bkpix

<p>Everything Ken Rockwell said that the OP quoted in the post above (about flat subjects and diffraction), is in fact, true, both in theory and in practice. In general I find his advice quite reasonable both for beginners and more experienced photographers.</p>

<p>I shoot both K-5 and 7D. Pentax is in general much more intuitive to operate. Pentax's green button, which in a sense zeroes your settings to the program line, is brilliant, as is the fact that the camera shifts into Tv or Av shooting when you turn the appropriate dial (and the green button brings you back to P).<br>

<br /> That said, I own a 7D for the autofocus and access to long lenses.</p><div></div>

<p>You've probably done this, but before panicking try removing and re-installing battery, and making sure that the battery has a full charge.<br>

Also be sure you have a card in the camera.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Steve: You can get Lenmar batteries for the 1D cameras for around $35 or $40. They work great.</p>

<p>I'm a K-5 user who just bought a 7D to use with a 100-400 L zoom after trying my son's 7D for a couple days.<br>

The Canon body is not as pleasant to use as the Pentax -- you and I are spoiled by the feel and use of that body -- but the autofocus is excellent. The 7D also has noticeably less dynamic range.<br>

But, since I already own the 100-400 from a previous incarnation, getting the 7D is quite a bit cheaper for me for birds than buying the Pentax 300/4 and wrestling with third-party converters. (Check out Canon refurbs on their website for better prices.)<br>

I haven't used the 400/5.6, but by reputation it's sharper than the 100-400 @ 400.<br>

I'm not sure it would be worth switching to a 7D if you're always going to be shooting in such a way (like at f/8) that the autofocus is crippled.<br>

Another Canon option would be to pick up an old 1DII ($400-$500 at KEH) or 1DIII body ($1,200-$1,300) instead of the 7D. Great autofocus and high frame rate even at f/8.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The worst part about getting a 1DIIn is going to be the possibility that you'll become addicted to 1D series cameras.<br>

The autofocus is an order of magnitude better than your 40D, especially if you shoot much action.<br>

The camera is tough as nails, and the user interface -- while completely different from your 40D, is very simple and intuitive once you learn it. The controls, by design, are immune to being bumped accidentally to a different setting. <br>

The frame rate is higher.<br>

The downsides are substantial, but many people live with them: Crappy, small LCD and no auto dust removal are at the top of my list. You also have to realize the camera is huge and heavy and, if I remember right, has an 8 meg sensor.<br>

I own a 1Ds that I got similarly cheaply a few years ago and still shoot with it now and then; the image quality is excellent, though it's now bettered by my Pentax K-5IIs.<br>

And you do realize that the crop factor is 1.3 rather than 1.6. That means your FOV is equivalent to a shorter lens.<br>

In my experience the original 2x converter on the 300/4 was not worth doing, though the 1.4 is quite good. The 2x converters may have improved in recent versions, though.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Interesting discussion about the origin of the old rule of thumb. As a student of history, I appreciate the effort to dig out actual sources.<br>

As far as photography goes, though, I'm amazed that anyone is arguing about exactly how much the "rule" needs to be modified in the digital age.<br>

This is a rule of thumb -- a rough approximation. <br>

With digital equipment, it would take far less time to try it out -- and thus establish your own rough rule, based on your own standards -- than to read even a fraction of what's been written on the web about the "rule."<br>

My own rule of thumb, based on experimentation, is two-fold:<br>

For small prints, something around 1/(3*focal length) is probably a reliable minimum for hand holding my crop camera if I'm careful. (Miracles do occur with stabilization -- sometimes -- and so you can get away once in a while with very unlikely long exposures. But that's once in a while.)<br>

If I care about image quality, I use a tripod, monopod, beanbag or other bracing.<br>

</p>

 

<p>Used to own the 19. Optically mediocre, wouldn't get it again.</p>

 

<p>Battery getting low in the cold?</p>

<p>A lot depends on your finances. If you can afford to buy the camera and a lens or two to try out, you can always resell if you don't like. One of the advantages of Canon over Nikon is the number of inexpensive used FF cameras on the market.<br>

I bought a $500 1Ds for exactly the same reason, to see whether FF makes sense for me. (It does.) The advantages are heavy pro construction, big viewfinder and excellent low ISO images. Above 400 noise gets to be pretty noticeable.<br>

Disadvantages are terrible rear screen (you can just about make out the histogram) and lack of automatic sensor dust removal. You get a lot of cleaning practice. Oh, and heavy pro construction. It's heavy.<br>

Also consider the 5D, which has a slightly better screen and is much lighter.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Perhaps the question is best settled experimentally: i.e., take some pictures.</p>

<p>It's a curious review site. They complain, for example, in their review of the Nikon D700 that "corner blurriness (is) a big problem with kit lens" and in their Canon 5D2 review that the camera (and this was listed as a negative) "requires a good lens for best results."<br>

<br /><br>

<br /></p>

<p>I find it hard to believe that your darkroom activity has anything to do with your septic tank problems (sorry, dad).<br>

The tank should be able to handle running water for 48 minutes a day without any issues. Sounds like the tank needs pumped or the drain field needs to be cleared out.</p>

<p>No.</p>

<p>It looks to me like the M8 photo is focused quite a bit farther back -- deeper into the tree -- than the 5D2. Note the sharpness and resolution of the fine tree branches that you can see clearly in the left side of the photo in the M8 picture; they can't be seen at all in the 5D2 picture.<br>

Perhaps if the M8 were focused on the same spot the images would be more similar. Might be time for a second test ;)</p>

<p>Try featureshoot.com, which updates just about daily. Also has an useful list of links in the right margin. Not user generated, but a good place to find interesting photography.</p>

<p>I've used both -- I own the 100-400 and my son owns the 300/4 + 1.4.<br>

The 300/4 + 1.4 combo is quite a bit sharper than the 100-400 at 400. It also may be faster, though I'm not positive on this.<br>

The 100-400 adds flexibility and is quite sharp at mid ranges but isn't stunning at 400.<br>

My son, by the way, is a regularly published bird photographer; the 300/4 + 1.4 combo is his go-to glass for most situations.</p>

<p>Another possibility is the Pentax K-5. Same sensor (and image quality) as the Nikon D7000 in a tougher, better-sealed package. Either of those crops cameras can turn out fine 20x30 prints.<br>

As others have pointed out, landscape is less demanding in a lot of ways on bodies, perhaps more so on lenses.<br>

It will also require you to be at the top of your game in postprocessing skills. You don't say where you are on that particular learning curve, but it's well worth investing time and money in learning how to get the absolute best image out of a digital file.</p>

<p>Fun video! Colvin looks a touch nervous on that second ladder.</p>

<p>:)</p>

<p>Three suggestions:<br>

1. Read <a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/06/starting-photography-now.html">this post from Mike Johnston at TOP.</a><br>

2. Other than that, stop reading internet gear sites like photo.net for at least a month.<br>

3. Take pictures with all your new free time.</p>

<p>I am inclined to say I agree with the OP, that larger format images have a look to them that is identifiable. Obviously the difference is not just resolution. But I think there is something, and it's not simply observer bias.<br>

Don't ask me what it is, though....</p>

 

<p>Main drawbacks of the original 5D are small low quality LCD and the lack of self-cleaning sensor. If you don't mind performing sensor cleanings yourself the 5D will work well.<br>

Also, though, I don't understand your concern about lack of wide glass for crop cameras. Nikon has a wide zoom that's legendary, and Canon's 10-22 EF-S zoom is outstanding. You could buy a 50D, instead of a 7D, and invest more money in lenses.<br>

Or you could stay with Nikon and save even more....</p>

<p>iPod + Mozart.</p>

<p>Just get a 1V and don't look back.</p>