rocco1

<p>Been there, done it, and with a 70-200mm 2.8. And will continue to do so! Forever!</p>

<p>I agree - I regularly make 24"x36" prints from my 20D's, perfectly, without any kind of artifacts or pixelation showing up.<br>

There is something going wrong between processing and print.</p>

<p>More and more I am getting a request from wedding couples to have a picture of their guests taken in a group, where you are much higher than they are, and they are standing in a bunch looking up at you. As hard as I try not to do it, I find that wedding couples are usually very happy with it.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I must agree with Melissa - having a 70-200mm f2.8 is a totally a different ballgame. I seldom stand faar from my subject just to get away from the action, but having that lens enables you to get the best portrait pictures you can imagine. If I had to choose ony one lens for a wedding, it would be the 70-200mm f2.8.</p>

<p>Use rechargeble batteries. If I remember correctly, it is advised somewhere in the manual as well. They give a better runtime, and don't blow up flashes.</p>

<p>Well, you have used it - what did you experience? Was the AF on the 1D better than the XSi? I am willing to bet, since that is one of the main problems with low light shooting. For that reason alone I upgraded from 20D to the 1D MkII, with no regrets. Of course, as far as functionality is concerened, everything is to like...</p>

<p>Somehow Canon have a different view of what lenses are required by users. Not wide enough? Yea, I would love to see something like a 10/12mm-24mm in a "L" lens.<br>

Also a f/2.8 "L" zoom lens with that covers the 50mm range and has IS.<br>

But behold - there are 4(or 5) different 70-200mm models to choose from...</p>

<p>To answer the original question - I always use M. Can't remember when was the last time I used anything else!</p>

<p>Upgraded from my 20D's to 1D MkIIN - and is giggeling histerically over it. The 1D is a professional camera. It feels and works like one. If you wonder if you should, I can only surmise that you have never worked with a 1D. See if you can rent one, and take it for a spin. Then make up you mind.<br>

And don't let anyone tell you pixels matter. Remember that the smallest picture the average Dslr take is roughly a jumbo print in size.</p>

<p>If you have the dough - get the f/2.8 IS. Won't be sorry, specially the first time you take a picture where you need ISO6400/f2.8/1/8 sec. Mine is also welded on my camera, and only when I really really can't get the shot with that lens, then I use another. That is usually only when I need to shoot something that is wider that what I can get with tht 70mm in the available space I have to work in. Don't bother with the extra weight, you get used to it.</p>

<p>Being a trusting soul I might imagine that the client want to ensure that he get the best quality from the picture by extracting from the RAW file himself. But I do side with the argument that the client would not know what to do with a RAW file - using buzz words are cheap nowadays...</p>

<p>There are many options. For me, the only option that seem to be perfect, was to get another camera body identical to what you have. When I started professional, I had a 20D. So I got another 20D as backup. Soon, there was a very good and acceptable reason for a second backup body. Management saw the light, and so I used three 20D bodies with my fellow photographer for almost 5 years. Yea - you don't always have the financial backup for something like that, but then you might consider a used 5D as an alternative. If something should go wrong, the backup body is there.<br>

Another note - it is also a good idea to service your camera at least once a year. I never had any of my 20D's fail on me. And they counted almost 150000 pictures total.</p>

<p>I know of few people that traded in their 1d Mk whatever for a 5D / 7D and came up telling you about the roses. Maybe they experience something that makes the 1D series just that much a better choice?<br>

I would go with the 1D MkIV</p>

<p>Those are two different classes calling for two different camera's. Yes, you can use either one, and you will get the goods. I know many photographers that does both sports and portraits with a Canon 20D, with good results.<br>

But for "optimum" results you should use a 5D for portraits and 1D Mk3 for sports. But that is not set in granite, it is just an indication when you compare paper specs with each other, like camera response / image quality / AF / frame rate / etc</p>

<p>Too bad these threads don't have the option for ratings - I would give quite a few people 7/7! Like Ben, Chas, Dan to name just a few.</p>

<p>Ok, 5 years later. <br>

Had the 20D, took more than 120000 pix with it. This week I took up a 1D Mk2N. Took about 1000 pix. <br>

Wouldn't want to swop back again.</p>

<p>I have the 500D that I use on my 100-400mm, but I get the impression that it doesn't like the short end close to 100mm. Keeping that in mind I assume that the 250D would work perfect on the 85mm. If you want to use it on the 70-200, you might think of getting the 500D.</p>

<p>Short Version: Pros use the camera that delivers the goods.<br>

If they brought out a 1Dx camera that use a "2.5" crop factor, and it can deliver a image that looks the same as the current 1Ds Mk3 at half the price, then the pro's would propably fall over their feet to buy it. But it would be impossible. There are real reasons for it.<br>

So the pros get the camera they can afford that does the best for what they want to do. It is not always about the sensor size. There are other factors that affects what a given pro use. Often the faster frame rate wins over IQ.</p>

<p>When I bought my first 10D, I tried the pop-up flash. About once. Thought it was a bad idea, and got a 550EX. When I upgraded to a 20D, I had another look at the pop-up flash. Still a bad idea - I added the 580EX. Reading this post made me realize that I have never taken a look at my 1D Mk3 if it has a pop-up flash or not! I don't think it has one.. Would not bother to go take a look in any case. The 580EXII does the job without me wanting something as small and silly as that.</p>

<p>Lot of interesting view posted here. After thinking about it a log time, I realized that it ties in with another disscussion I had a while ago, having the same conclusion. It would seem that photographers are not overemphasising technology. Rather it is the other way around. Technology is slowly but surely squeezing "the art of photography" out of photography.<br>

More and more I note that where photography is being discussed, it is 99% about the technology and the other 1% is who is going to buy the beer. The more time goes by, I find that I am unable to communicate "photography" with other photographers. To me, photography is 99% art, and 1% technology. never mind who buys the beer. So at first glance, it would seem true - photographers are putting a lot of emphasis on technology. However, keeping any conversation up long enough, you find that the technological discussion is a cover for ignorance about photography.<br>

Having a great camera doesn't make you a good photographer. All true photographers know that, but then - true photographers are a dying breed. They are slowly but surely being replaced but the proliferation mega megapixel camera owners.<br>

Just my opinion</p>

<p>I for one is upstream on the big/small card debate. I use the biggest card available for my budget (8Gb) but never take it out of the camera. I use a networked WFT for transfer to PC.<br>

I might be wrong, but constantly removing and replacing cards seems to add the element of wear and tear that just might make the perfect reason for a card to fail. Just my opinion.</p>

The biggest killer of cards the repeatedly remove and install - after the last card failed on me, I have 8Gb cards in all

my camera's, and NEVER remove them. I use a WFT in the studio, and if I have to dump due to a full card, connect

the camera directly to the computer. And for the last 3 years, I haven't lost a single pic or card.

I just realised a few things...

 

Why isn't there any article ANYWHERE called: "how to give film a true digital look"? Just wondering.

 

People that use digital say it's better than film...

 

People that say film is better... on no, that doens't work. All the other that doesn't really use digital say it doesn't

really matter what format you use, the important thing is to know what you are doing with what you have.

 

If nothing else, this thread (and the other one) made me think again. I do really long back to those days of the

colloidal wetplates.

1.) Refund them 100%

 

2.) For the next month, cry yourself to sleep each night.

 

3.) After getting tired of it, do the opposite of what everyone else in the past has ever told you about using a bunch of cards on an event, and get ONE HUGE card, like an 8Gb / 16Gb. Never take it out of your camera, and teach yourself to dump / write to two DVD's (Take note - backup your backup!) / and then format the card.

 

4.) When you have 120000 pix backed up without LOSING A SINGLE ONE, start telling other people to do the same.

Sounds like the best lens to get is a bigger studio. Keep field of view in mind - anything shorter than about 50mm is going to give you distorted faces on a short range... And no lens is going to fix that!