kerry_grim

The 6D is about $1000 less than the 5D3. A 6D would serve extremely well for landscape and architecture. If you did sports photography than the 5D3 would make more sense. For the type of work you want the camera for, the 6D would be just as good as the 5D3, lighter and more compact, in addition to being cheaper.

This does not quite sound right. I would think the resolution of the camera is probably good enough. Possibly, they need to crop the photos too much. Also, your depth of field may be too shallow. What lens are you using and are you using flash and or tripod setup? Hopefully not handheld. More than likely, if you are getting a large enough image, properly focused with an aperture of, say f16, your photo should be sharp, but even with a true macro lens, a diamond will be a small image and still need to be enlarge quite a bit. The problem therefore may be getting a large image and not the camera. A macro lens, like the EF-S 60 would focus to life-size. Better yet is the Canon MP-E 65 macro but it is expensive. Could you attach a photo or attach a link to a photo that we can examine, preferably with EXIF data.

And a 6D is also reasonably priced.

I am not sure what you mean by worn out? How many photos have you taken? Does the camera no longer function as it did when new? If it needs a new shutter, that could be replaced and you would get years more service out of the camera. Canon just announced a new 80D which would be a lot advanced from the XSI. Maybe depends on whether you need a camera right now, or could put off the purchase for awhile. The 6D is a great camera for low light and relatively cheap for full frame. Does not have a ton of extra features, nor are the necessary for most people. Are your lenses compatible with a crop body only or with all of Canon's bodies as Mark has explained above? I think a lot depends on whether you like or want to continue using those lenses. A telephoto such as a 70-200 2.8 or 4 are excellent choices for low light, but on the other hand, something like the 2.8 is big, heavy, and expensive so there is always compromises one way or another with slower lenses.

William W always provides excellent advice and the choice of a 10-22 seems an obvious choice.

It does sound like the 100 f2 or 85 1.8 would be just right, given the distance and they are affordable and easy to carry.

Crop body or full frame? Since 100mm on a crop body give an image of 160mm there is a big difference. When you say 5PM and low light...is the sun still up, just low in the sky? Unless you are a professional sports photographer, I doubt you would want to pay $5700 for 200/2 lens. The 200/2.8 is $750. A 70-200 may be your best and most versatile choice, unless it is too far away. Longer than 200 becomes expensive and pretty well specialized. Also, a fast 2.8 above 300mm is expensive.

Yellow-rumped Warbler. This is an eastern bird "Myrtle Warbler". Western birds are often referred to as Audubon's Warbler. Same species but the western one has a yellow throat. I suspect most in Austin would be the Eastern race, but I don't have the experience of birding in Texas to know how common or uncommon the Western race would be.

What telephoto lenses do you have, or intend on purchasing? If purchasing, what is your budget? Don't forget to add the cost of a good tripod into the budget.

I guess it is a matter of opinion, but I don't care for the photos that look obviously to be manipulated by the use of HDR. I prefer to see the image more as my eye saw it (or as I think I remember seeing it). Most times, lightening the shadows is all that is needed. While there is nothing wrong with HDR, and I do not mean to discourage you from trying that. But also try shooting RAW if you do not already, and then lighten the shadows and or blacks and see how this works for you. Works for me, using a Canon 6D despite the negative publicity of those "terrible Canon sensors".

Excellent photo. The spots indicate this is an adult. An immature would show streaking.

The 5DIII is avery capable camera. I don't own a 5DIII but suspect it could be a setting that may not be quite appropriate. Post photos and this may help give better ideas. Unless there is something wrong with the camera, switching to a different system will not help. Did you look at the Sports Forum? There may be tips there as to how their camera is set for focusing as well as shutter speeds. Keep in mind that a lot of sports photos are fairly predictable and you may be able to pan with the subject and all photos will be in focus. But, trying to take a moving pet will likely cause less photos to be in focus since their movements are less predictable. In a case like that, the focus point may suddenly select past your subject do to erratic movements of the pet. For your own peace of mind, go outside and take photos of moving subjects such as cars and see if they are in focus. If, for example I took photos of runners coming at me using the center point, the camera is set to follow focus, but if I got that focus point off the subject just prior to the shot, it will try to focus in the background. Are the mis-focuses back focus or front focus?

Using a 70-200 lens does not take a lot of strength, but using something like a 500mm (or longer) super-telephoto is a different story. But I do respectfully disagree with Craig's assertion regarding exercise. Being in shape does help. Try taking photos if you are breathing heavily. Dumbbells are dirt cheap. Check them out at Dick's Sporting Goods. At the extreme end, Galen Rowell was a word class athlete and he took advantage of that. His book "Mountain Light" is a classic, copyrighted 1986, has great photos that have not been duplicated since then. While being an athlete is not a requirement, it can be a big help, even for the endurance.

I checked the results of birders reporting birds just before and after this date. Ducks mentioned include Mallards, Black Duck, Wood Ducks and and 2-3 Blue-winged Teal. Very likely not a hybrid once I think about it. Laura may well be right as Blue-winged Teal in eclipse plumage. But, I don't think Wood Duck young or adults in eclipse plumage can be ruled out entirely. They are an abundant breeder locally and their plumages are very variable. Colors of ducks feathers can vary depending on the lighting. Head certainly does not look like a Wood Duck, but, being in the shade and a long distance, detail may not show up digitally.

Bill, can you tell me exactly where the photo was taken and the date? I may be able to back-track it in eBird and see if any birders reported it. Very curious myself as to what it is.

<p>Looks like a hybrid, but exactly what, I am not sure. I will check with my birder friends and get back to you.</p>

The Canon 70-200 is indeed an excellent lens. However, technique will dictate your results. In other words if you hand hold that lens, your results may not be as sharp as the 55-250 simply because this lens has IS. You may also find the 70-200 too bulky to carry around doing general photography. I've taken 1000s of photos with my 70-200 2.8 but I use it as a specialized lens like photos of runners. Had the f4 IS lens been available when I bought the lens, I would not have purchased the 2.8 lens because it is heavy and bulky, too much so to carry around doing general photography, even though it is an excellent lens. The 55-250 IS does seem to be be nice and compact, easy to carry around. I would keep it and see how useful you find it. I definitely agree with Stephens advice on lenses and also being purchased from one of the dealers he states. If you still want to invest in another lens, consider the 24 EF-S f2.8 STM lens. Very reasonably priced, will take up very little room in a camera bag. A lot of newer photographers seem to think zooms only. It is not necessary to cover every single millimeter! Everyone is different, but I am not one in favor of carrying three zooms and recommend a combination of two zooms and at least one prime. In time you will find your preferences, but buying a prime may will provide more variety. In addition, your camera body and just the 24 EF-S f2.8 STM makes a nice compact and light combination when you can get by without a zoom.

Peter W, please report back to the forum after you have used C1 awhile. I would be interested in hearing your findings.

Thanks for you input Wouter. I am a please Lightroom user but was curious about the product. Starting now, I would take a serious look at this product. I like Lightroom, it is very easy to use, but that is not saying everything is intuitive. If it were, there would not be so many videos and books. I may download the program just to take a look.

I want to second what Robin says about the 6D focusing point. Center is great, others not so much.

I used a 40D for high school sports (mostly running events) when my kids were in school. It did well in bright light. I've since gone to a 6D and have used it for running events. For this, the frame rate is high enough and I have taken photos of runners in the rain (camera protected) in low light and the focusing was excellent. So I would say, unless you are a pro sports photographer, a 6D works very well. No doubt a 5dIII has more capability, but for me this is not necessary. My focus is more on landscape with some wildlife so I went with a 6D. I like the choice of more lenses for wide angle as well. If I owned a super telephoto and was more into bird photography than I would have chosen a 7DII. Months after using the 6D, I went back to the 40D and was shocked at how loud the shutter was...embarrassingly so when in a crowd of people. Only you can decide whether to wait for a 6DII, or go with a 7DII. The 5DIII is now very reasonable, and if that model is in the picture you might want to wait to see if Canon will offer rebates, or you may want to consider a refurbished model.

You should be able to download Lightroom free as a trial version and purchase if you like. There is a learning curve to it, but basically pretty simply. Even if you like DPP, you may find the extra features very useful. I switched from DPP to Lightroom and agree with what Robin said. As much as I do like Lightroom, starting from scratch, I would download a trial version of Capture One Pro. But I have no experience with the program, mentioned it because an updated version just came out (I think) and I know you can get a trial version. At the very least, I would recommend checking Adobe website for info regarding Lightroom.

There are several books on the 70D, check Amazon.com for reviews/prices. Canon's writing style for their manuals are not always so intuitive. I had David Busch's book when I bought a 40D and that was easier to read and understand. When I moved to a 6D I found out that a lot of camera books are basically written before the cameras area actually released and sometimes have mistakes. The urge seems to get the camera on the market as quick as possible, so you have to wonder if the authors even handled the camera. I am sure your 70D has the three focus modes you mentioned. It may take a push of a button and rotation of a dial to change metering, focusing, ISO, etc. The 70D is a fine camera and I would say it is definitely not a downgrade. It took me awhile to realize the capabilities of a digital camera, having spent many years with a film camera. Give yourself some time and I am sure you will agree.

There are many cameras that should fit your bill and budget. You will likely get a lot of personal recommendations, but ultimately it is your personal decision. Because of that, I would recommend the dpreview buying guide as a starting point which just came out on their website. This may narrow down your decision based on features. You may be able to narrow you wish list to a few specific models. After that, visit a camera store where you can see and get a feel for a camera that fits you and your budget best: http://www.dpreview.com/buying-guides?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=features-default&utm_medium=homepage-block&ref=features-default If I were to start over and unsure which system of camera to buy into, I would take the 2 hour bus drive to B&H photo where you can see many models. Keep in mind that a 35mm lens on a crop body will have an angle of view of a "normal" lens of about 50mm on a full frame camera. It depends on your shooting but I owned a 24 2.8 and 35 f2 which I used on a Canon 40D. Looking back at photo database, I used the 24 much, much more than the 35. Then I got a full frame camera and Canon 24 with IS. This is certainly a better lens than the older 24, and I find the IS very helpful for handheld photos. But it does cost a lot more. But again, that is me, and I prefer wider angle lenses, which ultimately I went to full frame because of Canons lack of wide angle lenses for crop cameras. The Pentax system looks good...have built in image stabilization in the bodies and a good selection of wide angle lenses (not just zoom wide angle lenses). Don't get up in the which is better, Nikon or Canon. That brings back thought of being in high school and hearing students argue...Ford is better, Chevy is better, etc. Cameras are tools, it is up to you to use it correctly, and bear in mind, even though Nikon and Canon are by far the most popular brands, there are also other brands just as capable. Maybe Canon does have a huge selection of lenses, but unless you are going to purchase a super telephoto, who cares that Canon has a great selection of these high-priced, although excellent lenses?