sarah_fox

<p>Wendy, I have no specific knowledge of the lenses you mention. I'll only comment on the camera bodies:</p> <p>My first EOS camera was a 10D, which was generally more capable than your 300D, but otherwise the same generation with (I think) the same sensor. My next camera was the 5D, which is now an old camera, and then the 40D, which came shortly thereafter. The difference in processing speed between the 10D and the 5D or 40D is the difference between a tricycle and a 10-speed bike. I cannot imagine shooting anything fast-paced with the 10D, let alone your less capable 300D. An upgrade to a modern camera would be well worthwhile for processing speed alone.</p> <p>And then there's the matter of ISO. Modern cameras are far more sensitive than yours. Upgrading your body will be even more important than buying a fast lens, at least for the type of photography you're describing. Going from a maximum ISO of 1600 to a maximum ISO of 12,800 gives you an additional 3 stops to play with. So with an f/5.6 lens on a 70D or T5i, you could take exposures at the same shutter speed as your 300D with an f/2,0 lens. Or with the same lens on either camera, you can drop your shutter speed on the 70D or T5i to 1/8 of what you were using on your 300D. That's substantial!</p> <p>You're definitely due for an upgrade. I ordinarily say lenses are more important than bodies, but in your case I'll make an exception. I'll leave it to others to discuss whether the 70D or T5i would be a better fit for you. I'm not extremely familiar with either one. You should definitely find the opportunity to handle both cameras, because they will feel VERY different to you. Expect the T5i to be much more menu-driven and the 70D to be a bit more "expert-friendly" (meaning that when you learn how to use it, you'll be able to change settings much more quickly and easily). Also the 70D has a dual-pixel sensor used for sensor-based focusing. This would be very useful for videos. But beyond that... I admit I really haven't kept up.</p>

<p>Keif, make sure to label your image CD with a big note written in red magic marker saying, "Please see images on CD that show problem." Also stick a Post-It note directly to the camera, telling them to examine the images on the enclosed CD. Don't expect them to call you with questions, because they won't.</p>

<p>... and there is also the much lauded series of Anthony Weiner's de minimis selfies. :-)</p>

<p>... and some people are quite adept at tossing snarky retorts at those who lack clairvoyant powers!</p> <p>Igor, it's fine if you need to write jpegs for speed. Just understand that the more you edit them, the more they will degrade. For that reason, you should experiment with picture styles to find the settings that will give you results as close as you can get to your final output. In other words, if you care about the quality of the image and have to shoot jpegs, you should avoid editing contrast in post (e.g. applying contrast curves) as much as possible. This way you'll avoid the problem of "combing." Obviously getting your exposure bang-on is also important. I suppose it would be a bit like shooting slides.</p> <p>And if there's <em>any way</em> you can slow down your shooting enough not to stuff the buffer, RAW is still the better choice for postprocessing.</p>

<p>Yeah, no way is that an electronic problem. You've got a wonky shutter. I hope your wedding shoot went OK. This is a great reason why you should have a backup camera, even if you have to rent it.</p>

<p>Can you post a sample image?</p> <p>With a shutter issue, I would expect the edges of the bar to be very slightly fuzzy and not PERFECTLY square with the frame -- not occurring at the exact same y coordinate straight across the frame.</p> <p>With some other sort of issue, I'd expect a hard-edged bar that is exactly square with the frame. If this describes your problem more accurately, you might try hard-rebooting your camera by removing the main battery and coin/memory cell, waiting for 15 min or so, reinstalling the batteries, and powering back up. (Note: All your settings will be lost.) You can also try a firmware reinstall. If the problem remains, I'd say it's an electronic issue.</p>

<p>Dan, there may someday be a 200 MP Foveon sensor in our cameras, but if so, it will only be because of the crafty folks in marketing. Even the BEST of the BEST of our lenses, cannot resolve anywhere near that. They are very hard pressed to challenge the resolving capabilities of Canon's and Nikon's current highest-resolution offerings. And sure, lenses might continue to get modestly better, but they don't get that much better that fast.</p> <p>And FAIW, I bet I could add two numbers just as fast on my first calculator (late 1970's vintage) as you could on your thoroughly modern computer with 8 GB of ram. In both cases the limiting factor is the speed of the operator. Some of us are trying to speak to these sorts of limiting factors. It does not take a Cray supercomputer to add two numbers, just like it doesn't take a 200 MP camera to deliver a sharp image. At some point, these whiz-bang capabilities become superfluous.</p>

<p>Perhaps a marginal memory card that draws too much current? Perhaps you change lenses a lot in a static-prone environment, without powering down the camera? I can only guess, but I bet there would be a cause to this.</p>

<p><img src="http://graphic-fusion.com/phsnowytrees1sm.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>Two dogwoods on the Yorktown battlefield one winter.</p>

<p>It does seem odd. I've not heard of this issue before. I wonder if it's something you're doing wrong that's killing your cameras. Perhaps some piece of equipment you're connecting to the cameras is killing the circuitry -- maybe an old flash with a high voltage trigger, a defective card, a malfunctioning accessory. Or perhaps you live in a really dry climate with lots of static electricity, and you somehow keep zapping your cameras the same way. (Do other sensitive electronic items of yours often get damaged?)</p> <p>One time is odd. Twice is statistically almost inconceivable if occurring entirely by chance. I suspect there's a cause, but I can only guess as to what it might be.</p>

<p>So Walmart believes the subject owns the work, not the studio? Don't they run studios? Since Walmart holds this strange opinion, I think it would be great if their portraiture customers, both past and present, started demanding their negatives or full resolution digital files be handed over.</p> <p>And hey, I bet it costs a whole lot more money to get an 8x10 of a studio portrait than an 8x10 of a photo from the customer's camera. But is this not unfair pricing? I mean, if both types of images are the property of the customer, then they should cost the same to print. Walmart has been overcharging their studio customers! Their customers should march back to the store, track down the general manager, and demand the difference be refunded immediately. And while they're at it, they should demand their negative or full resolution digital file back.</p> <p>... because that's Walmart's position, and what's good for the Walton family should be good for the Walton family's customers. :-)</p>

<blockquote> <p>I never miss an opportunity to trash the Canon 24-105 F4L. In my honest opinion it is the worst of all the L-series lenses made. I owned this lens for about two weeks and returned it to the store. This is the first and only lens I have ever returned. I already had the Canon 17-40 F4L which again in my opinion is the best L-series lenses you can get at it's price level. it was the last time I checked the lowest priced L-series lens and Does not have nearly the distortion of the 24-105 at 24mm.</p> </blockquote> <p>I agree with you: You never miss an opportunity to trash this perfectly useful lens. However, I note that you feel the 17-40 is a better lens. I have both lenses and my experience has been the opposite. Sure, it's slightly better at 24mm, and I use it in preference to the 24-105 at that focal length if I don't need the IS. However, it's not my experience that it's better <em>overall</em>, although I do really like the lens. So I am wondering whether you got hold of a bad copy of the lens. It does happen. </p> <p>I agree the 24-105 is distorted at its wide extent. It also vignettes. However, both issues can be corrected very easily, practically with the click of a mouse, and without any noticeable loss in image quality. Distortion is the least of my concerns with any lens.</p> <p>The two lenses can be compared very soberly here:</p> <p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0</p> <p>Also I recall someone makes a lot of hay about the 24-105 having terrible bokeh. The truth is that it has somewhat harsh (not really "terrible") bokeh at 105, but that problem disappears at 70mm and below. Oh yes, and some of the earliest ones had the freakishly rare "heavenly ray" defect, which Canon fixed. Noted.</p> <p>All in all, this lens takes more beatings than a rented mule, but I don't think it deserves them. Like many "kit" lenses, there was a lot of careful engineering that went into it, there's a lot of economy of scale in its manufacture, it is sold at a conspicuously low price point in kit form, it gets no respect, it is ubiquitous on the used market, and it's a screaming bargain.</p>

<p>Both are excellent lenses, and yes, there are some $$$uperb lenses that are even better in some respects. (Yes, the 24-70II is an amazing lens -- for a considerable price. But the IS isn't as good, nor is the portability or reach.) Both are well priced and are very user friendly. The 24-105 is a great general purpose lens on a FF camera, and that's the lens I use most. It feels good, handles well, carries well, has a "just right" focal length range for walk-abouts, and delivers excellent and consistent results. The 17-40 is less useful to most people, but it's one you might consider later.</p>

<p>Panayotis, I think the issue is that the OP says he needs higher resolution when he PROBABLY* doesn't do the sort of photography that would benefit from it. AND to get this higher resolution, he is contemplating making a huge financial mistake of dumping his current gear to buy into a different ecosystem. He would also be making an equipment mistake, selling off gear he is familiar with to acquire gear with which he is unfamiliar. Maybe he can afford this folly, and maybe he can't.* However, the respondents in this thread are giving him what they/we believe to be good advice, to prevent him from suffering a known cost to achieve PROBABLY* no benefit.</p> <p>*I say "PROBABLY" because the OP has not participated in his own thread. We are left only to guess at how more MP might or might not improve the resolution of his output, as he has provided absolutely no information to suggest that it really would. But of course if he feels compelled and can afford the outlay of Euros, then he is of course free to jump the fence to supposedly greener pastures on the other side. And mid-jump, he might notice a few Nikon sheep jumping the other way for similar reasons. (Je dis, "Bonne chance!")</p>

<p>My education in fine art has been mostly osmotic, and my technical skills as a photographer have been mostly self-taught, aside from basic lessons from my mom. My mom had a keen appreciation for arts and sought to instill that in me. Perhaps she had an expectation it would be in my genes, as I come from a family of artists. </p> <p>My mom would drag me around with her to various locations where she would paint, often as a participant in some workshop. And she would drag me to the museums. Half of her friends were artists. The other half seemed to be architects, who tend to gravitate to the arts. My dad, an architect, would likewise drag me around with him to construction sites, where he would teach me things about form and function, different periods of architecture and their underlying cultural influences. Along the way I dated a couple of artists, and I am now partnered with an artist, who unlike me was formally educated. I sometimes ask her thoughts about composition, and she has agreed to teach me what she knows about painting.</p> <p>How does my appreciation of art and art history influence my photography? It seems an odd question, unless you're asking how different schools or periods of art -- or different artists -- have influenced my work. I think my answer would be very dull: I think I would have to say I'm interested in art simply because I am -- because my outlook on the world is very visual and graphic. And although I have admired the work of many photographers and other artists, my work is my own. I neither try to be different nor try to be the same. But I wouldn't be a photographer -- nor would I play music, nor would I write, nor would I take up painting -- if I didn't view the world somehow in an artistic way. </p>

<p>Panayotis, I didn't say (or mean) what you seem to think I said (or meant). I didn't say only pros need higher pixel counts. I'm a pro, and I don't need higher pixel counts. Jeff's a pro, and he doesn't seem to feel particularly hindered either. And I know a few amateurs who are quite compulsive in their technique, print very large, and might actually benefit from several tens of millions of pixies dancing on their sensors. It's not an amateur vs. pro thing. It's more a matter of how you use your camera and what output you are trying to create. Very, very few people really need 36 MP. In fact very, very people even need 6 MP. But there are some who need more pixies than the rest of us because of what they do. And some of them are professionals who know what they're doing (my point to Jeff).</p>

<p>The problem with a good catalog is that it exists in a propriety format. As newer software versions are created, back compatibility is slowly compromised. Given enough version "upgrades" (that are often necessary to maintain compatibility with evolving hardware and operating systems), even the best constructed databases can be degraded to the point of being almost useless. I've seen this time and time again. Even worse, the company writing your cataloging software might drop the product, get bought out, go bankrupt, or otherwise cease to exist, forcing you to jump to a different software product and perhaps even start over.</p> <p>IMO, the best way to organize photos is into meaningful folders. So a photo with Uncle Bill in it should go into an "Uncle Bill" folder. Folders aren't proprietary. I've never seen a folder structure lost due to back compatibility issues. I still have old files from the late 70's and early 80's organized into folders (well, they were called "subdirectories back then) with names such as "HDXPROGS" -- every bit as meaningful and useful today as they were back when I organized them.</p>

<p>BTW, Panayotis wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p>many Canon shooters are eagerly awaiting for a high-megapixel camera from Canon.</p> </blockquote> <p><br />Jeff responded:</p> <blockquote> <p>I've never heard any real photographer say this. I work with lots of other pros. It has never come up. Ever. On the web, sure, but those probably aren't photographers.</p> </blockquote> <p>And actually it has come up. G. Dan Mitchell, a wonderful pro landscape photographer, has made a cogent argument as to why he would like to see a higher MP Canon camera. On the other hand, Dan is quite a bit more compulsive in his technique than 95% of the photographers out there. He actually does use sturdy tripods, sandbagged, with MLU or liveview, 10x focus, and so forth. He's one of the few people who might, MIGHT be able to make good use of those extra few megapixies. However, it's worth noting that he's still a Canon photographer. He trusts that Canon will eventually market a higher MP camera, but for now, the need for those last few megapixies is not so compelling that he feels the need to jump ship.</p> <p>But in general, with regard to MOST photographers, I agree with you, Jeff. Heck, I'm still chugging along with 12 MP and not feeling any significant pain -- except that I would enjoy a bit higher ISO. </p>

<blockquote> <p>I’m thinking of D800 more seriously, with this choice, I will get a complete system where I can sell all my Canon stuff and get some Nikon lens.</p> </blockquote> <p>Outstanding! The more people who do this, the more Canon will lower its prices, which of course I welcome.</p> <p>When considering what increased resolution really means, consider that Nikon's 36 MP gives you only about 20% more resolving power than Canon's 22 MP. You're going to dump your outfit over that? Might I suggest you consider the Nokia 808, which sports a 41 MP camera?</p> <p>Also, when chasing resolution, consider your photography habits. Do you always do some combination of these sorts of things:</p> <ul> <li>Use a steady tripod, sand-bagged</li> <li>Use a cable release</li> <li>Wait for all wind and motion to subside</li> <li>Use mirror lockup or liveview </li> <li>Focus with 10x liveview when using shallow DoF</li> <li>Use really high shutter speeds or flash</li> </ul> <p>If you handhold a shot at 1/fl, then you fail. Nikon's 36MP won't do any more for you than Canon's 22 MP. Mind you, I'm not saying you shouldn't handhold a shot at 1/fl. I do it all the time. Rather, I'm saying you can't do this sort of stuff and expect to get the most out of a 22 or 36 MP sensor.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I've not experienced it myself, but bad chargers and/or bad batteries behave in strange ways.<br> The timing of both batteries going bad is odd, though not unheard of if they are the same vintage and have been subjected to similar loads/temps/conditions.</p> </blockquote> <p>I've had this happen! A bad charger killed all three of my aging (3-4 year old) batteries. Four years is about what I get out of the average battery. And when they go, they seem not to make much fanfare about it.</p>

<p>I never had the patience to find the deals that JDM does! Here's a Canon 18-55 IS used, $75, excellent+ condition from keh.com (a reliable dealer that offers a short warranty). If keh says it's "excellent+," I'd imagine it's almost like new. Here you go:</p> <p>http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-Digital-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-DC079990971900?r=FE</p> <p> </p>

<p>You can't buy a whole lot for $500. Used and older-generation would be rather tacky for a gift, unless.... Maybe a really cool antique camera? Or maybe a P&S for travel?</p>

<blockquote> <p>Now that Sarah chimed in, it made he think that there's probably a gender component to this. Men tend to be competitive with other men..</p> </blockquote> <p>Ha! :-> Women are competitive too, generally just about different things than men! That said, I think you didn't understand my response. I have gotten to where I am often studying what sorts of decisions a photographer used by studying cues in his or her images. I'm often doing this when watching a movie. For instance, I will notice a shot with very harsh bokeh in the background and will think, "Aha! There's going to be an important OOF element in the foreground. And sure enough, one drifts into the scene, and then focus shifts to that near element. Or perhaps that selection of lens was used to emphasize city lights. Or I'll read different sorts of diffusion filters in the bokeh. And when I see a portrait with interesting lighting, I like to study the lighting setup, which is reflected in the eyes. Heck, I even do it when watching the nightly news. I notice they've gone to three mains on the anchor. I'm also keen on noticing how lighting styles come and go, particularly with regard to rim lighting. Often it's just idle curiosity, but sometimes I learn something useful. I find that studying the work of others sharpens my eye and increases my awareness, and that's always a good thing, IMO.</p>

<p>By carefully studying other photographs, it's often possible to learn things from them -- especially lighting methods. So sure.... I do that.</p>

<p>My approach is similar to William's. I figure the aperture I need for the DoF I want. I figure the shutter speed to freeze motion sufficiently. I have some notion of the maximum ISO I will use for the noise I will tolerate (which depends mostly on how the image is to be postprocessed and used). If I don't have enough light to make the three align, then I will figure what to sacrifice. (Or sometimes I figure out how to add light!) I generally tend to sacrifice each in equal measure, although I will give priority to one factor or the other, depending on the situation.</p> <p>Very few people understand that fourth factor you can trade off here, which is the number of shots you will take in order to get a good one. I use the burst method William describes, but I will take more frames the more I sacrifice shutter speed. There have been rare situations in which I've picked off maybe a couple dozen shots to get one "lucky" shot that's frozen. In my experience, if you shoot enough frames, you'll eventually nail it, just from dumb luck, even with a subject that moves somewhat (but is occasionally still).</p> <p>Part of selecting your ISO and shutter speed is knowing not to sacrifice too much to depth of field. You often need to select your aperture on more sophisticated criteria than "from x to y." This is where it's good to understand object field relationships. Merklinger describes a very useful object field approach here:</p> <p>http://jimdoty.com/learn/dof/dof_merk/dof_merk.html</p> <p> </p>