joel_tomaneng2

<p>Canon makes a EF 20mm (EF can be used on all Canon DSLRs, EF-S is the crop sensor designation). There's also EF 24mm that runs just under $400 (I believe this was just discontinued).</p>

<p>Ha, I just sold my 1.4 teleconverter! It worked well, but I just wasn't using it as much anymore. Anyhow, I 'd go for the extender, between the two options. There may be some dimished capabilities regarding autofocusing since you are slowing the lens to roughly f4, but I don't think it will be an issue for the 5d MkIII. This only other reason I'd consider the 7d is if I was more familiar with the 7d than the 5d MkIII.</p>

<p>One other option you may want to consider is just going to 200 with your original setup, then cropping. 22.3 MP is almost double the pixel count compared to the original 5d. </p>

<p>Based on this post and other posts regarding your need for AEB and HDR, I'd get the 5DMkIII, or even look into a 1D-series. If you're concerned about the $1700 price difference, I'd look into selling some of your EF Collection (or one of the other 2 bodies) to make up the difference. 15 EF Lenses? You could probably get rid of a few of them and not miss them too much. I sold my 5D and three rarely used EF/EF-S lenses to get me in the ballpark of a 60D price range. I haven't missed the old equipment yet.</p>

<p>Wow, times have changed! I didn't know massive auto-bracketing and HDR have become so ubiquitous. I have yet to do any AEB shots -- more of tripod/manual setting guy when it comes the few HDR shots I've done. I guess I'm just part of the "old school...." In the audio world, a little part of me still cringes when I hear auto-tuned vocals.<br>

In fact, there are days when I wish I could just slam a full-frame digital back on my old Pentax LX -- still love the split viewfinder on that body and the feel of manual focus. But the LX was sold long, long ago. Oh well, I'll stick with my 5dMarkIII - perhaps I'll actually try out the built-in HDR and see if I like it.</p>

<p>+1 for Lightroom. I use Lightroom 4.1. It handles RAW very well, the interface seemed easy-to-learn (I never read a manual or book, but I've looked at the occasional help article). It sells for $149.<br>

Photoshop Elements Sells for $79 and comes with Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). <br>

I feel like Lightroom is geared more towards folks with some Darkroom experience. Elements didn't seem to fit my "workflow" of moving 1000s of photos around. <br>

Overall, they're both good, are both capable of doing what DPP does, can handle multiple brands of Cameras, and have relatively minimal bells & whistles (compared to Photoshop). <br>

In any case, you can always try both for 30 days and decide for yourself. Both have free 30-day fully functioning trial licenses (well at least lightroom did). </p>

<p>Feral Parrot In My Tree. Apparently the ancestors of these birds were part of Busch Gardens in Van Nuys, CA. The attraction was closed in 1979 to make way for a larger Budweiser Plant.<br>

Canon 5D MkIII - 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16047572-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="454" /></p>

<p>Well it's been over 9 months since the original post and the burst of initial responses. Considering how iPhone first adopters were disappointed that "historical performance was not an indicator of future performance", and that a major catastrophe that occurred in Japan. Anyone care to throw out another expectation? For me, I'm waiting for the price on the 5DMkII and the money in my pocketbook to come into alignment -- Currently happy with my current setup (5D Original and 60D). </p>

 

<p>Harry, have fun with your 7d. As for the manual, I'm such a geek that I usually download the manual and read some of it before I purchase, then read the rest of it before it arrives from the mail-order house. Also, I always charge the battery when I crack the box open... it gives me more time to read that manual one more time.</p>

 

 

<p>For Mr. Smith, here's the proof:<br>

I didn't post it earlier because I thought it may be too technical.<br>

<a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx">http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx</a><br>

Again, I stand by my opinion that Windows XP, in general, can't handle RAM over 3GB.<br>

Jacques, just try to reduce your memory from 4 to 3 GB, and see you still like your computer. If you don't, feel free to buy another one. Both Mac and PC are fine, but if you go the PC route, make sure you have a tech that can truly work with PCs and Multimedia Applications.</p>

 

<p>...Importantly, this all started when I replaced the 2 x 1Gb RAM with 2 x 2 Gb RAM.<br>

Mac vs. PC...this discussion has gotten way to philosophical to be useful, so I just going to put my 20 cents in to solve the "issue." My first question would be is are you using Windows XP (the 32-bit version and not the 64-bit version)? In a nutshell, 32-bit XP can only handle 3GB of RAM. Once you install more than 3GB, the additional memory now comes into conflict with other devices that have built in RAM (such as your video card, network controller, hard disk controller, etc.). This can make a PC appear to run slow, or simply "lock up" and become non responsive. So, if you still have that old memory (and it's of the same type as the new), you may want to swap out one of those 2GB sticks with the 1GB. There are some rules to this, depending on the type of memory.<br>

If you really want a Mac, go for it. I think they're fine computers (except for the chicklet keyboards, I just can't get used to those)... </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I noticed that Richard has not posted since the original post. Probably because he now realizes that Canon already has a factory in Japan and they're putting up another one, despite the "global" economic downturn. Anyhow, I just spot checked all of my canon equipment, including my point & shoots... yep, all made in Japan. Guess he made me look...</p>

<p>I'm really not getting this argument. These "reference manuals" are small. I have three or four of them in my bag and don't notice that they're there. These things weigh less than a pound. If someone was using a "cheat sheet" (say after every other shot) and this was slowing down the shoot to the point it was slowing down the wedding (yes, I've seen this before), then I would say no. But if you're killing some down time (e.g. you somehow got to the reception hall before everyone else), this is a great idea. Danzel -- like the ipod idea, especially if its a ipod touch/ iphone... something you can fit in a coat pocket. Overall, use some common sense, take a few notes if necessary, but don't let it be a crutch.</p>

<p>Andreas,<br>

Interesting observation regarding the apertures minimal effect on DOF at minimum focus distance. I'll have to test this out for myself.</p>

 

<p>Without scrolling down, the first thought in my head was "depth of field." I think there may be a sharp yellow leaf or two on the lower right corner of the picture. I dont a tripod is going to work here, especially with an object suseptible to the wind, plus the fact that this was shot at 1/400 sec. Narrow the aperture and increase the DOF. Bracket if you're experimenting. That should do the trick.</p>

<p>I own a 5d (non-mark II) and love it -- no regrets. Bought it right before the mark II came out, so I got it for essentially $1700 (after several rebates, manufacturer and otherwise). One of the reasons I own Canon is it was a better value at the time I started buying a dslr system. However, if I were in your situation, buying the D700 is a no-brainer. It's the same price as the the current 5d, and you already have a lens and flash for it. I think the pixel count is a non-issue (anything above 10 MP is enough). I don't have an opinion about video (that's what my camcorder is for). The only thing I could think of is that the lens selection is bigger for Canon, but not really if you're looking for lenses faster than f/4. Get the D700...</p>

<p>Darren,<br>

I don't know if you're still trying to find that super bokeh lens yet, but here's an article I read that helped me out with a similar situation:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm">http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm</a></p>

<p>Anyhow, I do have the Sigma 30 f/1.4, Canon 85 f/1.8 and Canon 135 f/2.0L. I can get good bokeh on all lenses (and others). However, I would say that the 135 is the "Super Bokeh" The 135 is a great lens for candid shots, where you don't know what you're background is going to be and you really want the subject/person to stand out.</p>

<p>By the way, in looking at the two photos you posted, it looks like increasing the DOF might have made the background less "busy." By increasing the DOF, the size of the small "lights" in the background would be smaller, possibly bringing less attention to them. </p>

<p>In any case, lots of good opinion and technique on this post. My two cents on bokeh technique: The distance between you and the subject must be much shorter than the distance between subject and background. I notice that several of the samples you liked, included the subject walking down a path/street. I think the key thing to notice here is that the sample was taken in line with (or very close to) the path itself. So, you probably would've had a less busier background if you simply changed your position. Also, you want to pick a background with minimal contrast. The second "busy" sample you posted had a lot contrasting little lights. This is going to be a bokeh challenge for many lenses. </p>

<p>Keep experimenting and you'll eventually get that bokeh technique down. </p>

 

<p>I have the 135 f2 and the 70-200 f4 (although non-IS). I love the 135 on my Rebel xti (call it 216 if you must). I have an eight year old and it works great for those candid shots. However, I also like my 70-200 f4, though on my 5D (Full-Frame). I tend to use the zoom on hikes or whenever the subject tends to move a lot (like birds, wildlife, etc). I haven't used an IS lens, so I can't comment on it. However, I tend to compensate the for the lack of IS through faster shutter speeds and higher iso settings, sometimes under-exposing the shot and push-process in post if necessary. Both lenses are great, but I get more compliments with the shots using the 135 (on both cameras)...it just seems to capture the moment better. In any case, if I had to choose...it depends. If I had only one body, I'd get the 70-200; otherwise, the 135 is never leaving my bag. Hope this helps!</p>

<p>My vote is for option 5. Based on the options you posted, it seems that your preference is Canon at this time, which is fine. I think the rational for option 5 is great if your 5d is relatively new has some warranty coverage on it. Otherwise, you may want to consider buying a new(er )canon DSLR, if you indeed want some backup coverage. I'm no expert in buying used DSLRs, but based on the articles I've read, I've come to the conclusion that older DSLR bodies have shorter lifespans than the current year's set of models, IMHO. Plus I'm a believer that you're eye, and the lens is more important than the body you use. I realize there are specific features on the 5D you can't get on a Rebel (or any other APS-C Body) for that matter, but I would put reliability over capability when considering a backup. This assuming, that your backup can use your current set of lenses.</p>

<p>For me, this choice came down to availability of lens rentals and overall prices of lenses (and lens rentals). I sure I would be happy with either Nikon or Canon. I just found that the availability and pricing of Canon lenses (and rentals) were overall more affordable. </p>

<p>[accidentally posted twice...sorry]</p>

<p>Sorry, there are way too many responses to this thread, so forgive in advance if I'm repeating any advice. One thing you may want to consider is the level of customer support you can possibly get from Apple. I like the fact that there are multiple locations, where a customer can bring their equipment for diagnosis/repair/replacement. <br>

Frankly I can't vouch for the quality of service recived on a Mac. I've never owned one, as I'm one of those folks that build their own PCs and will always build a substantially cheaper PC to the Mac equivalent. Every time I build a PC (every 3-5 years) I always see what the others have (Apple, Costco, Etc.), but I haven't been able to justify the cost difference, which on my last build was about 40%. However, I love the service I get from Apple when dealing with my iPods, which I can't build myself.<br>

Based on the inital posts (I read the first 20 or so), it seems that you're not the person that builds their own PC. Taking that into consideration, if I didn't service my own computers, I'd buy Apple... and I'm going to check them out again when shopping for another PC.</p>

<p>I second Gary's Opinion -- Lot's of activity and good suggestions. (So now I'm placing yet another comment. ;-) ) Anyhow, based on all this pictures I have seen on this thread (and my gut feeling), I'd work on your focusing techniques before anything else if I were you, period. You should read pages 56-58 in the Canon Xti Manual. Nadine really gives great advice, namely to work on one thing at a time. Have fun!</p>

<p>I never owned the 120GB Classic, but had the 160GB Classic (previous generation, circa 2007) for a little over a year. My intent was to use it as a backup photos via my Laptop (Windows XP), plus be able to store music (i.e. the original reason to get an ipod). Overall, storing files (including RAW photo files from my Canon 5D and XTI) does work. I don't know what the speed would be from the camera itself, as I chose to place the compact flash in a memory card reader, through the laptop, onto the Ipod Classic. Generally, the transfer rate was from 10-15 MB/Sec. I've never tried to use plug any of my digital cameras straight to the computer, so I can't comment on that. After about a year, I stop doing using my ipod for storage as it tended to complicate maintaining sychronization between iTunes and the iPod. I ended up selling the 160GB Classic, and purchasing an ipod nano (for music) and a <a href="http://www.hyperdrive.com/">colorspace hyperdrive </a>for my pictures. As for the <a href="http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2211">Apple iPod Camera Connector</a>, it only works with a <a href="http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1353#ipodfifth2">5th Generation</a> ipod, which was the most A/V friendly iPod created.</p>

I currently have a 5D original. I bought it brand new a few months ago for $1,799 (lots of rebates and coupons) and

completely happy with it. So, do I need the 5D2? Nope. Want it? At the current price? Not really. I'll wait until

either my 5D dies, or when the 5D3 is highly anticipated (as indicated by a 40% price reduction through rebates, or

whatever). Overall, you typically pay dearly for bleeding edge technology. Waiting for a 5D2 to drop below $1,700...

My vote -- Photoshop Elements. I'm currently running version 6. It address all of your concerns -- RAW + JPEG handling, Printing, Web Posting, Basic Adjustments, Copyright Notice. Most importantly, it addresses ease of use. I've tried dozens of photo editors/organizers, and found that this package addresses the ease of use situation the best. Workflow is quick/easy to learn -- I just dump attach the card to my computer and it dumps the pictures to a folder of my choice, then I spend a few minutes attaching some metadata to the phots (or not). The organizer allows you to view your photos either by a date range, as well as tags you create to organize your photos -- no need to physically move the files around. Anyhow, you can give a try by downloading the trial from Adobe. If you want to purchase, is around $80.