mark_brown13

<p><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.12.31/canon-err99">http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.12.31/canon-err99</a><br>

Try reading through that, it might provide you with a solution. Hope it helps.</p>

<p>The 1D 'chin' is for it's more extensive electronics, dual processors and autofocus sensors etc. It's big because it needs to be to contain all those features and most pros won't complain since they'd have put a battery grip on it anyway.<br>

I don't need 1D performance or size, just a good sensor and a light tight box. And I really don't need to throw away THAT much money for weather seals when I can use 25p electrical tape for the same job.</p>

<p>Either the 85mm f1.8 or the 100mm f2.0 are ideal portrait lenses on a full frame camera and are essentially designed to be just that. There's no real need to pay for the 'L' glass in this focal length unless you really don't care about money or you rely on your gear to make a living. Even then the 'L' lenses are not strictly better options as both the lenses I mention are excellent and some of the best lenses Canon makes especially considering the attractive price.<br>

I use the 100mm f2.0 a lot, originally on a film camera but I continue to use it as a portrait lens on my crop sensor 40D. It has a 160mm equivelent in this case so gives things a flat 'fashion' look but still a good choice for me.<br>

The choice of 85mm or 100mm is really just up to preference, I went with the 100mm because it seemed a more versatile choice alongside a 50mm standard. </p>

<p>I wouldn't have expected the lens to factor that much into low light autofocus except for the aperture size, f1.8 is about as good as it gets. Tell me if I'm wrong, I just don't see how it would affect it further. The motor is louder and slower than most so maybe it is just more obvious that the camera is struggling and the hunt for focus is slower.<br>

The 40D would be much better in low light, it does have more cross sensors but the real advantage is the second centre point sensor that is much more sensitive when using lenses faster than f2.8. You also have a better chance with manual focus since the viewfinder is brighter and you can buy a replacement focus screen that is designed to aid manual focus.<br>

The most likely reason for unsharp pictures though is not the autofocus itself but the slow shutter speed and the small depth of field with fast lenses but again the 40D would help since you can use a higher ISO setting and the autofocus will hopefully be more accurate so the depth of field will be where you want it.<br>

I do a lot of low light pictures with my 40D, i'd go full frame if I could afford it just for this reason. Every camera has it's limits and I've happily watched my 40D and 50mm f1.4 struggle and fail to get the shot I wanted just because the light wasn't there. A 400D is a fine camera and you have a fine lens so just be sure you can burn the money on something that is better but not necessarily that much better.<br>

A small tripod might be the only thing you need for sharp pictures and far more cost effective. You may find you buy a 40D and get exactly the same results because it is the situation you are shooting in and not the camera itself that limits you.</p>

<p>I have the 28mm f1.8 and have to say I love it. It is a bit softer wide open than I'd like but it is in the nature of such a fast lens at 28mm, there are few equivalents that even give you the option of f1.8 without forking out for the 24mm L series glass. An outstanding lens and a joy to use on my 40D.<br>

I was in a similar position to you not long ago and chose the Canon because I wanted full frame lenses for my film bodies and for future upgrades. My understanding is that the Sigma would be sharper, espicially wide open but Sigma's quality control is suspect and I decided not to risk it for a lens I'd probably only ever use with one of my camera bodies.</p>

<p>That is one very unlucky run. My 40D is as solid as a brick. No problems with it at all. I've not heard of any consistent problems with the model except perhaps with third party batteries but if your not using Canon's batteries then it isn't Canon's fault. If they are fine in the 5D but not the 40D it could just be that the 5D is more tolerant of variations, has simpler electronics etc than the 40D.<br>

More out of curiosity than anything else, what are these bad reviews and issues you refer to? I know the 40D looks a little plain compared to newer models but I don't see anyone saying it is a bad camera. I'd say it was a great camera for it's price point.</p>

There are I think advantages and disadvantages to the different formats I think. The arguement seems a little pointless to me, I'd use either depending on what I want to achieve.

Detail or not, the 40D images are more usable if I needed to crop that much and use aggressive sharpening. I don't take pictures for scientific experiments, I want them to look nice.

Pictures from the 40D are nice.

I too am looking out for the for the Zeiss 50 1.4 but from the reviews I've seen of the Nikon mount one I'm not convinced it is better optically. All you may end up doing is paying more money to not have autofocus. It is a nice looking lens though so I'm waiting on reviews/comparisons before making up my mind.

IMO: I believe the only reason the Sigma so much better at wide apertures is its oversized optical unit, if you want smaller you need to accept the poorer IQ. Everything is compromise. It isn't really in the same class as the 1.2L which has a significantly wider maximum aperture as a benefit of it's 'oversized' design. Admittedly the design of both these lenses seem to proritise sharpness at wide apertures which is itself a compromise. The EF 50mm 1.4 is noticeably better past f2.0/2.8 than both.

I had a tiffen filter once, just a plain UV protector. It was on a different lens but I saw the results and never used it again.

I keep a Hoya Pro 1 in my bag in case I'm going to shoot somewhere where I want to protect the front element from the enviroment (sand, rain, pints of lager etc) but even with that there is a notable degradation if you look close enough. The tiffen was ridiculous though, very obvious degradation even in 6x4 film prints, it was like the lens was in soft focus all the time.

CP's though useful would normally have even more of an effect on IQ as they are two pieces of glass with a third, the polarising material sandwiched in the middle. I'd suggest not using filters at all until you get better ones and even then only when there is a good reason.

I think that's an awsome image. I'd go with 5500, I like how dramatic it feels. I'd be very interested in knowing how the effect occured. I only recently bought a 40D which is what drew me into this thread and I can honestly say it inspires me to go out and try it myself.

I'm far from being an expert but, as a guess it seems like the colours are off because the camera metered too much off the sun and most of the image is underexposed as a result giving some very dark tones, though to wonderful effect. Am I right in thinking those brown edges on the clouds would be more orange/yellow if it was exposed more? Along with a lighter blue sky would that be more like what you saw with your own eyes?

I believe a digtal rangfinder with an DSLR sized/quality sensor would sell by the bucket if it was affordable.

DSLR's are big cameras and I think there's a hole in the market between them and lower quality compacts, not to compete as has been said but as a complement to larger SLR sytems. Although, not rangefinders per se, Micro four-thirds and the similar Samsung specification being suggested are aiming at this gap. The M8 wasn't a bad idea but I think Leica should have tried a more consumer priced product with an M-mount. Leica have likely missed the boat by focussing too much on high end expensive products and it is probably long past the stage where they can manage the investment to get in on the act later without a partnership with a larger company. Which maybe they and Panasonic will.

Maybe Leica's target market will hold up but it is an increasingly fast moving and crowded market and Leica are making expensive legacy products. I'm not an optimist and I really think the companies future lies with just making high quality branded lenses for other companies such as Zeiss do (and already do with the Lumix line) or continual decline until being bought out by a bigger company who see an oportunity to use the name.

I look forward to a Nokia phone with a Leica lens :-p

Canon's film SLR's are a bargain at second hand prices and when thinking ahead I prefered to invest in the Canon system that appeared better for me and easier to upgrade with within the well thought out EOS system. I've just bought my first digital body (40D) this month and am very pleased with it. I have faith in Canon as a company coming through with the goods though I'm sure Nikon are great too the only thing that tempts me is their hardy film SLR's of yore.

It also probably helps that I find Canon's marketing more convincing. :-)

Thanks for the advice guys.

I live in Derby so going to the Oxford St Jacobs would be a bit of a trip though I might pass through sometime I'd hope to already have a bag. The photography shops in Derby (Jessops, Jacobs and London Camera Exchange) are quite small and only stock a small range of consumer friendly bags. I'm not adverse to them and certainly have easy access to some good Lowepro and Crumpler bags but I haven't really found anything I'm happy with. I intend to go have a look in Nottingham at the weekend where there are larger branches of all these shops plus a branch of Calumet.

I'm quite keen on the Domke F-5xc and the cambags.com website has convinced me more but the Think Tanks do look good. I'm avoiding anything I would wear on my back as I would potentially be wearing my rucksac for non-camera stuff in addition to the camera bag if I was travelling between stops but my consideration at the moment is something quite minimal that I can work out of for a days browsing after dropping the rucksac somewhere.

I'd like to ask for advice about suitable bags for to hold a 40D, 2-3 prime lenses and extra bits for street photography.

I've been looking for something low profile and small to walk around with comfortably for a day at a time. I really like

the look of Domke bags but I can't find a high street store that stocks them to try them out. I'm also interested in

Lowepro's new Terraclime 100 if anyone has seen one but these aren't available yet as far as I can tell.

I'm to open to other suggestions and would especially welcome advice from more experienced people with similar

aims and setups.

I don't think the advancing features year on year is strictly to do with the obsolesence of previous models and is more about keeping up with the competition. If Canon let older models sit on the shelves too long everyone who needed a new camera, having no committment in lenses already would rightly buy the latest and greatest camera from another manufacturer who did renew their lines. Of course it doesn't harm Canon if some people feel obliged to keep up with the Jones' and buy a new camera or two every year and good luck to them, they have more money than I do.

I only just got my 40D as my first DSLR to accompany my film 50E and I expect the 40D will still be a great mid range camera even when the 50D is being replaced.