sheryl_bury_michals

Hi Mark, I have the batteries that originally came with the camera - the LP-E6 1800 mAh. It lasts a long time on my older 7D, but loses juice on the Mark II version which is weird. At the time I got it about 2 years ago, I was reading on a forum for the 7D Mark II that others had the same problem with their batteries losing charge more quickly on the 7D. I also have batteries by BOWER(their version of the Canon LP-E6) that are 7.4 2800 mAh, which you would think would be better, but they lose juice just as quickly as the Canon ones. I don't do any video, wi-fi, or GPS (much less know how to do it), mostly sports shooting (rugby) and non-profit fundraiser events (with a flash). My batteries I buy usually through B&H. I know with past Canons (10-40D), this was never a problem, be it with canon batteries or secondary ones. And not a problem with the 7D. Just the 7D mark II which is weird. Hope that clarifies things for you.

I have a Canon 7D Mark II camera, and while I'm happy with it, I find that the batteries do not last as long as they did on my 7D - no matter the weather (though colder weather is always worse), I can go through at least 2 batteries in a rugby day (which are 2-3 80 minute matches) whereas on my 7D the charge on the battery lasted a lot longer. One battery would last through more than 3 matches. I've heard others had this problem in the past - is there a newer model of the 7D that doesn't do this? Or should I get a different Canon EOS model where the battery life is better. Can anyone shed light on this? I do use canon batteries with the charger that came with my kit. Thanks Sheryl

both my 75-300 and 28-200 lenses could work as I wanted to take some closeup shots, hence the need for the extra mm. I was at my camera shop the other day, and it was suggested to me to take the 35 f/2 (since many of my dinner shots will be in dimly lit restaurants) and the 28-200 (I got a closeup lens attachment for the Tamron since it's an older version, which should help). I'm taking my small tamrac backpack so want to keep it from being too weighty (as I'll have batteries, a charger, Cf cards and the like to bring too)

I recently got info on a post I did regarding the Canon 24-105 lens, which was very helpful. I may hold off getting that lens for the time being In going through my lenses for an upcoming trip, I am torn between a) just going with my old Tamron 28-200/3.5-5.6 aspherical lens (which I've had for about 15+ years), just find it moves a bit slower on my 7D. I would be thinking of getting the Tamron close-up lens in this case since this is an older model. or b) take instead both my canon 17-40/f4 and 75-300/f4 lenses. I will be doing group shots at a conference during dinners with colleagues(some in the evenings), but also want to do some scenic city shots as well (I'll be be Belgrade and also in Geneva), I will be taking one of my canon 7Ds as well as my 580EX flash. Since I will be carrying a bag around, it won't be a big one, so I want as less weight as possible. I think both options could work, but wanted some feedback as to what would be best for my shooting needs. However, since some events will be indoors in lower light, it is something I need to consider when choosing lenses. (I've used my Canon 24-70/2.8 in the past, it's just a little weighty, and I've toyed with the idea of getting a canon 10-22 for wide shots,,,,I thought about taking my 35/f2 prime as well) Thanks for your help, Sheryl :)

dcstep and Ken Katz - thanks for your thoughts on this. I do know I would sometimes use this for action shots at rugby matches, sometimes played in inclement weather, where sometimes the action gets closer than my Canon 100-400 would be able to get. I may be going with the weather-resistant one for that reason. That in and of itself is a big thing for me.

I'm thinking about adding a Canon 24-105 lens to my lens collection. However, there seems to be 2 types - the f/4 and f/3.5-5.6. Did some research and reviews are all over the place liking one or the other. I am gong to Belgrade and Geneva this June and don't want to have to carry both the 17-40 and 24-70 lenses. I will be doing candid photos of people in the evening after a conference my husband is attending, but also scenic shots too. While I know the 24-70/2.8 is great for low-light situations (especially in dimly lit restaurants), it's a bit weight and with all the airline changes in what can and can't be brought on a plane, I want to keep my kit simple but effective (I am using the Canon 7D and a Mark II version on the body as well, so one of those will be taken). Does anyone have either of those lenses that can give me their take on them, it would help. I may think about taking a small prime (a 35 f/2) with me for the low light candid group shots in the evening. I tried searching on the new forum search format, but could not find anything, which was surprising.. Thanks Sheryl

<p>I've looked at a bunch of posts regarding data recovery for missing photos, but some info is several years old. I have a folder pf photos taken in a particular year that went missing on my external hard drive, what is the best and safest program to retrieve them. I was looking for some photos for someone from a particular year, when I found out that the entire folder was missing.<br> I know OnTrack is used for professional settings, what is good for the average person at home to use?<br> also, besides backing photos up on 2 external hard drives, what other current practices are used to store photos off site that are safe.<br> thanks<br> Sheryl</p>

Jos, In regards to the looseness the grip handle wiggles side to side when I grip tight,, and the piece under it is a bit loose too. As I mentioned it's over 15 years old so the grip is bound to be loose with time.

<p>I've had my Manfrotto 3265 ballhead pistol grip for over 15 years, and while I love it to pieces, and it has served me well, I find that the grip is a bit loose - I know they don't make this model any more (I may try to see if Manfrotto can fix it), so I am looking for options in terms of a replacement and have the 3265 as a backup.<br> Since I shoot rugby, I want something sturdy that I can maneuver and pivot when needed. I am getting a Manfrotto 695CX carbon fiber monopod if that helps. <br> Thanks<br> Sheryl</p>

<p>A million thanks to all - just one more question - I'm thinking about a second body, as my ol' 40D is in need of an upgrade - i don't know whether to get another 7D full-frame or a 70D crop frame. I do need to get a new body since it looks like I'll be using both lenses.<br> what works for you all and why?<br> Sheryl</p>

<p>Our rugby time is switching to night games this fall (after over 40 years of having matches predominately during daytime), with many games not starting until 7 pm. Even though it's an outdoor field that would be lit, it still isn't enough to get great shots unlike shooting in daylight hours, which I've done for the past 20 years, so this is a new routine for me.<br> I use a Canon 7D, and for lenses, I have a Canon 70-200/2.8 which works at night, but not long enough for the distance of a rugby pitch. I also have the 100-400 as well, which is great for distance but not fast enough at night. I have rented the 400/2.8 on occasion, which I like a lot, but find it cumbersome weight-wise to lug around, even with a good monopod (Currently I have a strained deltoid, so lugging heavy things like the 400/2.8 is not advisable at this point). I don't want to use a converter on the 70-200 as I feel it would slow things down a bit (unless someone can tell me otherwise).<br> I do have a 580 EX flash but I just don't think it will cut it really - is there a better flash out there that gives out more light. I read something about a device called a Better Beamer - has anyone used that for sports?<br> What ends up happening with the night games I've shot in the past is that I end up doing a lot-of post-processing as the pics are too yellow in tone, so always balancing that out, which is not that big of a deal but time consuming.<br> Any advice would be most appreciated, as our first night match is Sep. 4th.<br> <br />Thanks,<br />Sheryl</p>

<p>Has anyone tried the Tamron 150-600 for sports yet? I have a Canon 100-400 that I've had since 2000, which works fine, but would like a lens with bit more in the distance dept., since I shoot rugby matches and the pitches have become longer and/or wider the past year or so (maybe because the teams are all finally marking regulation size fields). The price makes it a tempting purchase, since bigger Canon lenses are so cost-prohibitive.<br> I've seen reviews in various website like B&H in regards to the Tamron for wildlife, but not for sports - but heard at the longer ranges (500-600 mm) it may be hard to focus.<br> Bob Atkins gave a great review of this Tamron lens when it first came out, but would like to hear from those who actually use it. I'[m kind of on the fence.<br> I have a chance to shoot an All Blacks match here in the states this year, so may want a bigger lens.<br> Thanks!<br> Sheryl</p>

<p>I saw on B&H there is a Wolverine F2D20 digital image converter for 35mm negatives and slides. I was thinking about getting this to scan my negatives - since the resolution supposedly is 20 MP once scanned. That said, does anyone own one - and if so, how good is it. The Nikon coolscans are no longer made, and this is pretty affordable, and easy to use for $109. I have a lot of rugby shots on film and it would be nice to get them on file digitally.<br> Thanks - Sheryl</p>