saurabh1

Try borrowlenses.com

Lightroom does it but I have not tried if it will work off CD

I keep about 100 images per year in RAW format. I keep bit more in JPG that I keep on the website. Rest I delete.

Do you still have your old computer working? I would backup using catalogs, i.e., first export as catalog on your old PC. This will create a directory which you can copy to your new PC. On new PC you can then open catalog and select this directory. This should preserve all metadata and history for your images.

To add to Steve's point, the RAW files are basically pixel intensity values along with metadata (data about data). This metadata may include a tag such as camera being set to sRGB, whitebalance etc. But RAW data is essentially black and white to say (only intensity). The color is assigned to it depending on which pixel it comes from.

I would think about the mist in the air too. But it is interesting. Please keep us posted if you find more.

Hi QT: Below is a link to the thread that might be helpful<BR>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IvZy">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IvZy</a>

i know i have same complaint as you. 35 f/1.4 is too heavy for me to use as a normal walk around lens... something like a 5D and 50 f/1.4 combo. Perfect in weight and image quality.

 

I am just waiting for 5D or any future FF camera to be more affordable.

just get a 5D.

this is a very good lens so it should not have the focus problem. this lens can focus close subjects so try autofocusing one so you can even see in the viewfinder whether it is focusing well or not.

free LR 1.1. That is quite a bonus. congratulations to those who received it.

17-55 is the way to go if you plan to keep this lens on your camera all the time. As it has already been said, it is a personal choice. Having being in the dilemma you are going through I decided to go with 10-22 and 24-70. BTW I feel that 24-70 is too heavy to be a walk around lens. I like it for its image quality and hope to use it on FF camera but certainly would not recommend it as a walk around lens. Just my personal choice but I find 50mm f/1.4 to be a perfect walk around lens on my 30D.

That is cool. Finally I can hope to own a FF. So are we going to see two models in the Canon FF lineup?

18-200 is a very broad range and my guess is that with such a broad zoom range the image quality suffers. So Canon may get a lot of entry level people buying this type of lens but will not find old customers switching to or stepping up to this lens. They seem to be wanting people to buy their "good" stuff and sure enough over the years the "better" comes along and the cycle continues.

 

Currently a lot of people are switching to SLR's from point and shoot cameras and must be finding a broad range zoom very irresistible. But soon enough the photography bug will bite them and they will want better lenses. If that does not happen they will leave the bulkiness of SLR and go back to point and shoot. Point and shoot are getting quite nice these days and with G9 you even get RAW.

 

This is also the reason why I think Canon is not coming up with Nikon D40 equivalent. Anyway, just my $0.02.

I also agree with what has been previously said, it is a personal choice. I went with 24-70 and have no complaints so far.

I would say go with 17-55 if you are planning to stick with 1.6 crop factor camera. You will have less frequent lens changes and that will keep some dust away from the sensor. Personally I have 24-70 because I plan to move to full frame camera sometimes in future and I do not need IS in this range that much.

The lens hood works very well with this kind of design, but that may not be the main reason why the lens was built like that.

No problem with mine either.

This may help <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-1.4-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">Link</a>

 

I am also waiting for a smaller and lighter version of 35mm f/1.4 geared for 1.6 crop factor cameras. I do not think its size and weight can be reduced for a full frame camera though. It appears smaller than 24-70L.

I eventually want to move to full frame camera like 5D so for me 24-70 was a better choice.

I also never keep it at Auto WB. The LCD screen, although appears to have higher dynamic range, does not display the picture the way it appears on the screen.

24-70 is a very nice lens for weddings but on full frame camera. I guess you could use it on Rebel XT too. You will have a little longer reach than 17-55. Both are optically good. Do you need the wide angle of 17-55 for group shots? If not I would say go with 24-70.

Tim, your posted picture was very appropriate. That is exactly the kind of effect I was mentioning. So you think ICC is the way to go? I will give that a shot.

I agree. I use 50 f/1.4 most of the time on my 30D but wish it were little wider. For a normal perspective there a few choices such as Sigma 30 f/1.4, EF 35 f/2 and maybe also 28 f/1.8 but from the reviews it appears that all these lenses are no where close to 50 f/1.4 in image quality. So maybe I will get one of these in future but in the mean time I am hoping that Canon brings out a small, light and fast prime. I would not mind it being an EF-S. Current 35 f/1.4 is great but again it is bulky.

Thanks guys for your responses. Joseph, I hope your wife has a quick recovery. Good luck, Saurabh.