symple

<p>My Wife's 40D just had the exact same thing, but would take pictures while in live-view mode. I sent it in to Canon and had it repaired for her. Two-hundred-and-forty-dollars and three weeks later she had a new shutter, clean sensor, and a very good camera (if not durable). Before sending it out I used a software utility to check total shutter actuation count, and it was around 33k; after the repair it went down to zero and is now back up over a thousand. We debated whether just leaving it as is and shooting macro with it in live-view instead of the repair, but there was nothing that much better to replace it with especially for the repair money amount, and she likes the katz-eye screen better than live-view in her 40D too.</p>

<p>Agree with Puppy. You need to connect with the Firewire, not USB to connect the software with camera.</p>

<p>I might be a fool, but Scott has made my point more or less. More megapixels is not synonymous with more quality, and the two cameras really have similar resolving power at the pixel level, one simply has more of them by virtue of the size of the sensor. All this talk about crop this and crop that confuses things too as though 24x36mm is the gold standard or something. The 1Ds is a great camera, and after owning two of them and then getting a 1D IIn I got rid of them because the image quality difference is negligible, however the IIn is a far more useable camera. <br>

Also, as we digress, my math skills are pretty weak, but the difference in resolution between the cameras is nowhere near 40% -- 4064 x 2704 for the 1Ds and 3504 x 2336 for the 1D II/n so if the old width times height thing still applies in this bitter universe - then 40 percent more resolution than the IIn would actually be a camera with a pixel arrangement of 4906 x 3270 or 16042620 (read 16 megapixels) - though you may arrange them differently for your "full frame" mentality but make sure to take in to considertion the reduced magnification factor of enlarging your "full frame" versus...blah, blah, blah<br>

I don't really care for the tone that this discussion is going, and am disapointed since this is usually very civil forum. I would say that if you haven't yet tried software like Genuine Fractals Michael then give it a go on a trial basis and see where your prints begin to displease you. I have prints up to 96" from the IIn and people seam to really like them, even viewed up 'close', but I must be a fool to print that large with only an 8 MP camera on a "cropped" sensor. Sincerely though Michael, buy the IIn over the 1Ds if you want the opinion of someone who actually owns/owned both and used them for a few years.<br>

This is my last post on photo.net, I don't need to be called a fool for offering my opinion by guys like Scott, I can go to DP review for that.<br>

Good luck Michael, in either case you will have a great camera.</p>

<p>I have gone through three third party batteries for my 1Ds bodies 1D body and 1D IIn and now just stay with Canon. They (the Canon) fit better in the body, have an overall longer life, and cost around $110 USD new and last for around thirty charge cycles before they need replacing. I used to get around 500-700 pictures with the 1Ds on a charge and using THE EXACT SAME BATTERY in the IIn I get/got around 1200 pictures using Canon brand. I really didn't get any extra images out of the third party batteries, but after about fifteen charge cycles they dropped in power noticeably so I was getting around 400 images with the 1Ds cameras at best. I sold them with the last 1Ds and just bought Canon for backup power. I keep four good batteries in my bag, and have a couple of old ones that need recycling, but I'll keep them in case I need the door cover on them since they are better by far than the third party ones.</p>

<p>I have owned two 1Ds cameras along with the IIn and other bodies including the 1D and I sold the 1Ds bodies simply because the IIn is the better camera in every respect. The 1Ds is a great camera, no doubt, but even for basic image quality if you are using RAW or JPEG the 1D IIn is my choice 100% of the time now if I had to choose between the two for everything from portraits to landscape to action. I am speaking from experience making prints from both cameras and there is no chance that the 1Ds offers anything over the IIn other than a marginal difference in sensor size if you are focal length limited on the wide end.</p>

<p>Greg,<br>

I really like your Lower Elk Lake image. I went from an XTi to a 1Ds and a 1D IIn because I had the same questions you did, and wanted to know where things would go if had a better viewfinder and larger sensor. I ended up finding the 1D IIn much more forgiving in terms of lens flaws, and was much faster to use than the 1Ds in every way though so similar. THe 1Ds helped me capture some satisfying images, but when using all three cameras with five lenses, mostly tripod use with L-Plates, I chose the IIn images most, then the Xti, then the 1Ds when making prints. The megapixel difference is inconsequntial really between the 1Ds and 1D MkII when making prints, and especially on web. The IIn is incomparable with the other two for focus speed and accuracy in all lighting conditions, and its buffer is huge. Its lowlight capability is similar to the XTi, but you have a larger sensor and pixels so prints do look a little better. After testing extensively I sold the 1Ds, gave away the XTi to a family member, and kept shooting with the 1D IIn. I have added a Tenpa viewfinder magnifier, a RRS L-Plate and Brightscreen fresnel to the IIn, and I love it. I could buy a 1D mkIII or 1Ds II any time, but I am really happy with my IIn. As a side note, I tried the 17-40 and compared it to my old 15-30 sigma, and just kept the sigma as the 17-40 was quite dissapointing optically, though great for aesthetic and focusing [i am going to try the 14mm 2.8L II next]. I would try and find a 1D mk II or IIn for your $800 and enjoy, it is an amazing camera! For really wide shots, or landscapes like your Elk Lake I would just stitch several images to get a large image file to print from. <br>

Not that is that great, but to see you can go large ( I printed a similar version of this to 96 inches on metallic paper) have a look at one of my images and just keep zooming in bearing mind how wide the whole image is from my IIn: http://gigapan.org/gigapans/37264/</p>

<p>I skateboarded for fifteen years, and have been using Canon gear for skateboarding images for longer. I have owned the 1Ds 11.1, along with several other canon digital slrs and can say with some conviction that you really want a 1D mkII or 1D mkIIn. The 1Ds is an exceptional camera, but it is very slow in operation compared to the MkII/n version of the 1D, and you will get less than half the number of images from the exact same battery pack on the 1Ds compared to 1D II/n. I ended up selling my 1Ds simply because I found I always went to the IIn, and the extra FOV allowed by the sensor size wasn't that big of a deal. The 1DmkII has been selling for around $800 Canadian, so even less USD and there are many out there in great condition. I would spend the extra money on an ultra-wide zoom from sigma used, and get a vivitar flash and an inexpensive wireless slave to trigger it off camera. This way you can set up the flash under the action for low light work, and you have the flexibility to do fast action stopping for flippy tricks. There isn't enough difference to justify the IIn over the II if you are on a budget, and the money really should go to the lens(es) and your off camera strobe(s) for skate photography. Other lenses that you might consider instead would be the sigma rectilinear fisheye, the canon 15mm, the sigma 15-30 if you can find one for under $250, or even one of the european fisheyes retrofitted to EOS mount.<br>

Good luck with your photography and schooling, and get the 1D MKII not the the Ds series, I have owned/own both and skateboarded forever, and want the best quality for the least money too.</p>

<p>http://www.opaw.ca/<br>

Not quite the coast, but reasonable to travel to from Oregon and Washington, and of course British Columbia south. A friend went last year and spoke very highly of it. Coming up in Early August.</p>

<p>http://www.naturalwonders.ca/Pictures/MiscPics/Grizzly%20Tour%20Brochure%20Web.pdf<br>

This one is next year for the Khutzeymateen grizzlies. I was up there last year on a "self-guided" workshop and saw those guys in action and they were excellent guides for photographing on the coast from zodiaks and on shore in an absolutely amazing environment. They where very attentive, considerate, and made sure their participants were in the best positions for imaging - even hopping out of the zodiak in four feet of water to steady the boat for the telephotos while the grizzlies approached! Much more expensive than the first, but amazing accommodation on the yacht it looks like. Check out Kelly Funk for his workshops on the coast at that link.</p>

<p>Is your camera a modern film/digital? If so you should be able to customize your setting for 1/3 or 1/2 stop exposure increments. If not the previous post addresses the full stop readings of the 758. It depends on your lens as well, since not all lenses seem to be a constant aperture. I know my sigma 150 macro gives me issues when I meter manually on incident versus in camera and I am racked out on close focus. Experiment and keep records if using film so you can refer back to the decision process, and use exif info if using digital. It is a very complicated meter I find, and more than I really needed coming from a sekonic 328. Good luck, and keep good records of your process.</p>

<p>I agree with the ICE issues, and would say that the 8600 and 120(6x7) files are satisfactory for larger prints, but I also took more care storing my 120 rolls than my slides. Let us know what you end up using for 35mm please, and if you can get up to say 11x14 prints from the files without spending two hours retouching dust, grain, scratches... Thanks.</p>

<p>I know I just ruined a print with clarity adjustments that should never have been applied. I had one test print done, then readjusted the colour and local exposure in areas of the file for a second print. I then opened the file in lightroom and must have slid the clarity for viewing the effect on the overall image in full view, and then exported the file as an 8bit TIFF to disk for printing without resetting the clarity. When I got the print my stomach turned because the image looked VERY over-sharpened compared to the first, even though the sharpening settings were not changed when I made the adjustments. I went back to the file I exported and saw that clarity was set at +20 in lightroom, something I did not intend to keep, and my 96 inch print is pretty much ruined. The effect looks cool on the monitor, but it does have its dangers when printed, so print some crops of the images you have applied clarity to before you get a full enlargement done! On the other hand I have had great results with a few small landscape images (23x10inch) with a sharp single feature, and then reducing the overall clarity to create a misty/foggy image, and they printed alright and I will still (deliberately) use the minus clarity setting.</p>

<p>I have an 8600F and a Minolta Scan Dual IV. I have scanned positives in 6x7 and 35mm with the 8600F as well as small prints and it is okay for creating albums online for family, but I haven't been pleased with it for quality work. I abandoned some of my scanning projects because the 8600F didn't produce the quality I wanted for 35mm, and the Minolta takes a ridiculous amount of time to do good scans in 35mm. I wish I had got together with a couple of people to make a purchase on the top of the line Nikon scanner, all of us make our scans, and then sell it, but that didn't happen. The 8600F interface is pretty good, but it is still essentially a document scanner that can produce excellent files for PDFs and the like, but otherwise it is just adequate for casual use in image scanning. I haven't used the 8800F, but I can't see it being that much different from the rest of the family. <br>

Maybe be more specific in your usage plans and someone can give you a better answer. One thing about the 8600F that I like is that the 64bit driver works fine in Windows 7 and 64bit, but I have to stay with 32bit XP for the Minolta and the difference in OS speed makes 32bit XP brutal to go back to and the scanner speed just magnifies my frustration.</p>

<p>Hello again. The camera raw defaults load each time time now. I performed an update to the CS4, and checked off "defaults specific to camera serial number", then re-entered the values for my bodies and saved them as defaults under 4.4. I must have missed that the first time. Everything is running very smoothly.</p>

<p>I have had these lines too, typically in the sections of the images, but when I zoom in they disappear, and I also tried a small print at 300dpi for 12" x 48" and the lines didn't show up. These aren't the squiggly stitch lines, but clear linear lines that extend vertically in small segments of the images. This my second post on photodotnet, and my first attempt at an image upload, and will try to upload the image in a reasonable size, but nothing striking about the vertical lines appears until I am in 16bit TIFF. The original image is around 2.2gB, and I don't really know how to size it for web, so there may be no point to me trying. The final print was 22.6" by 95" and the lines aren't visible in that print either.</p><div></div>

<p>My first post on photodotnet, and thought I would share my recent experience with the computer side of imaging. I moved from the beta Windows 7 to the RC1 version in 64bit and have been using CS4 and Lightroom. I have my images on a separate disk, and have found that Lightroom has imported the images at their original location with the adjustments and data from the 32bit windows XP environment that I originally worked with them in, and everything seems fine. I was disappointed that the genuine fractals plug-in does not work in the 64bit CS4, and my camera raw defaults are not holding when using either CS4 or Lightroom as they do in the the XP 32bit versions, but I am satisfied that the adobe default is extremely close to my profiles anyways. The 64bit driver for spyder2pro worked well, and the profile loads correctly at startup and in CS4. I am running system as a dual boot though so I can still use CS3 with all the plug-ins I have for it, and also use my digital cameras to import files since the drivers have not been updated to support 64bit for them.<br>

If you are stitching the 64bit version of CS4 is incredibly better than the 32bit on my system, and photoshop is showing over 3.5gb of available ram in 64bit versus less than 1.7 in 32bit (not including page file or scratch disks). There haven't been any program errors yet, and processing times are dramatically less when working with the same files in 7-12 image batches. Also the HDR automation is much more usable, though I need better groups of images to work with to explore this more. <br>

Overall I recommend trying the 64bit Windows 7 RC1 in a dual boot for those of you with licenses for Lightroom and or photoshop, it is really much better than 32bit XP and there is no cost. I never bothered with Vista, but this trial version is seeming worthwhile so far. I am going to try at saving my ACR camera defaults again, and see if they hold after a reboot, but this is a fairly minor problem.</p>