james_taylor11

You could use Aperture to build a digital wedding album that is iBook ready. Also, you could create an amazing

slideshow that was optimized for the iPad. When the couple sync with their computer you could provide both the

iBook and slideshow for them to re-sync and everything would maintain the formatting you want. I've thought about this

and I'm convinced it would sell to some clients.

<p>

<p >I’m currently shooting with a 20D and 40D. I like both cameras; my only complaint is the auto focus doesn’t seem to lock on in low light situations very well. I’m also not convinced that the focus points are that accurate. I shoot mostly between 1.2 and 2.0 so I’m sure some, if not most, of it is my fault. I still can’t help but think at that aperture there may be better tools. My original thinking was that I would spend my money on good glass and get by with a lower end camera. I feel like I have a great collection of glass now and I think it’s time to start thinking about a better camera. I shoot mostly portraits and high school sports. I did second shoot three weddings last year and have am going to do three or four next year. I shoot at 200 ISO most of the time with the exception of football when I’m at 1600 ISO. The 20D/40D has been a little noisy, but I can live with it. Auto focus is the one thing I most want to improve from my 20D/40D.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >My first thought is that as soon as the replacement for the Mk III comes out the 1DMkIII will really drop in price. It seems to have received a bad rap and I can’t imaging people getting top dollar for a used model. This seems like the perfect camera for me as most of my sports shooting is indoors or evening. Bright light seems to be the bad time to shoot with this camera but I would imaging it would still be better then my 40D. Do you think this camera used will come down to under 2,000.00?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The other option is a 1DsMkII that I see for around 2,500.00. That is a little more then I want to spend, but that may come down in price as will with the release of the MkIII replacement. Also the 1DMkIIn is a possibility– not sure what that is going for at the moment.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >However, after thinking through all this I started wondering about the original 1Ds and 1D. Would the auto focus in these cameras be better then the ones I’m currently using? How much has technology improved over the years? How much better is the auto focus on the MkII versions over the original 1Ds and 1D? If the auto focus is great, I could use the 1Ds as my portrait camera and the 1D as my sports camera (8x10 is about as big as I print the high school sports stuff so I would think 4megs would be enough.) I could probably pick both up for the price of a used 1DMkIII. Any thoughts?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Thanks for any help with this,</p>

<p > </p>

<p >JT</p>

<p > </p>

</p>

Anyone had a 15mm Canon fisheye repaired? Mine has a few scrathces and I'm wondering if it is possible to

replace the front glass, and how much it might cost. Canon wants me to send it in for an estimate, but if it is

too expensive I don't want to bother with it.

Thanks,

James

Can't wait to hear what you think about them! They are on my wish list.

JT

So what does "high-rez" file mean? I always give 8x12 at 250 dpi when I give my clients their cd of images. However, I was looking through some high-rez files from another photographer recently that were all sized 5x7 at 250 dpi. Is there a standard high-rez file size?

Toni - Genuine Fractals may help al little, but that file size is hardly a decent 4x6. Alien Skin makes a program called Blowup that is similar to GF. They both should have demo versions so you can see what the finished product will look like. If you have Photoshop it works well also and you may not need GF or Blowup. You can uprez the file and then view at 50% on your monitor to get an idea of what the finished print will look like at that size. How big do you want to go? If you are just looking for 4x6 and maybe a 5x7 it would probably work to some extent. If you are looking for 8x10 or larger, you may be in trouble. Was the wedding shot with digital or was it film and then scanned?

JT

I keep an account with them - it's only six or seven dollars a month. They respond quickly to any request and their prints seem great when I checked them the first few orders. You can set your own custom pricing and have them print the files, or they will notify you of orders and you can have them printed at your own lab and then send them out. Password protected galleries are easy to set up as well.

JT

I believe that is exactly what the Vibrance Slider does in Lightroom - it saturates the primary colors but leaves skin tones untouched for the most part.

JT

"is solely freeing up one more flash"

This is not entirely true. Although I do use it as a wireless controller, its main purpose on my camera is focus assist in low light situations.

JT

"It's OK above f2 but at wider apertures is very unsharp."

Wow, I love this lens wide open. I agree it gets sharper at 2.0, but I find 1.4 very usable.

"The front of the element on this lens sticks out alarmingly close"

I felt the same way when it arrived. I put a filter on it and it doesn?t seem to have any problems.

JT

I would give it a thumbs up! I have the 35L also and would agree with above poster that it is slightly sharper wide open. However, the 24L is VERY usable wide open as well. This lens was recommended to me several years ago but I did not get it at the time (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00E3jv) Now that I?ve purchased it I wish I had added it to my kit back then - it is a great lens. I use it on a 20D/40D setup. I bet it?s even nicer on the 5D.

James

Yakim,

You are correct!

Although I wonder, if I put my 12mm extension tube on, followed by my 25mm extension tube, followed by my 1.4 extender, would I be close?

On second thought I'll just keep my 100 macro ;-)

JT

Hello,

I own the 100 macro, 135L, and 85L II. I would not want to part with any of them, they are all great lenses. However, the 85L II does things that no other lens can do. That would be my recommendation. Once you shoot at 1.2 it's hard to go back!

I will say that I use these on 20D/40D - I would think they would be even better on the 5D

JT

Canon XTi - 580.00

Canon 85 f/1.2 LII - 1664.00

Canon 135 f/2.0 L - 900.00

Canon 35 f/1.4 L - 1100.00

Total = 4,244.00

This would be my choice kit if I was just starting out and had 4,000.00 to spend. You will upgrade your camera in a few years, but lenses are for life.

James

On the PC I am able to have the image from my Canon go strait to my laptop using DPP (EOS Utility). I can then have Lightroom open on my computer and actively looking at a folder to auto import (you tell DPP what folder to put the images in. I tried this a few months ago and it worked. I would think you could do the same thing on a mac with the software you have.

JT

Yes - the TRA recipes are exactly what you are looking for!

James

Marc,

You mentioned "swapping systems makes me cringe." Does Nikon have equivalents to the 24 f1.4, 35 f1.4, 50 f1.2, and 85 f1.2? I thought Nikon was a little behind in fast prime lenses. Or would shooting at 2.8 with ISO 6400 be about the same?

Also, "not all that happy with the images when combined with fast L glass." Are they coming out too soft? I was thinking that camera had the best focusing system Canon has to offer and the results would be superior. Is this another case of the AA filter?

Would love to hear your comments,

James

http://www.lightroomkillertips.com/

I haven't look at the video yet, but it covers watermarks in Lightroom.

JT

"There's no way to automatically correct for this in Photoshop, DxO or any other image editor"

Thanks!

I have been wondering why I could not get this to work in Photoshop or Lightroom. I keep hearing it is an easy fix; I thought I was just a loser in Photoshop (well, I probably am a loser in Photoshop, but that?s beside the point). I get this with my 85 1.2 and my 34 1.4 wide open.

James

Thanks so much for the information! I apologize for not being more specific in my question. I have the 15mm fisheye and used it recently to take a self portrait while cycling. I wanted a little wider view, so I thought I would ask to see if the 10-22 would give me a wider view. It sounds like from the responses it would. However, now I?m thinking I would be better off picking up a film rebel (probably used around a 100.00) and just mount my fisheye to that.

Thanks again,

James<div></div>

Would the 10-22 ef-s or 15 fisheye have a wider view on a 20D?

Thanks,

James

Thanks! That is just what I needed.

James

Thanks for looking,

The only area I need to know about what is right at the round knob. If you loosen it a little (like you were going to change its position) how many washers are there and in what order?

James

That was model 2929.

James

Hello,

I ordered on of these to mount a flash to. It came in the mail with the knob

off and washes and parts all over the place. Is there a diagram to show how it

is supposed to go back together? If anyone has one could they take a photo of

how the pieces go together so I can re-assemble it?

Thanks,

James

Thanks Bob!

James