ajweiss

<p>Don't sell the dedicated video camera unless you never need autofocus. DSLRs are great for video under controlled situations, but a real video camera will do a better job for most people if things change unexpectedly.<br>

I love my 7D, and I use it to make very high quality video, but I still have a Canon HD camcorder as well.</p>

<p>It looks to me like his hand is in front of the flash. You can see some reflection from the brightly-lit wall on the shirt of the boy on the left and the face of the boy on the right, so I'm inclined to believe that the picture is what the camera is really seeing.<br>

If it isn't his hand, is he using a third-party lens hood (the wide rubber kind)? The first step is to have him take pictures with no flash and see if they are the same. If they aren't, then he's probably doing something wrong.</p>

<p>It sounds like you've done a great diagnostic job so far. You are correct in thinking to try removing the main battery, the secondary "watch" battery, and the lens, letting the camera sit for a bit, then putting it back together.</p>

<p>I'm not specifically familiar with the XS, but the smaller battery is usually in the main battery compartment under a sliding piece of plastic. On my 20D (and my 300D before that), the piece of plastic is right next to the hinge and says "CR2016 3V" on it (the type and voltage of the battery). I pulls out of the camera and exposes the battery.</p>

<p>If that doesn't work, another thing to try is cleaning the contacts between the camera and the lens. I doubt that is the problem, as you'd probably be getting an "Error [some number]" message if that were it, but it can't hurt to try it.</p>

<p>Brad,</p>

<p>You shouldn't be able to see any image degradation when importing into Final Cut Express, even though there may be a little going on. It seems from your initial post that you are seeing the degradation when exporting from FCE, which makes more sense than a loss on importing.</p>

<p>Importing into iMovie for trimming, then exporting as Apple Intermediate Codec for Final Cut is an unnecessary step. FCE's Log and Transfer setting (you are using that to import the video, right?) converts all of the video into the AIC format before adding it to your project, so there should be no difference in image quality between iMovie and FCE.</p>

<p>I should note that I don't have a T1i, but I do have a Canon flash-memory-based HD camcorder that uses a similar file format, as far as I know. Using that as my guide, here's what you should be doing:</p>

<ol>

<li>Before you do anything else, open up Final Cut Express and go to Easy Setup in the menus [Final Cut Express>Easy Setup...].</li>

<li>In the "Use" dropdown, choose "HDV-Apple Intermediate Codec 720p30." This is the closest to what the T1i shoots, in terms of resolution and framerate, but is not an h.264-specific import setting. Don't worry about that, as FCE will import the video using the closest matching settings, regardless of your choice here. Click "Setup." </li>

<li>Open the "Log and Transfer" panel [File>Log and Transfer...], choose the clips you want to import -- naming them if you'd like -- and click "Add Selection to Queue." This will take a while (probably slower than real-time on your iMac), so go do something fun and come back later.</li>

<li>When the Log and Transfer is done, place the clips in your sequence and edit as you like. You will most likely have to render the sequence to play it while editing. This is normal for h.264-sourced video in Final Cut on a dual-core machine (my laptop needs to render 1080HD video when editing, my Mac Pro usually doesn't -- at least until I apply filters). </li>

<li>When you are done editing, export the video to the format you're going to use. If you are going to use it for different purposes, do multiple exports [File>Export>Using QuickTime Conversion...]. If you want an "uncompressed" version (that's in quotes because AIC is a compressed format, but it's the one you've been working in, so it won't get worse), choose The "QuickTime Movie" option instead [File>Export>QuickTime Movie...]. You can then use QuickTime Pro to convert the AIC file to various formats if you don't want to do it in Final Cut.</li>

</ol>

<p>I just tested this setup with my camcorder, and the resulting video looks great, even when I shrink it down to 720p. I don't have any T1i files to test, but I assume it should be the same process (I'll happily try it if you want to send me a sample). Let us know if it works.</p>

<p>I hope this helps,</p>

<p>Adam</p>

Oh, and I have both the little gorillapod and the big SLR/Zoom model and like them both. They are surprisingly light and sturdy if you use them properly.

Just a note on the shots Edward posted: none of those were actually taken with a Lensbabies lens. They are examples of the kinds of things you can do with a lens with tilt and shift movements, but all of them were taken either with very expensive specialty lenses or were altered in Photoshop to look that way.

I would vote for the 24-105 L for best all-purpose zoom as well. I use it on a 20D and I think the range is great. Personally, I don't need it to go any wider for 95% of my shots, though that is really a personal choice. I know some people here never really go longer than 40-50mm, so the 17-55 (or 17-40) may be their pick. For a prime? I would say a 30ish mm sub-f2 USM lens that just doesn't exist from Canon. Well, maybe the 35mm 1.4L, but I've never used that lens...

I will put in a second vote for a point and shoot digital, as the screen it makes it much easier to see what you are shooting.

 

I just got back from Australia and the Great Barrier Reef, and every tour booking agent and dive shop in Cairns was renting 10MP Canon A-Series digicams in housings good to 140ft for AUD$30-$60. I would assume that it will be similar in Belize. Call some of the dive shops in the city you'll be in (or visit their websites) and see if there will be rentals available there.

Aperture will not run very well (if at all) on your computer. The minimum system requirements are -- from Apple's website --"15- or 17-inch PowerBook G4 with a 1.25GHz or faster PowerPC G4 processor and 1GB of RAM." Even if your PowerBook (not a "Macbook Pro G4") meets those requirements and Aperture runs, it will be painful to use.

 

<p>Apple recommends at least a dual-core G5 with 2GB of RAM, but I don't believe that's really enough machine either. I consider Aperture to run just about acceptably on my quad-core Mac Pro with 3GB of RAM -- a computer that is <i><b>many</b></i> times faster than yours. Lightroom, on the other hand, ran just a little slow (but fine) on my 5-year-old 1Ghz PowerBook G4 with 1GB of RAM.

 

<p>Both are good pieces of software (I prefer Aperture myself), but I doubt either of them will be required to solve your problem. First of all , if the photos look "great" in Photoshop, why don't you just switch to that for your processing? Secondly, the Canon software can give great results if you know how to use it, so you might be able to fix your problem there with nothing but practice.

 

<p>If you want to get one of the two pieces of software you're asking about without upgrading your computer, your only choice is Lightroom.

B+W is the brand name.

I've had a Canon Elph in the past, and I recommend the A-Series to everyone I know, but

my current go-everywhere camera is the Pentax W20. It is small, takes hundreds of

pictures on one battery charge, and has a surprisingly good set of features. Some of my

favorites are:

 

<p>- it is a shooting-priority camera, so you can take a picture even when reviewing

shots

<br>- live highlighting of over- and under-exposed areas, in addition to a live histogram

<br>- an adjustable Auto-ISO mode that lets you select what the "auto" range really is

<br>- a fixed-focus setting to take those REALLY fast snaps

<br>- full brightness, contrast, and sharpness adjustments that really expand the

dynamic range

<br>- a programmable button on the back that can be set to exposure compensation,

ISO, etc.

<br>- a "soft flash" setting that can be used as baby-FEC

<br>- full control of what the "default" settings it remembers are, so it's the way you want

it on power-up

 

<p>Oh, and it is completely waterproof and dustproof, so I can use it in the rain or in the

water, and wash it off in the sink if I get it muddy.

 

<p>The image quality is close to the small Canons, and the dynamic range is better. And

if it only takes 90% as good a picture as the best P&S in ideal circumstances, it takes an

infinitely better picture in all of the circumstances you'd never dare take out a less-rugged

camera.

While reformatting is best to clear off a card, I do occasionally use "Erase All" for its one

good function: to erase all of the unprotected images on a card.

 

I've accidentally put a card in the camera that is 2/3rds full, taken a few pictures, then

wanted to clear off all of the ones I'd meant to delete to begin with. In that case, I just

protect the ones I've just taken, then erase all.

 

Except for that 1 in 100 mistake, formatting is best.

 

So, since there is a use for erase all, I'd be interested in the cause of this glitch.

I've always wanted a "normal" prime. I use a 20D.

 

I have the 50/1.8, and it gets very little use because of its length. I use it for portraits, but even that is

diminished since I got a 24-70/2.8 (Sigma) and a 135/2.8.

 

I don't have a burning need for a normal prime, but I do have an occasional need for a faster lens than the

24-70 for general use in low light. To me, this translates into the need for a normal prime.

 

I've also always wanted that normal prime.

 

My question is this: is one stop enough to justify buying the new lens? I really wonder if I'll be able to

handhold in lower light than with the zoom because I'll lose the extra stability the zoom's mass imparts.

I'll also use the decreased DOF, but I'm not sure how much of a difference that will be either.

 

Should I consider the Sigma 30/1.4? It costs almost twice as much, and it is only compatible with

cropped-sensor cameras. I can't afford the Canon 35/1.4. I'm not planning on going full frame any time

soon, but I do like the idea of having a 35mm prime if I ever do. Also, 56mm just feels more like the what

I want to me than 48mm (of course this is without doing any tests -- I just tend to skew a little longer

than wider in my lens choices). USM/HSM would be nice.

 

My reasons for thinking about it now are:

 

1. Summer is here and with it comes things I want to shoot at night.

2. I have a photo job coming up that will net me about $300-$350, and a 28-135IS I'm not using that I

could sell.

 

What does everyone think?

 

Thanks,

 

Adam

What do you mean by high megapixels? The 1D IIn isn't going to give you more absolute

resolution than you have, while the 5D and 1Ds won't give you the framerate.

 

Which is more important?

 

For sports, I'd guess framerate. That means the 1D II, not the 1Ds.

 

What kind of speed do you really need? Would a 30D work?

Some florescent lights change color throughout their cycle, so fast shutter speeds can show

changing colors from frame to frame in the same room.

Did you bump the rear dial and set a positive exposure compensation level?

The screen is not exposed. It is behind a plastic cover. You can order a replacement cover for

the screen if the plastic gets scratched. Alternatively, you could get something like the

Invisible Shield screen protector and never worry about it again.

<i>...considering all of the lenses I have from my earlier Elan 7E...</i>

<p>

What other lenses do you have? As far as I know, nobody has seen a 17-55 yet, thought it

should be good. If you need a lens now, you need the 17-85. If you can wait and can afford

it, you should consider the 2.8 (if your photography would benefit from it).

Do you want to have an easily portable kit, or is image quality and versatility paramount?

 

If the first, and you won't be doing much low-light action work, I would suggest a simple

combo of the 17-85 IS and the 70-300 IS. These cover the 28-480mm range on a 20D

(which I recommend -- and would be necessary for the 17-85) for about $1000, and are

pretty good optically. You will lose out on shallow depth-of-field with the 17-85, but a

nice prime or two could solve that for a few hundred more.

 

If the second, How about the new 17-55 2.8 IS (once reviews come in), maybe a 24-70

2.8, and definitely a 70-200 2.8 IS with a 1.4x teleconverter. This set will be much more

expensive ($3000-4300), a lot heavier, and better for low light or fast action work.

 

If you don't want to get a 20D or 30D, you'll need to rethink these suggestions to avoid

EF-S lenses. You'll probably end up spending more and needing to carry more gear to

cover the focal lengths that way...

<i>..focus on the eyes while pressing the shutter button half way, <b>zoom out</b>,

recompose and take a picture.</i>

 

<p>Are you focusing with the lens zoomed all the way to the telephoto setting, then

switching to a wider-angle view to take the picture? If so, I think we may have found the

problem. I'm almost certain that the unnamed "slower lens" you had in the past would not

maintain focus when the focal length is changed. I do not have a Canon 24-70, but from

the design of the lens, I doubt that it does either.

 

<p>Unless I am mistaken on the 24-70, if you are zooming in, focusing, zooming out,

then taking the picture, you are throwing the image out of focus every time.

To clarify that a little: when you view a 1.6x crop shot, you are enlarging it more than a FF

shot to get to the same print size. In doing so, you also magnify the camera shake.

Mike,

 

The 1/focal-length rule does not lead to shake-free pictures, only "acceptably" shake-free

pictures. Different people have different opinions of acceptable, so the rule does not apply

for everyone.

 

That said, you will see more camera shake per pixel on a 1.6x camera than a full-frame

camera because the pixels are smaller and the field of view is smaller. Therefore, for APS-

sized sensors, the rule for "acceptability" should be 1/1.6(focal-length).

<i>I think that a lot of my images are out of focus, or focused on different things other

than where I want the focus to be.</i>

 

<p>If your images are truly out of focus, IS will not help at all. If they are just blurry, you

may benefit from IS. What shutter speeds are you getting when you shoot. If they are too

low, you may have camera shake issues. If not, you probably have technique issues.

 

<p>What camera mode are you using? What focus mode are you using? Are you manually

selecting a focus point? (If not, try that.) What lighting conditions are you dealing with? Are

you using the 24-70 at 2.8? The depth of field is pretty shallow that way, so problems you

many have with focusing technique would be greatly amplified.

 

<p>If you can give some more info and post some sample shots, maybe some of us can

comment better on your problem.

Leszek,

 

Maurice said some very offensive things in that post, so I'm sure the moderators deleted it.

 

Nicole,

 

What types of photography are you hoping to get into?

Jen,

 

Thanks for clarifying that. In that case, I would first see if you can rent a 70-200 2.8IS for

one of the competitions (or even a practice). It shouldn't cost much at all (as Jose said, $30

or less will do it at the right store). Use it with and without the IS, and see what focal

lengths you prefer for your shots from the audience. Also test different apertures.

Remember, the camera records all of this info in each shot, so you don't have to write

everything down.

 

Note those things, and you'll be well on your way to knowing what lens to get. If you find

that you use it zoomed in all the way to 200mm most of the time and the IS doesn't help

much, then a 200mm lens might be the way to go (and at less than half the cost of a

70-200 zoom). If you use it most around 85mm, 100mm or 135mm, there are good less

expensive ($250-$500) primes in that range as well. If 2.8 with IS on still results in blurry

pictures, you'll need to spend a lot more money (or convince them to turn the lights up

higher).

 

How does that sound?