rick_shanahan

<p>Well it took four years, but Canon finally listened to me:</p>

<p>http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_50mm_f_1_8_stm</p>

<p>Well, I picked up an old mark I on ebay in beautiful shape and I immediately noticed that my pictures at all focusing distances are much sharper. I will never buy the cheap plastic mark II again. </p>

<p>"Why pretend that crop bodies deliver as good IQ as full frame bodies? I just don't see the point."</p>

<p>Why all the hate for cropped sensor cameras? Is this some new camera snobbery? My 30D produces amazing images.</p>

<p>We can''t all afford full frame cameras.</p>

<p>Well, let me pose this question:</p>

<p>Putting aside all other Canon 50mm options, would you rather spend $100 on the existing 50mm 1.8, or spend $200 on one that was on par with the build of the Nikon?</p>

<p>My answer, I'd rather spend a bit more (but still a cheap lens even at $200) on the better build. </p>

<p>" If Canon made a $300-400 50 1.8 it would compete with the 50 1.4 lens. "</p>

<p>Well, I'm not asking for that. I would just like Canon to improve the build quality of the 50 1.8 and charge $200 for it, like Nikon. The existing 1.8 is just not up to standards set by Canons competitors. If they were willing to improve their 18-55 kit lens, then why not the 50 1.8? I think it would sell like hotcakes if they did as I'm suggesting. </p>

<p>The best optics in the world are useless if the build quality is so bad that it stops focusing accurately after a year.</p>

<p>Leonard-<br>

The 1.4 is $379.00, a bit steep for me. </p>

<p>The build quality of Nikon's 50mm 1.8 offering is so much better than Canons. It has a metal mount, a nice dampened rubber focus ring, a distance scale. There is really no excuse for the flimsy plastic lens that Canon offers, they have to do better than this. I know that optically it's great, but I've gone through three of them in 5 years because they have all lost their ability to focus accurately. I've done extensive testing, and they all begin to back focus after about ten feet. They have all started off with nice accurate focusing. It's not at all abuse, I baby my lenses. I believe it's simply the extremely cheap plastic body and gearing of the focus mechanism. </p>

<p>Some have said that Canon keeps this lens so shoddy because they feel like no one would buy their 50mm 1.4 if the build on the 1.8 was good. To this I say, it works for Nikon. They have a high quality 1.4 and 1.8 and sell both. </p>

<p>I know I can get an old mark I 1.8 on eBay, but I'd rather canon create a new, high quality 50mm 1.8 prime. I would gladly spend $200 or $225 if they had a lens with a build quality on par with Nikon's.</p>

<p>Thank you. </p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5911856">Pierre Lachaine</a>-</p>

<p>I use an A1200 too... I love it.</p>

<p>Sorry to revive an old thread, but I have a comment on two topics here:</p>

<p>1. Having to hold an LCD camera at arms length. -This is baloney, there are very secure ways to hold and compose with an LCD compact camera. Keep your elbows tight against your torso, and adopt a proper way to securely hold the camera in your hands. I can hold my compact digital camera VERY steadily. </p>

<p>2. And the LCD vs viewfinder. IMO, the LCD is one of the best things to come out of the digital generation. I much prefer composing on a big screen that shows me 100% of my subject, plus had built in "rule of thirds" grid-lines and shows me a lot of shooting info, than a tiny, optical viewfinder that shows a tiny fraction of the image and is like looking through a postage stamp sized window at the end of a dark hallway. Now, with my DSLR, I definitely want a big, bright viewfinder. But on a digital compact, I'll take a good LCD any day. </p>

<p>Cheers...</p>

<p>With the exception of David's images, almost all of the images posted in this thread seem very soft. I think there's more to worry about than lighting here.</p>

<p>So says Yahoo...</p>

<p>http://food.yahoo.com/blog/foxyfestivities/19773/the-big-wedding-money-wasters</p>

<p>Have you guys seen this?? I disagree completely. I feel the photography is the one place you should never skimp.</p>

<p>Steve - as for the importing being an additional step that slows you down: your pictures have to be imported from the camera to the computer, if you use LR to do this it automatically creates a Lightroom library of those images, so there's no extra step. And LR is so much more than batch processing. Batch processing is very much an automated step, whereas with LR the adjustments can be made on the fly in real time, to as many images as you want, and it's all non-destructive editing, leaving the originals RAW's as they were shot. It's an incredibly powerful tool. </p>

<p>Actually Steve, it is much, much slower to edit and save individual jpegs with PS than to process RAW's with LR...for one simple reason, in LR you can select and apply adjustments to many images at once. It saves processing time like you wouldn't believe.</p>

<p>Mike- that's a beautiful example of the power of RAW. I agree, why would anyone throw away information that their cameras sensor is collecting...? Makes no sense to me.</p>

<p>Steve- With LR, RAW doesn't take more time at all. <br>

Betty- when I used Picasa-which I admit was 2 years ago-it it imported and read the CR2 RAW files from my rebel XT exactlt the same as jpegs. When you saved them though, it saved a jpeg copy.</p>

<p>A couple of things about Picasa. It absolutely does support RAW. And it is no tool for a professional photographer. The sharpening is atrocious. Cropping and sharpening in LR couldn't be easier...</p>

<p>Nope, I switched to RAW, use Lightroom 2 and never looked back. With LR, editing RAW's is just as easy as editing jpeg's anyway. I use RAW simply because I want the highest quality file my camera can produce. </p>

<p>I just really prefer clean, professional web design...and having a link to a photographer's vacation, and other personal stories is, in my opinion, very unprofessional...no matter the age of the person viewing the website. People really only do it to increase their search engine hits anyway. Not because they feel it adds to their website.</p>

<p>I find blogs on so called 'professional' web sites to be anything but. They have no place there. Save that for myspace.</p>

"If you're serious about wedding photography then you need to get pro training, a mentor, apprenticeship, network with local pros, and consider joining PPA and/or WPPI"

 

How do you know he needs these things before you've even seen his photos? And what exactly does "pro training" mean?

That Ben Chrisman is great.

Your bride knew enough to request a particular film?

Without a doubt, 100% Lightroom 2. It is simply the best, most intuitive digital photography tool out there.

 

"LR2 is the 'quick and dirty' version of Photoshop CS3. If you're serious about the craft, master CS3."

 

Actually, LR2 and CS3 use the same RAW conversion tools, so this really isn't true. 99% of CS3 is completely unneeded for photography and working on multiple images at the same time is 100% easier with LR2. It simply does everything I need.

Daniel...I actually find the opposite to be true. With Lightroom, if I have 20 or 50 or 200 images in the same room, I set one WB and sync the rest. Very easy. Having to worry about setting a custom WB during the event in each lighting condition is--for me anyway--much more of a hassle.

Post processing is ALWAYS needed. Even in film days the images would be 'post processed' by the lab. Now, with digital WE can control that and not leave it up to a lab. DSLR images are designed to be PP'd, if you aren't doing it than your images aren't as good as they could be. I shoot RAW, so literally every image needs to be processed...it has nothing to do with so called 'special effects'. it's basic image correction.