alan_bryant1

<blockquote> <p>More recently I have noticed that there seem to be a number of point-and-shoot or "bridge" cameras that are claimed to be waterproof to 3 fathoms or some such.<br />Do any of you have experience with these as a much cheaper alternative to regular dSLRs?</p> </blockquote> <p>I've had a Canon PowerShot D10 for 5 or 6 years now. It's shock-resistant and waterproof. I've used it underwater many times, in fresh water and occasionally salt water. I've used it in rain and snow. I've dropped it five feet onto a concrete sidewalk. I haven't managed to damage it yet.</p> <p>The image quality is typical for a P&S, which is pretty good in bright light, not as good in dimmer light. But perfectly fine for many purposes. The current model is the D30, which has several new features, and is waterproof to 82 feet - sufficient for snorkeling and some recreational scuba. At $300 it's much much less expensive than an underwater DSLR.</p> <p>There's also the Nikon 1 AW1, which I haven't used, but it appears to be a good camera and probably has better image quality than the PowerShot D30.</p>

<p>I've used a micro SD card with an adapter in several Canon cameras and I've never had problems.</p>

<p>I believe it's doing "dark frame subtraction"; essentially after a 300 second exposure it's taking another 300 second exposure with the shutter closed, and using that to find the bad pixels to remove them from the image. </p> <p>It's a pretty common surprise for people who take long exposures. Another link,</p> <p>http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Ce9S</p> <p>I would just turn off the custom function. Modern software has gotten quite good at noise reduction.</p>

<p>Even Canon's own sample image shows the difference is quite subtle -</p> <p>https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/explore/product-showcases/cameras-and-lenses/high-resolution-eos-5ds-vs-5dsr</p> <p>The 5Ds R gets a tiny bit more detail. It also runs a bit more risk of moire patterns.</p>

<p>To increase the working distance, use a longer lens or a shorter extension tube. A zoom lens can be handy; in effect the zoom ring becomes the focus ring and the focus ring can be used to fine tune the focus.</p> <p>There's probably a way to calculate, at least roughly, the effect of a degree of extension on a particular focal length, but I don't know the formula.</p> <p>Bob Atkins has a website with some tables of working distances; it's mostly older lenses but gives a general idea. </p> <p>http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/closeup.htm</p>

<p>I've used Kenko tubes with a 70-200/2.8 IS, and the IS worked quite well.</p>

<p>I shoot a 5D3 with a CF card and an SD card installed; I send RAW to the CF and JPEG to the SD. It works fine for me but I don't do a lot of fast shooting; normally I keep the camera in quiet mode which limits it to 3 fps.</p> <p>You may find rumors on the internet that using both CF+SD will throttle the speed of the CF card down to the SD card speed. I did tests with a very slow SD card and was unable to replicate the problem. I don't believe it happens.</p> <p>Card speed probably won't make much difference for you unless you shoot sports, or if you're using something like Magic Lantern to shoot RAW video.</p> <p>Shooting RAW+JPEG reduces the buffer size to much smaller than just shooting RAW or just shooting JPEG. This doesn't affect me much so I shoot RAW+JPEG anyway, but it's something to be aware of. On the occasions when I know I'll need a long continuous burst, I switch to RAW-to-CF only, and can get 20+ shots at 6 fps with a fast CF card. I've done that when shooting building implosions.</p>

<p>I rented the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC for several days, mainly using it for video on a 5D3. It worked very well. Personally my main complaint was the zoom ring on Tamrons turns the opposite direction from the Canon standard, which means every time I started to zoom I began moving the wrong direction. I expect if you shot with one all the time you'd soon get used to that.</p>

<p>When I got my 5D mk III, I quickly discovered two lenses (the 70-200/2.8 IS mk I and Sigma 150/2.8 macro) needed huge compensations. As I recall the 70-200 is about -16 and the Sigma maxed out at -20. Oddly my other lenses were fine. All of them had been used for years on a 5D mk I and they all focused properly on it.</p> <p>I don't really understand how that can happen, but apparently it does. I wouldn't worry about it unless you have other problems.</p>

<p>The old Canon 100-300 f/5.6 L lens is reported to be very sharp and is available for less than $300.</p>

<p>According to Wikipedia, the release dates for the last 4 flagship Canon Speedlights were,</p> <p>550 EX - September 1998<br> 580 EX - Late 2004<br> 580 EX II - Early 2008<br> 600 EX-RT - March 2012</p> <p>With a four-to-five year delay between major announcements, it wouldn't be a surprise if a new Speedlight came out in 2016 or 2017.</p>

<p>Canon hasn't ever put a flash on a full frame digital camera. It's impossible to say if that will change, but personally I don't expect it to. If it does change it will probably be the 6D mark II.</p> <p>There are little flashes (like the Speedlight 90EX) that are reasonably priced and do essentially what a popup flash does.</p> <p>I would expect you'd gain some quality in lower light situations; most people report a stop or so. For example, if you consider the quality you get at ISO 3200 on the 7D, you'd probably get similar results with ISO 6400 on a 5D mk III.</p>

<p>I didn't know there ever was a USM version of the 18-55, but it turns out there were *two*. Here's their entries in the Canon Museum.</p> <p>http://www.canon.com/c-museum/en/product/ef381.html</p> <p>http://www.canon.com/c-museum/en/product/ef385.html</p> <p>The first USM version was introduced in 2004, the second in 2005. Both predate the addition of an image stabilizer to that lens, which occurred in 2007.</p> <p>The website you reference and/or the Canon museum would be best for figuring out exactly which version you have.</p>

<p>I made the same transition a few years ago.</p> <blockquote> <p>ISO change: When I press the ISO button, I like to change my ISO using the Quick Dial control (on back), not Main Dial on top. Any way to switch them?</p> </blockquote> <p>For me this was the most annoying change they made, and the most inexplicable - the three buttons + two dials control exactly the same functions, but they rearranged them. I tried to configure it like the 5DmkI but didn't find a way to. In any case I soon figured out Auto ISO and now use that most of the time. It pretty much automates the constant ISO tweaking I used to do.</p>

<p>Another place where you might want lower ISOs: When you're shooting in daylight, want a narrow depth of field (maybe f/2.8), and are using a fill flash (so shutter can't go lower than 1/250 or so).</p> <p>ISO 100 + f/2.8 + 1/250 is EV 11, which is much dimmer than full daylight. To shoot at, say, EV 15, you'd need to use ISO 6.</p>

<p>I haven't tried it but my guess would be it will mount and probably give decent performance, at least when stopped down a bit.</p>

<p>I shoot around 3000-4000 photos/month. Most wind up used at Facebook resolutions, a few at much higher resolutions. I post, mostly to Facebook, about 10% of the photos shot. I would post more if I could edit faster. I do all this as a hobby, working with some local nonprofits that need photos.</p> <p>With that background, question: Is anybody doing large volume editing with any software other than Lightroom? If so what do you use and how do you like it? I'm interested in something for photo culling and simpler editing. Complex edits I can do in Photoshop as needed. I don't need photo catalog/photo library organizing features; I have my own stuff for that.</p> <p>I'm using a PC, Win7, 16 Gb, fast computer. Shooting with a Canon 5Dmk3 and M2.</p>

<p>I suspect it's going to need a trip back to Canon for repairs. For this lens it's probably worth the expense.</p> <p>I'm curious though, does manual focus work fine or does it tend to slip when focusing from infinity?</p>

<p>1 - The G3 X is a really good camera. It's probably about as good in low light as the 350D.</p> <p>2 - I'd get EF-S lenses to match the APS-C camera. There's no sense dealing with the extra cost and weight of FF lenses if you don't have an FF camera.</p> <p>3 - If you want to go with DSLRs get a fairly recent Rebel. They have been improved a lot since the 350D came out. But personally I'd suggest just shooting with the G3 X until you have a specific reason you want to upgrade. It's capable of taking excellent photos.</p>

<p>David said:</p> <blockquote> <p>Robin said: ...</p> </blockquote> <p>Actually Robin didn't say that, Clive did.</p>

<p>My 1992 printing of Canon Lens Works says it has two ground and polished aspherical elements. Based on the diagram they appear to be the first and last elements.</p> <p>Canon museum entry does not have as much detail, but here's the link.</p> <p>http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~80_28~4l_usm.html</p>

<p>The shutter count might be low because the camera was used for video. I think the primary reason to buy a 1D-C is for to shoot video. So, it might be heavily used, just not for stills.</p> <p>That seller looks good to me; they've got good feedback and they do a lot of business with photo/video gear. They have a 3 day inspection period and 30 day warranty so you should be able to check things out. Time the purchase so you'll have time to inspect it carefully during those 3 days.</p> <p>Possibly useful link - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/08/guide-to-buying-used-photography-gear</p>

<p>A new Chinese company called Venus Optics makes a 15mm f/4 macro lens, full frame compatible - so really ultrawide - that focuses down to 1:1. It's manual focus and aperture.</p> <p>I'm not aware of any wide angle zooms that can really be called macro, though some do ok on the long end.</p>

<p>It is an interesting set of specs. 36mm is 36,000 microns, 36000/1920 is 18.75 microns-per-pixel, which is very close to the 19 microns they're stating. If they kept that pitch on the 24mm side it would have 1280 pixels for a total of 2,457,600 pixels. On the other hand if the sensor has a 16:9 ratio, the short edge would be 20.25mm and the pixel count is 2,073,600. But they state around 2,260,000 pixels, which implies around 1177 pixels on the short edge. But, (1) who knows what rounding has entered into the specs, (2) video pixels are not always square, so some of these assumptions might be wrong, and (3) maybe they're supporting 16:10 as well as 16:9.</p> <p>As for the 4K, I assume they skipped it because they wanted to maximize low-light capability over all other factors.</p> <p> </p>

<p>You might look at the 35mm f/2 IS. It's much cheaper and a very excellent lens by all reviews I've seen.</p> <p>I have the 85/1.8 and it's as good as everyone says.</p> <p>I'd agree you should probably sell a 70-200/2.8 that you use so infrequently. I understand your aversion to the weight, but note the 85/1.2 is actually only 10 ounces lighter. The 85/1.2 is significantly heavier than the 135/2.</p>