chris_koffend

<p>Why not just buy a cheap wet/dry shop vac and attach the hose to the outlet instead of the inlet?</p>

<p>The hose will give you the control you need, directionality, while the size, combined with the outlet of the hose will give you the air speed needed for a specific job. These vacuums frequently come with attachments that reduce the inlet size and therefore increase the air speed (though not the CFMs). Using these seem attachments but with the hose attached to the vac's outlet, will have the same affect on air speed.</p>

<p>The nice thing is that you can save the vac just for photo use. There are many small, portable models and the electrical aspects are already taken care of. Of course, they house an internal filter to address shooting items with the air at the models face.</p>

<p>Find out what your camera's specs call for and get that card. Get a faster card if you are thinking of upgrading bodies. Be aware, that some camera's fill their buffers faster (or empty slower) if recording to two different cards. I believe (not positive) that the Canon 5D3 writes faster to the CF card than the SD card. Either way, it does not write simultaneously to both - again a factor. I use a 60 mbs rated CF card in my 5D3 shooting raw only to the CF. I rarely shoot beyond 2-3 seconds and have never run into buffer issues when doing so. But as you can see, we aren't talk about all that many shots; 15-20 in roughly 3 seconds. My 1D3 is spec'd for a slower card, but that is probably due to the time it was released, I don't see any difference between the spec'd card and a faster card when shooting that body. In other words, the faster card (faster than camera is spec'd) does not seem to make any difference in buffer fill time. YMMV<br>

Also, the faster cards are really only necessary if you are shooting at high frame rates, like with sports or BIF shutter-gun approach. If your idea of fast shooting is 5 frames, don't worry too much. Find the best deal on a name brand, even at moderate speed you'll be okay.</p>

<p>If it were me, I'd take the 120-300 2.8 OS over the 700-200 for the reach flexibility (note, I am not saying one lens is better than the other). The second lens would be the 400 2.8. But to be honest, I would get the best spot you can to show the goalie with the whole net. Blocking or missing shots. Truth be told, such shots are more news worthy than a one-on-one battle for the ball at midfield. You said you were shooting for a paper - the winning goal or the winning save!</p>

<p>A naught naught game, maybe the battle between two players tells the better story - but a save or goal is what the game is played for and shows the end results - better story!</p>

<p>There is always the option to test your flash impact on the "other" team first! ;-)</p>

<p>Okay, FWIW, I am not a professional by any imagination. In fact, probably by most people's standards I am a novice hobbyist.<br>

I would love the get the 1D4, but like you, I have a tough time justifying the price difference.<br>

I have the 1D3 literally for wildlife and as a camera body that I can take more risks with (by that I mean, I have a white water trip in Costa Rica coming up and am planning on taking the 1D3 body in the raft, I wouldn't even consider taking my 5D3 in the raft!). <br>

I am not ever going to publish any of my shots. Maybe a few prints to hang on my wall, More likely, I would make some "greeting cards" and use them for stationary (I still like to write an old fashioned letter every now and then).<br>

My default ISO speed when shooting birds is 800. When lighting conditions permit, I'll drop it to 400. To me, I'd like the flexibility of a slightly higher ISO to make sure I can get the shot with the shutter speed I need/want and an f/8 for DOF. Sure, I'll drop down to ISO 100-200 for stationary subjects with slower shutter speed at f/4-5.6. But I hate being caught in a position and miss a BIF shot cause I am stuck on too low an ISO!<br>

The 1D3 is fine at 400-800 and can be pushed to 1600 if you are willing to sit longer at your computer!<br>

The 1D4 is better, yes. But for 3 times as much money. For me, I'll take the 1D3 now and in a few years upgrade to the 1D4, at $1,000 when my 1D3 is worth about $500. That's generally how I like to climb the body ladder - as a hobbyist.</p>

<p>There is no logical dispute that there was an AF issue with the Canon 1D3. That is why Canon replaced parts, even beyond the warranty period for AF issues on any 1D3 submitted to them. If you go to a good camera store, especially now, all these years later and talk to them about the 1D3, they will mention the AF issues and help you determine if yours has already been fixed or if your serial number is beyond the "affected" bodies. Even Canon went to the blue dot approach to convey to customers that said body was a post-AF issue version.<br>

I have never heard anybody say every single 1D3 had focus issues, in fact, I would guess a decent percentage did not. But I can tell you that any of these "photographers" that just want to blame it on the photographer with the issue has no idea of what they are speaking. And they have never received a piece of sporadically faulty equipment that sometimes does not operate properly.<br>

It just isn't that hard to determine if it is photographer error vs. equipment failure/error. The 1D camera's are not a body being purchased by a lot of inexperienced, new to the hobby or profession photographer. Now blaming the sporadic focus issues on some of the 7D bodies, that may be more logical, but I don't buy that completely either.</p>

<p>How well does it impart of stop action effect? Like people shooting humming birds in day light (strong light) use a flash to stop the action of the wings, etc. . . Or shooting in low light indoor situation when one bounces the flash off the back wall with only a tiny percentage (1/16th) hitting the subject at a slower shutter speed and eliminating the blur often associated with low light slow shutter.</p>

<p>Does anybody have any experience shooting a 500 or 600mm lens and using this flash accessory for that purpose?</p>

<p>I don't know any bird suitable lens that focuses from 5 feet to infinity? About the only lenses I know of with that focus distance are super wide angle or fisheye lenses.<br>

At a distance of 200 feet (from subject to camera) at f16 a 400mm lens has a DOF of less than 25 feet and an 800mm lens of roughly 5 feet. Bring that subject closer to the camera by 100 feet and that DOF is pretty much cut in half! At 30 feet a 600mm lens at f16 DOF won't cover the wing span of a large bird, or in many cases the head to tail span.</p>

<p>I am neither a professional groom or professional photographer, but I have been an amateur at both.<br>

There are great photographers that don't do it for a living, and one can get some decent photos of their wedding from this friend. Though their lack of experience vs. a pro who shoots weddings for a living will be apparent. And to some, that is still acceptable, to others, not so much. The public's perception (or at least my perception of their perception) is that people think digital, so anything can be done. Heck, in a 30 second commercial Microsoft can take people out of one picture, put them in another, change the whole background, save it and e-mail it to a friend (less than 30 seconds). Of course in reality, Microsoft can't even start a program on my computer in 30 seconds.<br>

As a photographer, I can tell you that many years of taking pictures as a hobbyist (though photography is no where close to my number one hobby), I can assure you that I am better than most non-professionals and no where close to the level of a competent professional. The problem is there are a lot of non-competent professionals out there that give a bad name to the real pros. Believe, I've seen it myself. You paid $2,500 for those pictures? I could've taken better shots with a decent point and shoot!<br>

If I were to get married again, I'd place a point and shoot digital camera on every table and tell my guests to take as many pics as they could. Maybe they'd be less perfect, but odds are that there will be a lot of "fun" shots. And it is the fun shots that people want to look back on, "how great was that wedding, we had so much fun!"<br>

In the end, most brides (and that is who matters) want a couple of really great shots that make them look beautiful (and in some cases, that aint so easy!) and happy.<br>

Another point, if I were a pro wedding photographer, I would be more than happy to sell all the digital images, untouched, at a very reasonable price. I would include with that, one completely re-touched and ready to print image for them to compare and have printed. They'll come back after trying it themselves and give you more business, to post process and prepare for printing properly.</p>

<p>My recommendation is to stick with the constant F/4 and use the savings in cost and weight for a single prime, faster lens (ie. 24 or 35) or even a 50. I shoot Canon, so am less familiar with the Nikon lenses. But I have a Canon 50 1.4 that is both cheap and quite good. For the record, I also have a 17-35 2.8 lens, which I bought used.<br>

If I am shooting with my 5D3, in most cases, in low light, I will still try to shoot at f/4 even when I can go lower. But that is possible due to the better ISO performance of modern cameras (fyi the 5D3 is supposed to be particularly good in this regard).<br>

With Canon at least, one can buy the f/4 wide zoom + faster (non L version) wider prime or nifty fifty for a lot less than the 2.8 L wide to normal zoom. <br>

In my experience, I find my shots with the 50 are more enjoyable as I put a lot more thought into composing those images as I loose the zoom ability. Just food for thought!<br>

If I were a professional (ie. getting paid for my images), perhaps I'd feel differently. But since it's just a hobby for me . . . </p>

<p>Mostly a follow-up question, as I found this conversation when looking for what seems to be a similar question. I am not a professional photographer and I don't sell prints or images. But I am always a little torn on how best to present a file of an image for printing.<br>

Assuming I am cropping at least to some degree, is it best for me to submit the file for printing at full resolution/full size and just order the print in the size that I want it? For example if I want a 4X6, 8X10 etc. . . ? <br>

But these are different ratios, if I get a 4X6 vs. an 8X10. Does the "lab" then further crop my original (to shot ratio) or what? <br>

As you can tell, I have not done a lot of printing of my images, part of this is not being sure of the best manner is submitting the files.</p>

<p>I agree with Scott to some degree, but that doesn't address the OP question. I shot my daughter and her horse riding last weekend using both a 1d2 and the 5d2 with a much higher percentage of shots coming from the 1d2 (unsurprisingly). The 5d2 is a terrific camera, but gets easily beat even by my 50D in terms of moving subjects and focusing. However, for many subjects (very slow or stationary), I love the images produced with the 5d2, more so than the 1d2. My 5d2 would show the biggest problems when she was riding toward the camera, losing focus off her face and picking up the horses head. The fact that she was riding indoors (thanks to the lousy fall Michigan weekends - "what follows 2 days of rain in Michigan ...... Monday!"). FWIW lenses used: 24-70 2.8L, 70-200 4/L, 85 1.8.</p>

<p>I am going to be in the Philippines in about a month and was wondering the same thing. I even found a Philippines website: <a href="http://bili.ph/for-salenikon-d90nikon-28-70-mm-f28canon-17-55-mm-f28/">http://bili.ph/for-salenikon-d90nikon-28-70-mm-f28canon-17-55-mm-f28/</a> but as it turns out after e-mailing them they are actually in the UK? They do such a good job with knockoff stuff in that part of the world (I used to live in the South Pacific and frequented Taiwan, Thailand, Indonesia, etc. . . regularly) that I am somewhat suspecious that if the price is too good, that it would actually be a real Canon (or Nikon) product. In the PI, yes many things are cheaper, but if you go to the high-end stores (where the items are supposed to be authentic and not black/gray market, the prices are still pretty high - at least with designer clothes, purses, watches, etc. . . ). </p>

<p>The 50D is a very nice camera and I think the upgrade in the camera body and all that this unit delivers will result in some very good images. Mine came with the 28-135 lens, and this is a pretty darn good kit lens for this body. Is it as good as the 24-105 in terms of image quality? Most the time it is a push, but when it really comes down to it, you are going to find that the 24-105L is going to be a little bit better. I have found the focusing with the 50D to be excellent and getting sharp pics w/ the 28-135 has not been a problem. Would the slightly wider perspective/reach justify the purchase of the 24-105 vs. the 50D w/28-135 justify the slighly wider reach? That is a personal issue, but based on what you are used to in your kit, I doubt it. FWIW I don't own the 24-105, instead I own: 17-35L(for 5d2), 24-70L, 70-200L for my zooms + 10-22 Sigma (for 50D), plus primes.</p>

<p>Bryan,<br>

In another post you reference your 70-200 f/4. You have a crop camera, the 50D, which I also have and love. I own the 85 1.8 (I don't own the 100 f/2). I really like the 85 1.8 with this body, which shoots much like a 135 on the 50D and delivers very good portrait shots. I agree with Yakim on the quality issues with the 2X, I think you are better off with the 1.4X. Since it seems you want to go with the greatest reach, maybe you want to consider the 135 f/2.</p>

<p>Dick,<br>

Thanks for your detailed reply and link to the manual. I did unplug the pending to be charged battery (pending completion of the first battery "Refresh") and plugged it back in. It immediately began charging and took just over 1 hour for the indicator to signal a complete charge.</p>

 

<p>I have a question that I am having a tough time finding a clear answer to. I have the standard NC-E2 battery charger for a 1dii camera body. I have two batteries. I know how the charging side of things works, but am unclear on the "Refresh" side of things.<br>

I hooked up both batteries and pressed the "Refresh" button for both, then went to lunch. One of the lights is solid orange and the other is a slow blinking orange. I am assuming the slow blinking orange is in line to be "Refreshed" when the first one is done (since only one charges at a time). My questions are:<br>

Q1: If the battery that is "Refreshing" was completely drained in the camera, approx. how long should the "Refresh" take? I have not "Refreshed" before.<br>

Q2: Since the second batter "Refresh" light is still blinking, is there any harm in disconnecting this battery as long as it is still blinking and presumably not doing anything but waiting?<br>

Q3: If I unplug the second battery with the slow "Refresh" blink and plug it back in without pushing the "Refresh" button, will it charge while the other was is "Refreshing"? Any risk to doing this?<br>

Thanks for your replies and I need to find a manual since I don't think I have mine anymore for the NC-E2.</p>

 

<p>I think this is terrific. By charging them a small amount, less than what your services are worth is a great way to start out, better than giving it away free. At this price, nobody will complain too much if they aren't happy, you gain considerable experience and knowledge and they get a great deal. I agree with John Mac, about letting them know your situation completely. <br>

The biggest problem with the current set-up is that you are shooting in mid-day sun with harsh shadows and all. </p>

<p>While the other responses have answered your question as to the true camera setting when the photograph was taken and hence the cause of your problem. I would also suggest that you check to see if your ISO is set to Automatic or if the camera's ISO was set to 250 manually. <br>

The other posters are right about taking some time to review the manual and/or other sources for gaining a better understanding. But instead of stopping to shoot in these more "manual" modes, I would suggest you doing it more and reviewing the results with each shot. Practice around the house and out in the yard, bother your family, always taking pictures of them in different lighting situations. After about a week of doing this, you will be amazed how quickly you will learn what to do and what not to do. Then spend another week doing the same thing, but that week, determine before you take the picture what result you want to achieve? Sometimes it is nice to catch motion in the shot while also using the flash, doing this in aperture priority mode will allow you to show both the image's movement and still capture a sharp "base" image. Come up with other goals as well.<br>

Don't be scared to play around, you will learn so much faster and become so much more confident in yourself this way. Probably getting more enjoyment. Since you are shooting digital, it doesn't cost anything to take 50-100 pictures a night for a week or two. Best of luck and have fun.</p>

<p>Chris, I am very similar to you in regards to shooting types and equipment interests. That being said, I started with a 50D (which I really like), added the 5d2 and the 1d2 at the same time. I buy bodies used when I can since their value does not hold up like lens values do over longer periods of time. Since you don't plan to shoot a lot of the subjects I bought the 1d2 (which I will use only for speed situations and also for its durability/build) for, I would just go with the 5d2. While this is a pretty new to me body, I really like many aspects of the camera and its performance. It does not focus as fast as my 50D, but based on your comments, I don't think that will matter much to you. The picture quality is excellent with the 5d2.</p>

<p>50 1.4 is my favorite lens, regardless of FF/1.6, etc. . . I have not owned the 1.2, but imagine I would/may like that better. The 1.8 though is hard to beat for the price. On a tight budget I would add the 1.8 or possibly better the older 1.8 with metal mount. Nice is that you don't even need to add a filter for protection. At this price, you can just replace the lens every couple of years if you do get scratches, etc. . . The 1.4 focuses very quickly and the low light image quality is very good in my experience.</p>

<p>No obviously not, the issue isn't the boat, the issue is the vehicle to carry the boat. The vehicle equates to the lens. The lens/vehicle can be addressed for the current need with complete ignorance to any future need (as with the minivan above). There is nothing wrong with buying the minivan/or the limited S lens - as long as the buyer understands the limitations both purchases pose for future/changing needs. If this is considered and they determine that the future needs will not depart from the current needs OR that if they do, they are happy re-buying in the future, then they have made an educated, thought out decision. In doing so, the right decision has been made for that individuals need.</p>

<p>Choosing to be ignorant with regard to any future/changing needs is just being blind. Considering the limitations is just part of incorporating a good decision making process, whether for an individual, a business, a family. We (hopefully) all do this as part of our daily lives in many things we do; life insurance coverage, eating out, where we will educate our kids, the automobiles we drive, etc. . . Every decision we make has pros and cons, trade-offs and alternative options. Some are so meaningless or minor that little effort or thought goes into them, others warrant closer evaluation and some warrant significant consideration (buying a home, getting married, major career decisions).</p>

<p>I own a company that manufacturers and supplies equipment to the optical disc industry (if you have a DVD disc in your house odds are 9:1 that our equipment was used in its manufacture). Nearly every company that buys our equipment asks abouts its ability to perform in scenarios that exceed the capability of current production lines available in the market/industry today (which our equipment does when special options are added which slightly increases the initial cost). Not because they have an immediate need for our equipment to meet what may be a future need, but they know they are making a better, well rounded decision by safe guarding for that future possibility.</p>

<p>Shawn should consider the potential for her/him to go to a full frame camera at some point in the future. If s/he thinks this is very unlikely, s/he can make her/his decision accordingly. If s/he is unsure or thinks s/he will, then s/he can act accordingly. Regardless, it should be considered!</p>

<p>Finally, the statement that the S-lenses will hold their value as well as the L-lenses, the very short history has already shown this is not the case. In many regards we are talking about lenses that are less than 3 years since introduction. This is even more true with the "off-brand" lenses.</p>

<p>Grocery shopping to home building, hum? How about you have a 2,500 pound boat and the lake that you like to go to is ten miles away on flat highways and has a great, grooved concrete boat landing. Somebody recommends that you get a minivan to tow the boat, as the minivan is rated at 3,000 pound towing capacity. You are well served by this minivan going to the perfect boat landing and driving down the flat highway. </p>

<p>However, should you ever want to go to a different lake with a sand or dirt, inclined boat landing, maybe up in the mountains, then you are SOL, you may be able to get to the boat landing, if you get there, you can get your boat in the water, but you can't get it out! The minivan is just not able to do this in many circumstances. Nobody warned you in advance that this was the problem with getting the minivan upfront (after all, it could do what you said you wanted it to) for towing your boat. If they had told you this, you would have at least had the opportunity to consider what your needs are, what the impact is if your needs change and what you can and cannot do with the recommended product.</p>

<p>Personally, I wouldn't buy an S Series lens if I could buy a regular EF lens that gave me the rough equivalent on a crop body. That being said, I do own a 10-22 mm S lens and was forced to buy a second wide angle lens for my FF (17-35 2.8 L). But those buying decisions were purely based on the idea that I may someday move to a FF camera body.</p>

<p>My comment about "really getting into photography" and progressing to FF is in no means a slight to crop bodies or their future. I own and love my 50D crop body and have no intentions of getting rid of it. The reality is that most people just "getting into" photography are going to start with a crop body - economics encourages this. Who wants to spend thousands of dollars on a camera body when they don't even know if they will love the hobby (that is why I started with a 50D and I used to shoot [years ago] film). The reality is that if one buys a S (crop body only) lens and then decides to move to FF (replacing!) their crop body, the lens is of no usable value and needs to be sold. I get the impression the S lens values will not hold up to the L series and similar lens values - but this is to be seen.<br>

I clearly stated that if the OP has no intentions to move to a FF body, then the S lens is a good lens and a good choice. To recommend anything in response to one seeking advice, and not including the details or weaknesses of your/my recommendation is the equivalent to providing bad information. Obviously the OP has less experience than many and along with any advise, in my opinion, the pros and cons should be included for the advice to be accurately analyzed by the Original Poster.<br>

I offered my suggestion based on 2 lenses (at roughly the same combined cost as the 17-55 S) and a review of his shooting technique to overcome his posted issues. The lenses that I recommended can be used on every Canon body (FF, crop 1.3, crop 1.6, 35 mm) and will likely hold there value (as history shows) extremely well. I clearly indicate that the S 17-55 lens is a very good lens, but won't work on all bodies (limited future protection if he moves to FF). Because any responder reminds posters (new to the hobby) that FF cameras exist and are frequently moved to over the course of the hobby and that such a move may be considered by the poster in helping to determine their short term needs/goals against long term needs/goals is responsible and is in no way criticising those making recommendation geared only toward crop cameras.</p>

<p>My problem with the 17-55 is that it is a limiting lens that if you really get into photography and move to a full frame camera, will leave you high and dry. I started with a crop and am moving toward FF. I have only purchased one S lens and try to avoid them as they become useless with a FF body. But, if you think you will not leave the crop camera, then this is a good lens. Also, perhaps you want to try shooting in aperture priority (AV) when you are shooting with a flash. It sounds like this is as much of the problem as the lens itself, based on your statements. The 28-135 is actually a pretty decent lens and you should be able to get pretty good results with it. I would also consider the following two lens combo for your crop camera: 17-35 L 2.8 (about $675 on eBay) + 50 mm 1.4 about $325 or less used ($1000 combined). You will love the 50 1.4, it is a terrific lens on a crop body for portrait like shots and is great is low light.</p>