dillan k

<p>I guess I'll take a stab at this. The thing that helped me most with metering is this one very important fact: the meter looks at your subject and tries to show you how to make that subject middle grey tone. If you meter a pure white sheet of paper, the camera's meter will give you a reading which will make that white pieces of paper a middle grey colour.</p>

<p>When I started out, I almost always used the AV (aperture value) mode. In that mode, the way to approach the problem of metering changes a little. If you want to take a photo of a white piece of paper, and you are at f/2.8, you meter the paper and your camera gives you a reading, say 1/500 of a second. The reading it gives you will give you a middle grey photo of a white piece of paper. The trick for you is to slow down the shutter until you actually get a white piece of paper. Slow your shutter speed 1 1/3 stops by using exposure compensation (turn the wheel on the back of your 5D until the "carrot" moves 4 clicks to the right). That should give you a white piece of paper. Depending on how YOUR meter works, this may be too much or too little compensation. But hopefully you get the idea. YOU have to tell the camera what you are looking at. The camera always assumes it is looking at something middle grey. If you are looking at something dark, you will have to tell it to speed up that shutter until the subject is dark. The camera meter is not very smart, but it is consistent. If you know how it thinks, you can fool it.</p>

<p>The different metering modes take different portions of the scene into consideration when they determine their reading. The spot meter looks at only a very small portion of the scene. If you spot meter someone's face, the meter looks at the spot that you metered on and says "aha! I see THAT spot is middle grey!" If it isn't middle grey, you must adjust it. The spot meter is good for learning, because you are metering the part of the scene that you feel is most important. Meter on your subject's face. Tell the meter that the face is not middle grey. See what happens.</p>

<p>The centre weighted meter looks at the middle of the scene and meters mostly off the centre portion of the scene. It also takes into account the rest of the scene too, but not as much as what is in the centre. When I first started photography, I really didn't use this mode at all, because I didn't really understand it. Now, I use it 90% of the time. It works like a spot meter, but if there are other much darker or much lighter parts of the scene besides what is in the centre, it takes those into account too. For me, this mode works best.</p>

<p>On Canon cameras there is an Evaluative metering mode. This mode is most difficult to control, but it does a pretty good job on it's own when you're using the AV mode. In this mode the computer is looking at your entire scene and comparing it to a database of scenes, and metering accordingly. It's tough to compensate when using this mode, because you don't know what it's doing. It may decide your white piece of paper is snow and compensate for you. If you really don't want to think about it, use this mode, and most of your photos will come out fine. Not all of them, though.</p>

<p>So, I hope I have not confused you terribly. Really, I am trying to help! I recommend that you get yourself out of manual mode and into aperture mode (AV). I learned about metering by using AV and spot metering. Centre weighted is very good too. Play around with it, and see what you get. If you want a very simple book on the subject, I recommend "The Confused Photographer's Guide to Photographic Exposure and the Simplified Zone System" by Bahman Farzad. It makes what I tried to describe dead simple, and then it drills it into your head with seemingly endless simple examples. It's perfect for someone who is confused about all of this. I admit, I was, and the book really helped. It's simple to the point of being a bit pedantic, but that's exactly what I needed at the time.</p>

<p>Anyway, I hope this helps.</p>

<p>Thank you very much! I will enjoy this.</p>

<p><a title="Zoo Butterfly by Dillan K, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4079/4820112576_80f8cd135a.jpg" alt="Zoo Butterfly" width="500" height="333" /></a></p>

<p>My favourites are:<br>

<br /><strong>EF 50mm f/1.8 II</strong>. It's sharp, cheap, small and light. It goes with me when ever the camera goes. I've taken most of my best shots with it. It's the one lens that I won't be without, until I replace it with something better in the same focal length.<br>

<strong>EF 300mm f/4L IS USM</strong>. I bought this lens about a month ago, and I'm thrilled with it. I am a bit surprised at how much I'm using it. It's opened up a whole new world for me.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>If we human beings were driven purely by logic, I'd agree with you completely. Everything you have said does make logical sense. The fact is, though, that I'd rather drive a Ferrari to work than a Honda Fit, even though they'd both get me to work in approximately the same amount of time. I'll always try to find the highest quality tool possible for the job, even if I don't really need the best tool 99% of the time. I'd just love to be able to have that tool available on the day that I finally need it.<br>

Having said all that, part of me really agrees with you.</p>

<p>I once had a 28-105mm consumer zoom, but I've since (over the years) replaced it with a 24mm f/2.8, a 50mm f/1.8 and a 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens. I am very happy that I did. Now I have to think about each situation that I walk into. I love my primes. Now, I have to 'make' the photo with what I have on the camera. I become part of the situation. Like others have mentioned above, I have to be aware of how my chose focal length behaves when I use it. A 24mm lens is not the same as a 50mm lens, even if the subject is the same size in the frame. All in all, that's the way I like it. With primes I am more involved with the act of creating a photo. Yes, it takes more work, but it's more rewarding--in my humble opinion.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I guess I'd put towards what I did buy on Friday: an EF 300mm f/4L IS USM lens. Fricken' A! Now I finally have a long lens! I guess I've been a responsible adult for long enough. It's been 10 long years . . .</p>

<p>I second the EF 300mm f/4L IS USM with a 1.4x extender. I just picked up this lens, and I really like it. I do not have the extender, but I hear the combination works well. The lens is sharp and contrasty, even wide open. It is also light: only 2.6 lbs. I may be slightly bias, though, since I just got the lens yesterday. I've got to be honest!</p>

<p>Wow, that's terrible! I'd try your luck with Canon before declaring it "uneconomical." Don't feel too bad, Emmett, it could happen to any of us. I find in these situations it's not the economic cost that hurts the most, it's the self criticism. I really hope that this story has a somewhat happy ending. </p>

<p>I have the 24/50/100 combination that you speak of, and yes, it is perfect for the 5D. I'm sad to hear that your 24mm f/2.8 was broken in a fall. Like the poster above, I'd recommend that you see how affordable the repair bill will be for your 24mm. If it's isn't affordable, you'll have to consider getting another one, or weigh other, more expensive options. I feel for you. That's terrible luck!</p>

<p>I would expect that it would be compatible with the newest operating systems. I have not heard anything otherwise. I hope so, anyway, since I own a 5D! There are photographers out there using the old D30 still, so I really wouldn't worry about the 5D becoming unusable in the next 5 years.<br>

I picked the 5D for the same reasons you want a full frame camera. I have owned one for almost three years, and I have no complaints.</p>

<p>I've got a 50mm f/1.8 II and a 100mm f/2.8 which are both great lenses, but I do sort of regret having them because I'd rather have a 50mm f/1.4 and a 135mm f/2. I have a tough time justifying the move to my preferred glass because the glass I have really does a good job!</p>

<p>My most cost effective would have to be my trusty 50mm f/1.8 II. It cost me $130 Canadian, and I use it more than any other lens. It's sharp and light, and that means it goes with me whenever I have my camera. I know, there are better 50mm lenses out there, but really, you can't spend so little for such a good lens anywhere.</p>

<p>Wouldn't it be nice if the focus points were arranged according to the rule of thirds? All I'd need are 7 focus points. I'd be happy as a clam.</p>

<p>I'm a Canon guy, but I want to join in the fun too! In my little Lowepro waist-pack I have a 5D, a 24mm f/2.8, a 50mm f/1.8 II, a 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro, and if I've packed it right, a 420EX flash too. In the extra pockets I have a set of Lee ND grads, a Lee system holder, a set of Lee ND grads, and a B +W circular polarizer. Slung over my shoulder is a Manfrotto 190CXPRO3 tripod with a 488RC4 ball head on top.<br>

Truth be told, often the Lee stuff and the tripod are left behind, but when I'm feeling energetic, that's what I bring. I don't have a car at the moment, so I walk with it all, use my bike or bus it.</p>

<p>My lens collecting will be finished when my wife says it's finished! Seriously, though, my basic kit is complete now, but there's loads of room for improvement. With a little luck and an improving economy, I may be able to add a lens this year. Specifically I 'need' something longer than my 100mm f/2.8 Macro, and maybe a 50mm of higher quality than my 50mm f/1.8. Really, though, my kit is very capable even though it didn't cost me all that much.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For the price, you really can't complain. I've had mine for years and I've had no troubles with the build quality. It takes great photos. For the price, it's really good. I can replace it three times for the price of a 50mm f/1.4 too.</p>

<p>If you're on a budget, the 24mm f/2.8 isn't bad. It works well with the original 5D for me. I have never used the 24mm f/1.4, so I can't compare. It's very compact and light too.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I use a 5D, and I don't think I'd ever spring for a 1 series body just because they're so big and heavy. I like travelling light. I guess I'm lazy: a big, heavy camera would probably gather dust at home.</p>

<p>I was in the same boat as you are, and I opted for an original 5D (when it was still current). For me, the advantages of full frame for me made all the difference. I agree with Scott, though. Renting is a good idea. He points out a disadvantage of cropped sensor cameras too: the wide angle suffers. You may well find yourself buying a new wide angle lens. On the other hand, you could find yourself spending even more on some quality long lenses if you find yourself lacking if you've purchased a 5D.<br>

So, I too say rent, if you really don't know what you want. I would take the 5D MkII. I like my 50mm as a 50mm.</p>

<p>Tripod? The best advice that I could give is bring a light tripod. If you bring one, bring a tripod that you won't leave behind in the car. It'll be expensive, but if it's light enough, you'll use it. I use a Manfrotto 190CXPRO3, and combined with the Acratech ball head that I couldn't afford, you could have a relatively sturdy and very light rig. It'll hold my 5D and 100mm macro lens with ease. I have to say that I bought a cheaper Manfrotto head, and it's like a lead weight on top of my wonderfully light tripod. I should have sprung for the extra $200. Lesson learned. Don't cheap out! You'll regret it! You can get even better (and lighter) legs than I've got, but I think the Manfrotto legs that I bought are great. That's my $0.02 Canadian.</p>