mark_pierlot

<p>My family and I are going on a fairly extended camping trip to a very scenic region of British Columbia (East and West Kootenays), and I'm debating whether to take my 7D as well as my young daughter's SL1, or just the latter.</p> <p>Space isn't a huge concern, nor is portability, since I won't be doing any extensive hiking (since my kids are four and seven), but it would still be good to cut down on the weight and bulk of the camera gear I'm taking.</p> <p>I haven't done a huge amount of shooting with the SL1, so I don't know whether the 7D would offer much IQ advantage over it. Also, I use a grip (w/ two batteries) with my 7D, and will be carrying a spare or two, while we have only two batteries for the SL1.</p> <p>I'll be shooting static or slow-moving subjects, so the fact that the 7D has a superior AF system isn't really a factor.</p> <p>And, regardless of whether I take one body or two, I'll have the same set of lenses. So I guess my biggest concern is whether I'll be missing any image quality if I leave the 7D at home. Of course, a consequence of taking only one body is that my daughter and I won't be able to shoot together.</p> <p>Any advice would be appreciated.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Moon shots rule of thumb: f/11, shutter speed 1/ISO. Haze is something you can hardly compensate for, let alone control. Hope for better circumstances.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Jos, I'm just curious as to why those settings are generally optimal for moon shots. A member recently posted a couple of moon shots on the Canon FD forum, and the settings he used were close to those prescribed by the rule of thumb (f/11, 200 ISO, 1/125).</p>

<p>One of my favourite films is <em>The Celebration</em>, which is also Danish, and which also had a distinctive filming style (done with hand-held video, I believe). I can't wait to see <em>Ida. </em>Thanks for the recommendation, Arthur.</p> <p>Just the other day, a friend gave me the DVD set of Krzysztof Kieślowski's <em>Blue</em>, <em>White</em>, and <em>Red </em>trilogy, with its inspired (and inspiring) cinematography.<br> </p>

<p>Thanks for the reminder of that six year old thread, Dave. I had completely forgotten about it. </p> <p>Much water has passed under the bridge for me since then; I now primarily use EOS DSLR's and EF lenses, and am in the process of selling off much of my FD collection. However, there are some lenses (and bodies) with which I will never part, and the 80-200/4 L is surely one of them. </p>

<p>It's the best FD zoom ever made, with comparable image quality to the venerable EF 70-200/4 L IS.</p> <p>I wouldn't hesitate to pick one up.</p>

<p>I'd like to know from anyone who has experience with both of these fine FD zooms which one delivers better image quality. I have used my 35-105 fairly extensively, and have always been happy with its versatility and resolution, but even though I also have a 28-85, I haven't used it enough to determine how its IQ compares with that of the 35-105. I know that the 28-85 is one of the last FD lenses that was made, and, while it's build quality is inferior to that of the other zoom, it has an stellar optical reputation.</p> <p>I would like to sell one of these lenses, keeping the one with better IQ. Obviously, their range is different, so I'm only interested in hearing about their comparative IQ.</p>

<p>Sorry, Allan, for coming across so aggressively. I, too, have been obsessed over trivial deficiencies in my gear. I guess my previous comment was motivated as much by self-loathing as it was by a desire to contribute to the discourse.</p>

<p>I agree with Wouter that lens selection should be your primary criterion. Since Canon and Nikon have <em>by far</em> the most extensive lines of lenses, I wouldn't even consider getting another make of camera if I were you.</p> <p>I also agree with Robin that you should give the 5DII serious consideration. It's a well-built body with a titanium alloy frame, very good high ISO performance, and great resolution. And its AF system is more than adequate for "available light landscape stuff."</p> <p>I resisted "upgrading" my 5DII to a 5DIII because the low ISO performance of the newer body virtually identical to that of the older body (its resolution is only marginally better) and its high ISO performance is only a little better. Furthermore, the 5DIII lacks user interchangeable focusing screens for those, like me, who like to use manual focus lenses on their DSLRs. And if I need a better AF system for fast moving subjects, I just use my 7D.</p> <p>When Canon introduces a full frame body with <em>substantially </em>better low ISO dynamic range than that of the 5DII, I'll upgrade. But until then, I'm sticking with my "obsolete" camera.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Thank you people. Forums do alleviate the pressure on an obsessive mind!</p> </blockquote> <p><br /> Why are you still obsessing then, Allan?</p> <p>If it were an expensive lens, I'd be obsessing, too, but it's a $500 lens that you got for $300, for God's sake!</p>

<p>$550 for that kit is <em>way</em> overpriced. For example, I just bought a <em>new</em> SL1 w/ 18-55 STM for my daughter for CDN$600.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The best one-lens solution would be a EF-S 15-85mm IS lens, since it would continue to be useful even as you upgrade yourself in time. It is more expensive, for sure.</p> </blockquote> <p>I'm with JDM here. Skip the 28-135 and get the 15-85. And, later, pick up a 70-200/4 L IS. The only other lens you might need for "general photography" on an APS-C body is a faster prime, such as the 50/1.4, the 50/1.8, or, perhaps best of all, the 40/2.8 STM.</p>

<p>My daughter loves her SL1 w/ 18-55 STM, but since she's only seven, its diminutive size and weight are huge advantages. For your daughter, the T5i may indeed be the better bet, but please be sure to get the STM kit lens with it if you can. It's optically superior to the other 18-55's, and enables focus tracking while shooting video.</p>

<p>I replaced the 18-55 II with the STM on my daughter's camera, and there was a demonstrable increase in resolution. If critical sharpness is your goal, I'd pass on any of Canon's kit lenses (including the 24-105 L); otherwise, the STM is a worthy upgrade of the earlier 18-55's.</p>