jkantor

<p>L doesn't mean sharper - it means they use sophisticated design and technology to push the limits so that, in this case, you can have an aperture 2 stops wider.<br>

It's a lot easier to design and cheaper to produce a sharp lens with a maximum aperture of 1.8 than 1.2 - just like it's a lot easier to design and produce a lens for a reduced sensor size rather than full frame.</p>

<p> </p>

"I am a bit surprised that you don't already have a VR lens in the mid-telephoto range."

Send money and we'll all get one.

We're finally where we should have been 8 years ago. Aside from the new sensor technology that wasn't available, the 40D is the camera that the D30 (yes D30 - not 30D) could and should have been. It's actually a pretty decent semi-pro camera that hasn't been crippled too much (except by leaving out additional spot meters).

I really can't see Canon adding much to this product line. Instead, you'll probably see "improvements" in usability (change for the sake of change) and the addition of new pointless features (like direct printing). I'd expect the newer version to be smaller and more futuristic looking and have gee-whiz features like a touch screen and flip-out display, and they will probably change to SD cards soon. Plus you can expect a ridiculously expensive celebrity ad campaign to counter Nikon's.

However Canon is still going to do whatever it can to hold on to the artificially inflated price of the 5D. The real question will be what Nikon does with the D700.

Seems to me that most people are spending a lot of time trying to convince this guy he doesn't have a problem when he obviously does.

I don't have 40D, but I had exactly the same problem with a Sigma 15mm on my 20D.

Canon has very poor quality control and doesn't adequately test their new equipment when they introduce it.

"Mike, you are absolutely right. I bet Curtis thinks photojournalists covering wars and natural disasters are parasites, exploiting the victims too."

They are much worse than that. They wallow in blood and feed on misery in order to keep their bloated egos inflated and to advance their own pathetic politics. They are worse than the flies that feed on the dead; at least those are part of the natural order of things.

My R220 has started giving black ink smudges on the left and bottom of glossy

prints (looking at the printer). I don't get them on cds. It seems to be black

ink being transferred from the underside of the print carriage, but I don't see

any way to clean it other than what I've done - which is run heavy cardstock

through it. That seems to work - but when I go back to glossy, the smudges return.

That "plastic" as you call it is lighter, stronger, and more resilient than the magnesium they use.

And if you are happy with the outdated sensor on your D100, then there's no need at all to ever upgrade.

I'm looking at doing some hextone printing with an R220 and the MIS

EZ inks. But I'm not familiar with the matte papers available. I want

a paper that has a slight, but noticeable, texture to it, preferably

a natural white rather than overbrightened.

Without a split-image and microprism, manual focus is a joke. (I just bought a KatzEye screen for my 20D and love it.)

The 5D probably has the same crippled autofocus as the 20D - with the exception of the supplementary spots (which it shouldn't need).

What I've noticed with my 10D is that they often focus better than my 20D - and I only use the center spot on my 20D. I've found the others to be completely useless.

But I've found that the biggest difference comes with using USM lenses - whether L or not. I think that has something to do with the greater torque of the USM motors allowing more precise response to the camera signals.

To net a $30,000 equivalent salary before income tax, you have to add about $4,000 for health insurance ($34,000), 15% of that for self-employment tax ($40,000), let's say $1,000 a month for business costs, advertising, equipment, business insurance, travel, and materials, and arrive at $52,000. If you can get 36 weddings, (which is difficult to do - particularly up north), that's a bit less than $1500 per wedding - the national average - all for a take-home income you could exceed (with much less stress) if you worked fulltime at 7/11. (And of course, all this begs the question of how you managed to bankroll the startup costs and survive until you were self-sufficient in the first place.)

Obviously at least half the wedding photographers in the country don't make a living from it. The few that do have to charge at least twice the average - or $3,000 and up.

By the way, anyone doing photography fulltime for $20-$30K is going to wake up one day and realize they need to get a real job.

The 20D does not have a spot meter and peforms very poorly in backlit situations. (It's a chimper's delight.) And it's impossible to focus it accurately manually unless you use the focusing indicator (in which case there's no advantage over just plain autofocus).

And "full-frame" sensors are only useful if you have a big investment in older wide-angle lenses. The new ultra-wides and digital-only ultra-wides (like the Canon 10-22) are as good or better than anything that would require a full frame.

Finally, the images from an 8mp or better digital is superior to color negative film and at least as good as slide film.

Flash on a 20D is extremely simple - it's spot flash metering. As long as you are aware of where the active focusing point is you won't have a problem. If it's on a caucasian face or midtone object, your exposure will be fine as is on eTTL. If it's on a dark object, turn down the flash a stop. If it's on a white object, turn it up a stop (using the camera controls - it's very quick and easy - you can do it without looking and see the setting in the viewfinder).

I don't know about the 1.8 - but so far I have not been happy with any non-usm lens for low light focusing.

You might also consider a macro.

It one of the sharpest lenses I own - along with my 100 f2 and my 70-200 f4L. It has a non-ring-type USM moter, which isn't as good as a true ring type, but much better than a non-USM in low light (as far as I can tell).

However, for party shots in bad light I don't see how you can avoid flash - better to get sharp, clear flash shots than grainy, blurry available-light ones. Party photography isn't art.

Actually, it looks like this is the answer:

http://www.colorvision.com/profis/profis_view.jsp?id=141

(This question is about calibrating to match the contrast and saturation of the final print - not just calibrating the monitor.)

Not being able to calibrate for contrast and saturation would invalidate the entire purpose of calibration. I expect you can do it with a really expensive print calibration system - but how do you get close without one?

All I really need to do is create a very simple profile to handle the contrast and saturation change when printing.

I have a Spyder and don't have any trouble calibrating for color. How

do you get the contrast to match?

If I could afford to dump my equipment I would.

The 20D is just the world's most expensive point-and-shoot. And they're screwing their customers for everything they can get on their high-end ones.

Look at the 5D if you want to see further proof of their total disregard for their customers - they didn't even bother to redo the finder to match the larger sensor, so all the focusing points are clustered in the middle.

Canon's technology is great - their marketing development is a joke.

A company that can't align the display on a $1500 camera (or seem to figure out how to put a spotmeter in it), shouldn't be making cameras. I don't see why I should be memorizing sensor positions for all three of my cameras.

The middle sensor also is cross-type sensor, so if you don't know where the actual center is, you'll have problems.