on the store's best Mac or PC. This is how I've selected all my lenses. But.....I buy my equipment at the same shop, and the store in turn gives me very fair pricing. Unless you're prepared to buy the winning lens at that establishment don't expect much cooperation.

Think of RAW as a digital negative. It's the format that can be recovered even if the eposure is underexposed, set on the wrong white balance, etc. Not that every shot should be taken in RAW....but when taking important photos in jpeg, it's best to capture on in RAW. Also, 12/16 bit simply has more data which you *might* need on occasion.

 

Today, most printers and viewing devices don't support 12 or 16 bit. They print in 8, and that's OK because their color gamuts are smaller than the 8 bit color gamut. But that won't always be true. When newer devices appear that can resolve a 12 or 16 bit color gamut, you'll be able to go back to the RAW files and re-process them.

The firmware that 'damages' the camera is the Canon firmware, which crippled the 300D. The Wasia upgrade unleashes the full potential of this fine instrument. It will not damage the camera. And if your camera goes back for service it's very unlikely that Canon will remove the firmware and reinstall their own. (Even then, so what? Just put the Wasia firmware back on.)

The Tamron SP 17-35 XR Di is an awesome lens and it will cover full frame. See my galleries at http://www.pbase.com/wilfredmrand/ where I have many samples posted from this lens. The Di features include a straighter light path at the edges for larger digital sensors, coatings to reduce flare reflected by the sensor, etc.

 

We are paying early adopter premiums at the outset of the digital revolution. A few years from now, sensor size will be less relevant....and will likely be interchangeable, just like the motherboard in your PC.

 

Meanwhile, don't get hung up on sensor size. The technical wizards building out the digital film revolution are only beginning to amaze us. I hope I live long enough to see the same advances in digital photography that I've enjoyed since I bought my first PC (1982, running CPM on an 8086), Apple (1982) and Mac (1984). See what I mean? Hope it doesn't take 20 years, though....I can't wait that long!

The sigma is better at focus, but I went with the Tamron for various personal technical and personal reasons. What a choice. I don't think you can make a mistake.

Parameter settings do not affect RAW files, these are processed instead by your mac or pc. When they come into your RAW converter, a few default settings are applied so they don't look like the 4-channel (RGGB) 16-bit gray scale file they really are. In PSCS, at least, you can change your default settings to higher saturation and contrast levels. PSCS tends to leave them a little flat.

There's a built-in softness to an IS lens, so it will depend on what you're looking for. All around, the 17-85 IS is the ultimate utility for dynamic situations where there's a premium on "shoot first, check the settings later." Think vacations, family events, big occcasions, hiking. For pj toughness or absolute quality, by which I mean publication grade images or large prints for a gallery show in Manhattan, you'll be more satisfied with a 17-40 or 16-35. At 8x10, though, it would be hard to spot the differences. If you know your needs can make a choice without regrets.

I've used both, and the 20D is not 'obviously better' as a previous post suggested. It is slightly heavier, it's black (to me, that's a minus), and the image is a little sharper (you won't see the difference in an 8x10 print). Where it shines is the AF - it manages my Tamron lenses quite well in situations where the 300D has to hunt around, burst rate, write speed, and instant on. As to user experience, I actually find my 300D easier to navigate, except for the full menu scroll of the 20D.

 

The main thing is: <b> do not saddle either of these fine cameras with a mediocre lens. </b>

 

If budget is an issue, I'd recommend a 300D with a good lens. The results will be more crisp and satisfying than a soft image from the 20D.

Tamron wrote me in an email: "Spring 2005."

I use CS on both a Mac and a PC. The PC is hopelessly slow (the PC's raster engine in general is pretty poor). But my Mac takes less than a minute to render 20 or 25 thumbnails.

 

1) Do you have a dedicated scratch disk or partition for Photoshop? That will make a huge difference. The browser is a scratch disk operation. Defrag the primary and scratch disks, too. PSCS is messy.

2) Have you tried making your thumbnails larger (or smaller?)

3) The slowest loading part is the metadata...you might try looking into a way to minimize the amount of data coming in with the thumbnails.

4) On my PC, I batch process the originals into a folder of downsampled jpg copies when possible, and use that for browsing. Can't do this with RAW files, though.

 

My biggest problem with the browser is instability. It is a finder operation, and is probably doing battle with the OS. I find it makes Photoshop crash on both my PC and Mac.

I print my bes stuff to a lab with a LightJet (C-print) but I'm never really happy because I can't endlessly tweak the output until I get it right. I'd go broke. And it would take weeks.

I've been trying to find out whether there are pigmented inks

available for the Canon i900D printer....have you come up with

anything I ought t consider? I've been seeing the notorious Canon red

shift in prints only 6 months old (Canon Ink on Canon Photo Pro

paper). My glass mounted prints are OK, but still, I'm a little

nervous about the longevity of my prints.

28-105 USM II 3.5-4.5 has the metal mount. At 28mm it is a tad soft, the 28-135 IS is sharper. At 50 they're equal, at 105 the 28-105 is clearly beats the 28-135 IS, which gets softer with longer focal lengths. (Generally speaking, IS lenses are softer than non-IS if the camera is stable, but, of course, they have the advantage when handheld. The extra optical elements in IS lenses do have an effect, as you would expect.)

 

I don't know about the Canon 28-200, but my personal opinion is that zooms much beyond 3x entail severe optic compromises. No matter who the manufacturer is, you'll usually find the best zooms are things like 12-24, 17-35, 17-40 (2x wide zooms) and 24-70, 70-200, 100-300 (3x tele zooms).

 

I have a Sigma 28-200 for use in a pinch - but it's no match for an 3x-er I've ever owned or used.<div></div>

The Mac also reads the jpeg file, which is suffixed .THM....why didn't they make it .JPG?

At 13 x 19 the extra mpx's won't matter in and of themselves. (I get clean, sharp 22in x 33in images from my 300D, imaged on CSI LightJet or large format 12-head inkjet. Full frame, raw exposure, some post processing.)

 

Where the difference might lie is in the higher ISO permitted due to less noise - maybe an f-stop. Once must also consider whether Canon might be upshifting to 8mpx for the mid-pro camera package.

 

You might consider waiting for the tests due back for recently-announced Nikon-mount dslrs: the Fuji S3 Pro and the Nikon D2X. These are 12mpx, though the pixel counts are arrived at very differently. These should be priced about $3000. The Fuji is really two 6mpx arrays nested together - one exposing for highlights, the other for shadow detail. If the results are as good as the theory, this will be an attractive option for photographers who can use wider dynamic range and are comfortable working slow (this is NOT a sports shooter).<div></div>

Mine instaloled no problem. Maybe your installer was corrupted during transmission. Have you tried downloading a fresh, clean copy?

Focus problem? Am I missing something?

I find tha results vary with depending on lighting conditions, and it's good to *check the histogram* and adjust on the spot. Easiest wat to adjust is the exposure compensation button (hold down the AV+/- button next to the display and increase/decrease exposure in 1/3 stop increments). I find I have to adjust this setting from time to time.

 

You might also try center-only focus point, which will then meter the center 9% of the frame instead of an overall evaluative reading.

 

There is nothing wrong with the Canon CMOS sensor. The variations are due to the onboard processing regime. The dReb -like any dSLR- gives over fewer functions to the onboard jpeg processor. And even these you can define: Parameter 1, Parameter 2, and three custom parameters you can set up for yourself.

 

Important to remember: the dReb is not a point and shoot the same way the fRebel is.