Marcus Ian

IME, ergonomics are of critical importance when shooting weddings... though of course I'm sure that depends on how you/your company shoots weddings... but speed and accuracy while changing modes/settings are things that either mean you GET the insanely cute shot of the moment the flower girl forgets what she's supposed to be doing, and runs up to hug the groom (her dad) while everyone is overcome w/ emotion over the moment... however... if you are fishing through menus, or having to do finger-twister to change the settings you are shooting with to dramatically capture that image, then you aren't shooting... and by the time you are, the hug has ended and everybody is back to business... Just saying, unless it has a comprehensive set of physical controls, IMO, it's not suitable for wedding (or any potentially fast paced/need-speed-and-accuracy work) duties.

I've still got a couple of 3rd party BP-511s that lasted for at least 8yrs, and were going strong when I sold the camera out from under them... I still miss the buttery smooth OOC Raws from my 5Ds. In fairness, the 5D had about the smoothest sensor I ever worked with - far smoother output all the way up to 1600 than any camera I've owned since, or any sensor who's raw output I've seen since. I would think that that sensor in particular would be far less susceptible to over current image degredation than any 'modern' pixel-dense sensor. I'm not convinced about the original idea (of sensor degradation with age), absent a contributing factor (such as the suggested over current draw from a dying battery)... However, modern sensors are FAR MORE SENSITIVE than older sensors... (that is, for example, how we get usable imagery at ISO 102400 these days) as such, every stressor is possibly going to have a tangible effect on the sensor output... Batteries are cheap, and it's a great idea to have a reasonably fresh one However, the 7D's 18MP sensor is the same as that used on what (?) half a dozen different models from 2009-2016? I would suggest that if this were something to be 'normally expected' there would be a crapload of people complaining about it... TBH, I think there may be something else going up w/ your 7D (possibly more than one symptom/problem)- especially as you've noticed that tendency to shoot at higher ISOs when shooting auto... Out of curiosity, what firmware version do you have installed on your 7D?

Different films are... different. Mostly in terms of color reproduction/saturation/etc, but then things like UV filters matter again when going back to film.. ...switching film brands / types can have a greater impact on your output than switching camera brands. You should definitely continue the experiment. My Elan 7e was probably my favorite 35mm film camera ever. Light, and w/ ECF, it's still a great film camera. Personally, dropping $700 on a 1V HS seems somewhat wasteful to me. A 1 of nearly any type purchased in an effort to 'streamline' and make your kit lighter and more efficient seems self defeating to me... I mean, you can get very nearly as-capable film units at half the cost, half the weight, and half the size. Your 7D2 covers all the sports/high-speed shooting, which of course was the design impetus for the 1V HS - and the 7D does those things a LOT better. For fun/creative/experimental use, it just doesn't seem an ideal choice.

You might not ever even see it on full resolution RAWS viewed fully on screen (you'd pick it up viewing at 100% - if looking in the right place), as, likely -at most- it's going to be no more than ~9 pixels affected (though possibly much fewer). I recall having a hot pixel pop out of nowhere on my old 400D (picked up as solid red), and the only reason I saw it was because I was reviewing RAWS, it was bleeding about an extra 128R to the surrounding pixels, but even most exported JPEGs ignored it completely (except on very dark backgrounds). Video encoding however includes downrezzing, and my understanding is that it behaves considerably differently since it is simultaneously downrezzing to 1920x1080. It very well may see a group like that (or even one if it happens to be the lucky pixel picked), and instead of outputting a single pixel at 256, output a group at 128 (or some thing similar)... I'm certainly no expert on video encoding algorithms...

The likely reason it takes over more than one pixel (on the RAW) is because with modern pixel dense sensors, the physical sensor 'bleeds' the hot pixel to the readout of surrounding pixels, causing the A/D convertor to see a higher analog value in surrounding pixels (which then gets converted to higher Digital values in the file)... ...that and if this is a jpeg (not the raw), the Raw->jpg algorithm, tends to feather out hot signals as well... I would compare this to the RAW to see which pixels are actually being affected (sometimes it is literally only the one)... ...but only if you care about esoteric information... ;) the fix is still the same... what Mark posted...

That's my experience as well, esp as just about any film over 1600 ISO DEFINITELY falls into that category... ;)

I edit every photo that makes it through culling. 'Culling' is the initial phase of 'Post-Processing' after downloading and backing up the images. So, after getting home, download everything, back up everything, then start 'culling' the images. In other words, go through every single image, make a quick evaluation, and decide whether or not it gets rejected now, or moves on. That takes 1-10 sec per image. Things like missed focus, way out exposure errors, redundant images/ blinked eyes/unfortunate composition decisions, unflattering angles/ unfortunate appearances, etc. all get weeded out at this stage. Once that is done, I go back and do basic exposure/framing/color tweak edits. That's easily 90% of post. The remaining 10% is spent on maybe 1-2% of the images, doing specific edits and PSing for headline type images. Yes, it can certainly take awhile, but it is what it is what it is. I've certainly shot full day weddings (16+hrs) where I've come home w/ 3500+ RAWS, and delivered 450+ images, but most are well under half that. With a decent workflow in place (and decent post software like LR), culling takes a day or two of solid work for the largest jobs, but usually much less. That said, I've never once used a 'filter' to make a final output deliverable ... I've tried them a few times, and found that, inevitably, they are a recipe for the masses, they always need tweaking to optimize for an image, so instead, I just learned how to use the tools properly and avoided the wasted time fixing what the filter broke. IME, every single image is unique. A filter can't read my mind, nor can it see what's in the image. It's just a bunch of arbitrary edits, many of which 'generally' apply, and can certainly give a 'consistent' output, but I find that rubber stamping an image with a filter often detracts from the characteristics that make it unique. Of course YMMV, and that's just my experience using them for professional work.

Of course you could buy a 3rd party battery grip... it will let you put 2 batts in the camera, virtually doubling the amount of time / number of shots you can fire off before needing to change batteries. Given your use, I'd be surprised if you needed to change them at all. While I can't comment on the Apparent GPS design fault, I can say that leaving batteries out of camera, and in the bag when not in use, will leave them fully charged for you to start your day - regardless of the 7D2s foibles. The other key advantage of a BG is better shooting ergonomics for portrait shooting, though obv YMMV. That said, the bottom of the barrel ones are not very good. A 'name brand' 3rd party grip, while NOT as durable as the OEM ones, still, are pretty resilient in all but the harshest service. I like BGs, and have used them on nearly every digital camera I've ever owned. This included years of wedding service, dangling a 70-200/2.8 and 5D/5D2 by my spider holster off my belt (ie. Dangling the weight of the camera and lens by the tripod mount on the BG)... That experience was a pretty even mix of OEM and 3rd party BGs. By far the biggest downside is added weight and size. Again, YMMV, but handling a camera with ONE installed will def tell you if those are deal breakers for you. Decent third party battery grips can be had for the cost of one genuine Canon battery. Pairing that with 4 decent quality non-oem batteries can be done for probably around $100. IME, OEM batts are largely interchangeable with OEM ones. Over the last 13yrs of digital camera use, I've found that they have pretty similar endurance and longevity as the OEM ones - although I don't typically buy the bottom of the barrel ones, as those DO tend to suck. Instead (like the BGs) I find that 'name brand' 3rd party ones are the sweet spot for reliability and cost effectiveness. Maybe that helps, maybe not, but food for thought ;l

I think the FIRST step is to get a firm set of expectations from your sister. As in like a proper 'meeting' using the list Gary posted as a tentative 'agenda', and comprehensive note taking. Once you have a firm understanding of what her EXPECTATIONS are, you can decide whether you are capable (ie. You have the TIME, budget, and Ability to do it). Then you should seriously consider how she is going to take partial successes, and hiccups (especially if the planning is extravagant) You obviously know your sister better than we do, but you should be brutally honest with yourself - for some people such normal occurrences are apocalyptic, for some it's expected or no big deal. If your sister tends toward the 'apocalyptic' worldview, i wouldn't advise taking this on - that's what pros are for. Anyway, good luck, and remember, no matter what you do, this is going to be a source for family drama for the next few years. Focusing on making the B&G happy is ALWAYS my primary goal, but don't expect that to be everybody's.

Yeah, no doubt, most of the macros will give outstanding sharpness, and decent bokeh... and are decent portrait lenses ... if you can control the shooting circumstances and background distance (which in many circumstances, most photogs can), however, being limited to f2.8 makes candid and environmental portraiture more challenging - as well, of course, when working in dim lighting. Of course, if one already has a decent 70-200/2.8, buying a 100mm macro is pretty redundant unless you have plans for, you know, macro work. ;)

...and chase the birds... 5D3 - 70-200/2.8 (w/ 2x TC) - 220mm f5.6 1/2000s ISO200

When it's in the 50s, cautiously approach water! 5D3 - 70-200/2.8 (w/ 2x TC) - 270mm f5.6 1/400s ISO200

Even when the beach is cold... it's still fun. 5D3 - 70-200/2.8 (+2x TC) - 400mm f5.6 1/6400s ISO800

I can't recommend the 85/1.2L. Not unless you are ONLY shooting completely stationary subjects. kids? no way... candid portraiture? fugedaboudit... The AF is sooooo slow (compared to modern AF) you are constantly just missing focus on anything that moves more than a few inches (least that was my experience)... The II is much improved (as in about twice as fast), but getting a 1.4L IS (or the Sigma 85/1.4A) will likely give you vastly higher keeper rates for most every normal use. Get the Sigma if you need the sharpest imagery available (and yes, it's as sharp/sharper than the 135L/2) and don't mind the weight, the L if you want/need IS (say for video work) - or shooting in pitch black, want standard 77mm filter, and don't mind paying an extra $500 (or near enough) for it... ...also, the 1.2L/1.2L II 's bokeh ain't perfect. bright bokeh balls have a nasty habit of being sharply cut in half - NOT ideal for any bokehlisciousness... The Sig doesn't have that problem to nearly the same degree, but of course ymmv...

Have you tried setting it to full manual mode (or as full as possible)? (I don't know anything about EOS-M, but I've had other EOS cameras which misbehaved in Av, TV, P, and full auto when they had old non-native lenses mounted)

I wouldn't make judgments based on flickr. I have seen instances where a far inferior lens blew the doors off of far superior ones simply because the one photog knew what they were doing (both behind the camera, AND behind the screen), and the other either didn't, or simply didn't optimize for that output - IME, it's not a good tool for comparing what a lens can do. Out of curiosity, are you shooting FF or crop? The reason I ask is because if you are shooting crop, and want more/better bokeh, moving to FF is one way to do it. Also, that 135 turns from a 216mm back into a 135. For a long time I was dissatisfied with my photography (after having dropped film, but was shooting APS-C solely), but when I finally picked up a 5D, the magic came back - and my bokeh was instantly more satisfying.

Last but not least the infamous Jag... 5D3 24-70/2.8 - 70mm f10 1/800s ISO400

The engine details are often my favorite part of the show... 5D3 - 24-70/2.8 70mm, f8, 1/640s, ISO400

Here's a few from Cars of Kiawah concourse last weekend... if you can't tell, I favor the British section ;) 5D3 - 24-70/2.8 - 39mm, f10, 1/500, ISO400

Are you using a receiver on each speedlight, or just the one on the 580? I notice that Calumet's instructions tell you to use one receiver on each external light triggered. Using the 580 as a 'master' in this setup obv does not work because the 580 isn't communicating with the camera directly. The Calumet does not transmit TTL instructions (which is likely why the 580 is getting confused). Unfortunately, a 430EX (idiotically IMO) does not have optical slave function, which would probably function properly, but, to use this way would require an optical slave hotshoe trigger.

I think I'd recommend the 77D. (IMO) I think learning to work with both dials is an important step when shooting M, aka photography fundamentals. The students who want to shoot for shooting's sake will (of course) want the more capable camera, but lets be realistic, it's not like a teenager, who has been using a Rebel, is going to have a problem picking a 77D up and be shooting effectively with it minutes later. The basics are virtually all exactly the same. The improved ergonomics will (OTOH) allow those passionate about photography to expand their current horizons. I always found (personally) that limiting my tools limits (in practical terms) what I do with them.

5D3 - 24-70/2.8 --- ISO1600 70mm f/4 1/40

Ben's point is extremely valid. Every single external hard drive I've ever owned had a "standard" hard drive inside. For the last decade+ these have ALL had standard SATA connectors. Ie. By disassembling the external drive, I could access the drive itself and hook it up to a system with a SATA-USB connector. Over the years I've had several external drives which became unusable with the enclosure, but, upon disassembly, were completely usable. I even used old external drives (removed from their enclosures) put into an old desktop to build a scalable NAS system hooked up to my network. In a nutshell, just because the drive is unusable does NOT mean the hard drive inside is trash, or that the data on it is garbage. Anyone capable of disassembling the external hard drive enclosure may be able to save your (and your client's) day. While that doesn't address the larger issue of long-term storage for you it may be a way to recover from this error, this time.

If you have a computer w/ the appropriate version of DPP on it, the easiest thing to do may be to shoot tethered. Precise control of exposure length through the external shutter release in B mode may not be possible. While you could easily fab a device which can output the correct signal, the camera's ability to read that signal appropriately may not be adequate... after all, B has never been a precise way to get any finer resolution than 1 sec intervals..

While processing is a HUGE part of it, it is NOT the only part. With Canons (in particular 5D2, but 6D as well), shooting 'to the right' (ie. with the exposure set to ~ +2/3) yields more usable Raws, with easier, 'poppier' exports in LR. Learning to optimize the behavior of your eqp will give you much more satisfying result. If you shoot at +0, or gawd forbid - 1/3->2/3, your raws will be harder -> much harder to pop in LR - requiring more extensive post, and yielding noisier imagery, to get similar results.