edelson1

<p>The 70-200 mm L is generally regarded as one of the best lenses in the Canon lineup, especially at its price point. You are sacrificing IS (unless you get the 70-200 F4 IS, for almost double the price of the non-IS version) which is a bit of a negative on a telephoto zoom. However, it is light, easy to handle, and offers a fixed aperture.<br>

The 70-300 mm IS will give you greater reach, but you will sacrifice 1 f stop, which could be "made up for" with IS in the lens. It does, however, mean that in using IS to "improve" performance at 5.6, you are effectively giving up 1 F stop just for that, reducing IMO the 2-3 stop "advantage" IS claims to offer.<br>

The 70-200 optics and build qualities are superb. The 70-300 can produce excellent photos. I may not be helping you a lot here, but the choice really comes down to how much you need the extra reach beyond 200 mm for your work, because as good as the 70-200 is, it may be useless to you if you need that 200-300 mm range for your wildlife work.<br>

Henry</p>

<p>One other option can be to save the image as a locked pdf file. You can password protect user rights for printing and editing. This can allow you to email a file for viewing and supply a password allowing image printing and/or alterations once payment has been made (I'm assuming this is for commercial sale). You can do this right in PS when you use Save as..., including setting permissions at the time of saving.</p>

<p>Henry</p>

<p>It depends on your planned file usage. With commercial work for print (magazine, etc.) you may find clients/printers who ask for uncompressed tif's for maximal quality. However, even for demanding high resolution reproduction a well processed, properly sized file can be saved (as a final step, after sizing at the required dpi, and sharpening for the expected reproduction media are done) as a jpg without much effect on its "quality". While lossy compression does cause some mild degradation, using minimal compression on a file which will not be subject to further editing will likely yield a final output difficult if not impossible to differentiate from a lossless tif file. However, this does possibly mean preparing several "prepped" files suitable for different use, sized and sharpened for print or web, so you may have an 8X12 file, 12X18 file, and a 72 dpi low resolution jpg for web display. Doing this avoids the biggest problem associated with jpgs, which is cumulative degradation of image quality with repeated editing and resaving the same file, as each save results in a new lossy compression action on the file data. You will also want to save your "master" with layers in case you need to go back and re-edit the image.</p>

<p>So it's really a matter of storage space (pretty cheap these days) and organization. Assuming you start in RAW, you will end with saving the original RAW (your "negative"), an edited psd file with layers intact, and several flattened files saved, sized and save for intended use (print, web) in either tif or jpg format. Personally, I take this approach and maintain nested subfolders to be able to easily find the needed file.</p>

<p>So, IMHO, I see no problem saving a high quality jpg if you need to conserve space once you are sure all your edits are final (still having your original work available if you do need to re-edit). However, you can also subject tifs to lossless compression, and the file sizes, while not as small as a jpg, are still not unreasonable. Then it really is a question of individual workflow. I would rather have a few tifs available ready for use, than returning to re-edit the original file every time I need to print or post an image.</p>

<p>Henry</p>

<p>I think Patrick really covered all the points you need to examine. I do think, however, based on your description of the screen, it being so variable with small off axis viewing changes (a typical problem with cheap TN LCD screens) that either one, becoming accustomed to adopting a standard viewing position (monitor AND you), or two, calibrating with a device than allows for measurable adjustment of your screen brightness, will help solve your problem. If neither solutions help (a real possibility) you may need to accept the need for a separate screen, which is a real drawback with an all-in-one screen/computer solution. That, or as Patrick stated, the 24" model may be what you need (if you're still within the return/exchange period). The 24" model suggestion is based only on my personal impression from experiences posted by others, as I do not use a Mac.</p>

<p>Henry</p>

<p>Do you mean that when you view proof colors, your soft proof is too dark and this matches the final print? BTW, you should double check your proof setup to assure you're viewing the soft proof via the appropriate ICC profile for your paper. If so, your soft proofing is "performing" correctly, that is, rendering a screen preview of what you will get in print. In this case, brightening the image is indicated.<br>

But, I'm not sure that's what you meant to describe. Rather, it sounds like your soft proof "expectations" are based on past experience with your 2200. Remember, printers are different (especially here, with the 280 using Claria dye inks rather than pigments), and ICC profiles are paper AND printer specific. The same image soft proofed for the 2200 should be different than one for your 280.<br>

However, one last point when it comes to soft proofing, particularly with prints appearing too dark, is that your screen brightness is almost always too high. Unless your hardware calibration includes the ability to measure and adjust luminescence, most screens (LCD especially) are too bright and give you a false sense of image brightness prior to printing.</p>

<p>If your soft proof matches your output, you need to correct the image to print with the brightness you desire. If your soft proof is too bright, you need to check your workflow, assuring you're using the correct ICC profiles, both in the print dialog box, as well as the proof setup, and if all that is correct, reevaluate your monitor's calibration, particularly its brightness.<br>

I hope it helps.</p>

<p>Henry</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Congrats Patrick! As all have said, well deserved, and thanks for all the useful posts you share here.</p>

<p>Henry</p>

<p>Highly compressed jpegs can "lose" quite a bit of information during the lossy compression process. Converting them back to tiff will not recover any information, as it really was lost when you first compressed the image. The fact that the file ends up the same "size" is not an indication of improved "quality", and the conversion will not improve your printed output. While each time you convert a jpeg to tiff will not alter the original jpeg's quality, repeated saving of a jpeg will degrade image quality, as lossy compression occurs every time you "re-save" the image, even if you did not edit it in any way (remember, this is on saving only, not opening and converting to tiff, although as I already mentioned, conversion to tiff is not recovery process for lost information).<br>

Given the steady decreasing cost of storage, there really is no good excuse to save an image using a lossy, highly compressed format over a lossless format. However, if you create a final image that is sized, sharpened, and fit for opening and directly printing without any further editing, a high quality (low compression) jpeg can be a reasonable choice for storage, although that may mean having several copies of an image filed (monitor display optimized, 4X6, 8X12, 12X18, etc.) which can simply be opened and closed (not re-saved) for use/view. That's an issue of how extensive a filing system you want to maintain.<br>

Henry</p>

<p>For FF, Canon doesn't have much choice in very wide zooms, with either the 17-40 mm you mentioned, or the 16-35 mm. Going a bit longer and you end up jumping to something like the 24-70 F2.8 or 24-105 F4 IS. I can't think of a third party lens that would give you a wider range starting out 15-18 mm and going longer that I would recommend. As the 17-40 mm is "reasonably" priced, and is in my mind a bit of a specialty range lens (like the 10-22 mm for APS-C), pairing it with either of the above "L" lenses would be your best bet for covering a pretty nice range. Another possibility would be a 28-135 mm EF to complement the 17-40 (or 16-35) which would be more affordable, but might not meet all your expectations for performance with the 5D2. One other thought would be a wide prime (14mm, 20mm) for those times you need the widest FOV, paired with a zoom starting out in the 24-28 mm range, but I'm not sure it would be terribly cost effective compared to the 17-40.</p>

<p>Henry</p>

<p>You've received a lot of sound advice. You do, however, have pretty broad requirements to be met by a single lens. You will be very hard pressed to find a single prime lens to handle situations ranging from lower light indoor to groups, portraits, and landscapes. A 28 mm prime (44 mm FF equivalent FOV) may be considered close to what used to be considered a "standard" lens on a 35 mm camera (generally 50 mm was typical, although I always preferred 35 mm for a standard walkaround lens, about 22 mm for a 1.6 crop sensor), but neither of these are great choices for portraits. For me, at least, thoughts of lower light work really bring the utility of IS into the decision making process. While you won't get the nice, shallow depth of field of larger aperture primes, you can still get decent separation from the background at F4 if you pay attention and give the subject a bit of room to step forward from the background. IS is simply plain too handy to pass on for a single lens solution.<br>

Given the need for flexibility and a good argument for IS, zooms are your best single lens solution. The 18- 55 mm IS is cheap and optically acceptable, but 55 mm may be somewhat limiting at the long end. The ever contentious 17-85 mm IS covers a terrific range, has excellent IS performance, and if you have no bias against PP, its 17-20 mm problems (barrel distortion and CA) can be easily corrected, even on jpegs (PTLens will work with jpegs and can be used as standalone if you're not using a photoshop plugin supporting PP solution, DPP offers corrections built in as well). The 24- 70 mm 2.8 is fast and sharp, but well outside your budget and is not the lightest solution to carry around mounted all day. The 17-40 mm is excellent (especially for a FF camera) but 40 mm is awfully short for a crop body, and you are stuck with F4 and no IS. In some ways, while optically inferior, the 18-55 IS would better serve you than the 17-40 mm lens.</p>

<p>Finally, you can simply let her use your 18-55 mm and see how she likes it (borrow it back when you need to go below 28 mm yourself), or seriously consider the 17-85 IS, which would fit her needs, and complement your current lens selection as well (yes, lots of overlap, but not in an all in one lens solution).</p>

<p>Henry</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The 580 series is a superb flash system. Another advantage of the EX II over the EX I, other than the weather resistant hotshoe, is an improved battery compartment door. If you have not used ETTL/TTL Canon flash in the past, it's worth reading the articles on it at photonotes.org.<br>

http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/#ettlii<br>

Henry</p>

<p>I have the 85 mm 1.8, and while it is an excellent lens, with a nice shallow DOF, it is a little long for a portrait lens on a crop body (136 mm 35 mm FF equivalent). I also have a 70-200 F4 non IS, which is a superb lens, but F4 does not give as nice a shallow DOF as the F1.8 can (BTW, I almost never use it wide open, but usually 1 stop down). Lately, I've found my 60 mm F2.8 EF-S macro to be a terrific portrait lens. It's sharp as a tack, gives a nice shallow DOF, and is light to carry. All three lenses have their strengths, and are, IMO, complimentary to each other in use. However, in retrospect, I'm not sure I would have bought the 85 mm if I had the 60 mm macro first. The 70-200 mm is in its own class, and a terrific lens (IS or non-IS).</p>

<p>Henry</p>

<p>Look at the Nvidia 8800 Gt 512 Mb (same as 9800 GT) or ATI Radeon 4850 512 Mb. Both can be found <$200 and both support CS4 GPU acceleration features.</p>

<p>henry</p>

I'm running it on Vista 32, and have to agree, the changes have been, for me, pretty positive. Workflow feels faster and OpenGL worked for me without a problem. I think this is a far more significant upgrade than CS2 to CS3 was.

Henry

You can try and sell your equipment to stores with large used equipment departments. Places such as B&H Photo, Adorama, and K&H (I only know from reputation) all buy used equipment, but you will receive less than a sale to a private individual would yield. It's just like selling a car.

You can post your equipment for sale on sites such as here, which has a classified section, or Fred Miranda's site, which also has an active classifieds section. You will likely get a better price from a private sale, but will need to work out a proper payment arrangement with a private buyer which will protect both parties.

Not having the original boxes may decrease the value a bit, but you should be able to offer evidence of proper ownership, especially the original sales receipt, to expect a potential buyer to complete the purchase.

Good luck.

Henry

(of course, there's always ebay.......)

I too went from a 20D to a 40D, and the difference is quite noticeable. While the IQ is somewhat better (photos

from the 20D were excellent), the entire "package" was a clear step up. One of my favorite changes is the ability

to change custom settings without memorizing custom function numbers. Each one is actually named so it's much

easier to "customize" on the fly, far better than struggling to remember what custom function 12 was for. The

larger LCD also makes a significant difference in usability. Live View is actually useful under certain

conditions. While the 20D could probably have accomplished the same, it's touches like these that just improve

the 'workflow" when out taking photos. These examples might sound like minor issues, but when examined as a whole

camera, these, and other functions, simply improve the ease of use. Personally, while I believe the 50D is

superior to the 40D in some areas, I'm not rushing to get one, but again, that is based on my own needs, and may

not apply to others.

Do I believe I benefited from upgrading from the 20D? Yes. It is simply a better camera to work with. I do take

IQ into account in that judgment, but it is not the primary reason that improved the camera's value. Rather, it's

the overall improvement in handling and flexibility in use. I believe the same is true of the 50D based on my

admittedly limited use of one.

I'm not one who jumps at the latest gadget that comes along, which frequently add only small, incremental

improvements. But, the 50D, as well as the 40D (that high res screen on the 50D alone is really tempting to

consider a move up from a 40D) are simply better cameras than the 20D. Does that decrease the value of your 20D

for your own use? No. The 20D is still an excellent camera, capable of producing superb photos. However, there is

no denying the newer models offer an improvement in usability and IQ. Whether you need that is up to you. There

is nothing wrong with continuing to use your 20D so long as you're satisfied with it. But, don't be dissuaded

from considering an upgrade because of reviews or comments that are less than raves. The reality is the overall

improvements in these newer cameras enhance the pleasure of working with them.

Henry

Try removing the period between 080924.IMG. The period is meant as a convention to act to delineate the remainder as the file type, such as ".tif". Everything after that first "." is being read by PS, which of course doesn't recognize the "file type" as delineated by the first period. Periods are no no's in file naming structures, which is why you likely can't open the tif file, and is the reason "_" is frequently used as a spacer to separate words or other info in the file name. As to the original RAW file, are you sure that its name was also not altered when you went through the editing process?

Henry

I rely on the screen protector on the camera. As you stated, it's inexpensive and easy to replace. However, I've yet to sustain damage to it on either a 20D or 40D. While i don't slap it onto walls, or clean it off with sandpaper, I didn't coddle them either, and have yet to have a mark appear (I think I got the 20D in early 2005, so it was over 3 years without a problem before selling it for the 40D about 6 months ago). I personally have not felt the need to buy additional protection for my screen.

Henry

Do you have the same issue when capturing both jpeg and RAW files? With a RAW image, you can bypass "styles" altogether and judge exposure alone (certainly in ACR, but I believe even using Canon's DPP you can elect to have it disregard in camera style selections). If you find that your exposures are satisfactory in RAW, you can use Canon's style editor to create your own "styles" to apply automatically when you wish to use them, including adjusting the curves applied to the image for in camera jpeg capture.

If your exposures are inaccurate even in RAW, then I would agree, a trip to Canon is in order.

Good luck,

Henry

I think the only issues to consider will be, assuming production units hold to the standards reported, would be

the reduction if AF points compared to the 1D series, and certainly, the lower fps. The issue is your style of

work. Do you need high frame rates or can you live with 3-4 fps? And do you currently rely on the multi-point

focus of the 1D for action, or do you have time to compose and work with fewer selection points ?

If those don't limit you, and testing reveals performance to be as claimed, I think it would be an awfully good

body for work. I also would not consider it to be a "prosumer" body, such as the xxD series. I also wouldn't

worry too much about the expected shutter life. If you're busy enough to shoot >100,000 shots in a short time,

hopefully the replacement cost (which all considered is not that much, at least on current bodies, but who knows

on a new model) won't be an issue.

I think if the specs as known aren't a limitation for you, and if the reviews support what's been presented to

date, it is an excellent, cost effective solution (still, it's not a high speed action body).

Henry

There are non-adhesive clear plastic films that can be used. I know Giotto offers sets based on LCD size (at

B&H). They're pretty much the same types of film you might use on a cellphone or ipod screen. In fact, you can

simply buy those screen protectors and cut them to fit yourself, as they may be cheaper than a "dedicated" precut

film. There are also hard plastic covers made usually specifically for a camera body/screen to offer impact

resistance, which films do not. So, it's a question of what potential damage you're worried about to decide what

type of protection you're looking for.

BTW, the surface of your LCD screen is in fact a clear plastic cover to protect the actual screen beneath, and

can be replaced if damaged.

Henry

<p>It really is much cheaper to manufacture smaller sensors as the fabrication plants use the same size silicon wafer, apparently about 20 FF sensors on a standard 8 inch wafer, vs. 200 APS-C sensors. Other issues relating to standard lithography stepping sizes also complicates matters and is a burden on FF area sensors rather than the smaller APS-C size. Here is a link to an interesting article on sensor manufacturing.

<a href="http://www.chipworks.com/blogs.aspx?id=4626&blogid=86">link</a></p>

<p>While sensor cost is not the major manufacturing expense in a camera body, there is till a differential not only in the manufacture, but also R&D to consider. Depending on improved techniques, increased yields, and acceptable profit margins, the price differential of a FF camera may decrease, but is unlikely to be competitive against APS-C, certainly on low or mid end models. Henry</p>

Had you reset your camera time to allow for the time change back to ST? Perhaps CS4 retrieves the current time from the actual file properties (not EXIF data, but actual file data, in win based OS at least) and is having a problem resolving the file time stamp and the EXIF time stamp. Just a thought.

Henry

I would have to agree with most of the opinions you have been given. Yes, it's always nice to have a larger

aperture. But, practically, you're only gaining one stop for the price of a sore neck. If much of your work is

indoor event photography, the 2.8 may give you some advantage. Are you working in conditions where you can't

offset the aperture advantage by a 1 stop bump in ISO?

It really comes down to your subject mater and shooting style. Personally, I have a feeling you'll use the F4

version more than the 2.8, just out of the practical issue comfort if you're on your feet a lot.

Regardless of your final decision, enjoy! Both are superb choices.

Henry

Lightroom/Photoshop's ACR is certainly the most harmonious, or integrated solution for your workflow if DPP isn't doing what you need. You may, however, want to consider DxO Pro Optics 5.3 (latest version) provided you check the website and verify it supports your camera and lens combinations. It really is quite good at cleaning up specific issues known to be seen with individual lenses and camera bodies, making distortion, CA, and vignetting pretty painless to correct.Once set up, it can batch process an entire set of images and send a tiff file output to a specific location, or even open them in PS, where it also has a plugin interface you can install. It is a more expensive solution than say toneup3, but it also gives you excellent noise reduction when needed, along with competent initial "capture" sharpening.

Henry.

The 2400 is being replaced by the new 2880. The 2880 is a superb 13" B&W printer, and uses 3 "colors' of pigmented black ink (photo or matte black, light black, and light, light black). Now, as far as "best value" or economic alternative", the 2880 is expensive, but does deliver the goods. You can likely find a 2400 still in stock significantly marked down.

You can certainly look into something like an Epson 1400 printer (Claria dye based unit) and see who would carry a compatible B&W CIS to fit, which would give you an inexpensive solution still able to handle 13". I cannot, however give you any feedback on a replacement ink source as I never went down that path after kicking the idea around. I'm certain another member can give you some feedback on the conversion of a 1400 for dedicated B&W. The 1400, relying on its OEM dyes for B&W printing will give you pretty tepid results. The single black ink of a 6 ink system made it very hard, at least for me, although it could be done with some effort. The use of the popular QuadTone RIP shareware program can be very helpful if want to pursue that type of solution. Still, it's not the same as the Epson 2880's "9" ink (only holding 8 cartridges so you'll be swapping the matte and photo black cartridges if you frequently change paper surfaces) system in combination with Epson's advanced B&W driver. The quality is absolutely stunning on good paper. And it still provides excellent color output, with a somewhat wider gamut than the preceding 2400.

It comes down to your budget and what quality of print you intend to achieve. You may want to look at the Canon and HP solutions that are more affordable than the 2880, but for me, the Epson was worth the extra cost.

Henry

Henry