brian_blattner

<p>Ok, after this experience I have seen all the articles that warn against using compressed air to clean the sensor after the fact. And normally, I use the rocket blower only, but have used compressed air in the past with good results; although, this time I believe that I have used the wrong type of compressed air, which seems to have left some residue spots on my sensor.<br>

The spots can only be seen in light areas of the photograph, but there are many of them. Is there any way to remove these residue spots? Can this be done by sending the camera to a Canon professional for cleaning? Or is it too late, and the sensor will need replaced?<br>

Thanks for your comments.</p>

<p>I have personally only used Canon DSLR cameras so far, but I have read many questions like this one in the past to realize that way too much emphasis is placed on the camera, and not enough on the skills of the photographer. So as Tommy mentioned, unless you have a requirement to print something that would require over 20 mega-pixels, I cannot see any reason to switch systems.</p>

<p>I know that for many individuals, the first criteria is the ergonomics of the camera, and the menus. For me, the Canon set-up felt very natural, so I never had a desire to try out any of the other systems. Each system will have its own list of strengths and weaknesses, so in the end it will be a draw. If you already have a sound investment with Nikon lenses, then the argument becomes even more difficult to join the Canon camp.</p>

<p>Now there have been moments when the reviews first came out for the Nikon D700 that I thought about switching, but then I knew that Canon would come out with something that would match, or that would best the D700, and so the war continues between these two companies. It is human nature to always want the latest in electronic equipment, and features, and often that will require changing brands. Anyway, I hope that some of this information was helpful in your decision making process.</p>

<p>Jeff - As so many of us have already stated, thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to answer our questions about something that we share a passion in.<br>

My question has to do with capturing the moment with the proper lighting, composition, and story-telling. I have practiced the techniques that you have taught using only single shot mode, and clicking the shutter button at the right moment, and I must admit that it has really helped me see the image in my mind well before I see it on my computer screen; however, if the lighting and composition isn't exactly what you desire, but there is a rare moment to catch something in the story-telling that is a one-time shot, will you go ahead and capture that moment in hopes that you can improve the image in post-processing?</p>

<p>Ross,<br>

My first DSLR was a Rebel XTI. I upgraded (some would say down-graded) to the 30D for the faster FPS, but really fell in love with the click wheel. That feature alone made it worth it to me. I believe the 30D is better than the 20D; however, as JDM mentioned, if someone already owned the 20D, the additional features were not worth the extra cost. In your case, if the 30D doesn't cost too much more than the 20D, then I would definitely recommend the 30D.<br>

Just my opinion of course.</p>

<p>I think that I know what you are talking about. I originally owned the non-IS version of this lens, and was quite pleased. After reading all the reviews about the IS version, I eventually traded up, but something didn't seem as good. I am not sure if it was the color, contrast, but I know what you are saying. I could not put my finger on it, but I definitely liked the over-all image quality of the non-IS version I owned.</p>

<p>I ended up selling the IS version to upgrade my camera to a 5D, and purchased the non-IS version again, which I am very pleased with the results. This lens only sees action outdoor for me, so I rarely have an issue with camera shake, and use a tripod if I can keep the shutter speed up at 200mm. Anyway, thought I would pass on my personal experience between the two lenses. I never had the IS version checked out to see if it was a bad sample though.<br>

Brian</p>

<p>I want to thank everyone for the contribution, and wealth of information that you have presented. My post originated from my drive back and forth from home to work, where often I see great opportunities for landscapes, but realize that I don't have all of my equipment with me. However, I will be heading into the Blue Ridge mountains of Georgia and Tennessee today, and will be staying in a cabin for 4 days. My son has my tripod, so it will not be with me on this trip, so much of your advice will be put into practice as my favorite times to take photographs is early in the day, and toward evening.</p>

<p>Thanks again for taking the time to help me understand some of these concepts more fully. Hope everyone has a great Easter weekend!</p>

<p>I am not sure how to search my question if it has been asked before, so let me set-up a scenario to pose my questions, which are two-part. Assume that the time of day is either at sunrise or sunset, I am using a fixed focal length of 50mm (non IS), am shooting in RAW, and I don't have a tripod handy. I come across a beautiful landscape that I would like to capture, and when every thing is metered properly, and the Histogram shows everything within the normal range, and my ISO is a high as I want to set if for this scene, and I have my aperture set exactly where I want, it shows that my shutter speed should be 1/15 to 1/20 of a second. I want to avoid camera shake as much as possible, so...</p>

<p>Question #1: If I under-expose the image to increase my shutter speed, can I increase the exposure in post-processing without suffering any type of image quality loss?</p>

<p>Question #2: Assuming that by under-exposing the image, some of the shadows drop off slightly in the histogram chart, I adjust the black point setting to bring all the lost shadows back within the histogram chart range. So will those areas that were previously out of range be normal now? Or will they have more noise than normal?</p>

<p>Thank you in advance for your answers.</p>

<p>JDM - Thanks for the additional, and very helpful information about most of the Primes that I have been thinking about getting. Between your comments, and Rainer's, I am confident that the Canon primes will be adequate for what I will be doing, but I now know that they will not perform to the same level as the Canon 50 f/1.4; although, I very much appreciate the insight, because I do prefer Prime lenses over-all, and as you stated, it's a good bargain considering the prices.<br>

I also wanted to thank you for shedding some light on the Nikon primes, which is something I didn't even think of until I posted this question. Just another reason this forum is the best out there! Well, at least in my opinion. Thanks again for taking the time to address my question in such detail.</p>

<p>Matthijs - Yes, I believe that you are correct in your thinking. The reason I would prefer a Prime at f/2 over the 17 at f/4 is due to motion in low-lit areas. I have pretty steady hands, and have shot with my 50mm using shutter speeds as low as 1/6 of a second; however, when indoors, I prefer to keep the shutter speed a little faster due to movements by the subjects, because my shots are not always situations where the subjects are posing, but I am capturing the moment during an event. But from what I have read, and looking at many of the reviews, the 17-40L f/4 is enticing because I can get one within my price range, and it covers my desired ranges, which was between 24-28mm, plus it seems to have very good image quality for outdoor landscapes. The only weaknesses I can see is the maximum f/4 aperture, and I have read some articles that state this lens is great from f/8 and on, so I wasn't so sure how it would do in-doors. If you have personal experience with using this lens in-door, I would be glad to hear your experiences. Thanks!</p>

<p>Rainer - Thanks for the great advice! I was kind afraid that your answer was the truth, and would love to be able to afford the Canon 24 f/1.4; however, I haven't elimated the Canon 17-40L f/4 as an alternative if there was no Prime lens that would fit my requirements. I just know that I would be somewhat limited by the f/4 for indoor. But again, thanks for the detailed information.</p>

<p>Sam - I love the-digital-picture and have used those reviews that helped me to decide to go with the Canon route, which was the Rebel XTI, to the 30D, and now finally the 5D. The only problem with all the tests, is that they don't always give you the full story in real-life use, but you are very correct, that for the most-part, that site is excellent, and is spot on with their lens reviews.</p>

<p>Cinto - I haven't tried used yet, but I will not be opposed to getting a used lens if that is the best solution. Thanks for the link, because that is a site I have not seen yet.</p>

<p>David - This may be a good option, because I have been starting you use my Manual settings on the Canon 50mm prime more and more. Is there anything else that needs to be configured or adjusted on the Nikon lens? Or will it fit my 5D correctly as it is?</p>

<p>Thanks again all for your comments. This is my favorite forum which I have used more than any other as I have started my journey into photography. The advise, and level of expertise on this forum is top-notch!</p>

 

<p>This is my first post within the forum, so please excuse anything that I am not doing correctly within the forum rules, or information needed. I just recently traded my Canon 30D and Sigma 30mm f/1.4 to get a Canon 5D camera. Currently, I have the Canon 50 f/1.4 and 70-200 f/4, and love them both. I am very pleased with the 50mm prime, and use it as a general purpose lens. I normally don't go below f/2.0, so I have not had any issues that get reported with softness wide open with this ; however, I would like to add a wide angle prime for my landscape photography, which will be basically used outside the majority of the time, but may get some use inside in cramped quarters, or large group pictures. The focal range I am looking for would be between 24mm and 28mm, with limited funds (probably $500 or below).<br>

My question is what lens would you recommend within the price range specified that would produce similar quality to the Canon 50 f/1.4? I know that direct comparisons cannot be made due to the different focal range, but something that would produce an equivalent image quality. Thank you for your comments, and please let me know if I need to be more specific about anything.</p>

<p> </p>