mark_pierlot

<p>Within the past year I've amassed an extensive Pentax 67 kit, all of it purchased from Japanese sellers. While their prices tend to be on the high side, the condition of the gear, speed of the shipping, and overall quality of the customer service have been second to none.</p>

<p>Mark, I had a 17-40 and found it underwhelming. If I were you, I'd go with the preponderance of advice here and get the new 16-35.</p>

<p>I don't understand why one should have to subject a lens to rigorous testing for sharpness if it's not producing sharp results under normal shooting conditions. I've had two lenses, the 35/1.4 L and 24-70/2.8 L, that were disappointingly soft until I replaced then with different tack sharp "copies." Nothing in my technique had changed, only the lenses with which I was shooting had.</p> <p>I love Canon gear, but certainly won't be an apologist for the company when it comes to their selling of demonstrably substandard L-class lenses.</p>

<p>Just to clarify, the "price differential" to which I'm referring is between the price of the 80D and that of the 5DIV, and <em>not </em>between Canadian and US prices. In both Canada and the US, the full frame body costs around <em>three times</em> as much as the crop body, which is what I find alarming.</p> <p>JDM, I think I am going to adopt your strategy. In fact, apart from its relatively poor low ISO DR, the 5DII suits my needs perfectly, so I can definitely wait to "upgrade.".</p>

<p>I'm delighted that Canon is finally addressing the dynamic range "issue" with its new generation of sensors, but I am confused about the pricing of the new bodies. </p> <p>Here in Canada, the 80D currently costs $1450 (sans lens), while the 5D IV is a whopping $4500, or over <em>three times as much</em>. The price ratio in the US is similar: $1200 to $3500. This pricing differential seems unreasonable, does it not? I know, I know. Pricing is determined by what the market will bear. But can the market bear it in this case?</p> <p>While I am definitely interested in the 5D IV, I think I'll just hold onto my 5D II till the price of the newer body comes down to a saner level, or wait till the 5D V comes out. ;-)</p>

<p>Forget the 60D and the Rebels, and get an 80D.</p>

<p>I'll put in another plug for the 50/1.4. It has a tried and true design (in fact, it's optical formula is the same as that of the 50/1.4's from other manufacturers such as Nikon, Minolta, and Pentax).</p> <p>I also have a 50/1.2 L, and had a 55/1.2 SSC Aspherical, but the 50/1.4 clearly delivers the best ratio of cost to performance.</p>

<p>I'm glad you managed to solve the problem, Robert. I've done much "stupider" things with my cameras.</p> <p>The F-1N is my all-time favourite SLR - a real beauty.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, Julie, the 5D IV has significantly greater dynamic range than the 5D III or 6D.</p>

<p>If you have found an EF 85/1.2 L for $900, don't hesitate to buy it. It's one of the best lenses Canon has ever made, and the favorite portrait lens of many a photographer.</p> <p>However, $900 seems to be a suspiciously low price for that lens.</p>

<p>The solution to this problem is simply to pick up a fungus- and haze-free replacement of the lens. It'll only cost you a few visits to Starbucks.</p> <p>As JDM has said, it's a fabulous lens.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Why? Are your exposures off? I really don't get this. Dynamic range issues virtually never enter into my consciousness as an issue.</p> </blockquote> <p>You evidently have never had the misfortune of having to shoot in the midday sun, Robin. With a family of youngish children, it's a circumstance I find myself in all too frequently.</p> <p>It's not a matter of exposures being off, but rather whether to expose for the shadows and blow out the highlights, or to expose for the highlights and lose detail in the shadows. That's precisely the conundrum with which I'm often faced when shooting with DR-challenged DSLR's. It's much less of a problem when I shoot with Kodak Ektar 100 film, for example, so it's not a question of an inability to obtain correct exposures, but rather an inherent limitation with the digital sensors I'm using. And that's why I would welcome any improvements Canon makes with respect to low ISO DR.</p> <p> </p>

<p>For my shooting needs, the 5DII has served me very well, apart from its relatively poor low ISO dynamic range (compared to film). If the 5DIV is significantly improved in this regard, I'll definitely acquire one. A little more resolution wouldn't hurt, either.</p> <p>I guess for me this proves JDM's adage that it's best to "upgrade" at <em>every other </em>iteration.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I tend to use different formats for different applications (for example, medium format film for more "formal" portraiture and 35mm film or digital for candid shots), so this conflict rarely arises for me. </p>

<p>I use a 5DII and 7D, and am very happy. Since they're the same generation, their interfaces are very similar so it's easy to move between them.</p> <p>A Rebel you might want to consider is the SL1. It has pretty much the same sensor as the 7D, but is <em>tiny</em>, almost like a point and shoot. I bought one for my young daughter, but often take it with me when I want to go light. Its 18-55 STM kit lens is surprisingly sharp (and the 40mm pancake is even better). </p>

<p>Other than the fact that it's too dark, I don't think it's a bad composition at all, Lannie. The "subject" may be a little boring, but I like the way the sign lines up with the road, and also the way it contrasts with the rest of the scene (with respect to both brightness and colour). The effect is that one's eyes first fix on the sign, and are then drawn down the road. The texture of the lower part of the image is interesting, too, with the noise lending an almost painterly quality to the dirt.</p>

<blockquote> <p>On another line of thought and depending upon your budget you might look at purchasing a refurbished or second hand EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> William beat me to it, so I'll second his recommendation of the 100-400. I have the newer version, and it's one of my most used lenses. Despite its huge zoom range, it delivers excellent image quality and has a good image stabilization system that allows you to shoot hand held even at longer focal lengths. And it's really not as heavy and bulky as you might think.<br> <br> As an all-purpose longer telephoto zoom, I don't think you can beat the EF 100-400. <br> </p>

<p>William W has made some salient points and given some excellent advice, as usual. I'd just like to add my two cents.</p> <p>Since I got the 24-70/2.8 L II, I haven't used my fast wider L primes much at all. The image quality of the zoom is at least as good as that of the primes. To wit, I recently sold my 24/1.4 L II and am contemplating selling my 35/1.4 L as well. (I had 24-105/4 L IS, but much prefer the IQ of the 24-70. Of course, depending on your style of photography, having IS may trump having higher resolution, as William has implied.)</p> <p>If I were you, I'd get one of the standard L zooms and forget about the 28mm.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>I know I won't be purchasing the full frame body until next year, but I like to have a plan!</p> </blockquote> <p><br />The best plan, then, would be to wait and see which bodies are announced in the New Year, and decide then.</p> <p>I've resisted "upgrading" my 5DII and 7D because their successors don't offer me much more for the kind of photography I do. You won't know whether the 6D's successor will be better for you till it arrives. One thing we do know, however, is when the 6DII (or whatever it'll be called) is announced, the price of the 6D will drop.</p>

<p>I don't shoot fast moving subjects, so my ancient 5DII and 7D suit me just fine. But the 7DII reportedly has the best AF system of any EOS body, making it suited to your type of photography, Matt.</p> <p>As for your question</p> <blockquote> <p>How many of you have actually nailed an amazing shot with a 7d II that you would have missed with a 7d?</p> </blockquote> <p><br /> I hope photo.net member David Stephens pipes in here. He has had a lot of firsthand experience shooting birds in flight with the 7D and 7DII, and has extolled the virtues of the AF system of the newer 7D over that of the older.<br /><br /> As for the 80D, its AF performance is likely between that of the 7D and 7DII.<br /> <br /> By the way, which full frame body are you upgrading to? The 5DIII apparently has a very good AF system as well.</p>

<blockquote> <p>lown 'highlights" are probably not a result of the camera or the sensor. I have no problem with shooting people, sports, or say, butterflies in midday sun with an older camera. But go ahead and get a camera with more "DR" and see how you like it.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Brett, you're implying that it's my technique that's to blame, but I've already stated that I don't experience the same issue when I'm shooting film (with the same lenses on an EOS-1V). I have hundreds of photos of my kids (and reams of other stuff, even butterflies), shot in the midday sun with Ektar 100, that have no blown highlights and plenty of shadow detail. So <em>my </em>inference would be that the sensor <em>is</em> to blame, and not my technique.<br> <br> So are you saying that the dynamic range of a digital sensor doesn't matter? If so, that's a curious claim, indeed. I guess sensor development with respect to DR should just end with the 60D. We've already reached the pinnacle, guys!<br /><br> <br> (Yes, in case you're wondering, Brett, I was offended by your post.)</p>

<p>Thanks for the advice, guys! I didn't think of using fill flash. Unfortunately, it's not really an option for me most of the time when I'm around and about with the kids. It's bad enough lugging around my gripped 7D or 5DII (with the 70-200 or 100-400) without adding the extra weight and bulk of my 580EXII.</p> <p>When I'm doing more "formal" outdoor portraiture of my kids, I shoot in open shade, so have no trouble obtaining even exposure. But it's when I'm chasing them around on the playground, trail or beach that I have trouble with blown highlights and the like. I think having some extra DR capability built into the camera would be a good thing. Of course, I could just return to shooting Ektar 100 film, which I have been doing to some extent.</p> <p>Perhaps I'll wait and see what Canon offers in the next couple of years with regard to improved DR. The 80D's sensor is likely just a harbinger of things to come.</p>

<p>I have a dual format kit (5DII/7D) and am generally happy with it. The only real deficiency it has for me is its relative lack of low ISO DR. Having two young children, I often find myself shooting in the midday sun, when DR demands are high.</p> <p>I've read online that the new 80D has pretty impressive low ISO DR, and that may be a reason for me to "upgrade" my 7D. But I haven't seen any hard data or read any user reports. So I'm wondering whether anyone in the photo.net community has had an opportunity to compare the 80D's low ISO DR performance with that of other EOS APS-C bodies.</p>

<p>The FD 80-200/4 L is the best FD zoom ever made, a truly legendary lens, and is sharper than the FD 200/2.8 prime (at 200mm, of course!). The zoom can be had quite relatively cheaply on the used market, probably because it's "slow" and a zoom.</p> <p>Being a late FD lens, it's quite light (675g), and would serve your purposes very well, Wayne.</p>

<p>Michelangelo Antonioni's <em>Blow-Up </em>is my favourite photography-related film. It's also one of my favourite films, period.</p> <p>I thought Mel Brooks' <em>High Anxiety </em>was only episodically interesting, though I guess that's the point. Since it's been almost 40 years since I've seen it, I really should give it another shot, particularly since I love Hitchcock.</p>