Burnsie

Now this young lady (my granddaughter) makes it a little more challenging to capture some action with the RP.

My Canon RP is not the greatest at sports pictures, but this little guy (my grandson) makes it fun and easy. :)

William Michael provides some great advice here. I to have a 7Dii and for low light, I almost always bring a couple of primes. I really like the pancake lenses than Canon came out with. I use both the 24 mm EF-S and the 40mm EF lenses. 2.8 is fast and the iso on a 7Dii can be bumped up significantly and still produce some great images, especially if you shoot raw and edit in LR. I have debated going to full frame, but have so much invested in my crop sensor lenses, I am reluctant to pull the trigger yet. Especially after reading the reviews of the 6Dii and it doesn't seem to be that much of an improvement in dynamic range. I do love the 7Dii. Best camera yet I have gotten in a crop sensor Canon format.

<p>Thanks Dave and Jeff. For the reasons you gave, I plan to have both my 55-250 and the superzoom out to 1200. The Superzoom is good but not great, but I have nothing else even getting close to 1200. On my crop body 60D, the 55-250 gets me to 400 mm equivalent.<br>

That inexpensive lens actually does quite well at the max end. (At least my copy does.) So I should get decent pics up to 400 mm and will crop some if needed to get an even closer high quality shot. Anything we get with the superzoom from 400 to 1200 equivalent will just be bonus. <br>

Given the feedback on the superwide, I am bringing it. And my 24-105 will flll the gap between 22 and 55. So 3 lenses it is.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>Thanks for the good feedback on cruise ship lighting and photo ops. What I suspected but was not certain. <br>

If I don't need 2.8 on the ship, I am likely to leave behind the 17-55 since it is fairly heavy and I can cover the focal range with my 10-22 and 24-105. All 3 lenses are good copies and I get good shots nearly all the time from any of those lenses.<br>

One clarification: The tripod was not for while on the ship. It was going to be for when we are on land (Denali in late evenings / early mornings, when we are on 1 of the 2 photo tours. (Time lapse of night skies, low light low ISO shots, etc.) And it's pretty easy to pack and carry via backpack (collapses to 13 inches and only weighs a couple of pounds). Once on the ship, it will get stowed away in our cabin.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>So my wife and I are finally checking off one more item on our bucket list and are headed to Alaska from mid to late August this year for a 12 day rail/cruise tour with Princess Cruises. First cruise for us. First and very likely our only time in Alaska. We are obviously excited. getting old is not so bad it seems. :)<br>

We will fly into Flagstaff, and be with the Princess cruise group via bus / train to Denali, McKinley, Whittier/Anchorage, and then on the ship seeing Skagway, Juneau, and Ketchikan as well as seeing glaciers on the way. At least 2 small group photography tours already planned and several other excursions along the way. I will probably shoot far too many pictures! :)<br>

I am trying to decide on what camera equipment to bring with me on the trip. Here is what I have available.<br>

Canon SuperZoom SX50 IS (12MP) (24-1200 mm zoom equivalent)<br />Apple iPhone 6+ (8MP)<br />Canon 60D (18MP)<br /><br />Canon EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5 <br />Canon EF 24-105 f/4 L IS<br />Canon EF-S 55-250 f/4.0-5.6 IS II<br>

Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS<br />Canon EF 100 f/2.8 Macro<br /><br />I want travel as light as possible but also shoot as much as possible at best quality. I know, it is impossible. :) <br>

I want to pack it all in my Domke F-2 bag so I am looking to leave somethings behind. (I am bringing my smaller tripod with ballhead also.)<br>

My plan is to have my wife use the Canon SX50 to get distance shots of wildlife, scenery, etc. using that 1200 mm effective zoom. Since most of our work ends up on my computer screen for our enjoyment (minimal printing) and I use Lightroom to post process everything, I am not too worried about the image quality of that little sensor. It beats lugging a large zoom lens around.<br>

I find myself using my iPhone 6+ a lot now for up close people shots both indoors and outdoors. It has essentially replaced my DSLR for spur of the moment shots. So that is going for sure also.<br>

My current DSLR lens plan is to leave behind the 17-55 and the 100 macro lenses. I can easily store the first 3 lenses, the 60D and the Superzoom in the F-2 bag, with my batteries, filters, etc. <br>

Two choices to make: <br>

1) Leave the 10-22 behind?<br>

2) Leave the 24-105 behind and bring the 17-55 instead, since it pairs well with the 55-250?<br>

Would I use the 10-22 that much on deck or outdoors or are we so far away from stuff that the wide angle is not really needed? An alternative for wide angle shots is to use panoramic mode on my iPhone. Not as great quality as my 10-22, but one less lens to carry. Of course if I have a chance to shoot a night scene Aurora Borealis and I needed that 10-22 and don't have it, I will be very bummed. But do I need it for that remote possibility, or can I get by with just the 24-105? people who traveled to Alaska - did you use their super wides that much?<br>

Regarding the 17-55: Can I get by without a 2.8 lens indoors on a cruise ship? Not sure what lighting levels are like. The 60D is ok at ISO 800 and hand held I am usually ok at f4.0 for decent light levels, but I hav eno idea what the cruise ship lighting will be like - dimly lit church or bright rooms? I prefer the 24-105 for minimal lens switching especially if it is rainy when we are on land. <br>

Any thoughts or feedback is appreciated.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>I have a 60D and often shoot indoor church scenes or night shots, that require low light capability, as you are suggesting. These days, I usually use my Canon 17-55 2.8 zoom lens, although I used to use prime lenses at 1.8 aperture (28, 50, 85, etc.) But I find these days it is easier to just walk around with my 17-55. </p><div></div>

<p>Sam,</p>

<p>I have a 17-55 on my 60D for a few years now. I replaced my earlier Canon 18-55 kit lens and later a 17-85 Canon. </p>

<p>I usually shoot in manual or constant aperture mode. For my handheld landscape shots (usually at f8, outdoors in sunlight with around ISO 100 light levels), the previous 2 lenses and the 17-55 were essentially the same. I kind of expected that. But indoors without flash at only slightly higher ISO levels, the 2.8 option in the new lens is a big advantage for me. Indoor church settings usually don't allow flash and a tripod is clumsy, so I was previously stuck with getting a lot of blurred or high noise shots. Teh 17-55 gives me a lot more flexibility in low light. </p>

<p>Dust really won't affect the images, but I put a UV filter on the front of the lens when i bought it new and leave it on all the time, unless I need a polarizing filter. It prevents dust from coming in when you zoom in and out. There are small openings in the front of the lens that dust comes in from air getting sucked into the lens during zoom action. The UV filter prevents that from happening.</p>

 

<p>Based on your responses, I am thinking that when you imported the images from your USB thumb drive, you selected the "<strong>Add</strong>" option in the dialogue box at the top. This tells the LightRoom program that it should always find the original images on your USB drive. If you disconnect the USB drive from your PC, later when you open the LightRoom program, it will not be able to find the original images and will use the lower quality preview file (if it even got created during the import process). To avoid this, whenever you import images (especially from a USB or other removal media like a SD or CF card), always select the "<strong>Copy</strong>" option and pick a location on your hard drive to place the original images. There are many ways to organize your original images (using subfolders, renaming the files, etc.). It does not really matter what organizational system you decide to use, just never move or rename the images on your hard drive, after you use LR to import them, using the Mac or Windows operating system methods. You can choose to move or rename files within the LightRoom program itself if you want and the database will remember the changes you made. That should fix your problem.</p>

<p>Double tapping on iPad is 2X. so set your <strong>short</strong> dimension to <strong>3072</strong>. that way you get full resolution when you double tap on the image. (2 x 1536 = 3072).</p>

<p>I did the exact trip you described in April 2011, except for The Wave. I did not get the lottery ticket and decided to not camp out day before. Plus there was so much at the other places, I did not really miss it.</p>

<p>For lenses, I would recommend the wider the better. I used my Sigma 10-20 on my 40D crop (equivalent of the 17-40 Canon on your 5D). I think the 17-40 lens is a very good choice for you, especially at Grand Canyon, Zion, and especially Horseshoe bend and also a little bit at Monument Valley and Bryce, where you will find yourself dialing in between 17 and 24 a lot, just to capture the vistas. </p>

<p>But most of Monument Valley and Bryce (and likely the Wave) and all of Antelope, you will want to use the long end of the 17-40, or better yet also rent a zoom in the 24-70 range and use that. (I used my 17-55 lens a lot at those locations - and exclusively at Antelope, since I did not want to change lenses in there - far too dusty.) Zoom lenses will give you much more flexibility than your primes, and save you switching lenses. I shot 90% of outdoors at f8, so the slower zoom lens speed did not matter.</p>

<p>I had a 70-300 along also, but I only used it in a few places. Probably less than 5% of my 2,000 pictures. If I was doing it over, I might have left that at home and just brought my 85 prime and 1.4x tele-converter for the occasional long shot(lighter and easier to carry.)</p>

<p>Photo tour option at Antelope is a must. I did that and it was worth the extra money (the guide clears people out of your way, hit the beams at exact right time, etc.) My daughters also just got back a few weeks ago and saw Canyon X as well as Upper Antelope in one day. They wished they had done the photo tour, but they still enjoyed it all.</p>

<p>Last, spend the extra $ (not too much extra really) and have the Navajo Indians take you on a tour of Monument Valley. We did not stay overnight, but the guides took us places the general public is not allowed. The views and shots there were the highlight of the trip for me. Simply amazing.</p>

 

<p>OP = Original Poster (i.e., you when you sent the first message.) :)<br /> A second vote for the Sigma 10-20, but maybe also look at the newer Sigma 8-16. Very wide, but you can correct for lens distortion automatically in Lightroom 4. (All major Canon , Sigma, Tokina, etc., lenses.)</p>

<p>Chris</p>

<p>Gary, I too searched long and hard for this exact situation and there is a lot of misleading information out there and no clear answer on the new iPad. After doing some experimenting with a few images and my new iPad and LR4, and then doing a lot more reading, this is what I learned works best. I have a customized LR4 export preset that I use for this purpose, which is very easy to create.</p>

<p>JPEG 80 quality, sRGB color space</p>

<p>Resize to fit - <strong>Short</strong> edge at 3072 pixels (I set the resolution at 264 pixels per inch, but that really doesn't matter as mentioned above)</p>

<p>Output sharpening to Screen - Standard</p>

<p>This gives amazing pictures zoomed out on my new iPad and even better when you double tap and zoom in.<br>

Of course you need a camera that can produce images this size or bigger (~12MP - 14MP images will work on non-cropped images and if you have a camera in the 16MP or bigger, then you can crop images and still have at least 3,072 pixels on the short side).<br>

I am now redoing all my images that I had on my iPad 1, using these new settings. It is a lot of work, but worth the improvements, especially when zoomed in.</p>

 

<p>Jon,<br>

I just upgraded to a 60D from my 40D that I had for about 3-4 years and I would recommend that choice, given your description of what you like to shoot and your budget. I got one refurbished from Canon for about $800 US and it looks like it is brand new.<br>

First impressions: It has a nice higher ISO performance for low light situations, and I like the slightly smaller size compared to my 40D. It still feels solid and balanced with my zoom lenses (I mainly use a 17-55 Canon 2.8 IS). I think the AF will be better than your 450D and in general is a better camera, albeit slightly heavier and bigger thabn a 450D. Here is a link to compare the 2 camera specs.<br>

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_450D-vs-Canon_EOS_60D<br>

Maybe try to sell your 18-55 kit lens with the 55-250 and the 450D as a package. Or give it to an inspiring young photographer to help them get started.<br>

But I would keep the 50 1.8 prime and the 15-85 zoom, which are good matches to your needs and very good image quality, especially for outdoor landscapes.<br>

For wide angle I think it comes down to 2 or 3 choices depending on your preferences and budget. The Canon 10-22 is excellent and if you want to stay with all Canon, then splurge on that. But I used to have a Sigma 10-20 (the older less expensive one) and it was great. It is a good compromise to the Canon if you want to spend less money. My son has that lens now (when he moved to California), and boy do I miss it. So I am thinking about my next wide angle to buy. I will probably pony up later this summer for the Sigma 8-16 that gets great reviews and is really, really wide! For landscapes, I think that is very intriguing. <br>

If you want a portrait lens that is fast and not to long, take a look at either the Sigma 30 1.4 or the Canon 28 1.8. I think either of those will meet your needs and give you a low light indoor portrait alternative to your 15-85 zoom, especially if you want to blur the background and need to get closer than the 50 on a crop camera will let you.<br>

If you get a refurbished 60D and the two Sigma's (I would go for the 8-16 and 30 1.4) it will cost you about $2,000 US or 1,250 pounds. The Canon lens equivalents will be slightly more, but still within your budget.</p>

 

<p>I have tried many. I like FastStone Image Viewer. For me it is the best by far. Very small size, very fast viewing, free, does everything you mention above.</p>

<p>http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm</p>

<p>Here is CNET's review:<br>

<strong><br /></strong><br>

<strong>FastStone Image Viewer</strong> is a fast, stable, user-friendly image browser, converter and editor. It has a nice array of features that include image viewing, management, comparison, red-eye removal, emailing, resizing, cropping, retouching and color adjustments. Its innovative but intuitive full-screen mode provides quick access to EXIF information, thumbnail browser and major functionalities via hidden toolbars that pop up when your mouse touches the four edges of the screen. Other features include a high quality magnifier and a musical slideshow with 150+ transitional effects, as well as lossless JPEG transitions, drop shadow effects, image annotation, scanner support, histogram and much more. It supports all major graphic formats (BMP, JPEG, JPEG 2000, animated GIF, PNG, PCX, PSD, EPS, TIFF, WMF, ICO and TGA) and popular digital camera RAW formats (CRW, CR2, NEF, PEF, RAF, MRW, ORF, SRF, ARW, SR2, RW2 and DNG). <br /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I was not sure if I could post a picture from my Canon S100 here. Is it EOS only cameras? Oh well, here is one from the Detroit Autoshow last night taken with my new S100. Much easier carrying around this baby, versus the 40D and 17-55.</p><div></div>

<p>I too have a 40D and faced this same choice a few years ago. For the price you mentioned, I suggest one of two lenses.<br>

If your kids are of the age where they are doing indoor activities (sports, plays, etc.) get a Canon 85 1.8 prime lens (under $400.) It will fill in the gap you have in your current lenses and it is one of my favorite lenses in terms of picture quality, especially the sharpness and great colors even at fast speeds.)<br>

The other choice is a Sigma 10-20 (or one of the other super wide lenses from Tamron, Tokina, etc.) I have the older Sigma 10-20 and it is really nice for large groups shots and also provides an interesting perspective, especially at 10 mm on the 40D. You can get the older Sigma used for under $500. <br>

I first got the Sigma and later got the 85 1.8 and am very happy with both.</p>

<p>Each lens has it's pros and cons, but any of them are good enough in my opinion. I've used them all (hobbyist only).</p>

<p>Years ago, I started with original kit lens (18-55) on Canon 300D, eventually it broke, and I then upgraded to the 17-85 and used it for years. My son now uses the 17-85 nearly all the time as a walk around lens on his new T2i (outdoors). The reach is great. Indoors he uses 28, 50, or 85 1.8 primes mainly for concert / band pictures in low light. That combination works for him. </p>

<p>The new kit lens is really light, takes better pictures in my opinion compared to original kit lens, and is pretty balanced on the smaller digital rebs (My daughter uses one now on her T2i and in her small hands that works well.) She uses flash for indoors pictures, and for a relatively new photographer, that combination works well. She doesn't like switching lens - yet! :)</p>

<p>This Christmas my wife surprised me and I now have the fast 17-55 2.8 lens on my 40D. A little heavier than the others, but it is balanced and fits well with my larger hands on the larger xxD body. The advantage is that I use it both indoors and outdoors. It's fast enough to do that (great images) but costs a lot compared to the others.</p>

<p>I never used the new 15-85 but I suspect based on reviews it is an improvement over the older 17-85 (maybe like how the second gen kit lens is better than first gen?)</p>

<p>The point is that each lens (in combination with other lenses, bodies, flash, and shooter expectations, especially on how they want to use the equipment), can be made to work. </p>

<p>No matter what lens we use, the feedback we get from family and friends is almost always amazement at how much better 35mm digital pictures look (compared to point and shoot cameras.)</p>

 

<p>Exif Tool Gui v 3.38 <br>

http://freeweb.siol.net/hrastni3/</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I just got a Panasonic ZS7 to replace my A570IS that started to die. My Canon 40D is still primo, but I am amazed at the pictures I get from this little point and shoot ZS7. 25-300 Leica lens, manual controls, although I am shooting 95% in the very cool intelligent auto mode. I haven't played with the video mode yet. I find myself carrying it in my shirt pocket all the time. The still picture quality is much better than my old Canon point and shoot. Not the same as a good DLSR, but the Panasonic ZS7 does the job when you want a small camera that still covers a lot of range. 25mm on the wide end is very nice.</p>

<p>Here is a very good review of several options, including most mentioned above. He even tested all the lenses on an EOS 500D, so you probably will find it useful.<br>

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_10-20_vs_canon_tamron_tokina.htm<br>

I have had the Sigma 10-20 (older version) for quite a while now and I like it a lot. If I were buying new, I would probably get the newer Sigma (faster speed).</p>

 

<p>

<p >I have 2 questions for the forum regarding the market for a new Canon DSLR with different feature sets.</p>

<p >1. Does anyone think there is a significant enough market for Canon to produce a new small sensor format DSLR that does not have video capability (i.e., still pictures only) along the lines of the x0D series? Maybe something like an upgraded 7D feature set, but without video (and thus at a lower price than the 7D). I just wonder if there is still a market for an upgrade from the 40D/50D that does not boast 1080P video, etc. (Personally, I never shoot video, just photos, but I wonder if I am a dying breed?)</p>

<p >2. Does it make sense (is it even possible?) for Canon to offer a new x0D camera (i.e., without video like in question #1) that has 18-20 MP for normal light level shooting (maybe up to ISO 3,200), but also offers a mode for very low light level shooting (say up to ISO 25,600), but the number of effective megapixels can optionally be reduced (maybe even halved) through the electronics and image processing capability within the camera? I just would like to shoot hand held "in the dark" sometimes and have a less noisy image out of the camera that does not need much post processing and would not need to be printed much bigger than 8 by 10 (so effective megapixels could be maybe 8-10MP)? Anybody else out there wish they could do that in say a new $1,000 small sensor Canon DSLR camera? Or am I just dreaming and it will never happen because it is either technically not feasible or not a big enough market for it?</p>

</p>

<p>Ok. I just got the camera connector kit for my iPad the other day and saw this posting, so I figured I would try it out. Took 1 picture (jpeg) with my 40D. Then I connected the camera via a USB cable to the iPad connector kit and plugged it into my iPad. Turned on the iPad and then tuned on the 40D. An import dialogue popped up on the iPad and it showed me the picture. I selected import and the picture copied to a new album (actually 2 albums) - Last Import and All Imported albums.</p>

<p>About as easy as you can ask for. :)</p>

<p>It works for jpegs. I did not try raw files. And maybe only certain cameras. But the Canon 40D is definitely one that is supported.</p>

<p>I have an older 420 ex flash. B&H has a used one for $130. I would recommend that if your budget is tight. Less cost than a new 270 and the feature set while less capable than a 430, is still good enough for me (bounce, decent light output for close indoor shots, etc.). <br>

Later if you get a 580 flash, you can use the 420 as a slave for multiple flash setup (I think so?)<br>

I also use a 28 mm F1.8 canon for indoor group shots, and find the flash/fast "normal" prime combo works well for me. If the 28 is too much money, take a look at the 35 f2.0. There are people on this site who have had good things to say about that also and it costs less than a 28 1.8.</p>