paddler4

<blockquote> <p>The traditional method would be to increase the exposure either by lengthening the time of the exposure or opening up the aperture. In the digital world, if one is shooting in manual mode, increasing the ISO would work as well, as it increases the sensor's sensitivity to light.</p> </blockquote> <p>But changing ISO does not change the sensitivity of the sensor to light, which is important for the OP's question. It amplifies the signal coming out of the sensor to compensate for less light. So, increasing exposure (wider aperture, longer shutter speed) is not equivalent to increasing ISO. Increasing exposure increases the light hitting the sensor, but increasing ISO doesn't. This matters for two reasons. First, increasing ISO amplifies noise as well as signal. Second, increasing ISO decreases effective dynamic range.</p> <p>So, I think the best answer to the OP is: don't increase ISO unless you need to. If you can increase the light hitting the sensor instead, that is usually better. However, if you can't--for example, if that would require too slow a shutter speed--then increase ISO.</p>

<p>Given Jeff and David's comments--with which I agree--I'll expand a little on what I wrote.<br> <br />IMHO, the only reasons to buy a camera like the 5D3 are control and quality. Re quality, I wouldn't use Rockwell's settings. Like David, I shoot raw. And why would you skimp on file size--sacrificing quality--when storage is dirt cheap. Re control: to be successful, you have to exert control, using settings that are appropriate for the particular setting and the image you want, not someone's preset list. One of the nice things about the 5D3 is that it allows you to customize controls to make it extremely fast and easy to change the settings that matter to you. So I would say: forget the lists, and focus on learning the impact of the various options for settings so that YOU can choose on the fly.</p> <p>Re equipment: my recommendation is usually to buy nothing until you can explain what a specific piece of equipment will do for you, given what YOU want to shoot. I'll bet my list of equipment is different from David's and Jeff's, because we probably shoot different things. For example, you mention the two 16-35 lenses. For what YOU will shoot, does the extra stop matter enough to warrant spending $450 more? For that matter, will you use it enough that it is worth buying either rather than the cheaper 17-40? The answer depends on what you do, and what else you might spend the money on. For example, if you are interested in landscapes, you are going to want a decent tripod and a good head. They aren't cheap. Are you better off spending $$ for the more expensive 16-35 or putting that money toward a tripod? For some people, the answer would be the lens; for me it would be the tripod.</p> <p>Re those lenses: landscape work is usually done at moderate apertures, like f/8, to get maximum sharpness and reasonable depth of field. For that, the f/2.8 isn't very useful. For other uses, it is.</p> <p>Here's a shot taken with the cheaper 17-40:</p> <p><img src="https://dkoretz.smugmug.com/Nature/Night-photos/i-BLdmjxD/0/XL/A83A0051-XL.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="660" /></p>

<p>It may be helpful to separate customization from his (or other people's) choice of settings. The latter isn't really customization.</p> <p>The 5dIII is highly customizable. You can change the functions of buttons, change how you select AF points, change the rotation direction of the dial, change which card(s) it uses, and so on. The customization that works for me might not for you. I suggest you sit down with the camera and manual a few times and slowly work through the options, trying some out and choosing what works for you. You can always change these later, when you have experience.</p> <p>Re settings: I personally disagree with many of his recommendations. But more important, to get the most out of your camera, don't try to have "a" list. Instead, learn what the options do and when you do and don't want them. E.g., he says he usually uses auto ISO. I rarely do because I want to control ISO, but there are certain circumstances when it is helpful--for example, if you are shooting in a situation where you can't allow a slower shutter speed or wider aperture to compensate for less light. Once you learn what these things do, you can switch as the need arises. I almost never have the same settings throughout a shoot.</p>

<p>Like Alan, I think you probably have to send it to Canon or take it to a reputable repair shop. I've never had a lens behave like this. A bad contact would probably cause the lens to fail to focus or to focus intermittently, but I can't see why it would make the lens behave differently at different focal lengths. I'd be willing to bet that either the USM motor or the electronics controlling it is shot.</p>

<p>I would call Canon and ask them to walk you through it. A quick googling brought the following about the previous version from a Canon forum. It might or might not be helpful in this case</p> <p> </p> <h1>Re: New Canon EOS 7D Mark II Firmware 1.0.4 available</h1> <p > ‎05-17-2015 03:10 AM <br> Thanks to William at Technical Support. He provided some reset steps to take (see below line) that fixed the problem and allowed me to upgrade to 1.0.4. After following his steps I once again formated both the CF and SD cards in the camera. This time I copied the FIR file to the SD card and only put the SD card into the camera before doing the firmware upgrade. Thank you very much William.<br> _________________________________________</p> <p>Power Reset<br> 1. Make sure the camera is off, and then remove the battery, memory card, and lens.<br> 2. Close the battery/memory card doors.<br> 3. Turn the power switch to the "ON" position, and then press and hold down the shutter button for 10 seconds.<br> 4. Release the shutter button, turn the power switch to the "OFF" position, reinsert the battery, memory card, and attach the lens.<br> 5. Power the camera on.<br> Settings Reset<br> 1. While the camera is on turn the mode dial to "P" (Program mode), which allows all menu options to become available, then press the menu button.<br> 2. Move across the top of the menu to the last wrench tab. (Yellow tabs)<br> 3. Go down the menu list to "Clear Settings" and press the Set button.<br> 4. Choose "Clear all Camera Settings", and press the set button.<br> 5. To complete the reset highlight "OK" and press the Func./Set button again.<br> 6. Next, move over to the Custom Functions menu list.<br> 7. Reset the "Clear all Custom Func." settings as well.<br> Before attempting the update again remove the lens from the camera body.</p>

<p>I agree with several of the others: the time to buy new equipment is when you find things your old equipment won't do, things it won't do well, or things it makes it hard for you to do. If you don't have things in any of those categories, go enjoy what you have.</p>

<blockquote> <p>If the lens is sharp enough, can I just crop from 0.5x to 1.0x? I know anything you can do in-camera is usually preferable to post, but is this realistic?</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, you can, but you will get a lot less detail in the image. That may not matter if you are just posting online, but it can if you are printing, particularly if you decide to print large. Keep in mind that if you crop by a factor of 2 in both directions, you are reducing the amount of data by 75%, not 50%. </p> <p>This is one reason that I generally shoot bugs with a crop sensor camera. At minimum working distance, the image on the sensor is the same size regardless of the size of the sensor, and higher pixel density means more pixels on the subject. For flowers, I am usually less concerned about maximizing magnification, and I usually use a FF. </p> <p>If you are going to shoot something like flowers in the wild, without control over the background, another thing to consider is that background blur (this is not the same as DOF) increases with focal length. To see this explained, go to <a href="http://toothwalker.org/optics/dof.html"><strong>this posting</strong></a> and page down to the section on background blur. This doesn't matter if you are shooting indoors and can set up a plain background. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Don't forget about Sigma's macro primes. They're sharper and less expensive than their Canon EF counterparts. And they go to 1:1 without extension tubes.</p> </blockquote> <p>I've never compared the Canon macros to the Sigmas, but all canon macro lenses other than the EF 50mm compact macro go to 1:1 without extension tubes.</p>

<p>Most people who do macro work consider a "true" macro lens one that can reach 1:1. No zooms can. The 24-70 f/4 reaches 0.7:1, which is close enough for a lot of macro work, depending on what you want to shoot. However, if you want to do real macro work, you can ignore the "macro" designation on most other zoom lenses.</p> <p>Re apertures: you are right. I do a great deal of macro work, and I almost never go narrower than about f/7. For stationary things, I use the sweet spot of the lens and focus stacking. For bugs, I go narrower than the sweet spot, usually to f/13, to get a reasonable depth of field.</p> <p>All true macro lenses I have used also have infinity focus, as long as you don't add extension tubes. The 24-70 of course does, if you switch it out of macro mode. However, because of the very wide range of focusing distances, they are often relatively slow-focusing. </p> <p>Working distance is very small with all lenses at macro magnification. when you look at stats, be sure to distinguish between "minimum focusing distance" (object to sensor) and "minimum working distance" (object to front of lens). For this reason, people shooting bugs often avoid short-focal-length macro lenses. Greater focal length gives you more working distance. If you want to do bugs, I'd advise you to forget the 50-60mm range. Most people use something close to 100mm, a 150mm, or a 180mm. I've done lots of bugs with a 60mm, and it is very hard. I now always use a 100mm. 150 and 180 give you more room, but they are heavier and therefore harder to manage in field macro work, and some of them are more expensive.</p> <p>I don't know the Zeiss lens, but the EF-S 60mm is a true 1:1 lens and a very good one. However, does your camera accept EF-S lenses?</p> <p>Again, a lot of this depends on what you shoot. I started with a Canon 50mm 'compact macro,' which is sharp and cheap but only 1:2, and I realized very quickly that 1:2 was not going to cut it for me. For bugs, I often go more than 1:1. For flowers, it all depends on whether you want whole flowers, close-ups of anthers, etc. </p>

<p>If what you mean by "bokeh" is minimizing depth of field, the best explanation of sensor size and DOF I know of is this: <a href="/learn/optics/dofdigital/">http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/dofdigital/</a></p>

<blockquote> <p>The bigger issue is that you might not talk to an actual repair person, but rather a customer service type, who may or may not transfer the information correctly.</p> </blockquote> <p>I've always mailed my gear to Canon. I have never taken it in personally. If you call and then mail it in, you do end up talking to a service rep rather than a technician. In my experience, the service reps have been very good, but their system doesn't provide good communication between them and the techs. So, I always print out a description of the problem on a separate sheet of paper and pack it at the top, in a place where it can't be missed.</p>

<p>Jay,</p> <p>A given height doesn't represent a fixed number of pixels, but it's not arbitrary either.</p> <p>Consider what would happen if the vertical lines represented a the number of pixels. Imagine two images, one with all pixels within a narrow range of luminance, and the other with a fairly uniform distribution across levels of luminance. If the height were simply a count of pixels, one or the other of these would be useless. if the scale were such that you could see variation in the the latter, the former would go off the top of the scale.</p> <p>So I think the histogram is rescaled to fit, given the nature of the image. I have never seen what algorithms the various manufacturers use, but it is close enough to think of the lines as representing relative frequency. </p>

<blockquote> <p>i feel i am ready to go full frame now</p> </blockquote> <p>Why? What do you think it will get you? yes, FF cameras have some advantages (and disadvantages). I have both, and I often chose the FF. But unless you are doing something that takes advantage of the format--printing very large, for example, or shooting in very low light--you aren't likely to notice much difference. You might not notice any difference at all. The honest answer is that in many cases, it doesn't matter.</p> <p>It sounds from your note that the biggest barrier you face is technique. Full frame will do nothing to help that, and if your photos are not tack-sharp, it certainly won't help to switch to a camera with a less capable AF system.</p>

<p>I've generally had good experience with Canon, particularly with the support people, but I have had a number of frustrating experiences because the company has a wall between the service reps and the tech people. In my experience, what I discussed with the service people was not reliably transmitted to the repair staff. I think the work-around is to include VERY comprehensive documentation with the camera. The last time, I put a note at the top which said, in large font: "Please do not turn on the camera before reading this."</p> <p>I wrote Canon to say that this was unfortunate because it created frustrating problems where there didn't have to be any.</p> <p>On the other hand, I have had excellent experiences with the customer service people, who were generally helpful and courteous, even one time when a stupid mistake on my part had cost them a lot of time.</p>

<p>I assume you mean the 24-105.</p> <p>It all depends on how and what you shoot. There is no uniform best. However, I would not want to be without anything between 35 and 70. I own both the 24-105 and the 70-200 f/4, and I use them both for landscape, but given what I do, the 24-105 is more useful. I tend to leave that on as my default and then switch to something longer or wider if I need it. However, you may shoot differently.</p>

<p>You got people's preferences with respect to one of the tradeoffs--having to switch lenses at 70mm when shooting some of the things you shoot--in your previous thread.</p> <p>With respect to DOF, you can get this information here: <a href="http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html">http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html</a>. It doesn't have the 6D, but you can set it for the 5D. For example, at 50mm and a subject distance of 12 feet, the DOF for f/1.4, 2.8, and 4.0 is 1.5, 3.0, and 4.3 feet. Keep in mind that DOF on the 6D will be about 1 stop shallower than what you are used to with the 60D.</p>

<p>I think I will weigh in again.</p> <p>One conclusion I would draw from these informative postings is that there is no such thing as the three top lenses. People are writing about a bunch of excellent lenses, and the best is the set that lets YOU do the best with your particular type of shooting.</p> <p>I'll add something heretical: let's say that you took some pairs of identical images at 135mm f/5.6, first with the 135mm you want people to recommend, and then with the 70-200 f/4 that several people did recommend. Do you think you could reliably tell which image was done with which lens? I doubt I could.</p> <p>I looked to see what focal lengths I most often used for indoor candids of kids. More than half were between 80 and 105mm. This wasn't just because this is the classic portrait range and provides a nice perspective for faces, but also because indoors, that was the length I needed given the space that I was in. People will say, 'no problem with a 135, just back up.' Works OK if there isn't furniture or a wall behind you. So I would not consider any configuration that didn't give me that range. I find it incredibly convenient to have most of the focal length range I want for indoor shots of kids on single lens, and I want IS at 80+mm, but there is a tradeoff: I could get better optical quality if I opted for 24-70 instead. (The Canon 24-70 f/2.8s don't have IS. The f/4 does, but from what I read, it's not superior to the 24-105 across the entire focal length range.) Can't have everything, so you have to decide which compromise works best for YOU.</p> <p>Re the prime issue: a key variable is whether you are going to be using flash for your shots of people. I often do, and therefore, I have no use for really wide apertures. On the other hand, if you don't want to use flash, a really fast lens could be very important.</p>

<p>The Tamron 24-70 is one of the lenses I was referring to when I said there are higher-quality options in the 24-70 range. I considered it when I went full frame but decided for the 24-105 instead, and i don't regret it. The Tamron is optically better. It's heavier by 155 g (about 1/3 pound). It's more expensive: currently on sale for 1300 at B&H, vs. 1000 new and 800 refurb for the 24-105. I also expected tht the extra 35mm would be extremely useful for a walk-around, and that turned out to be the case. But again, YMMV.</p> <p>Re other lenses: If you do want more length--I do a small number of kid candids at longer focal lengths--there are a lot of options in the 70-200 range. I personally opted for the Canon f/4 IS: incredibly sharp, and half the weight and cost of the f/2.8. With a 6D, you can always just go up one stop in ISO if you need the extra margin, but I find f/4 is fine almost all of the time. There are Tamron options also.</p> <p>The 100mm macro lens that Jan suggested is a great lens. I own one, and it is my most-used lens, but that is because I do a lot of macro. You didn't explain just how close you want to get for your 'item' photography.</p>

<p>As someone who shot with only primes for decades, I frankly don't understand their attraction for most people. Yes, if you do the sorts of photography for which you know what focal length ranges you need, and you have some fairly narrow ranges, you can save $$ and weight and get higher quality with primes. However, the better modern zooms are very good, and the flexibility can't be beat if you really don't know when you walk out the door what you will shoot. I now own only two primes, both macro lenses. All of my others are zooms. Your mileage may vary.</p> <p>Given what you wrote, I think I would start with just one lens. After all, it's quick to buy more. Get a good general-purpose zoom. Use this one lens for a few weeks, and keep track of things that you want to do that it doesn't let you do, or doesn't do well. That list will be a much better guide for buying one or two more lenses than anything we can speculate about now. For example, you may find that you really do need a faster lens, so then you can decide which faster lens would work best. ditto, if you need something longer, or something that will focus closer.</p> <p>The 24-105 is an old design, and it's not the best of Canon's zooms, but it would be one very good choice. I still own one, and it is my second-most-used lens on a FF. There are other options too. I've owned the Tamron 28-75 too, and it is a steal at the price, but for general walk-around purposes on a FF, I prefer the 24-105. I found I rarely needed f/2.8, and I prefer the range, better AF, and IS of the 24-105. That lens is common because it was often used as a kit lens, so it is easy to find refurbs and good used copies. (Mine is a Canon refurb I bought from Adorama.) There are higher-quality options in the 24-70 range, but for my uses, I would rather have the greater flexibility of the longer range. For candids, unlike posed photography, I find f/4 plenty wide on a FF. I normally shoot flash candids at f/4 or 4.5. Again, YMMV, but I find don't often I miss the 2.8 I used to have.</p>

<p>I'll add two things.</p> <p>First, the effect of focal length on depth of field is often misunderstood. I suggest you read <a href="http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm"><strong>this short</strong><strong> tutorial</strong></a>. You will find this:</p> <blockquote> <p>If the subject occupies the same fraction of the image (constant magnification) for both a telephoto and a <a href="http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/wide-angle-lenses.htm">wide angle lens</a>, the <em>total depth of field is virtually* constant with focal length</em>! This would of course require you to either get much closer with a wide angle lens or much further with a telephoto lens</p> </blockquote> <p>Second, even with identical depth of field, a longer focal length will give you greater background blur. This is simply a function of the narrower angle of view. See <a href="http://toothwalker.org/optics/dof.html"><strong>this posting</strong></a>, and search down the heading "background blur."</p> <p>Your kit lens has a wide enough range that you should be able to play with these effects.</p>

<p>The controls and ergonomics of the 7D are far different (in my view, far better) than on any of the Rebels. That's why I traded up from a Rebel to a 50D years ago. Wouter is spot on: the 70D is in between the two in this respect, and its sensor is more modern than the original 7D.</p> <p>The 7D is old, but it is still a very capable camera. I bought one recently as a complement to my 5D3 for the types of photography for which a crop sensor is better--mostly macro, and some telephoto work. I bought mine refurbished from Canon. Canon refurbs now come with a 1 year warranty, at least in the US, and mine seemed like a brand-new camera. I don't know about European prices, but Canon US has both the 7D and 70D refurbs at a discount now: $700 for the 7D and $800 for the 70D.</p>

<p>Re the 24-70 f/4 vs. 24-105: the IS is clearly better, and the macro function is nifty, but from the reviews I have read, the IQ is better at some points but not as good at others. Here's one: <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a>. I have no first-hand experience with the 24-70, but after reading some reviews, I ended up opting for the 24-105. It has its weaknesses, but it is a very useful lens, and it is one of the two I use most.</p>

<p>You can get the weight of canon lenses from their website. The lens you have is 675 g. The 24-70 f/4 is 600 g. The 24-105 Jos mentioned is 525 g. If you are in the US, 1 pound = 454 g.</p>

<p>Looking forward to your review of the new Sigma lenses. It would be particularly useful to include a comparison of the 150-600 Contemporary to the Tamron 150-600 you have already reviewed, as these two are head-to-head competitors.</p>

<p>Those are both reputable brands. I use only SanDisk in my cameras, and I have never had to do anything with them but format them in camera. The probability of getting the <strong><em>same</em> </strong>problem on two cards from two different reputable manufacturers has to be very low. I think Marcus's suggestions of upgrading the firmware and testing them in another camera are the way to go. I'm betting either that there is a problem with the camera/firmware or that there is an incompatibility between the camera model and these very fast cards (which you don't need in a 5D, AFAIK). but that is just a guess, based on the very low probability of two identical failures on two different cards.</p>