art_szabo1

<p>Tommy,<br>

I went to great lengths and took care NOT to be rude.<br>

Art</p>

<p>Just possibly James has a point. What bag a man should carry is determined by so many variables. What are you taking with you, seven flashes or no flashes? Six lenses or three? Are they primes or humongous zooms? Do you carry one body or three? Do they each have grips or no? Are you walking down the street or up a mountain? Do you prefer a backpack over a shoulder bag? Are you going to carry it yourself or hire a sherpa?<br>

Judging by the caliber of some of the questions posted here maybe James hit his threshhold for questions that would be better answered by Mommy.<br>

Just my thoughts for whatever they may be worth.<br>

Art</p>

<p>Canon EF-S 10-22mm<br>

Art</p>

<p>Sarah - Don't feel silly at all. You see the same thing happened to me, that is how I had such good detailed instructions. We learn from our own mistakes and if we are real smart we learn from other's mistakes.<br>

Have a great day.<br>

Art</p>

<p>Sarah - Looking at the top lcd with the camera set to P, AV, or TV note the little scale at bottom center. The marker should be in the exaxct middle of that scale. If it isn't, give your shutter button a half press and rotate the dial on the back of the camera placing the marker in the center of the scale. The dial on the back of your camera will only work if you turn the on off switch to the second detent, or as far as it will go (you have two on positions).<br>

When you go to manual or full auto that scale diappears and does not function. To avoid this in the future turn your camera on only to the first position, this disables the dial on the back of the camera.<br>

Art</p>

<p>Crispin - The 30D does not have a 'clean sensor' function. It has a function that holds the shutter open while YOU clean the sensor. Look at pages 41 AND 42 of the manual. You will need a bulb blower or cleaning brush to do this.<br>

Art</p>

<p>In my experience the quickest, easiest and most accurate method is to use the crop tool. Select the crop tool, type in the dimensions and dpi and just crop the image. This will make it smaller or larger. I know it sounds a little wierd but it works perfectly. You will need to have bicubic preselected.<br>

Like Charles Wood says; do a save as and keep the original intact. This way you can make 8x10s or 5x7s or what ever off the original. Another thing to keep in mind if you are shooting RAW, keep the original as a 16 bit PSD do not convert to JPEG before the resizing. I have printed 17 x 22 beautiful tack sharp photos from an 8 MP EOS 30D using this method. They are sent to the printer at 16 bit at 600 dpi (Caon IPF 5000).<br>

Art</p>

<p>Brian M - Are they bathyspheres?<br>

Art</p>

<p>Robert,<br>

Here is the scoop from SLR Gear. From F4 to F16 your Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 outperforms the the Canon 85mm F1.8. At F2.8 the Canon is a clear winner. At F2 annd F1.8 the Canon is very unimpressive. You do the math, is this minimal advantage worth the $350 price tag?<br>

Your request to not offer any alternative lenses cripples our ability to offer any useful help. With your 1.6 crop body you should look into a wider not longer prime as the others suggested. Something around 28 to 30 mm would give you closer to a the natural look of a 50mm on a full frame or film camera.<br>

Additionally, relying on SLR Gear, your Tamron is a stunning performer at 28mm. I see no real reason to purchase a prime in this focal length.</p>

<p>I don't understand your need to upgrade to a full frame camera if you want a smaller file size. That would be like moving from a three bedroom house to a five bedroom house and hiring a contractor to come in and remove two bedrooms because the house was too big.<br>

Maybe you should explain to us why you think you should upgrade. There is no shortage of qualified people here that will give you GOOD advice. It is beginning to look to me like you already have the perfect camera. There are a hundred good reasons to upgrade to a full frame, but they are only valid if they apply to the person spending the money.<br>

"smaller file sizes are sharper than the larger ones due to less in-camera processing" Did Ken Rockwell actually say that? I am not defending him, but I cannot for the life of me imagine anybody saying anything so ludicrous.<br>

Art</p>

<p>This is not camera specific. This is just a simple law of digital imaging. - Sharpening enhances noise - Higher ISO introduces noise. The threshold of this noise is camera specific, some are just better than others. If it was me, as the ISO went up the sharpening would go down.<br>

Ultimately shoot RAW, do some form of noise reduction FIRST, then sharpen.<br>

Art</p>

<p>Let me take a stab at quoting sarah;<br>

"AWB: Just don't use it! Only casual snap-shooters use AWB. Either take a custom WB, or take your best guess. For instance, if you're standing in sunlight, use the daylight setting. If you've got incandescent lighting, use tungsten. You'll be pretty close, if not dead-on.<br>

In the end, if you're shooting RAW, the WB means nothing anyway. You do your adjustments in postprocessing. Just be sure to shoot something white (and not blown out) for a reference."<br>

Notice how I broke her paragraph in half. If you read it carefully the second half refers to post processing, indicating that the first half refers to NOT post proccessing. Her advice in the first half is to not use AUTOMATIC white balance if you are going to use the photos right out of the camera. She advises choosing a white balance that best suits the lighting. Further she goes on to say that if you shoot RAW and therefore post process that white balance is irrelevant.<br>

Persoanlly I agree with her and think this is good advice.<br>

Art</p>

<p>Craft?? Which famous film photographer didn't practice his craft in the darkroom? There is a huge difference between good enough and excellent. Excellence requires effort and and extreme skill honing, other words for craft. Anybody that uses their photos right out of the camera shouldn't use the word craft. The digital camera of today is no different in the overall process than it was a hundred years ago with film. The camera is a light gathering device, it is a tool used to gather data. What you do with that data is craft. I worked in digital imaging for years before I ever bought a digital camera. RAW is the only format for the crafts person for all of the reasons stated above. Snapshots are what comes out of the camera, photographs require effort.<br>

Art</p>

<p>I hope I don't get whacked in the head for singing the same song over and over, but here it goes again. Go to SLR Gear they have many lenses listed from all of the lens makers. Go down the list and find the ones marked (tested) open them in different windows/tabs open the chart windows side by side and move the sliders adjusting the zoom and F stops. You will have a visual showing the lens performance. You can then decide on value gained for money spent. I would suggest you take a long look at Canon's new EFS 15-85mm IS to replace your kit lens. I would also reccomend the EFS 10-22mm but only if you are interested in wide angle photography.<br>

There is no arguing the value of the human opinion that you get here. These laboratory tests are not subject to human error or bias, but they will not tell you the usefulnees of the lens. Find the lenses you want and then come here and find out real life experiences with them, then spend your money.<br>

Art<br>

Art</p>

<p>This may come as a shock to everybody due to the prevalent presumption that a prime will always outperform a zoom. According to SLR Gears testing the 17-55mm (at 55mm) will outperform the 50mm 1.8 at F2.8 from there going up the f stop scale they are very very close. The 50mm 1.8 does have two faster stops but the circle of sharpnees is very small and thus a negligible advantage.<br>

I own the 50mm 1.4 and an EFS 17-85mm IS, after processing through DXO, ACR and Photoshop there is a difference in output but it is not mindblowing. I print 17 x 22 sometimes, so this small difference is important to me.<br>

Another suggestion for James is to get a set of extension tubes and play around with them before investing a lot of money in a true macro lens. I use the Pro Optic three piece set available from Adorama. Macro is cool for about a week then the novelty wears off and you're stuck with the question of what to do with all of those macro shots. One could say at least he would have a good 60mm prime lens even if macro no longer interested him. At 70mm his existing 70-200mm F2.8 will match or outperform the 60mm macro prime, again according to SLR Gears testing.<br>

Finally, if it was me, I would consider swapping the 17-55 for the new 15 - 85. You would gain on both ends of the zoom but give up some speed. Check them out at SLR Gear and decide on your own. And, no I do not work for SLR Gear, but I do rely on them heavily because I value my money and don't like experimenting.<br>

Art</p>

<p>I think the perfect lens for you is the NEW Canon EFS 15 -85mm IS.<br>

Art</p>

<p>I went through this same dilemma about two months a go. After comparing all of the 50mm lenses at SLR Gear there didn't seem to be a major optical a advantage to any of them yet a substantial variation in prices. I opted for the 1.4 Canon because the lens hood is bayonet mount, it has a smooth bokeh and it says Canon on it matching my other lenses. If the threaded hood of the 1.8 doesn't bother you and the name Canon is irrelevant to you, then you are down to a bokeh difference. What are you willing to pay for that?<br>

Perhaps some of the other members would care to post samples so Steve can see the difference in bokeh.<br>

Art</p>

<p>I am a new member but I didn't know that I was suppose to post a picture of a duck. Is this true?<br>

Robert, post a photo of your wife with that duck I may be able to help you out with that $200.<br>

Art</p><div></div>

<p>Jennifer,<br>

The best way I know of to make a lens decision is to go to SLR Gear ( <a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php">http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php</a> ) and find any of the lenses you may be interested in. If they are marked 'tested' you can click on the window marked 'blur index' and it will open in a new small window. You have two sliders- one for focal length and one for the F stop. It will show you exactl;y how sharp the lens is. You can open multiple of these windows and compare several lenses at the same time. You can even compare Sigmas and Tamrons etc to the Canon lenses.<br>

A useful purpose of this is comapring the 70-200 F4L to the 70 - 200 F2.8L. Setting both lenses to F4 and going through the zoom range you discover very little difference. Until you get to 200 mm where the F2.8 blows the socks off the F4. Obviously you will have the advantage of the F stops below F4 on the pricier lens. In your own mind you can determine am I going to pay $1000 for that advantage?<br>

The advantages of a faster lens are obvious but the drawback is rarely mentioned. Narrow depth of field. Depending on the type of shot you are making a narrow depth of field could ruin the shot. If you want more than just one thing to be in focus in the photo in most of your shots the money you spent on a fast lens is buried down in the part you will rarely use.<br>

I have a fast lens but still most of my shots are taken at F4 to F8. In other words the lens you buy must suit your specific needs. I suggest you look at the new 15 - 85 EFS IS, it is a very good performer. Check it out at SLR Gear and compare it to others and keep in mind your own needs and money.<br>

Art</p>

<p>I own the 30D and I love it immensely. However, I still suggest the 40D because you can always buy lenses down the road but you can't buy the additional features of the 40D.<br>

Art</p>

<p>P - 70% the other 30% divided between AV and TV<br>

Art</p>