matthijs

<p> Leica, 28mm and 90mm, National Geographic?</p>

<p>Might that be Sam Abell?</p>

It's about sharing.

That's what those X chromosomes are for.

To me the biggest difference just might be that it's simply easier to get a nice looking picture out of my 5D-ii then to get

one out of my 50D.

The biggest factors are the viewfinder, depth of field and "forgiving pixels".

The first two I'm sure of, the last might be a matter of faith. At 100% the images look better rendered to me but I might be

kidding myself.

However viewfinder and DoF are pretty crucial. (of course if you want deep depth of field you'd want a smaller sensor)

M

Aaron, oftentimes I do that on purpose.

I leave the house bringing just one body and one lens.

I mix between 17-40, 50 or 100. (also have a 28 and a 70-200 but I tend not to use those as standalone lenses unless I

use the 28 on a crop)

When I bring just the one lens my mind focuses on that focal length until I only see shots for that length.

My shooting is pretty intuitive (when shooting for art/fun) and this approach works pretty well for me.

However when shooting 'events' I either bring more lenses (like the two zooms or the 28 and the 100) or I just bring the

50.

A 50 is a nice compromise between wide and long to me.

By the way, my most used two lens combo for fun/art is the 17-40 plus the 100 macro.

Enough rambling. All the best,

Matthijs.

<p>A fast 50 on a 36x24mm frame and if it can't focus close I'd like a 12mm tube with it.<br>

So...<br>

Without the 12mm tube I'd want the Zeiss 50/2 MP. However if a 12mm tube falls within the "one lens" limit I'd have a EF 50/1.2L plus tube.</p>

Irony is of course the superlative of laundry.

The reasons why I would get a 5Diii would end with image quality at ISO 12800.

They would start with "snappy like my 50D" and a big 100% uncluttered viewfinder.

The reasons not to all begin with €.

M.

100L gives more options and is sealed...

+1

15-85

(-:

For 'art' I'd get a prime. Maybe Canon 28/1.8 or Sigma 30/1.4.

For walkaround and events I'd get a Canon 15-85 plus a simple flash with swiveling head.

But I'm not you.

Do you like shallow depth of field?

Do you want utter sharpness?

Do you want low-light / stopping action?

Do you want low-light slow shutter?

Keep shooting!

Have you held and handled them?

If not, please do, how a body feels is pretty important too.

Never wait for the next model. The current bodies are very good, available now at a normal price.

Are you sure about that 17-40? If you use crop the 15-85 beats it in practically every way except weather resistance...

Good luck, Matthijs.

The 7D is certainly great. However the 600D uses the same sensor so for image quality you should be able to get similar

results.

Body, AF and view finder are a different matter of course.

So it's a toss up between new options due to new glass or more comfortable (confidence inspiring) shooting.

A hard choice. Maybe you could invest just a small amount in new options (like just a 12mm ring for use with the 18-55

and 50) and use the rest of the money as a starting point for a new body.

Maybe the 28/1.8 and a 12mm extension tube?

The 28 so you don't have to step back too far plus it's a pretty good allround lens.

The 12mm tube so your 50 and your 28 will behave like macro's. (when you use it they'll only focus close though but

mounting and dismounting is easy)

This option leaves some money in the bank which isn't bad either...

Thanks.

Do you have "shareable" results?

All the best,

Matthijs.

PS. My guess is the insect will be scared of the camera&human, not the noise...

Maybe you could start a new thread with a dark sample (plus the settings used) so we can have a look at that.

It might be a lens, settings or even (pop-up?) flash issue.

Note: though a 70-200/2.8 is nice you might prefer a prime for it's price and size. (however shooting events a zoom is

more practical)

M.

+1 to Rob.

What's disappointing in the 55-250?

Build quality, reach, max aperture (light sensitivity), sharpness, color&contrast, size&weight?

Depending on your answer you might need a fast prime, a tough zoom or a bigger budget.

(-;

Matthijs.

Only L with IS means you can't go wide.

If it were me I'd get the EF-s 15-85 IS and use that until I'm sure which focal length I prefer for portraits. And when I do I'll

get a nice prime in that range.

But within your parameters: 24-105/4L IS plus 100L IS macro should be all you need.

M.

Do you prefer details or sweeping landscapes/entire buildings?

For details a longer lens like 24-105 is fine. Otherwise a little wider (17-55/2.8 or 15-85) or even a lot wider would be

better.

The same goes for portraits; environmental, tight? Shallow depth of field?

There's a lot to choose from.

More info would help.

M.

Dan, I stand corrected.

M.

<p>This ís the Canon forum...</p>

<p>I'm happy with my 5Dii but I've never shot Nikon, so I'm not the most reliable source.</p>

<p>Why I write this short note is this: you mention shooting a D700 and liking it's high ISO performance.<br>

Pixel for pixel the D700 beats the 5Dii. However de 5Dii has a lot more of those.<br>

The D700 files will look better at 100%. When scaled (or printed) to the same size that difference disappears to most observers.</p>

<p>I agree with the advice of handholding one before buying.<br>

Everyone has different hands and everyone has different opinions on ergonomics.</p>

<p>In the end it should also be a choice from the heart. In my experience I take the best pictures when I feel confident in myself and forget my camera. (well the technical stuff, if I totally forget the camera I'll probably come home without any shots...)</p>

<p>Have fun shooting, Matthijs.</p>

With regards to wide angle and needing 17 mm:

You shoot the 15-85 on a 7D. How often is that lens not wide enough?

It has a 24mm field of view when translated to a 5D.

Note: I love my 17-40. If I go (relatively) light weight I only bring that and my 100L for my 5Dii.

All the best, Matthijs.

Since you have a zoom I'd say just experiment to find your preferred focal length.

After that's chosen look at the options.

Note: if you're not sure about why you want a prime you might enjoy a fast zoom.

On a personal note: I like primes and zooms both. Prefer primes for "art" and zooms for events. In your range I have

28/2.8, 50/1.8 and 50/1.4. They're all fun to use and yield good results. (for perfection wide open I'm afraid you'll have to

save for more expensive lenses)

The field of view a photographer prefers is entirely personal. Some nitpick each millimeter others just shoot with what's

mounted. (Within limits I'm more of the latter kind.)

Hope this helps,

Matthijs.

<p>Depending on what you want the cheap 620 or 650 option is worth a shot.</p>

<p>I recently shot a roll of film with my 23 year old EOS 650 using modern lenses and it still works great.<br /> (A single AF point that prefers to be perpendicular to a contrast rich line, auto exposure, automatic film loading and transport, it does it all...)<br /> And the viewfinder is positively huge. (OK, huge is an overstatement, however it's bigger than a 5D-ii's.)</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

<p>Matthijs.</p><div></div>

Is the the 21 kilopixel version?

(looks really tiny! Only a few centimeters for the 500?)

M.

I've read really nice things about the Zeiss 50/2 MP.

It's a 1:2 makro and renders well.

Alas I don't have one so I can't give personal experience.

(Stephen Penland uses one every now and then. He's on photo.net.)