damian_tinsley

<p>Yes in theory. In practice my 50mm f1.4 hunts a lot where the 24-105 locks on straight away. Not so simple!</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

D</p>

<p>Speaking as one of the impetuous folk who wants to upgrade...</p>

<p>The 5D3 does everything better than did my 20D. The 5D2 didn't. So it's a good time to jump up, especially if one has been building alens system around a full frame body for some time.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

Guys

All you say is very wise, yet me say

that chap who buys 40MP camera for

$3000 might pay $1500 more for new

PC to process images. Chap who buys

$3500 22MP camera just takes

pictures and gets better noise levels

into the bargain. Retains $$$$ to spend

on new speed lite, GPS unit etc.

Everybody (especially Canon) happy!

Lol

D

<p>Speakig as the OP I'd like to make a confession...</p>

<p>The Mykonos staircases shown on this post were actually taken on a 4MP point 'n shoot - Canon IXUS 400 actually. Shame on me...</p>

<p>Dan, I reckon we're in violent agreement: I want to buy my gear from a company that can stretch the boundaries and create the very best imaging equipment known to humankind. I also want that company to use their extensive expertise to produce something that the 'middle of the road' photog will appreciate and will want because it is so capable either side of the road. </p>

<p>My real point was that if you want the 72MP camera - go and buy one. But don't then complain it won't take noise free images at ISO 100000 and 10 a second into the bargain. Similarly, if you want a decent DSLR in the mainsteam then whining that it has 'only' 22MP is a little pointless. If you<em> really need</em> more than 22MP on a regular basis I am suggesting you are out of the mainstream.</p>

<p>Personally I want a one-size-fits-all DSLR, and the 5D3 is most certainly that.</p>

<p>Bob - I've had nothing but respect for your opinions over the years. Please tell me that "...more MP makes you a better photographer...' is a result of one too many beers this evening, or my lack of a sense of irony?</p>

<p>Damian</p>

<p>Someone please explain? My venerable 20D, cropped a bit in post will create great A3s, interpolated of course from an 8MP sensor.</p>

<p>22MP looks great to me. I don't actually want any more - it will entail several huge hard drive upgrades, and mandate replacing the PC with a faster one.</p>

<p>I really don't see that 95% of real world shots need any more pixels unless you are cropping heavily. That's really a lens issue not a body issue. And the real point is that more MP is detrimental to IQ anyway, all other things being equal. If MP is the be-all-and-end-all, why not go medium format?</p>

<p>LoL</p>

<p>D</p>

<p>Gone I'm afraid - back to normal it seems - at least on the lenses</p>

<p>Is there a back-up button battery in the 5DII? If so take that out and wait for a while before replacing it. Then put the main ones back in and see what happens.</p>

<p>Damian</p>

<p>Brian,</p>

<p>I sense from the majority of posters that the lens will make the biggest difference by far and I agree. The body would give you high iso capabilities the Rebel does not have but in terms of :<br>

a) upgradability (not a word so it cannot be spelt right!)<br>

b) image quality<br>

c) probable longevity (if that's any issue to you)<br>

The lens will make the biggest immediate difference. The 7D body is much nicer to use though!</p>

<p>Happy deciding</p>

<p>There's nothing inherently wrong with the kit lens, and the high iso capabilities of the 7D will help you get some great shots with that piece of glass. Several of the shots in my (very sadly dated) portfolio here were taken with the kit glass that came with my 20D in 2004.</p>

<p>The 24-105 I have and love, really sharp, great contrast (compared to any kit lens) and of course the IS is a huge help as well. There will be situations where either combination you choose won't work. </p>

<p>If it's any help, I still have the 100-300 I bought in 1991, and some of the portfolio shots were taken on that. The EOS600 I had at the time has long since gone to the great 2nd hand shop in the sky...</p>

<p>Rosie,<br>

you must be nearly as organised as my wife to be thinking about Christmas presents in October. Congrats on that! Simple answer, without breaking the bank is to get the very useful and highly regarded Canon 50mm f1.8. It's cheap but very good indeed. The 50mm focal length on your 550d will be a nice lens for potrait work and the wide f1.8 aperture will let you experiment a bit more with depth of field for portraits. I personally would suggest you don't get the more expensive f1.4 50mm lens whilst learning. <br>

I'm not quite sure which bit you're struggling with on the whole DoF issue but if you explain it here I'm sure a lot of people will be happy to help out. <br>

Happy shooting<br>

Damian</p>

<p>Damian </p>

<p>@ Mark</p>

<p>Speaking as an engineer I tend to look on any user manual as a last resort...</p>

<p>Happy to help out anyone who feels the same way. ;-)</p>

<p>PS<br>

Aperture is set by controls on the camera, rather than on the lens. <br>

Long zoom lengths tend to accentuate the effects of any given aperture i.e. a wide-ish aperture (small f number) at 270mm (say f6.3) will appear to have less depth of field than the same f6.3 at 18mm. <br>

Take care</p>

<p>Bless!<br>

OK the numbers are the distance the lens is in focus at. 5m means that stuff 5m in front of the lens will be in focus. Stuff further away or closer will be blurred. One of the rings (probably the smaller of the two furthest away from the camera body) will adjust the focus. [For all you experts out there - yes I know it's a plane focal system not a straight distance, but that won't help Rosie.]<br>

The 18 and the 270 refer to the focal length and are the values that govern the zoom range of the lens. 18mm is wide angle and the 270 is quite a respectable telephoto. One of the rings on the lens will zoom through this range.<br>

Depth of field is essentially linked to the aperture value. The higher the number the more depth of field you have. The 3.5 figure means your lens will have an effective widest aperture of 3.5 when the zoom is at 18mm and the lens will have an effective widest aperture of 6.3 when the lens is at 270mm. Some more expensive lenses maintain the f number throughout the range (and these are called constant aperture). The smallest aperture you can have on that Tamron lens is I guess (someone help out) about f32.<br>

You will get more depth of field if the aperture number is higher, but the downside to this is the lens lets less light in so the shutter speed is slower, and this makes it more likely you will have a blurry picture as a result of camera shake becaus the the shutter speed is low.<br>

Hope this helps,<br>

Happy snapping</p>

<p>Damian</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Seems to be a very simple clear cut decision - get the 85mm.<br>

If the OP was after a 50mm f1.2 that would be a different story, but the build quality and IQ of the f1.4 don't to my mind make it worthwhile having both.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>Damian</p>

<p>Oooooooooooooooooo!</p>

<p>Thanks for sharing Larry. Check the fine print on your house insurance, many cover stuff away from home as well.<br>

Please let us all know the s/n just in case this one ever comes up as 'Canon refurbished' on eBay!<br>

It's metal and plastic. You're irreplaceable. Can you post the shot from the card as well?</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>Larry & Jim have it right. I'd add a couple of things though:</p>

<p>Don't bother trying to change lenses - beg borrow or steal a 50 f1.8 and use it exclusively, if you can walk around the house during the dress rehearsals. Don't use flash - apart from the obvious problem of putting performers off, you probably won't be able to bounce it and you'll end up with washed out photos that don't reflect the lighting guy's intent. </p>

<p>Use one lens which will cover the width you need from the back of the hall. You can crop afterwards if you need more zoom than feet alone can manage. </p>

<p>Going to a couple of rehearsals when the troupe are on the stage is worth a lot. Going to rehearsals can be a faff - the director does not aways rehearse in order of scenes. Go to later rehearsals - the cast tend to have their positions on stage for each element worked out by then - there's nothing more annoying than setting up for a great shot you know is there and then missing it because the director changed their approach a couple of weeks back!</p>

<p>Take a lot of shots. That way you can be ruthless (see below) without crying over missed opportunities.</p>

<p>Ruthlessly discard EVERYTHING that isn't perfectly in focus - if you keep one because it's so good otherwise and will just about stand up at 6x4 then you can bet that's the shot that people will want blown up later on.</p>

<p>There's an art in selecting shots for display - directors don't like to give the game away too much (or at all). I do mainly theatre; if I display the dramatic scene of the guy hanging himself, I don't expect to be asked to do it again! I don't know if this is likely to be an issue for a dance troupe though. </p>

<p>Work out what turn around time you have for any display prints that are requested if that's an issue. If I shoot a dress rehearsal on Sunday night and then need to get display prints up on the wall in the theatre by the Monday evening it's a challenge! Personally I make sure I have those prints in my hand before I turn in on Sunday night. The alternative is pretty much unthinkable... Although you can get them printed in the high street if you have the extra few hours available.</p>

<p>Good luck and enjoy it.</p>

<p>Years ago I did some work on a 20D and noise and frankly could barely tell the difference between 100 and 200. 200 is my default setting now.</p>

<p>I regularly shoot theatre productions and need to go to 800 for these, unless particularly well lit in which case sometimes it's possible to get away with 400. Depending on the lighting guy it can be a struggle and the last one I shot was all at 1600 with slow shutter speeds and a bout f1.8 - f2.8 throughout. I still found th results surprisingly good (and more than enough for the 12x18 wall prints after a litte NR applied through RAW.</p>

<p>The results wouldn't have stacked up against a landscape at 100iso but I'm very surprised at anyone having difficulty accepting noise in a DSLR at 200iso. </p>

<p>Upload speed never a problem for me following a 450 frame theatre shoot. I just get the various folders uploading onto the computer and then go and put the kettle on. One cup of tea later and they're just about finishing!</p>

<p>Mr Mitchell's comments are pretty much right on the money regarding card size. If a 32Gb card could hold ~3200 frames on my venerable 20D, let's call it 100 rolls of film in old money. Highly unlikely to fail whilst in the camera and even if the card had a 0.1% failure rate it would still have run the equivalent of 100 000 rolls of film through it. I have my doubts that any mechanical systems had to achieve that in the past (cameras I mean) The shutter is supposed to go long before then anyway as it would have had 3.2 million activations! eeek.</p>

<p>So my guess is that reliability has gone up overall (and yes, I appreciate that if a 32G card did fail you'd lose potentially an awful lot all at once)</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Damian</p>

<p>Certainly does. My Sandisk Extreme III is a fake card, and is very much slower with my 20D than the legit Ultra II I normally use in it. I don't know haw fast the fake card really is bu it takes a heck of a time to clear the buffer. <br>

That said whether the transfer speeds will really make that much of a difference if the cards are reasonable will depend partially on the camera, and partially on your shooting style. </p>

<p>Although I love the idea of a 3D, it's really hard to see where this would sit in the line-up of a 5D3 without stealing a lot of thunder from the 1 series cameras. So my bet would be on a 5D3. PS Enjoyable speculation though meaningless in any real context given how capable is the 5D series.</p>

<p>Sara,<br>

I am currently going through the same internal debate (own a 20D and want to upgrade, but to what?) but as I don't yet have the funds to entertain either upgrade you are a little ahead of me. The thing which drives my own thinking is this: <br>

I could swap my 17-40 for a 10-22 and get a 7D. This, togther with my 24-105L (superb - get one!) would cover pretty much all focal lengths I'll habitually use. BUT there is one thing holding me back, and that is the frequency of lens changes. The swapover at 24mm (36mm in full frame terms) is smack bang in the middle of where I want my usual walk-around lens to be.<br>

So I am holding out for a full frame, as much for the benefits of where my preferred focal lengths sit in the lens lineup as anything else. I also feel that at 21MP vs 8MP, I lose nothing in resolution - the photosite resolution being exactly the same on the 5DII and the 20D. All other benefits of the FF camera remain the same.<br>

Bear in mind you computer storage and speed if you want to start dealing with 18 or 21MP files though! Both will need to be sufficiently capable if you upgrade the camera!<br>

Regards<br>

Damian</p>

<p>Lots of fun! V funny<br>

So Nahthan - more so than the internet - more so than life in general? Perhaps we should all sit at home of an evening, hands on the table and accept that ANYONE not wanting to CONFORM is a paedophile? Coz this is where you appear to be headed.</p>

<p>I used to go with a camera setting of iso 80 for kodachrome 64. Gave very nice saturated results indeed.</p>

<p>The 20D does have 3200 iso - it's the H setting enabled in custom functions. I appreciate it's no better than dialing in one stop of underexposure and fixing it later in PS raw. <br>

I would hesitate to get one for the 3200 work, and would agree with Nadine with the 800 view, but it does depend on how big the prints are going to be.</p>

<p>Attached a crop shot of a play I took at 3200, and no post exposure alterations.</p><div></div>

<p>This is not a snide response... ;-)</p>

<p>Flip a coin on it - promise yourself you will stick to the result. </p>

<p>Then make good on the promise or.....</p>

<p>If you decide you want two out of three, you have the answer anyway! </p>