kerry_grim

I went from a 40D that I used for may years to a 6D. I am not sure why Orlando says the 6D screen is bad (if I am reading correctly). I was immediately comfortable with the 6D. I also like the slightly smaller size. Having taken 1000s of photos with the 6D, I used the 40D and realized the shutter was so loud, I was embarrassed! Just remember, you will loose the crop factor if going full frame. The 6D does not have a lot of extra bells and whistles, and, at least for me, does not need to.

A lot has happened with the photo bag and photo backpack market recently. Apparently Tamrac was bankrupt but bought by GURU, but will use the Tamrac name. I was able to purchase the Guru Uinta pack at a reduced price because that is discontinued as are the Tamrac packs and an entire new collection (which don't meet my requirements). F-stop has a large collection of photo packs suitable also for hiking/mountaineering. I believe Lowe is also in financial trouble. I always rely heavily (and purchase from) B&H, but in the case of camera bags/packs, they must have a huge inventory. I've saved several links to them recently, and I am finding they are no longer available. At any rate, I would recommend first checking with the manufacturers website for latest models as the market is changing rapidly. If you see the price suddenly reduced on a particular model, it may well be because it is discontinued.

I haven't read much about lens care other than protect it from moisture or fungus and the filter thing. I am careful not to let a lens in a hot car because of the oil inside. So I would keep it in the truck which may be cooler but I don't set it directly on the floor of the trunk for possible damage due to vibration. But that is my idea, never read anything about it.

Sami, I said focus issue but actually meat softness. I know of a person returning several Tamron lens and they came back being very sharp. Although it could be a focus issue, so best to test.

Sami, I would use a tripod and test the focusing. That has been an issue with these lenses.

Not sure, but you may also want to look at a closeup lens.

Jason R, I certainly agree. If you don't recompose it may show your mistake. I did not articulate very well!

Not a bad idea to check where the focus spot of your camera is. But, bear in mind if you 'hold' the focus then recompose or even your subject moves away from the point...it won't do you any good to check the focus point.

Go to a Mac superstore if one is near you. They are loaded with different types of software.

To clarify the above, it it the Guru Unita that looks to be a good compromise with backpack and camera gear. The Bataflae Series appears to be better for transporting gear as opposed to the comfort of hiking with a pack.

My Lowpro AW Trekker (It is small, cost about $100 years ago) finally fell apart on my last trip. I did get my moneys worth out of it. So I have been researching a lot. This is what I found: Camera makers make good packs for cameras, but piss-poor for hiking. For day hiking, I want some storage room and a minimum of one, but preferably two mesh pockets to hold a water bottle. When camera makers produce a pack for the use of both there is not generally much room for camera gear and common complaints are that access is not easy. If you are hiking in Utah...you need storage for water bottles. For my hikes I carry may a Canon 6D, 17-40, 24, and 100 macro, a few filters and other accessories, but also want room for 8X42 Leica binoculars when coming back after dark and no longer want them around my neck. However, I want more room than this. If traveling, I want room for expensive equipment like my RRS ball head that I don't want to keep in luggage. As states above...it certainly is a compromise. As a replacement for my Lowpro...one, preferably two water bottle holders, big enough storage to hold maybe 6-7 lenses, but not hug or for long lenses, and space for some clothing. I spent hours search for the right pack in the $100-$150 range. Some look pretty good and likely OK, but really what I wanted. Then I started looking at higher price range and did find what I think is more suitable. But they are not cheap! Anyway, I am currently saving for a GURU 30L backpack. Their other models look fine for carrying a lot of gear, but not quite as comfortable on the back. Of course I could change my mind or even new models could appear before I purchase the 30L. These are designed by people from Utah and I believe that are made in the U.S. As an analogy, I wanted a RRS tripod for a long time but looked at cheaper alternatives. Couldn't bring myself to buying a cheaper Chinese tripod (which still may have been fine) so I did get what I want with the RRS tripod and never looked back even though it killed my finances. Thus, I will save longer and get something I really want, which is not something cheap. Everyone's needs and preferences are different, but I would suggesting to take a look at Guru. As fantastic as B&H website is, it is far better in this case to look at the gurugear.com website.

A 6D is an excellent choice of camera. Others will disagree, but for star photography 2.8 is fast enough, using ISO 1600 or 3200. If you are doing landscape photography with a tripod, even a slow lens will work. I do not see the need for a faster lens. I use a 24 2.8IS lens with a 6D for general photograph as the IS is very helpful. I also use a 17-40 and often carry both, but some situations I prefer the prime lens such as shooting wide open. However, if I could afford the 16-35 f4 IS I would get that as it is a better lens. I would put the money into a good tripod before I would spend it on a fast 1.4 lens. Light pollution is pretty bad here is SE Pennsylvania. As was mentioned, 24 is pretty wide, but for stars, it is not. I would consider a 14mm lens if I lived or traveled to a place with very dark skies, but I would be hesitant to by a Rokinon. Unfortunately even used Canon 14s are expensive if you can even find one. I think 35mm is generally too much for stars.

This site is worth bookmarking: http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/

Had I read this forum, I would have been reluctant to upgrade to El Capitan. Fortunately I didn't read it, upgraded, and have zero issues. It seems that no matter the product, I read the reviews, there may be 90% of the people liking it, and others trash the product and warn others to stay away. If I paid attention to all of this I would never buy anything.

Soooo many types of cameras available today, quality is better than ever, there is something available for everyone, yet the bitching never stops. Go take photos. Don't let the equipment be your handicap.

Just as a follow-up, we visited with full days September 10-18. We chose September since it worked best for my son and his job, instead of October, which I would prefer due to cooler temps and leaf color. Briefly we were at Bryce, Kodachrome Basin SP, Scenic Route 12 to Capitol Reef, Cedar Breaks and then Zion. Zion canyon had lots of people, but it is not difficult to get away from that. We got to Zion just after the 7 hikers were killed in that flash flood. Everyone's advice was spot on. We should have booked a bit earlier, but it worked out well. A note to myself if I have the opportunity to go again would be to study up on trails. The west is very different in not describing the trails and locations were tricky to find. Here in the East we are spoiled...parks have numerous books or booklets for trails, hikes to waterfalls, etc. but, heck, in Shenandoah NP, you walk 50 feet off a trial and they warn you it is wilderness! I really should post photos.

These lenses look interesting and a comparison with the Tamron 35/1.8 Di VC USD and Canon EF 35 2.0 IS would be interesting. Perhaps Canon should incorporate a blue spectrum refractive element into the lens first. If you add the price of a lens hood to the Canon, pricing is very similar.

Steve, unless you are against "the dark side" as is often mentioned on this forum, visit a Mac Superstore and check on Apple laptops. First, take a look at www.apple.com. It is probably still true that Macs are more expensive, but they come well configured. My experience with buying a Dell is six years old, so this may have changed: first you select a computer and it IS CHEAPER. That is because it is poorly configured and you need to add RAM and other upgrades to make it comparable to a Mac. Like I said, this may have changed. I don't mean to damn Widows computers, there are just as capable as a Mac, although I would never go back. Just suggesting to keep an open mind and take a look at Apple products.

The 70D is a fine camera. I had a 40D since 2007 and just recently upgraded to a 6D. I really like the 6D. It is simple without a lot of extra frills, does not have the high number of autofocus points or frame rate, but that is no handicap. It is affordable and does what I want, and does it well. Don't be swayed by the many complainers about lack of features. It is very rare that I take a photo even at 1/2500 of a second. Never took one at 1/4000, and a shutter speed of 1/8000 would not be possible unless you have a high ISO setting. Generally, the high ISO setting you would not use during bright daylight.

It is not cheap, but looks very nice,. A bit tired of Canon criticism all the time. I would buy one if I had the extra money.

A 24-70 seems to be the obvious choice if you do not mind the space/weight used by three zooms. I am not one that thinks three zooms lenses is necessary...two zooms and a single-focal length. Nor do I think every single millimeter needs to be covered. But this is me, not you. In reality I often carry a 17-40, 24, and 100 macro. unless I think there is a good chance to used it, I leave my 70-200 at home. I do have a 50 macro, but this stays at home. I sometimes carry just the 24 and 100 macro if not in a scenic area. I use the 24 for its sharpness and small filter size that I will use with neutral density filters for streams. Bottom line is that I use 4 lenses for 98% of my shooting (outdoors, landscape) but mostly carry three to suit the situation when in the field. If working form the car, then I may take everything. This is with my full frame camera. You might consider something like a 50 or 60 macro. To add to John Shaws comment; Galen Rowell once said he could have used just a 24mm and 85mm lenses for 90% of his photography. He was very mobile and that light weight suited his style. In reality, he owned and used a lot of lenses.

I would consider purchasing silica-gel in a very wet, humid rain-forest. I don't have any experience with that, but perhaps others can add to this. Not meaning to change direction of the post, but fell this could be an important issue.

Depending on how important night sky photography is, I would choose a 6D and a fixed lens such as a 24 2.8 IS. Prices have come down on the 6D and you could also consider refurbished. If choosing a crop body, I would consider other than Canon for a fast wide angle lens, or perhaps a third-party lens. Canon's lack of wide angle lenses for a crop camera is one reason why I went full frame. Pentax does have a 14 2.8 lens that is the near equivalent of a 24mm lens on a full frame camera. In addition, the Pentax wide angle lenses have DOF scales, something missing on most zooms.

Consider a move up to Lightroom.

I suggesting taking the photos in RAW and use a program like Lightroom to process them. Yo can have many "versions" of the same photo, yet the original RAW files in not modified. You could then crop as you like and export a JPEG that you may want to use on Facebook, say with a pixel of 1200 on the long side of the photo. Then later should you decide that the photo would make a nice background on your computer you could make another copy from the RAW file (since it has not been modified) and crop it to match your computer screen. The file size would naturally be much larger that the image you used on Facebook. The point is...using RAW when taking the photo, leaves many options for later use. If your camera is set to process small jpegs, you will limit yourself for other uses that require a larger file size, like a computer background or printing a large photo. In short, just use RAW, process the RAW for a JPEG image customized for the particular use, and don't worry about anything else.