neill_farmer2

<p>Just keep doing what you're doing. If the DSLR equipment sees little use make the switch by selling it. If doubts remain keep it. Think into the future, how will you be looking at the images in 5 years or 10 years time? If you have a 27" monitor that should give an indication of quality. Maybe you will put them on a 60" UHD TV, how will the Olympus rate then? All questions only you can answer.<br> For myself my 6D sports pictures look great on my media room projector on the 12' screen. Those from my phone are not so good.</p>

<p>They break before the lens mount wears out.</p>

<p>DPP, essentially a raw converter, offers very basic manipulations compared with the other post processing programs. For images shot under ideal conditions DPP might well be all that is needed. Shoot under trying conditions and the Post Processors will rescue and turn dull images into stunners. For me it is the third step in producing an image; First take the shot in raw. Second, convert in DPP to jpeg or tiff performing only basic adjustments to exposure, contrast, sharpness and saturation. Third, post process to lighten some parts , darken others, and work on lifting the subject off the background. DPP gets the image 70% there, post processors make the final 30% that separates the ordinary from the extraordinary.</p>

<p>Don't become FL obsessed. Some over lap as in 24-105L + 70-200F4L is fine. For a long time I had a gap between 50mm and 70mm. Didn't seem to be an issue. The 24-105 tries to be an all round lens. It covers the range most people use so it limits lens changes, and that change at 70mm, as in 24-70 + 70-200, is annoying because it is required so often.<br> The 24-105 has some distortion that can, if needed, be corrected in post processing and some say it is not sharp. Mine is plenty sharp. My favorite prime was an 85mm 1.8. I still have it but don't remember the last time I used it, the 24-105 is just as good and it's ready on the camera always.<br> I would only consider going beyond 200mm if sports or wildlife were favorite subjects, then go straight to one of the 100-400Ls. The 70-300L is a great lens, but it is short for wildlife and long for general use.</p>

<p>Mine's good, purchased in 2010, use it for BIF. Only failures have been because I haven't kept the focus point on the bird. I do use back button focus and centre point only. I do find the 6D's AF more surefooted, but the 7D's is not bad.<br> No issues at all with stationary subjects.</p> <p>.</p>

<p>The two cameras have different strengths and weaknesses. Choose according to what means more for your photography, reach or image quality. At lower ISOs in good light there is not a lot of difference. At higher ISOs in lower light the 6D is much better. </p>

<p>Trains are big relatively slow moving and predictable. The camera's default settings should be fine. I gather you wish to take a sequence using AI Servo AF? Select the focus point that will be closest to the front of the train during the sequence. If you are after just a few shots use the center AF point, (or again, the one closest to the front), in One Shot mode and refocus quickly before each shutter button press, this method requires use of the back button for focus. If you just want one photo at a preselected spot prefocus on this and recompose.<br> Neill</p>

<p>Wildlife and weddings are two different paths. For weddings I'd suggest 5D3-6D-5D2 in that order. For wildlife i'd suggest 7D2-7D-600D?. For a wedding lens something that covers 24-105mm. For wildlife a 100-400L, Mk2 - Mk1.<br> It all depends on your budget and how keen you are. Having made these recommendations the main problems with weddings is low light indoors so your cameras and lens need to address this limitation (a quiet shutter helps too). For wild life it's all about reach, and crop +100-400L is about the minimum.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Been to Africa a few times. A 100-400 is about right for the Kruger area, a 70-300 would also suffice on a 7D. I used the 100-400L and there is nothing wrong with its sharpness or IQ. The IS is only about 2 stops, against 4 stops for the VII. The original 100-400L needs a bit of care in its use, don't zoom with the zoom ring tightened and don't allow the zoom to hit the stop, it works best with the hood on and no filter on the front. I haven't used either the Tamron or Sigma 150-600s. User reports suggest these are equal to the 100-400 VI in IQ and the additional zoom length would be useful. On the 6D they would be equivalent to the 7D + 100-400L in field of view, but with better IQ, especially in low light. I think I would go 6D + the Tamron. Be aware that there will be times when the animals are too close for these lenses, other times 1000mm is too short, all a compromise. Of equal importance is how the safari is conducted. The private reserves bordering Kruger have several advantages in that they can go off track and there are fewer passengers allowing for better photography. Since the fences were removed around Kruger the animals have been free to migrate to areas that suit them better. So Cheetah might be more difficult to spot, leopards less so. Some research is recommended to be sure of seeing the animals that you want to see.</p>

<p>I think we should wait before passing judgement. There were a lot of naysayers when the 7DII was released and just as many thought the 100-400L II was not a big enough improvement. Those who have both say there is a big improvement over the 7D + 100-400L. Well, those that have a good 7DII do. I'll be keen to hear what experienced photographers think of them.</p> <p> </p>

<p>The 70-200 2.8L ISs are big and heavy. I would only consider them if the lighting in the venues is poor. Otherwise the 70-200F4L IS is much lighter, easier to handle and just as good. I try to only buy lenses when I know I need them for my photography. If you are unsure then it is time to take a break, shoot some more pictures and come to a definite conclusion "I need this lens to capture these images that I want".</p>

<p>My experience is that they don't affect picture quality except maybe when shooting into the sun (increased flare, loss of contrast?). If you can detect no difference when shooting at minimum focus distance and at 17mm and well stopped down compared to 40mm at, say 5.6, then all should be ok. I have heard of people blacking out major scratches and chips with a permanent marker to ensure the effects of the defect are eliminated.</p>

<p>The 5Ds and 5Dsr are specialist cameras for those who need 50mp. Most photographers don't, and the large files might even be a hindrance. The camera that will hopefully appeal to most photographers will be the next iteration of the 5DIII, a 5DIV? The 5DIII has pretty well everything that most photographers wanted except a dynamic range that allows shadows to be lifted in post processing. It is the one limitation my 6D has. I don't think I will ever use WiFi or GPS but others might find these very useful.<br> I doubt if Canon will ever make a 'one camera does all' model. That would be all we needed and we would not buy the next upgrade, or would we? <br> I must say I liked the ECF on my EOS7e, but I find the petty crippling of functions on lower priced models annoying (I would love to have AF at f8 on the 6D).</p>

<p>Both of Canon's lower priced 50 mm lenses, the 1.4 and 1.8, are relatively fragile. The 1.4 is sensitive to knocks on the front and the 1.8 won't put up with much abuse either, in both cases the AF stops working. The best way to get an idea of depth of field for a particular lens is to play around with a DOF calculator. Be aware that what some find acceptable DOF, others will not. The out of focus effects are gradual as the distance from the true focal plane increases. Experimentation might be the only way for you to come up with what you are happy with. The distance scales on lenses are not that good, I have never used them and they can be inaccurate anyway. Take pictures and learn what works for you.</p>

<p>William W offers good advice. The other lens you might consider is the 24-105f4L. It will give a bit more flexibility than the 50 1.8 + 85 1.8. The 85 1.8 is a very good portrait lens so you need to weigh up the flexibility vs the handling and 1.8 aperture advantage of the 85. I use both on my 6D and see no downsides to either. There are some recommending the 24-70 2.8L, also an excellent lens for your use but a bit too expensive? considering the stage your business is at. </p>

<p>It would be interesting to hear whether you consider your 6D gives a better IQ than the 550D. I went from a 7D (which I've kept for tele work), to a 6D. I can see a difference at 400ISO, much more so at 1600+ISO. I also love the ability to push and pull the 6D image much further in PP that I could with my 7D. I have made several nice A1 sized prints from the 7D, and I'm looking forward to getting 6D images of that size to see what differences exist there.</p>

<p>I think the only problem with the 5D is that it doen't have a dust shaker on the sensor. If cleaning the sensor is not a worry then it would be a good low cost upgrade to FF. Otherwise a 6D is the way to go.</p>

<p>It all starts with your budget. The lowest cost would be a Tamron 17-50 2.8 lens, there are two, non IS and IS. If your religious places photography involves interior shots the IS version, not quite as sharp, may be better. If a tripod is used then any lens, 17- xx, stopped down to f5.6 - f8 will do. Sharpness will depend on how much you pay.<br> Next step up would be a 6D with a 24-105 f4L. This will offer better image quality over the 60D and this will become greater as the ISO is increased. The 6D camera is capable of giving good images at ISO3200 and ISO6400 and above.<br> In good light or with a tripod at ISOs below 800 the differences in image quality between a 60D and a 6D will be less but still visible. To some extent these difference can be negated further in Post Production.</p> <p> </p>

<p>The early Sigma 70-200 EX HSM's were a very good, sharp, lens. Later versions were not as good until the present model. The only reason to 'upgrade' would be to get IS or the improvements with the use of tele converters Mk3. If this is your plan I would stick with the Canon lens, Mk2.</p>

<p>Just as easily there may be an interesting image with both the player and the referee in it, keep shooting, delete later.<br> The use of back button focus has two determinants; the photographer has to be comfortable with it and its operation, and, the subject must be suitable. <br> I use back button focus always, but there have been one or two times I've missed a great shot because in the haste to get the shot I forgot to press it!<br> I find for slower moving objects "one Shot", and bumping the button can give better focus than continuous AI servo.<br> For BIF Jamie Robertson's technique is the way to go. To each his own.<br> I would encourage you to try back button focus, and persevere with it, so that you can decide what works best for you and your subjects.</p>

<p>I think this camera will be a solid sales success and a good performer for those in the sporting and wild life arenas.<br> It will have first rate AF and frame rate and the sensor/processor looks to be a step ahead of the 7D. Some may criticize the IQ at low and maybe high ISOs compared to Sony and Nikon FF but this is not a landscape camera and it's not FF. There are better tools for these jobs. But for its purpose it will be the best there is at this time.</p>

<p>Only you can make the decision between the f4 and f2.8 versions. Low light, I'd go for the 2.8. It will allow a higher shutter speed and in low light you will need all the speed you can get. We don't know what camera you have, a 6D or 5D3 are going to stretch the low light capabilities further than, say, a 7D or 60D. I agree the f4 is a much easier lens to handle, especially for any length of time, and if your use were more well lit surroundings I'd go for that. Low light, hi ISO, movement, get all the help you can, a 70-200L f2.8 will provide more sharp shots.</p>

<p>An additional difference is that the 50D has AFMA, the 60D does not. If you're shooting telephoto or at wide apertures the 50D allows lenses to be tuned.</p>

<p>The failure you describe is not uncommon with this lens. Provided you have not forced it and done further damage (as I did) the repair costs are reasonable, around 1/3 the cost of a new lens. Mine came back and seems to perform better than it did previously. <br> I don't think there were any in service upgrades of this lens. A few years back there was chatter that the later lenses performed better than the older ones but more experienced photographers seemed to think there was no difference. The lens has a learning curve, like any long telephoto, and the source of the chatter could well have been from inexperienced users or from those who now had the benefit of AFMA.<br> This is a popular lens, and I think good used examples will have a ready resale, I think I'd get it repaired, even if a revised version might be coming someday.</p>

<p>Bill Jordan offers good advice that you should consider. However, if you intend to extend your photography into more specialised areas, eg, wildlife, insects, portraits, sport, lowlight, the 600D will offer more flexibility for you to add capability through specialist lenses.<br> A camera such as the Lumix has two 'special advantages' it's light and small. and the lens is all in one. For most purposes it will be hard to tell which photo was taken with the Lumix and which was taken with the 600D.<br> Start making 20"x30" enlargements and the differences will become apparent.<br> Hasten slowly. Good luck.</p>