danbliss

<p>I own and shoot with a 5d classic (I saw that above, and I like it better than the old 5d). While the 5d has the advantage of greater area per pixel, the 60d is much newer and thus more efficient catching photons. The edge might go to the 60d there, but only slightly. However, if you are doing architectural work, I am guessing that you will end up with a full frame camera eventually. It is nice to have access to access to all those lenses with wider fields of view. It might be nice to get used to it and the lenses with the 5d. Still, either is probably a good choice.</p>

I want one! Why did it take so long for a company to get it?

<p>I was lugging my 5d, couple of lens, and tripod around on a short hike to go find something worth shooting. I was thinking that this load was starting to feel kind of heavy. Then, I ran across an old guy with a wooden 8x10" camera, a pretty serious tripod, and all the other stuff that goes along with it. I realized that the old guys were just tougher than us. :-)<br>

P.S. For when I am particularly lazy I do have LX3 that I really like, although I am thinking about getting one the 4/3s.</p>

<p>I'm not sure why one would ever use P. Maybe I am missing out. For me it's about:<br>

P= 0%<br />Av = 95%<br />Manual = 5%<br>

As a few have mentioned, how about focusing... What fraction is manual focus and what fraction is auto... :-)<br>

Manual focus = 60% (and most of my better images)</p>

<p>Dan, I am with you there. There is no doubt sharper doesn't always mean better (for classic example: Stieglitz's pictorialists). Anyway, I certainly agree with your last bullet (I just take a photo and just zoom in to check). I should have added that as item 6) on my list.</p>

<p>So Gary had some fun with my comments which is probably fair because I was being a bit of a smart aleck and because I may not have been clear about how I used the hyperfocal guides (I assume that this is the way that most people use it, but maybe I am wrong). I apologize if this obvious. So, here is the problem, you'd like to have the point spread function be as small as possible throughout the image. If you focus at infinity then the point spread function at the closest point in the scene is unnecessarily large. You can use the guides to minimize the maximum point spread function across the scene. In a perfect world, everything would be in focus with a shot at f/5.6, but it rarely works that way for me. So here is the procedure that I use:<br /> 1) Focus on the closest thing in the scene. The lens guide window will give the distance (this can be as close as a foot for me sometimes). I like to shoot low to the ground.<br /> 2) Focus on the furthest thing in the scene. This is typically infinity for landscapes. <br /> 3) Center the near-far region in the guide window on the lens.<br /> 4) Use the largest aperture that you can up to about a stop or two to the edges of the near-far distance region (this will minimize the effect of diffraction). If you got to an aperture larger f/8 then stay at f/8 because most lenses are their sharpest between f/5.6 and f/8. I usually give the edges near-far distance extra stop or two because I think the hyperfocal guides are typically a bit optimistic (as been mentioned a number of times in this thread).<br /> 5) Using aperture priority metering, take the photo. I usually get pretty good results from this. While not perfect, I think this procedure provides the minimum maximum-point-spread function given the information that I have available while taking the photo.<br /> I am not saying that this is the only way to focus. Whatever works for you is great.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ok. I am amused with the "I don't use it responses." If you don't need it, then great. If your scene doesn't have a significant range variation, then clearly any focusing approach works. However, a lot of interesting scenes have something near in the foreground and stuff out at infinity. I have certainly been in situations where at f/22, I could not get everything in focus. Even when using the best hyperfocal solution, my only choice was to recompose, sadly. Maybe I needed a tilt/shift lens to help. :-) I am still looking for a good enough excuse to get one of those.</p>

<p>I use the hyperfocal guides on my EF 24mm all the time. I usually back off a stop or two on the guides though. On my 14mm the guides simply lie, so I have to wing it. If find the depth of field preview almost useless. The preview allows you see if something is out of focus, but not see if it is sharp. <br>

Is there a consensus on the best iPhone app? That could be useful sometimes.<br>

Dan</p>

<p>What would Cartier-Bresson do if he lived now? I suppose he'd be sued for taking someone's photo without permission, and then be arrested for being a terrorist. I am way on the side of personal rights, but somehow I feel like society has lost sight of the value of art if we are really going after some guy trying to capture a decisive moment with his or her camera in a public space. Are we really having this conversation? As Perry Farrell said, we'll make great pets! </p>

<p>First, my 24mm f/1.4 on my 5D (will I get booed off this forum?) is probably my favorite lens, so I can understand wanting one. However, I have found that as far as creativity goes I will occasionally challenge myself by picking one of my lenses and go out shooting with just it. The arbitrary limitation can help me break out of my comfort zone with regard to my compositional choices. So, sometimes you can use a limitation to help break your own subconscious limitations. Still, I do like my 24mm f/1.4. :-) </p>

<p>I used to shoot a Pentax 67II before I switched to the Canon 5D (don't hate me). It was great. There is a lot to be said for the Hassy's, but the Pentax was as solid as a brick. Good luck.</p>

<p>I have the lx3. It is a great camera. The s90 looks cool (in term of its capabilities and interface), and I was thinking about getting it for a "pocketable" camera, but when I messed with it in the story, I found it just too small to comfortably handle. Maybe I am just too clumsy. Dan</p>

<p>My guess, and this is only a guess, is that the price was actually too low (in an economic sense, not in terms of what I'd like) when the 5dII first came out. My motivation for saying this is that right after it came out there were shortages of the 5dII for quite a while. This is an indication that you have moved off the equilibrium point of the demand and supply curves. Now that the shortages seem to have gone away, and their sales seem to be good, their original price probably makes sense. Of course, I'd be happy to see it come down in price, and it will over time. I'd love to replace my 5d with the 5dII. Someday.</p>

<p>Lens choices are always tough, because it is such a personal thing. I have a fondness for primes that I can't completely explain. Maybe I shoot better with a brighter image with which to compose? The 85mm f/1.2 L is wonderful, but because you have the 85mm f/1.8, I would not be in a rush. My favorite lens is the 24mm f/1.4 L. I find that a majority of my favorite landscapes were shot with it. With the 5DII you can always crop a bit. Still, I can't argue against the 17-40 f/4 if you like zooms.<br>

As an aside, I spent some time out shooting with my Dad recently. He has the 5DII, while I have the old 5D. I'd have to say that I am jealous. The 5D is a great camera, but the 5DII is really a step up. We were shooting in some conditions with difficult lighting, and I was running out of dynamic range (I had to fall back to HDR). I mentioned this to my Dad, and he showed me his histograms, and he was capturing it with a single exposure. That and he has nearly twice the pixel count. Someday I'll upgrade.<br>

Have fun with the new camera.</p>

 

<p>I think the interesting part of the image is the interaction of the bird with the tree. I placed the bird in the upper (slightly left) part of the image using a square crop. I thought is was important to keep the light branch on the right and the strong curve of the larger lower branch. I also cooled and lightened it a bit to bring out the feathers in the wing. It is always fun to play with someone else's photo. It's all what you like I guess. Dan</p><div></div>

<p>For what its worth, there are techniques using what is called a "coded aperture." By using this approach, the focus can be done in post processing. Variants of it are used for x-ray astronomy. I am not aware of it being used in any commercial product, but I am sure at some point it will make it from the realm of research to a product. In any case, using this concept, you would take an image and then figure out where to focus after the fact. Interestingly, you can have different points of focus for different parts of the image. This approach will never replace traditional optical focusing for most applications, but for some specialty applications it could be fun.</p>

<p>I am not sure that I really saved it though... - Dan</p>

<p>With the judicious application of a few photoshop settings, such as level, contrast, saturation, and sharpening, you can reveal the subtlety of the underlying image... :-) - Dan</p><div></div>

<p>You guys are making it tough. :-)</p>

<p>Once again thanks everyone for the suggestions. I still have a couple of weeks to figure it out, but this is a great start.</p>

<p>Thank you everyone for your suggestions. I still have to narrow it down, but there are worse problems to have. Dan</p>

<p>Thank you for the suggestions. I will have a car, so I can drive around. - Dan</p>

<p>Hi all,<br>

I am going to have a weekend outside Denver. Does anyone have any suggestions for what I should go shoot? Thanks in advance.<br>

Dan</p>

<p>Keep them all... On occasion I have gone back to old photos that I originally thought were "bad" and then realized that I could work with them. Disk space is cheap (A few months ago I bought a 1.5TB disk for less than $150, probably cheaper now). Finding an interesting shot... priceless. Of course, you should feel free to delete all your photos if you like. They are your photos, and there is no right or wrong here. -Dan</p>

<p>P.S. I would love to get the 17mm TSE. Maybe I should save my pennies for that one instead. It may take a while though.</p>