winniv

<p>I used this thread to prepare for the 4 Jan 2010 partial eclipse (living back in Europe now). I was a bit intimidated with the discussion as it seemed very difficult to photograph the event.<br>

In the end, I decided to bring my gear but counted on not being able to photograph anything. I realized I was lucky when there was some natural filtration coming from the clouds, so I set up anyway. I used my 100-400 at 400, and put my cokin filter holder on the front. I added 3 of the available filters I have, easy enough. Although I wasnt prepared personally for the enormous light that comes from the eclipse, my camera totally did the job and I had some nice pictures, even in the time that it shone between the clouds and wasnt filtered by anything else than my Cokin stuff. So if you have some gear, a few filters that you can put in front of each other, chances are you CAN photograph this thing.<br>

Just a FYI if you're preparing for the next eclipse and stumble upon this thread like I did ...<br>

PS Outside the camera I used 1 dollar Astro glasses that the local astronomy club were distributing free of charge. Once you experience this, you know why others say you cannot (should not) look to this eclipse with the naked eye.</p><div></div>

<p>I'm with David Stephens: 7D + 70-200 F4 IS will make you happy. However, I'd also make sure you have the right workflow software (Lightroom/Aperture or PS CS5) and a good tripod with head (another 600 bucks at least). Jealous of the time you are going to have. Enjoy.</p>

<p>I just test drove PS CS5 with the trial. I absolutely love it. So far though, I havent been able to get myself over the price hurdle. But I know I want this program. Just seeing if there is someone who can help me with a strategy to get it cheaper.<br>

I also tested LR3. It's not working for me. I find the interface a bit cumbersome. Need to search much, scroll much, point too precise. But there are things about it that I love and I am annoyed by the fact that Adobe improves certain things in their LR and Elements offerings that need improvement in ACR/Bridge. I especially refer to tagging and publishing.<br />PS I have tried many programs: ACDSee Pro, Windows Live Photo Gallery, Digital Image Pro (which had content aware fill 4 years ago), Picassa, Corel ?, Bibble Pro. PS CS5 is the first program that does most if not all for me. So, if money is not an object, go with that one.</p>

<p>Hi Levon,<br>

I'd upgrade to the Canon 15-85. The lens provides great flexibility and high quality. It's current on sale for 620 dollar which is a 100 off of what I paid for it and I think a really good price. If you want to do portraits for money, you'll have to invest a lot more money than that to compete with the pros on this site. But if that's really your goal, I'd probably go with the 85mm F1.8 and keep your kit lens on the side. The 15-85 will give you a lot more to experience if all you have now is the kit lens though. Good luck.</p>

<p>One more vote for the 15-85 from one who has the 17-55 as well as this 15-85 for about 6 months now. I hardly use the 17-55 anymore. Yes it's faster, that's about the only advantage it has.<br />The 15-85 gives you the bonus of going extra wide, even better IS, has great optical quality (some vignetting, easy to get around, only happens occasionally), and the 85 on the long end is perfect for portraits even though its at F5.6. In combination with a 70-200 F4 IS and maybe one or two special purpose lenses (85mm for portraits?), you have everything you want. The price is not cheap but good for what you get.</p>

<p>Both cameras will yield good results. The 7D is the better camera here, especially because of the improved AF that will benefit you with shooting moving targets. Like I've written before, the 7D with the 100-400 is a killer combi. I had trouble with the AF of my 40D, which is the same as that of the 50D I believe. Whether it is worth double the price, is always relative. If you dont have it, dont buy the 7D. If you have it, you will not regret your choice. See my earlier posts on the 7D for other strengths of the 7D.</p>

<p>I agree with Michael Young. I have both the 17-55 and the 15-85. I hardly use the 17-55 anymore since I have the 15-85. It's a great lens that allows for wide and for nice portraits. I'd start with that lens. Play with it a lot, then decide on the primes. Although for those, I think you'd be happiest with the 85 F1.8 and either a 50 or a 35. Wouldnt go for the L lenses with those. Leave those for the pro's.</p>

<p>In all this advise, the 7D with the excellent and fun 15-85mm, the best equivalent to the 5D with 24-105mm, should not be amiss. <br />They are both great sets and will provide you with lots of photographing pleasure. For me, the 15-85mm is 80% on my camera. Icw the 70-200, it completes my set, although I have a few other lenses for specific purposes.</p>

<p>I had so much fun and such a high success rate shooting with my 7D and 100-400mm on my Bald Eagle trip in the Skagit Valley, from a raft.<br />But I can totally imagine how it is even harder from a kayak!<br />I didnt get the shot I wanted but I blame that totally on me. The Servo on the 7D works so great and the combination with the 100-400 is perfect. I'd practise a bit harder and, ideally, try another sample of the same lens (a friend?) to see if it's your lens or yourself. Good luck!</p>

 

<p>Hi Jake, I have the 17-55. I've used it a lot but for me it had two disadvantages:<br />1. 17-55 is still not a whole lot of reach. I missed being able to go longer. Especially for portraits, I didnt want to be in the face (literally) of my subjects.<br />2. It is a really big and heavy lens. To the point where it's too heavy for a walkaround lens. Also, you cannot use the onboard flash because it cannot go past the edge of the lens.<br />I liked that it has great superfast AF (regardless of the 2.8) and good IS.<br>

Still, when I bought my new 7D, I decided to try the new 15-85. Despite some issues with vignetting, it's just what I needed. the 85mm allows me to make nice portraits, the 15 allows me to go quite wide, the IS is fantastic (4 stops), the IQ is really very good, and it's a relatively small lens that fits perfectly on your 50D and allows you to use the onboard flash as a useful fill flash without issues. It is truly the perfect walkaround lens.<br>

You're gonna say that it's not so fast. For "real" portraits, I prefer the primes anyway, the 85 f1.8 comes to mind. F2.8 isnt enough to give you that same nice bokey anyway. And for the speed, the use of flash is much more useful: outside you don't need it, inside it's not enough, you'll still need the flash. The 17-55 is also troubled with vignetting, so they are on par there.<br>

Just my 2 cents, hopefully helpful information. Winni</p>

<p>Wow, what a great answers all.<br />I'd offer the money to Art Wolfe for taking me as his assistant on the next "Travels to the edge" series.<br />If you'd given me 100K, I'd make the series myself :-) Maybe hire Art to help out? ;-)</p>

<p>I got it refurbished at Adorama but for a lot more.<br />It seems like a great deal as long as you can check it out beforehand.<br />If not, I wouldnt take the risk.</p>

<p>Hi Julian, thanks for the thread. Always interesting to see what everyone thinks. Of course, they are just opinions and you already said for yourself, that you would really miss the popup flash.<br />Let me try and help you with your decision. I recently own a 7D and the popup flash is another of the many features that I've been impressed with. It is not bad on the 40D either, but the 7D does a very nice job of being present without blowouts or even that little too much whitish on the photo. The white balance on the 7D has also improved imo. So if you think you'd miss the popup, I'd say you're right and go for the 7D. Like you, I too use my DSLR for snapshots, which is bad enough already but putting my 430EX on it all the time, is very undesireable. The 10-22 is a very capable lens, albeit EF-S. The new 15-85 is handy for both wide- and snap-shots. Good luck!</p>

<p>There are good reasons to buy the L-lenses:<br />1. Build quality<br />2. Optical quality<br />3. Focus speed<br />4. Another unique feature (constant aperture, range)<br />Some of the non-L lenses provide the "highest" quality and can measure up with other L-quality lenses (17-55 F2.8, 85 F1.8)<br />It is unlikely that you have discovered a new truth, after reading all the test as you already admitted. So either your 70-200 sample was bad (rental, abused?), or the 28-135 exceptionally good, both?, or you were not comparing apples to apples (both IS? distance? Aperture?) or you have a different preference than others (perfectly ok). Nobody here can find out but you.<br />I'd say keep shooting with your 28-135 and enjoy it.</p>

<p>I completely second what Puppy Face said. I too have both lenses. I much prefer the build of the 15-85 and I just love the extra reach (just enough for a nice portrait without being in someone's face). They are both walk around lenses. F2.8 is still not fast enough when you're inside, but at least the 15-85 isnt so big that it gets in the way of an on-board flash.<br />Seriously considering selling the 17-55 and getting myself a nice 35 F2.0 or 85 F1.8 for the real low light work. The 15-85 will be on my camera a lot!</p>

<p><strong>Last weekend I went 'birding'. I had lots of fun with my new 7D and 100-400mm lens.<br />I'll post my pictures on photo.net soon. I dont want to refer to another site out of this forum.<br />A bit after the fact, but still curious to hear from the pros about how to best take a shot of Birds of Prey. What settings do you use? (not interested in ballheads, I was on a boat)<br /></strong><br />After comparing all the tests, I found that the 7D <em>had</em> to be just marginally better than the xxD series. I don't know how come, but those statistics don't tell the whole story, as some already suggested.<br /><br /><em>Experience</em>: The camera is just such a pleasure to use. Super responsive, great Autofocus, easy to manage the AF point selection with the joystick (sorry, Multi-Controller). I was always struggling with that on my 40D. I dont know why this doesnt really show in the tests, but it's just so much better.<br />With the Autofocus, I also enjoy the larger viewfinder and new focusing screen.<br /><em>Power</em>. Then of course, the 18MP are good for cropping when those birds are STILL small with your 400mm lens. And the 8FPS help in catching that defining shot. Obvious, but still noteworthy.<br /><em>Battery Life</em>. After shooting a whole day, I still had 60% left. Amazing. <br /><em>Sensitivity</em>: I know that I could easily notice the noise from my 40D when I went above 800. The 7D never reminds you of it. You can easily leave it at auto-ISO, it will give you very clean pictures taken at ISO 1600 or even 3200. I'm sure that is different when you shoot commercially. But I don't, so I found that this greatly increases my flexibility to shoot at faster shutter times.<br /><em>On the eye</em>: The already mentioned larger viewfinder is so accurate, that I found myself not checking the LCD anymore. I <em>knew </em>that that picture was a keeper, or that it wasn't. I'd seen it clearly. With the 40D, not only did I always check on the LCD, but it would still happen that I had a disappointing experience once I saw it on the PC screen at home, because the LCD didnt provide enough information. For those that don't have a 50D, 5DII or 7D already: the LCD screen alone is worth upgrading.<br />All in all, this camera conveys much more confidence and responsiveness, than the xxD series ever did. Not that those are bad cameras. My 40D is staying as a second body, and Im sure I'll continue to make pretty pictures with it.<br />I hope this will help those who are doubting whether to buy the 7D. I agree with most on the forums that it is the photographer that defines the quality of the output. But many of us also enjoy managing the cameras, this camera will add to that pleasure.</p>

<p>Ha! This was indeed all very enjoyable. Excuse the scepticism of my fellow contributors Martin. It is somewhat funny but there does exist a serious answer:<br>

The 5DI was introduced in Aug-2005. The 5DII was introduced in Sep-2008. Canon is quite consistent in how they approach this. As much as their audience wants a new camera, they owe it to their current user base to provide value and the only guarantee you have, is previous behavior of Canon. You'd want YOUR 5DIII to last for 3 years before its value plunges, right? So, logically, the next one would come out Aug/Sep-2011.<br />That is probably also one of the reasons why they introduced the 7D. As the market is demanding more innovation at a higher speed. Or, some will argue, providers are pushing each other. Meanwhile, why don't you get the most out of your 5DI and look forward to Aug/Sep-2011. Maybe spoil yourself with a new lens to induce your photography enthusiasm :-) Either that, or sell your 5DI online, take some loss and apply the money to a nice 5DII or 7D. May I refer to existing threads for that discussion :-)</p>

<p>It sounds that, for what you are using it for, you'd be just as well off with the 7D.<br>

Personally, I'm surprised you are using the 50mm for portraits. I found my 17-55 to be too short for most situations and am really happy now that my walk around lens goes up to 85 (admittingly, both *zoom* lenses are not ideal for portrait, but like they say: worst picture is one not taken, and this lens is on my camera when the moment happens). Anyway, the point being, if you buy the 7D, you have money left for the ultimate portrait lens: 85mm (1.4 or 1.8. Either one are good, really good according to the reviews).</p>

<p>Thanks for the post. I didnt know it had continued. Season 1 was repeated several times and I liked it so much, I even followed the repeats. For those interested, you can find more info on their site: <a href="http://travelstotheedge.com">http://travelstotheedge.com</a>. I knew the series is sponsored by Microsoft, so I found it by going to <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/prophoto/Photographers/">http://www.microsoft.com/prophoto/Photographers/</a>, which is also a very interesting place.</p>

<p>Hi S.,<br />There is not a way of setting it up so that you can push the multi controller. However, the SET button in the QuickControl works pretty well don't you agree? (This you can do via C.FnIV-1). Then, you use the Multi-controller to browse through the functions, which are indeed the same functions as the top screen provides. I was somewhat surprised that you cannot use the top bottons to activate the function in the QCS (the screen will de-activate and you'll have to go to the top screen).<br>

However, you can customize the Info button under the 3rd Settings menu (INFO button display options). You can then disable the other views and go straight to the "Displays shooting functions". Now, after selecting the info button, you can use that screen and now the top buttons do work on the screen. Pfew.<br>

Personally, I'm totally happy with the QCS under the SET button, and the multi-controller to drive me to the right setting.</p>

<p>Hi Mike, tough choice. I've been doubting about the same upgrade for weeks now.<br />Then I decided to go with new lenses, which everyone always claims is a smart choice. So, despite feeling really smart, Im still doubting :-)<br />I like everything about my 40D but what keeps me going back on my decision are two things: I just love that screen of the 50D/7D. I use the screen all the time, so it's an important feature. The other thing is that I sometimes feel my 40D front focuses and I cannot correct that. The 7D can.<br>

I like both the pixelpeepers and the user reports. The user reports (check out puppy face's) teach me what I'll like. But when they tell me they like the good AF performance, the statistical approach of real tests and the DXO, tell me how come. They also tell me that, maybe, they like it because they want to like their new camera. Popphoto tests show that the 7D has the second to worse AF performance (worst being the 5DII). The 40D should be faster.<br />To DXO's defense, they are just measuring the chip, the sensor. They also have a whitepaper on their site, that explains that more pixels can offset higher noise. If someone with more knowledge could read that and measure out for me what that means effectively for the 7D compared to the 40D, that'd be great because Im not smart enough. But still... I get that it off sets for noise.<br>

To your original question though. I find it hard to understand that you consider a 7D over a 50D, but dont consider a 5DII ***now***. Given your needs and the fact that you already have a 40D that you seem to love, I'd say: wait a bit more to find that extra 1000 bucks and finally get your dream camera.<br>

Meanwhile, I think Im going for that 7D because I like APS-C and really, really want that screen (a lot of money for a better screen though :-) I know!<br />Good luck!</p>

<p>Hi Mark,<br />After reading all this, I felt I had a contribution that hadnt been made yet.<br>

I'd go with the 15-85 IS and the 70-200 F4 IS.<br />Both lenses will be a pleasure to use and no matter what you buy AFTER this, you'll continue using these. the 15-85 is a great walkaround lens and because it goes unusually wide, you'll get a taste of whether you need a 10-22 later or not. The 70-200 F4 IS is just a must have in Canon's collection. Even if you have an interest in the F2.8, you'll appreciate the lightness of this version. Both lenses have 4-stop IS, which is just a pleasure to have.<br />You might want to add a prime, I'd go with the 50 F1.8 (75 bucks, best bucks you'll ever spend) or the 35 F2.0 (250 bucks).<br />I think all your other choices you made (from the flash to the tripod) are very valid and you'll have a great time. If you really want to do wildlife, you'll feel the need for the 100-400 IS and the 1.4 extender later, but the above 2 lenses and one prime will give you long ways to go. Enjoy!</p>