paddler4

First, I agree about the lens. A flat field is what you want, and macro lenses have that. I have owned that particular lens in the past, and it is tack-sharp. It is not a great macro lens because it only goes to 1:2, but for your purposes, that doesn't matter at all. it also has an old-fashioned AF system, but that again has no relevance to your work. they are not expensive. Second, re lighting: I agree with others and would never use CFLs for the reasons noted. However, if you are working on a very stable floor (so that motion isn't an issue), you have a second option: continuous lighting. I use continuous lighting for flower macros precisely because I can see the effect as I change the lighting. I use usually use two halogen bulbs, one 50W for direct lighting and a second 75W for diffused lighting, but you would want to arrange things differently. Halogens are a tad yellow (~3000K), but that is trivial to fix in post. Third, at the very least, shoot raw and use a good white balance card, like a whiBal. That is sufficient for my work, but for yours, i would probably use a color checker.

As chuck says, if you are thinking about animals bigger than bugs, a macro lens isn't what you want. With your camera and a macro lens at minimum focusing distance, a bug that is 24 mm long (a bit under 1 inch) would completely fill your sensor--and you would have to be within several inches of it to take the picture.

Re bluring water: since you are just starting out, let's go back to the basics underlying the answers you got. If you haven't yet, you need to learn about the "exposure triangle": shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. If you use a longer shutter speed, you are letting in more light, so to avoid overexposing, you have to compensate. One way is to close down the aperture (higher f/stop number) to let in more light. You can also drop ISO to the lowest level you can to avoid amplifying the signal picked up by the sensor. (It's a good idea only to raise it from this base when you need to anyway. You will get less noise and more dynamic range if you keep the ISO low.) The problem is that if it is reasonably bright, you probably can't get an aperture and ISO that will be enough to compensate for the longer shutter speed. That is why a few people suggested ND (neutral density) filters: they simply cut down light. I end up between Rodeo Joe and Ruslan in this respect. IMHO, it is not at all necessary to spend the money for top shelf ND filters. Maybe once you are more experienced, but not now. (Full disclosure: I have been doing photography for many decades and only one of my ND filters has been one of the brands Ruslan mentioned. However, I wouldn't buy cheap filters on eBay. Cheap ND filters often have a color cast, and if that color cast is complex, it can be very hard to remove unless you shoot with a color checker. In fact, I had to return one fairly expensive one from a top brand because I was unable to correct the color cast. You can buy midpriced filters (screw-on, not square) that are very good in this respect. My current favorite is Marumi. They are reasonably inexpensive, and the ones I have are virtually free of color casts.

I don't know. You could just e-mail them and ask. However, their service form doesn't ask for any of this information: just the model and serial number. Usually, the issues pertain to warranty repairs.

I only do a little bird photography, but from what little experience I have, I would say that what Gary said is the key. First, his suggestion will tell you exactly what you would see with a 400mm lens. you can do the same thing with any other focal length. Second, it all depends on distance. I shoot with a 100-400II. I do what little birding I do in a refuge where you usually can't get very close, and in that setting, I find even 400mm generally isn't enough, particularly for small birds. (And the 100-400 won't focus at the long end with a converter attached on a 7D generation 1--too little light.) I looked at the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 lenses, and I am not entirely sure I made the right choice. Reviews agree with dcstep that the optical quality isn't as high as the100-400 II, and for my purposes, I wanted the closer-focusing Canon, but the Sigma and Tamron lenses are a lot cheaper, and if you are too far away for the 400, you might get a better image with the 150-600 than by using the 400 and cropping more. Perhaps someone has done that comparison; I haven't.

More elegant than my solution, which has been a piece of a thick terry cloth dish towel. I've actually never had evidence of a light leak when doing night photography, but I like to play it safe. the advantage of your solution or mine over the rubber cap is (1) I keep losing the cap, and (2) you don't have to take off the eyepiece cover.

I don't do much wildlife photography, but from what little I have done, I suspect you will find the 1.4x too short, as Gary suggested. My longest lens is 400mm, and even on a crop sensor camera, I often find that too short for birds. So I would go with the 2.0x. However, if you want to save money, given that you are only going to look at these on screen or printed small, why don't you look for a version II? The version II 2.0x wasn't wonderful, but it might be enough, and you can get a used one in excellent condition, guaranteed by KEH, for less than half the cost of a new III.

I'm guessing from your post that you are about my age, so I will also guess that weight is an issue. My main camera is a 5D III, and it is a wonderful camera, but that and a few lenses are a heavy kit to haul around. Based on that, I would give serious thought to APS-C. Crop sensor cameras have improved a great deal in recent years. In addition to saving a bit in terms of the weight and size of the body, you would save a great deal of weight in terms of the entire kit because the APS-C format gives you greater reach for a given focal length. Another consideration with respect to weight: the 70-200 f/2.8 is a beast. The f/4 IS weighs and costs half as much. Unless you really need the extra stop or the shallower DOF at f/2.8, I would consider swapping yours for an f/4. I have had one for years and have never regretted it. Other than that, your lenses are fine, and there is no need to replace them IMHO. If you go APS-C: I no longer know the models in the 80D series well enough to comment. The 7DII is a superb camera but getting a bit old in the tooth. If you do go full frame: one big issue is whether you want the bells and whistles that distinguish the 5D III/IV from the 6D and 6DII--e.g., the much more flexible AF and the different controls. If you do opt for the 5D series, the III remains a fabulous camera, even though the IV is better, so if budget is a constraint, a 5D III might be a good option. I have had mine for years, and while I might consider moving up to a IV if a truck ran over mine, I don't feel any pressure to upgrade.

Maybe some people use it to refer to something that doesn't exist, but some people use it to refer to something that does. For an explanation, see this article.It's used to refer to the ability of the lens to resolve differences between small details. This is very different from the usual use of contrast, which refers to tonal values. For example, an image that extends from nearly fully black to nearly fully white has more contrast than one that is mostly mid-tones, and among two images with the same tonal range, the one that has greater spread in the midtones will be perceived as higher contrast (hence the S-curve using a curves tool). The resolving ability of a lens has nothing to do with the range of tonal values.

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Hector. This isn't a useful review. First, the logical comparison to the f/2.8 with IS is the f/4 with IS. Second, all this review tells the viewer is that the f/4 is cheaper and lighter. You can see that easily enough just by looking a the lenses on a retailer's website. And as Jochen suggests, I would expect any good review to include some results. How good are the lenses? (The f/4 with IS is better, BTW, than the f/4 without.) It would also be helpful to indicate just what the extra stop does and doesn't get the user. I do disagree with Jochen about the "hiking lens" issue. I hike with my f/4 IS often, and that is one of the reasons I greatly prefer the f/4 IS.

The impact of IS is a function of focal length. Whether it matters depends on what you shoot. I'm sure you know the very approximate rule of thumb: the shortest shutter speed on a FF camera that is safe in terms of inadvertent camera motion is 1/FL. You can go down to 1/3 or 1/4 of that with IS, depending on the lens. OOH, as noted above, it does nothing for subject motion. So if you are content with shutter speeds of at least 1/80 at 70mm, you may not find the lack of IS a problem. If not, then yes. I don't have IS on my shortest lens (17-40), but I have it on everything longer, and the lack of IS is one reason why I was unwilling to splurge on the 24-70 /2.8. but that's just my preferences.

Hmm. That size doesn't make me optimistic. You haven't said what format the file is or what the camera is, but PSD and TIFF files that have been edited in Photoshop are generally much larger than 10 MB.

There's a principle here. All other things being equal, a longer focal length will give you more background blur, which is one of the factors that contributes to bokeh. This is not a matter of depth of field, and it is not a matter of other properties of the lens. It's just trigonometry. A longer focal length gives you a narrower angle of view, and that in turn means that the background is spread out more to fill the frame. A dirt-cheap 200mm lens will blur the background more than a very expensive 50mm lens.Of course, it may be worse in terms of other factors that contribute to smooth bokeh. That's the main answer to the "pop" question. A bit of postprocessing can do more to far more increase pop than any difference between lenses--e.g., increasing contrast, increasing local contrast or clarity, and sharpening. Once you are familiar with software, you can do a quick adjustment of those three factors in less than a minute, and with some software (e.g., Lightroom), once you have done this to one photo, you can apply those adjustments to the rest of the photos in a group in less than a minute.

Sites like Smugmug give you substantial control over this. For example, I have both public and private galleries. To get to a private gallery, you need a link from me. You can control what access viewers have to your photos on each gallery. For example, my private galleries have unrestricted access because I want the people to whom I give the link to be able to download the full-size image. In contrast, I limit the size that people can take from my public galleries. In no case can anyone else modify anything on my site. One can do this only by logging in, and no one else has my password.

It's really a number of decisions. First, what connection system do you want? there are two opinions noted so far: the Arca-Swiss compatible plates and clamps, and Manfrotto's proprietary ones. I personally much prefer the AS-compatible systems because almost everything is compatible with almost everything else (with a few exceptions). Over time, I have accumulated heads and plates from quite a number of manufacturers, and they all work with each other. In fact, I spent extra money for a Hejnar conversion kit to convert my Manfrotto geared tripod head to AS-compatible. it's true that the standard clamps are slower because you screw them closed, but that has never bothered me, and for enough money, you can find some that use quick-release clamps. Then, for plates, you have the question of whether you want something that is customized for the particular body. Most are not, but a few expensive ones are. Some of these are molded so that they won't rotate. I don't bother with that. I have any number of different brands of generic AS-compatible plates, and I use them interchangeably on my two different camera bodies and on the feet of tripod rings.These differ in terms of length and whether they have screwed-in stops. L-brackets are another matter. My own opinion is that the L-brackets customized for the particular body are better. I have had one generic one and one Really Right stuff one, and the difference was substantial. the RRS fits like a glove. However, Kirk and RRS are very pricey. But as one person wrote, YMMV.

Asking people you don't know via the internet isn't research. Use your library, and use the web more seriously: do searches and evaluate sources before you use them.

In one word: processing. You are shooting raw. That means that regardless of the camera, the degree of vividness is almost entirely a function of processing. If they are shooting raw as well, then none of the cameras is doing anything to boost vividness. If they are shooting jpeg, then the in-camera processing in their cameras is adding more of this then you do in your postprocessing. Blaming this on the brand of camera is just distracting you. I shoot routinely with people who use all manner of Canon and Nikon cameras. I can't tell which was used for which until I am told.

If you are posting to the web, you will be displaying in sRGB, and for that purpose, a wider-gamut monitor would be a complete waste of money. Worse, actually, because it you edit it to your satisfaction in a gamut wider than sRGB, people viewing the image will not see what you see, as most of them will be seeing it in sRGB. That would rule out the BenQ monitors, I think. Just get an sRGB monitor that is IPS, not TN. I have used a number of different Dell sRGB monitors for editing. I haven't looked, but I suspect you can get one at a reasonable size for under $400. After color correction, they have been fine. The only issues arise when printing colors that are outside the sRGB gamut. I print a fair amount, but you said you don't.

You might consider the old Tamron 28-75. Optically a very good lens, although a bit soft in the corners on a FF camera. I had one for years and loved it. No bells and whistles--for example, no full time manual focusing in AF mode--but it got the job done. Completed sales on eBay are typically below $200.

Whoa. TWO DOZEN times and it is not yet clean? Something is wrong. I have never had to clean a sensor more than once or twice. Either there is something wrong with your technique, or you have something other than normal dirt on your sensor. In addition, I would be worried about potentially causing damage to the filter over the sensor by going at it over and over again. I have read that if you accidentally go off an edge of the sensor, you can inadvertently pick up grease that will then smear on the sensor. That has never happened to me, however. My technique is this: 1. Start with a rocket blower. 2. If that fails, use a static brush. 3. Wet clean You are probably well past the point where #1 or #2. For step #3, I try to avoid going over the edge. One way to be safe is to move only toward the edge, not back again. That also avoids dragging collected dirt back over the sensor. I use a fresh pad for each swipe. I have always cleaned my own, but if that technique didn't work, I personally would be tempted to try something different. Maybe one try with the lens cleaning pen that LensPen makes (I forget what it is called, but it is not the standard LensPen), and then take it to a good shop for a professional cleaning.

I assume you mean is cleaning the sensor, not the shutter. What you describe is normal, if the sensor is dirty. The smaller the aperture, the more apparent the dirt will be.

The digital picture test of that lens shows large differences in sharpness between f/1.2 and f/2.0: Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Lens Image Quality. You can use the same tool to compare the f/2.0 performance of the lens you have with a variety of f/1.4 lenses at both f/1.4 and f/2.0

I'm going to swim against the tide here. There is a widespread view that one should never raise the center column of a tripod--and better yet, that one should buy a tripod without one. I think that is greatly overstated.In my experience, it often creates no problem. I use an Oben carbon-fiber tripod with a center column. The center column is well damped. When it isn't windy, I use the center column often, even for night photography photos with exposures measured in minutes. I rarely have a problem with vibration. Windy conditions, of course, are a whole different matter.And when it is windy enough, the tripod will vibrate (less) even with the column not extended, but hanging a weight helps. I also use the center column routinely in doing studio-based macro work. I use a geared head to get fine control of angle and a rail to get fine control of distance to the subject. The only way to get reasonably good control over vertical placement is with a column. I do these shots with fairly low continuous lighting, so exposures are typically around 1 second. Moreover, I focus-stack these images, so slight motion can ruin the stack, even if most of the images are clear. Just slight movement on the floor, which is wood, is enough to ruin the stack, and I use both a remote release and mirror lockup to lessen movement. In these circumstances, the column has never been a problem. On the other hand, I have never used the tripod or heads that you have. So, my suggestion is that some time when you aren't concerned about getting the perfect shot, take some images with and without the column, blow them up on the screen, and see whether you have a problem.

I have never had a Sandisk card go bad, even after years of use, and the odds of having two defective cards at once are pretty low, but it could happen, particularly if it is the camera that is doing something to them. To format the cards, just go to "format' in the menus and select low level. That's all there is too it. All that said, this is weird. JPEGs are small files, so the camera should not take much time writing them to the card. I've had four Canon bodies, ranging from much cheaper than yours to more expensive, and none has had delays writing single files to the cards, even though I always shoot raw, and raw files are much larger. The only time this is an expected behavior is when you shoot bursts. Are these single shots, or are you shooting bursts? Also, that light and message indicate that the image is still being written to the card, so it's surprising that the images are not corrupted when you pull the battery while the light is still on. Did you do anything with these cards other than formatting them in the camera and using them to capture images? E.g., did you format them in a different device?

Seems to me that you should decide based on what YOU find most useful. It's not clear that others who don't know what you shoot, and how you shoot it, can help much. I agree that the most helpful thing might be looking at the FL of the images you have. To put this in perspective, I have been doing photography for decades, have both an APS-C and FF body, and have only one of the lenses you list. That doesn't mean that your lenses are a poor choice for you; it just means that my experience would be a bad guide for answering your question. My only suggestion is that if you want a 'normal' lens, the 40mm is pretty close to that on an APS-C camera such as yours.