paddler4

I'd also test the lens. That much impact may have jarred something out of alignment. I had a similar incident with a 70-200, and it tested fine, but the 70-200 is a tank by comparison. It's probably fine, but worth checking.

I don't know about the 70D, but my 100-400 II will not autofocus with a 1.4 II on my 7D (generation one). It does on my 5D III.

I agree. It's possible that it is an alignment problem. However, when I click on the photo to blow it up, it's clear that the problem isn't just the left top corner, even though that is where it appears worst. For example, the trees on the center of the horizon, which are about 1/4 of the way from the edge, are not in focus, and neither is the foliage near it. Unless there is a major problem with the lens, it looks to me as though it wasn't focused at or near infinity.

Lightroom corrects for barrel and pincushion distortion and vignetting using the lens profile slider and for CA using a set of sliders below that. See How to retouch photos in Lightroom. DLO does more than this: (Digital Photo Professional 3.11 software explained - Canon Professional Network), I've never used DLO, but I find that the more limited functions in LR work very well--and have a substantial effect--with images taken using my 24-105.

How can you add DLO to LR or PS? I thought it was proprietary. If I'm wrong, I would live to know how to do this. LR does have lens corrections of its own, for lenses it recognizes. It does recognize the canon 24-105. You just click a check box, and it corrects at least vignetting, barrel distortion, and pincushion distortion. I use it often for images captured with my Canon 24-105 (version 1), which, like dcstep, I use as my usual walk-around.

Doesn't a 2x teleconverter lose 2 stops? Two stops from f/2.8 is f/5.6, not f/8. So, it should focus with a 2x teleconverter, no? I don't have one of those lenses to try. I have a 100-400, and at 400mm, where is f/5.6, it will not focus on my 7D with a 1.4x teleconverter, which should bring it to f/8.

I happen to shoot with both of those cameras. The 7D has a higher pixel density, which is a key consideration in this case. The 7D has a narrower field of view, giving you more "reach": a given object will fill more of the frame on a 7D, as Mark's photos show. If the two cameras had identical pixel density, then cropping the 5DIII image to have the same field of view would give you exactly the same number of pixels on the subject. However, they don't have the same pixel density, so if you crop the 5DIII image to look like the 7D image, you will have fewer pixels on the subject. So, I agree, it depends on what you are doing. When I use my 70-200 for candids of people, I use the 5DIII. I don't need the extra reach, and I would rather have the better low-light performance and other bells and whistles of that camera. When I want to maximize reach, I use the 7D. For example, I also have a 100-400, and when I go out looking for wildlife photos, I almost always use it with my 7D to maximize reach.

I'd print from the sample packs first, then re-post the question once you know what surfaces, etc., you like. E.g., not much help if folks list papers available in a roll if it's a surface or brightness you don't like. Personally, I default to a luster paper, usually Moab Exhibition Luster. It has a wider gamut and provides more detail than matte papers, and I think it uses less ink. While I like the appearance of matte papers for some images, they lose some of that feeling if you put them behind glass, unless you use a nonreflective glass.

I use Bay Photo in the rare cases when I don't print my own and have been entirely satisfied

Given the symptoms and the fact that it started when you dropped the camera, I'd bet good money that it is a mechanical problem. That would account for the fact that it is particularly bad in burst mode. I don't know what it would cost to fix something like that, but 50D bodies have been going for $220-285 on eBay.

I'm assuming you checked which focal point is active, and that only a single point was activated. The 5DIII has can be customized to change how the focal points were selected, so it isn't hard to make a mistake when the camera is unfamiliar to you. The fact that this happened with two lenses pretty much rules out a lens problem. It also makes it very unlikely that back- or front-focusing is a problem, unless there is something wrong with the camera. Normally, that shows up in specific combinations of body and lense.

OP, your last post made me realize that I never addressed the f/2.8 question. I have a 100 f/2.8 and don't even carry it with me when I do baby shots. The reason is DOF. If I were doing staged portraits, f/2.8 would sometimes be valuable for its narrow DOF. By the same token, it can be nice when the baby is young enough to stay put. Pretty soon, however, she won't stay put, and you will be trying to catch candids in the moment. In my experience, f/2.8 on a FF camera is a distinct minus. The DOF is too narrow; I often miss the ideal focus (on the eyes), and often too little of the kid's head is in focus. YMMV, but I just packed my bag to get some photos of my 16-month-old granddaughter, and I packed only my 24-105 and 70-200, both f/4. Two last comments about flash. First, about this: I think that high ISO capabilities have largely removed a requirement for flash that was very real in the old film days. There are two very different reasons for using flash, as one of the other poster's noted. One is insufficient light. The other is lighting you don't like. My reason for using flash in candids of people is much more often the latter. The simple fact is that most of the time, people indoors aren't lit in ways I want. I shoot candids with a 5DIII, so I can bump up ISO a good bit, but it doesn't help with that problem. About my flash rig: I have only used two types of diffusers, but I haven't noticed a great deal of difference. The bounce card is another matter. If you are bouncing off a ceiling, you often won't have catch light in the eyes, you can have shadows under the eyebrows, etc. Having a small amount of direct light can make a big difference. I use the standard Demb for this, but he also makes a smaller card, if you don't want the big one I use. B&H sells them, I think, and you can buy them directly from Joe Demb's website.

I don't see the requirement for flash to be honest. With the 6D you can great natural light shots with ISOs up to 6400. Yes, you can bounce flash, but that tends to destroy all character from the shot. Much better to used natural window light and, as we are in spring and summer, shoot outside on overcast days. Yes, natural light under certain conditions is beautiful, but if you want candids, you have to take them wherever the kid is, and that is often in a situation where the natural light sucks--e.g., the face in shadows. You also often have to move fast. For example, if you want to catch a certain expression, you can't tell a 6 month old to hold the pose while you move her to near a window. You shoot fast and hope. Bounce flash used well can create very nice lighting, which is why many wedding photographers rely on it. Not trying to pick and argument here, but I have taken a LOT of baby photos over the past year and a half, with and without flash, and a fairly large share of the good ones wouldn't have worked well without flash. So I urge you to learn to do candids with bounced flash, if you don't know already. If you decide not to use it often, no harm--you'll have one more arrow in the quiver. This is an old shot, but it shows that you can get nice contrasts with bounced flash. The lighting was a single 430 EXII aimed wedding-style back over my left shoulder.

You have everything you need. Practice using bounce flash, it will really help once your daughter starts walking/running Yes, exactly. I do a fair amount of candids of people, and photograph my granddaughter (now age 16 months) a lot. Almost all of the time, my gear for indoor shots of her is this: Canon 5D III (what I had already) EF-S 24-105 f/4 L, old version EF-S 70-200 f/4 IS L CAnon 430 EXII flash Demb Flip-it bounce card Demb Flash diffuser In other words, I use pretty much what you already own. Bouncing the flash is essential. The bounce card gives you just enough catch light. The 70-200 is perfect when you can't get close enough or want to keep the flash farther away so as not to bother the baby. The 24-105 is a perfect range of focal lengths for most of the time. I own a 100mm L macro, but I don't use it because in the tight spaces one confronts indoors, I would much rather have the flexibility of a zoom. This is the flash setup:

We have done 4 books (multiple copies of one) with AdoramaPix. I don't work for them or have any connection with them other than the fact that I have bought books from them and occasionally by equipment from Adorama. The books are very high quality. They are printed on real photo paper--heavy weight luster is the default. They have an ICC profile for softproofing, which I haven't used but probably should have. I turn off their color correction. The quality was excellent, and the colors were generally vvery good.

I agree with Jochen. No one can really tell you which will serve YOUR needs better without knowing what you shoot most. Assuming you have a kit lens, pick out the kinds of images that you would shoot with the new lens, and look at the focal lengths you use most often. Given what I shoot, I would want the 40mm for my crop camera, but I know plenty of people for whom that would be the wrong choice. That's why Canon makes them both.

IMHO, the simplest thing is a set of tubes, although I would get good ones with metal flanges and electrical connections. I use the Kenko set. The tubes allow greater magnification at the cost of closer focusing distance. AF should still work, but not as well, as there is less light. I rarely use AF with in macro work anyway. I use up the the full 68mm of the kenko set with my 100mm and 60mm macro lenses. Both give more magnification than you will get. The magnification from a given length of extension is inversely proportional to focal length. However, you still will get a useful boost.

My FF camera is a 5DIII, and the lens I would always take with me traveling is the 24-105. The weaknesses it has are offset by the very useful zoom range. And the flaws are easily correct in Lightroom (a single click on the lens profile will take care of most of them) as well as in DPP. For me, anything beyond that depends on the circumstances. I think a longer lens is often useful, but I wouldn't want to lug the 70-200 f/2.8. That is one reason I bought the f/4 IS instead: half the cost, half the weight, and smaller. However, you might find that focal length range useful, if you don't mind lugging it. Keep in mind that the angle of view is much wider on a FF than on your old XT. The 105 mm on the 5DIII will give you the same field of view as a 66mm on your old camera.

I consider polarizing filters essential and virtually always carry one. You can't replicate their effects in postprocessing. ND filters are useful if you want to extend shutter time, e.g., to smooth out water. Mentioning UV or protective filters here usually starts an endless argument, but I use them some of the time--when I have reason to worry about crud getting on the lens and when the light sources aren't in front of the camera. If you decide to use them, protective filters are cheaper than UV, and the UV protection is irrelevant in digital photography. I use screw-in filters. One case for which they square filters are clearly better is graduated NDs, but I never use those. You can often replicate that effect in post. Don't buy cheap ones. You have high-end gear, and it makes no sense to put cheap glass in front of an expensive lens. Filters should be multi-coated to lessen problems of flare. I usually buy Marumi now--well-rated and relatively inexpensive for their level of quality. I also have a bunch of Hoyas and one B+W. I have found some of the many different types of Hoyas somewhat hard to clean. In the case of NDs, you have another issue: color cast. Read reviews for any density you decide to buy. I have 3, 6, and 10 stop filters, but I don't use them often. The 3 and 6 stop are marumis, and the 10-stop is a Hoya ProND. All three have very little color cast. BTW, I assume that the last lens is the 28-135 3.5-5.6. If so, that is not a real macro lens. It's maximum magnification is about 0.2:1. A true macro lens reaches 1:1.

I think there are two separate questions in this thread. First, can you edit a jpeg? Yes, all software I use will allow you to edit jpegs, Second, "if Photoshop had any capabilities to recover some details that DPP doesn't have?" No, data lost is data lost. The process of creating a jpeg discards information, and that information is gone. Sorry about the double post

I think there are two separate questions in this thread. First, can you edit a jpeg? Yes, all software I use will allow you to edit jpegs, Second, if Photoshop had any capabilities to recover some details that DPP doesn't have?

moon/star/ocean/ night landscape pictures Those are two different beasts. For astrophogtraphy (which I don't do), people often want fast wide-angles. For night landscapes and urban night photography, you don't need that. I do virtually all of mine with three lenses, all Canon: 24-105 f/4, 70-200 f/4, and 17-40 f/4. I use the 17-40 least of the three.

The Tamron 150-600 was not designed for APS-C. I think that is the problem. The results from a FF camera would favor the Tamron. Shouldn't be the case. Leaving aside pixel density, the main way this matters is that an APS-C doesn't use the outer part of the image circle, but that's where the image quality is usually weakest. For that reason, when the performance of a lens differs between sensor sizes, it performs better with a smaller sensor. Another way to think about this: suppose you used a FF camera, got the image focused as well as possible, and then cropped the outer part of the image to APC-C size. The amount of light falling per unit of area on the sensor is the same. Right. The key is per unit area. Again, imagine projecting the image on a sensor, with a perfect exposure. Then crop to the APS-C size. The illumination would not be changed. The 55-250 is an underrated lens, but nonetheless, I would have more confidence in a comparison done with a firm tripod.

<p>When you underexpose in low light at high ISOs, I would expect to get noisy images regardless of the camera. It won't increase the noise; it will just make it more visible. It's the math. When you underexpose, you are decreasing the amount of signal, and boosting the image in post will bring out the noise as well as the signal. </p> <p>My main camera is a 5DIII, but I also have a 7D (first generation) that I use for macro and long-distance shots. The 7D was considered a fairly noisy camera. I did a series of test shots at ISO 3200, first exposing to the right and then dropping the exposure and compensating in post. I did it to see the difference in visible noise. What startled me was how little noise there was in the initial shot. There had to be less DR, but maxing the exposure without clipping gave a pretty clean image.</p> <p>Unfortunately, AFAIK, Canon does not have exposure compensation with auto ISO. So, if you are in a dark environment with variable lighting (one of the few places I use auto ISO), the only way to ETTR is not to use auto ISO. However, I may be wrong about this.</p>

<p>From the reviews I have read, the high-ISO performance of the 6D is a bit better than that of the 5DIII (which I have). I haven't seen a head-to-head comparison of the 6D to the 5DIV, but it wouldn't surprise me if they are fairly similar in this respect.</p>