mike_whalen

<p>My experience with the 24-105 has been quite good over the last 4 years. In fact, if I was forced to own only one lens this would probably be it. It is just so versatile: the range is superb, the IS is great for hand-held shooting, the IQ is very good, and it is not significantly heavy. I've carried only this one lens (with a FF 5D2) on many extended trips, taken thousands of great images with it, and rarely felt lacking for another lens. With most other lenses you will with have to carry several, or give up something. Sure there are better lenses and I own many of them, but this one (24-105 f/4 IS) is my favorite since it works in so many shooting situations. A true work-horse. I will say though that if Canon produces as 24-70 f/2.8L IS for a decent price, I'd probably give it a look. I suggest you try renting the lenses you are considering for one week, shooting with them, comparing them to what you have, and then make your decision. </p>

<p>If money is a concern, get the 5DII. I did 6 weeks in Europe in 2011 and carried it everywhere with just one lens, the 24-105mm f4L. I was not disappointed with the IQ, lens range or the autofocus. Came back with many stunning pictures. However, looking at the specs (since I don't own one), the 6D looks like an excellent travel camera that I would give serious consideration. Except for video, it is as good or better than the 5DII in just about every respect (at least on paper). And, the built in GPS + wireless are desirable travel features. Just think, you can (theoretically) view your images on a smart phone or tablet without adapters or cables, plus the reduced weight is very welcome. The 7D would be my last choice unless I needed the speed or extra reach.</p>

<p>Hi Richard,<br>

It sounds like you've reached a plateau. As others have said it's not so much about equipment, but I do think that using the best equipment you can afford never hurts and if new equipment causes you to experiment more than maybe this is a good thing. The FF will certainly buy you a slightly shallower DOF, more wide angle lens choices and primes will get you slightly better contrast and less DOF, more light in dark situations, and a bit more sharpness and less distortion. But your current equipment should be able to produce award winning images just as it has done for many others.<br>

IMO, better images are more about good composition, the right lighting and being in the right place at the right time. Maybe what you need more than new equipment is inspiration. I get mine from attending weekly meetings at the local camera club, making photo trips both near and far at odd hours of the morning, and learning how to post-process images correctly using Lightroom and Photoshop. I also get inspiration right here on Photo.Net by looking at the wonderful works of art created by so many talented photographers. The thing I like about photography is it is an endless journey of learning and the more I practice, the better the results seem to get. Don't be afraid to experiment with new techniques (such as intentional blur for example) .Maybe sign up for a workshop that interests you with a local pro. This could be money well spent. Also, don't underestimate the art of post-processing. This has saved many images and even helped to create a few masterpieces for me. There's also a ton of good books out here on photo techniques and PP. This might also be a good place to look for new insight. Best of luck.<br>

Mike W.</p><div></div>

<p>I agree with Shun. D3200 or D5100. Small & light, familiar (Nikon), and should take great photos. My advice is to just bring one small zoom lens (18-105, 18-135 or 16-85), and possibly one small prime. You will be surprised how versatile a single zoom lens is. Unless you are taking pictures of far away things, avoid bringing a big telephoto. It will just weigh you down and it will be used very little. I have made several trips to Europe with only a Canon 5D2 and a 24-105 lens and was never disappointed with what I brought back. I carried it with me everywhere (including 6 mile hikes) and never had to change lenses. If it were me, I'd go for the 16-85 zoom range. IMO, having wide is better than having long for most travel shots.<br>

I also use a Panasonic uFT G3. I like it allot and this has been a very good light travel rig, but IQ isn't quite as good as my Canon 5D2. Nevertheless, uFT is still a good trade off if you want to go really light.<br>

Good luck.</p><div></div>

<p>Get the 15-85 if you want to replace your 28-135. It is a perfect zoom range for the 7D which should be plenty wide for most things you shoot. <br />However, if you are happy with the 28-135 and want to keep it, then get the 10-22. It is a very nice wide angle lens that goes considerably wider than the 15-85. The 28-135 was really designed for a film or full frame sensor and is therefore not optimum focal range for a crop sensor.</p>

<p>get a waterproof ruggedized P&S from Canon, Panasonic, Olympus or several other manufactures. The pix will be just fine in good light and it will be very light to carry. This is your best option. If you must bring your 5D (not my choice), get a waterproof equipment bag (REI, etc.) and leave your camera in it when you are moving from place to place. It will be protected. I think these even float. Last option would be to bring a film camera along. You could even put it in a waterproof bag as well.</p>

<p>digital cameras become obsolete because they are replaced by cameras with better image quality and faster electronics with more capability, not because their microchips have a limited life or have failed. Film cameras plateaued mostly because it became difficult to squeeze any more image quality out of 35mm film and because film handling is both tedious and expensive. If designed correctly,digital chips should last a lifetime.</p>

<p>I'm with Wei. I'd like to see a G11 or smaller body with either a fixed zoom or interchangeable lenses with a APS-C sized sensor. My design criteria in order of importance:<br>

1) APS-C sized sensor ( for low high-ISO noise and better dynamic range than a P&S)<br>

2) small pocket-able size and reasonable light weight (most important next to image quality)<br>

3) fast operation and focusing to not miss the shot<br>

4) interchangeable lenses of a new and smaller design including some pancake fixed lenses.<br>

5) great video with articulating LCD screen.<br>

Use of existing EF and EF-S lenses is not that important to me due to their larger size. An adapter would be somewhat desirable but not a deal breaker. I don't plan on giving up my DSLR, I just don't always like to carry it. A small high-IQ camera that I could carry almost anywhere or always leave in the car glove box is at the top of my list but I have never been happy with the poor IQ of P&S cameras including the S90. Can't wait to see Canon's response the the Micro4/3 format cams.<br>

The key objective here is great image quality in a very portable form. I would love to have some kind of optical VF but not at the expense of size.</p>

 

<p>Rae,I don't use MODI, but let me suggest Adobe Lightroom for processing and managing your photos in the future. Not only does it excel as a photo database and cataloging tool, it contains most controls a photographer will need for tweaking and processing your images. It also includes commands for creating picture packages, slideshows and web presentations and you can easily call up Photoshop if you need to do something more advanced. This is one tool worth learning.</p>

<p>You already own everything you need to make beautiful pictures. Concentrate on improving your photographic techniques rather than spending more money on gear (unless that is for a good tripod, ball head and shutter release). Check out some books on digital photography as well.<br>

On the other hand, if buying a low cost film body and shooting a number of rolls will scratch the itch, then by all means do it. Used 35mm film bodies can be bought for a song these days. I just don't believe it will cause you to take better pictures and you will loose the instant feedback and valuable EXIF data of digital. Save your money for the next year or two, then upgrade to a later model digital. Even though the D70 is good, DSLR's have improved a bit over the last 5 years. By then, a used D700 may be affordable if you want to go full frame.<br>

Probably the best thing to do to improve your photography is to take more pictures. If you plan to take more than a few thousand photos then digital will be a more cost effective as well.</p>

<p>A great dilemma to have, but resist the urge, travel light and take the 5D with only the 24-105 (if that is your lens). This combo will cover 85-90% of your your needs and it will make your trip so much more enjoyable having not to lug more gear along or worry about changing lenses. Bring a P&S too. Enjoy Paris -- it is wonderful (except for the crowds this time of year!)</p>

<p>Michael,<br>

A DSLR will have a much shorter depth-of-field compared to a point-and-shoot (POS). This is due to its vastly larger sensor size. Consequently the POS will make the whole image (foreground and background) look sharp where the DSLR will only be in focus close to where you focused and no where else. You can fix this by making the aperture smaller (bigger number, try f=11 or f=16). <br>

Here are some setting that might improve things:<br>

1) set the shooting mode to Aperture Priority (Av)<br>

2) set the ISO to 400<br>

3) set the aperture to 16 (or 11 if you need more light)</p>

<p>Other settings, Auto White Ballance (AWB), AF mode to "one shot", quality to maximum (L), evaluative metering.<br>

Now go out either early in the day, or late in the afternoon, when there is a reasonable amount of light, but the sun is lower in the sky. High noon (on a sunny day) is the worst time to take pictures. If it is cloudy or overcast, all the better. I would also use the 17-55 IS lens. Go take some pictures and I'll bet the quality will improve. Make sure you do not jerk the camera when you push the shutter. Steady the camera on a wall, table, etc. if necessary.<br>

You should also try and set the focus point on just the center focus only, and not use all the focus points. This way you will be focus only on what is in the center of the image and not some side point that might be closer.<br>

I guarantee that this camera (and the 18-55 IS lens) is capable of producing stunning images that the Fuji can't compare with. You may have to do a little homework to learn about DSLR photography. I recommend "The Digital Photography Book (Vol. 1) by Scott Kelby. I would get to know the Av mode and know a little about when to set the aperture to get a certain effect. f=8-11 should give pretty sharp results for most lenses. f=16 is still pretty sharp and use it when you want to get a larger depth of field (more things in focus).<br>

Here is a link to my website (http://www.capitalareaphoto.com). Except for Vermont (taken with a 5DII) all photos were taken with a Canon XTi (2006-2008) or an XSi (2008-2009). These cameras are similar to yours. I did use a variety of lenses, including the 18-55 IS.<br>

If you like telephoto, the Canon 55-250 is a great value. You may also consider the 18-200 if you are looking for a wide range zoom. I hope this helps and good luck.<br>

Mike</p>

<p>Natalya,<br>

If you haven't done so already, check out reviews for both the 35 f/2 and the 17-40 f/4 on Photozone.com and SLRGear.com. You can look at FF examples on Photozone. This may help in your decision. I own both and both are very good performers. Personally, I find the versatility of a zoom lens to be a better benefit over the fixed, but that is just me. I also just love the ability to go to 17mm (ultra wide) on a FF. Very interesting effects for landscapes. However, optically the 35 f/2 is just fine and it is a very small and light weight-wise as well as lower cost. The prime is also faster. The 17-40 is built much better but may have slightly more distortion and CA. Though these can be dealt with in PP.</p>

<p>Look at the the Lowepro Inverse 200.</p>

<p>In regard to the 5D2 auto-focus: I recently returned from a 3-week sightseeing tour in Europe carrying only a 5D2 w/24-105 lens. I took over 3000 photos, mostly handheld. Almost none were out of focus. The 5D2 performed admirably. For a landscape camera the 5D2 is simply outstanding. In a few instances I wished I had brought my 17-40, but for the most part the 24-105 was an ideal "single-lens" travel companion.</p>

<p>Save your money. Your Canon shots on Flikr look just fine (quality wise). Maybe get a fast prime lens like the inexpensive 50mm/f1.8. MF film will have too many practical drawbacks for this kind of shooting. Capturing the right moment is more important than slight improvements in print quality. Go for more close-in facial expression portraits than landscapes.</p>

<p>All of the lenses you mentioned are capable of producing excellent results under the right conditions. However, to really do the comparison fairly, use a tripod, manual focus, same aperture, turn off IS, and keep the lighting constant. What you will see is little real differences on printed images 8x10 or smaller. Try it and see. You will be surprised that even the lowly 18-55 IS kit lens produces excellent results despite it's cheaply built plastic housing. However, it's not likely that the 28-135 IS would produce better images than the 70-200 f2.8 L under similar conditions. </p>

<p>Hi Missy,<br>

Check out the Strobist site (<a href="http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/">http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/</a>) for some good lessons on how to use off-camera flash. Be sure to check out all the tutorials on the right side of the page. Another good source for lighting is Scott Kelby's "The Digital Photography Book", Volume 2. Very easy read with allot of good suggestions on equipment and a section on weddings. You can also find a bunch of 'strobist' videos on youtube. Also, for less than half the cost consider using a "Cybersync" by Paul C. Buff for your wireless trigger. These are very reliable and build extremely rugged. Good luck.</p>

<p>I find the Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS to be very decent optically, and the IS works very well. However, IMO there are several shortcomings that make this lens undesirable. Mechanically, there is much to not like about it: it is very long when fully extended, the front face rotates when focusing, making it difficult to use a circular polarizer, and the barrel wobbles and makes noise when focusing. I also find when fully extended at 300mm sometimes it doesn't find a focus and hunts. I wish Canon would redesign this lens to fix it's mecahnical problems. Having said that, I still keep it since it works with my 5DII and is relatively inexpensive and compact.<br>

This may sound strange but I actually like the Canon 55-250 IS a little better (on a crop camera) even though it is a cheaper lens with 50mm less reach. I like the fact that it is lighter for travel and my copy seems to have a tighter more precise mechanical feel. Optically it is very good and the IS works well. I would give this a look.<br>

At the other end, the 70-200 f4L seems to be just about perfect in every respect. Yes, it cost more but in this regard, you get what you pay for. It is surprisingly light for white L glass and definately hand holdable. You may give up some reach, but both optically and mechanically, this lens is a gem. All movements are interal, focusining is fast and precise and optically, it's IQ is comparable to some prime lenses. One of Canon's finest.</p>

<p>So what was the answer? I assume it was no. My guess is you can only get this from the newer more expensive PW's radio triggers. However, if you are willing to go optical, I do believe you can utilize high-speed sync with the Canon ST-E2 transmitter.</p>

<p>After reading your message a little more carefully, i suspect you are probably a film shooter, so I apologize for including some digital suggestions in the list.</p>

<p>I agree with others about ways to make your images sharper and more dramatic. I don't know much about the Nikon 105 since I use the Canon 100 f2.0 macro, but before I'd buy a new lens try these suggestions if you haven't already: 1) use a sturdy tripod so your camera has no motion whatsoever; 2) make sure there is no wind; bring your subject inside (if possible) or shoot when there is no subject motion; 3) use your lens at it's sharpest point or nearby (probably between f4- f11); 4) use mirror lock-up and the 2-second timer; 5) use manual focus; 6) use live-view to focus if your camera has this capability; 7) set camera to ISO 200 or below and 8) use software (such as Lightroom or similar) to a) sharper further; b) add contrast; c) make the darks darker; d) add a little more saturation and clarity.<br>

You may also want to try getting up and out around sunrise to get your best light and colors. Flowers make great subjects, but I would also look for other things to shoot as well to make your site more variable.</p>

<p>Bob: I have a roll of HD 400 in my camera now and will be testing it for sharpness. I didn't know it was the same as Royal Gold 400.</p>

<p>Your first decision will be to decide FF or crop since the lens selection will be a little different. There isn't one camera that works for all types of shooting so think about whether you really want to do long telephoto (birding, wildlife) and fast moving sports (in which case a D300S or a 7D would be better). On the other hand if you shooting style leans more towards landscape, portrait, and wide angle, lower light situations and events, then a FF would probably be a better choice. Either camp has great selections so it really depends on your budget and what you fell more comfortable with in your hands. If you are already familiar with Nikon then it probably makes sense to stick with it. However, when I did the math a while back, I too came to the conclusion that I could save a little money going with Canon with the lenses I wanted. If you can, rent the equipment for a weekend and try before you buy.</p>

<p>Robert: thanks for the tip on Gold 100. This will be one of the next rolls I test. Does anyone have any experience with Kodak High Definition 400? How does it compare to the Gold in sharpness?<br>

Yes, there is a bit of film curl on the Ektar negatives. Maybe this was the reason for the noticable difference in sharpness. I also agree that the V750 film holders are far from ideal.</p>