ljwest

<p>It's simple. Find out what the optimum image size - in pixel dimensions - for Facebook is, then use Photoshop to create a resized image just for Facebook. <a href="http://havecamerawilltravel.com/photographer/images-photos-facebook-sizes-dimensions-types">Here is an interesting article</a> on just that. A good quote is:</p> <blockquote> <p>Something to be aware of is that Facebook compresses some images pretty aggressively when you upload and display them.</p> </blockquote> <p>If you want to maintain control of your image quality, and it sounds like you do, always resize to the end use. Never depend on the software or firmware for the site or device you want to display the image on to do your image justice. It just won't happen.</p> <p>Actually, I find the best thing for images is to upload them to Flickr, or another photo site, and then paste a link into FB. There is even a tool that can do that automatically.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Ever since the digital revolution Filters are not hip anymore.</p> </blockquote> <p>Not "hip" anymore? I'd not characterize it as being hip or not, but many filters are simply out of a job with digital. You don't need the old 80, 81 & 82 series color-correction filters, because that is handled by the White Balance in camera. Monochrome conversions often come out better when done completely in post using software filters from a color RAW original, and the vast majority of special effect filters (Cokin's bread-and-butter) like star filters, heart cutouts, blurs, multiple images, etc. accomplish things that are better - and more easily - handled in post processing, and you have the added benefit of still retaining the original image in full color, and without any possibility of added image degradation from placing something else in the light path.</p> <p>We'll still need Polarizers and ND filters for a long, long, time.</p>

<p>Video defaults to the highest quality (and file size) of 1920 x 1080 in the 7D, unless you dive into the menu and set 1280 x 720 or 640 x 480. According to the manual, only 640 x 480 gets you any space saved.</p> <p>The still resolution used (like MRAW or small JPEG) had no effect on the video.</p> <p>Your best bet, though, would be to bring the video clips into an app on your Mac or PC, and render them out in a more compact format.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>The idea that somehow film was better for this is antiquated and comes from not knowing enough about current technology and methodology.</p> </blockquote> <p>+1</p> <p>Film would have been used when it was either the only game in town, or digital hadn't gotten up to speed yet. Today, there are commercially available digital high-speed cameras that can shoot at speeds approaching 10,000 frames per second, with HD or better resolution. </p> <p>Just the thing when you want to tape the result of dropping a certain candy into a certain brand of diet soda!</p>

<p>Personally, I plan to wait and see what Apple's "Photos" app will do for me when it comes in 2015. Maybe then I'll be looking into a Lightroom conversion package...</p> <p>For the time being, Aperture is still just fine for me. I also have an archive of my un-processed images that I could just import to Lightroom. I've got very few images that would be too onerous to re-create from the originals.</p>

<p>Is the pairing button the only one on that screen? I can't imagine they'd want to pair something using wireless when a camera was directly connected.</p> <p>Connect the camera via USB, open a new Finder window, and scroll down in the leftmost pane to see your attached storage devices. Something there should indicate a camera connected. Open that device, and you should be able to see your photos there.</p> <p>Oh, and if you haven't, be sure to run Software Update on your new Mac ASAP to get all the latest updates since it was manufactured. The 5D should be part of OS 10.9, but you never know...</p>

<blockquote> <p>I think the thing you'll find most annoying about it (used with your rebel) is it's balance. Paired with such a lightweight body, I expect it will take you some time to get used to moving it, and controlling it properly. If you don't already have a tripod or monopod, get one.</p> </blockquote> <p>Agreed. Big lenses make the body - any body - more like an extra handle. You must support the lens when shooting. I actually prefer that method of shooting, as it frees my right hand to control the camera much easier than if that same hand is trying to support the weight at the same time.</p>

<p>The bars on the LCD for each LP-E6 battery tell you the <em>recharge performance</em> of the battery, not the level of charge (that's the % listed).</p> <p>Three green - battery is fine, 2 green - slightly degraded, and red - "Purchasing a new battery is recommended". I've had one on two green bars for a couple years, the other has been on one red bar close to a year now, and they both seem to still be working fine for me.</p>

<p>How do you find that <em>you</em> shoot most often? Is the 70-300 your go-to lens? Or is it the 18-70? Or do you use them equally?</p> <p>For me, I am most often photographing nature subjects, primarily birds, so my 100-400 (a big lens, essentially the same size as a 70-200 f/2.8 +/- a few mm & grams) lives on my Canon 7D (as does a battery grip). My Kata backpack has just enough room to store the combination in one of the side-entry compartments. I also carry a 17-55 f/2.8, though it doesn't get all the use it should...</p> <p>My point is, you need to make it work for <em>you</em>, and not rely on what works for someone else. Try other suggestions, certainly, but don't feel bad about not sticking with that if it isn't working for you. If it turns out that your go-to lens is the larger, and you can't re-arrange the bag to suit that, it might be time for a bigger bag...</p>

<p>Osprey migrate south starting around October. Adults first, then straggling youths. They'll be back around March, building nests and getting ready for the breeding season.</p> <p>Bald Eagles can be seen, if rarely, all over NJ. Forsythe has them occasionally, The Great Swamp as well. There are nests along the Delaware River.</p> <p>For dead reliable Eagle sightings, Conowingo Dam in Maryland is a hotspot. They'll fly within 10 feet of you...</p> <p>Red-tailed Hawks are pretty much everywhere in NJ.</p>

<p>New Jersey has plenty of opportunity to see Osprey! Osprey are a species of the shoreline, primarily, but anywhere there are plenty of fish, they'll be nearby. They nest in trees and purpose-built "Osprey Platforms" erected all over the Jersey Shore.</p> <p>For almost guaranteed Osprey sightings, Take a trip to the <a href="http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Edwin_B_Forsythe/">Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge</a> in Galloway, NJ, just northwest of Atlantic City. Take the Wildlife Drive, and you'll see 8 or more Osprey platforms, and I am reliably informed that all are hosting Osprey pairs and nestlings in 2014. Friendsofforsythe.org has a link to an Osprey Camera trained on a platform near the visitor's center. Osprey are seen at Forsythe about March through October while they breed and raise their young. Stragglers can sometimes be found most of the year.</p> <p>If you like to photograph wildlife, NJ is host to <a href="http://www.fws.gov/refuges/refugeLocatorMaps/NewJersey.html">five National Wildlife Refuges</a>.</p>

<p>Have you tried contacts? I keep renewing my contact lens prescription expressly for photography. I use one of the AccuVue daily wear brands (wear them for a day, then toss them), and they are very comfortable, to the point I barely notice them all day.</p> <p>My only problem is I then need readers to chimp the photos!</p>

<blockquote> <p>Apple store is telling me on the phone that mid level iMac takes a 2 week order to be configured with 16gb RAM.</p> </blockquote> <p>That (2 weeks) may be true. They do NOT change configurations at the Apple Store. What is in the box is what you get. Sometimes they have stock of "common" upgrades, but apparently not in this case.</p> <p>The (online) Apple Store reports that a 16GB 21.5 is "available to ship" in 1-3 business days. Then it has to get to you from China...</p> <p>Have you looked at Apple's Refurbished iMacs? Today they are showing a late 2012 27" iMac, 3.4 Ghz quad i7 8GB/1TB for only $200 more than adding 8GB to the current 21.5" iMac. That is a much faster machine, and you can add RAM up to 32GB at any time by yourself.</p> <p>Apple's refurbs are usually great deals on discontinued products. They come with the same warranty as new (1 year P&L, 90 days phone support), and are eligible for AppleCare (3 years P&L and phone support).</p>

<p>If you are seeing this in on-line, digital images, many - if not all - of the photographers are not so much "getting their name out" as trying to prevent some third party from pirating their photo and claiming it as their own. This happens all too often, as some people believe that if it is on the internet, it is public, and free to use anywhere.</p> <p>It is an unfortunate fact of internet life, and it doesn't look like it will be disappearing anytime soon.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I'm running OS 10.6.8 with a 2.16 GHz intel core duo, maxed out at 3GB memory.</p> </blockquote> <p>Sadly, Ray, I'd say it's time for a new iMac. Yours appears to be one of the late 2006 iMacs, and, like my early 2006 MacBook Pro was, it is limited in its expansion capacity.</p> <p>The 3GB RAM limit will always be a problem. With ever larger photo files, memory swapping (moving memory contents between the RAM and the hard drive) will occur more and more often, slowing the whole machine down.</p> <p>And, as I previously mentioned, the external and internal drive interfaces are rather slow by today's standards.</p> <p>Good deals can be had via Apple's store on refurbished iMacs. I'd recommend getting as much iMac as you can afford (buy the extra RAM and install it yourself, though. Unless you opt for a 21.5"...). A 27" with the i7 should last a long time.</p>

<blockquote> <p>But the all-in-one iMac, the ram is soldiered tight in iMac's. What you order when new, is what the machine is stuck with.</p> </blockquote> <p>Only partially true.</p> <ul> <li>The newest, low-cost 21.5" 1.4Ghz iMac <em>does</em> have soldered-in RAM, but it also has no option to add any above the standard 8GB, even at the factory.</li> <li>The current 21.5" 2.7 Ghz (and previous) i5-based iMac has build-to-order RAM options, and you can change it later, though on the 21.5" model, this is not for the faint of heart, as it requires separating parts that were installed with adhesives, not screws.</li> <li>The 27" iMac retains easy accessibility to RAM slots (as had all iMacs prior to the 2012s), and can go up to 32GB.</li> <li>http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/imac</li> </ul> <p>On the other hand, if you are talking about the MacBook Air, or the Retina MacBook Pro, then it is true that what it leaves the factory with is what it stays at.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I have not done wildlife, but the lens of choice, especially for birds seems to be the 500/4<em>.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>I'd have to agree, even though my only experience was a week's rental last fall on a 500 f/4L IS USM II. A spectacular lens for birds. It also loses almost nothing with an Extender 1.4x III on back, giving a 700mm focal length.<em><br /></em></p> <p>And, it is quite a bit lighter than the 600 f/4 or even the 400 f/2.8.</p> <p>Other things to keep in mind for the OP:</p> <ul> <li>I've heard that the 300 f/2.8 II with both Canon III series extenders (one at a time) is a very nice and light combination both on the shoulders and in the wallet.</li> <li>Most will recommend that if you will do most of your shooting at the long end (i.e. with extenders) then you're images will usually be better with the lens that is native at or near that focal length. So the 600 is better to use for the best IQ than the 300 & 2x. Consider extenders as an occasional, or "in a pinch" option, rather than a regular use item.</li> </ul>

<blockquote> <p>In anycase I think the firmware has been programmed to exclude the 10oomm equivalent from regular autofocus and automatically displays the message M Focus when it detects the lens. This way Canon have avoided customer complaints?</p> </blockquote> <p>A very large portion of Canon's customers will never encounter this issue, because almost all (if not all...) of Canon's own lenses have a minimum aperture of f/5.6 or greater, and these customers will never try to use an extender.</p> <p>Yes, this rule is built into the camera. The lens sends its specification to the camera, and if there is an extender, that is added on as well. The camera knows the capabilities of the autofocus system, and will force manual focus when appropriate.</p> <p>If you have the Canon 500mm lens (or any other extender-capable lens from Canon), the caveat about extenders (Canon extenders, specifically) is in the manual section "Extenders" for that lens. Such as:<br> <br />"With Extender EF2x II/III attached to the lens, only manual focus is possible."</p> <p>(it then lists the exceptions to that rule, but the 70D will never be on that list)</p> <p>3rd party lenses and extenders are hit-and-miss with this rule, however. The Tamron 150-600 which has a minimum aperture of f/6.3 will autofocus through the VF, for example.</p> <p>Live View focusing is a whole other kettle of fish, and the restrictions above don't apply at all. I have a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L, and I often use it with a Canon EF1.4x III extender. Through the viewfinder, my 7D will not autofocus, but with Live View, it will. The 70D should be even better in the Live View arena due to the dual-pixel technology, which is not present on my 7D.</p>

<p>Stick with what you already know. No sense trying to setup a new computer while also learning the new OS.</p> <p>That said, which iMac - specifically - do you have? Simplest to start by giving us the contents of your "About This Mac" dialog (Apple menu - first item). That dialog will show the processor type, OS version, and RAM.</p> <p>One thing that can be an issue, especially with OS X, is the amount of memory you have. My old (2006...) MacBook Pro is hobbled for real photography work by two things: Limited amount of RAM (3GB max), and slow drive connections (FW 800, USB 2, SATA1). Add to that it can't go past Mac OS 10.7 (we're up to 10.9, and 10.10 is on the horizon), and you'll understand why I upgraded to a new MacBook Pro 18 months back.</p> <p>FireWire drives can be connected with a Thunderbolt dongle from Apple, or one of the Thunderbolt "docks" out there. But you'll quickly want to get away from that, as even FW800 - which was fast back in the day - pales in comparison to USB3 or Thunderbolt/eSATA speeds. If nothing else, you should upgrade to a new iMac soon, for the much faster external drive options.</p> <p>I lucked out. All but one of my regular use external drives had eSATA ports as well as the FW800 that I was using with my old MBP. For those drives, I use LaCie Thunderbolt hubs, which connect to two drives via eSATA and Thunderbolt to the new MBP. Transformed the speed of access on those drives.</p> <p>As for the "we can build it faster/cheaper/better", that may have been true years ago, and still can be true for specific applications, but for general purpose personal computers, the "packaged" computers from Apple, Dell and other manufacturers are usually a much better deal.</p>

<p>According to the Canon site, the 5DII takes the BG-E6 grip, to go along with the LP-E6 batteries.</p>

<p>The <em>first</em> thing to do is: <strong>Save Your Money!</strong></p> <p>Without any kind of idea of what you are shooting, any lens recommendation by us is a stab in the dark.</p> <p>I can tell you that the best lens I ever mounted to my 7D and took photos with is the $10,500 EF 500mm f/4L IS II, but if you are interested in wide landscapes, architecture or insects and other very tiny things, it is completely the wrong lens for you!</p> <p>Figure out what it is you like to photograph first, then a decent lens recommendation can be made. With the very good to excellent optics of today's zoom lenses, you don't necessarily need a 3-lens kit (typically a 50mm, 28/35mm and a 135mm), as one would back in the days when "zoom" was a 4-letter word. Take your time, and get to know the camera, the lens you have, and where you want your photography to take you.</p> <p>I bought a 7D with the EF-S 18-135mm f/4.5-5.6 IS. Knowing I wanted to take photos of birds (which often requires a lot of focal length), I purchased a Tamron SP 70-300mm shortly thereafter, as it was (and still is) a lot of lens for the price. After a bit, I found that 300mm was, quite often, too short, and bought a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM. A few months later, knowing I was taking a trip to Europe, and wanted to take pictures in possibly dimly lit spaces without flash, I bought the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (one of the best EF-S lenses) for the constant f/2.8 aperture. So, by this point, my 18-135 and 70-300 have pretty much been retired.</p> <p>My point, though, is to illustrate that I had an idea of where I wanted to be before spending money on lenses.</p> <p>By the way, I'd recommend trying to get the 70D with the EF-S 18-135. 28mm on a crop sensor is not terribly "wide"...</p>

<p>What is the resolution of your computer screen? I'll wager it has quite a few more pixels than your 1920x1080 HD video! If you are viewing full screen, the computer has to "fill in" the space, and make the video's pixels span several screen pixels, possibly contributing to a "grainy" appearance. Some displays or apps do a better job of this than others.</p> <p>Try looking at the video on an HDTV (NOT a computer display), or, at least in 1:1 resolution on your computer display. </p> <p>Does your video contain a lot of action? It's remotely possible that the camera can't keep up, and gives a grainy appearance.</p> <p>Also, make sure that you are using as little compression as you can get away with. Compression can also introduce artifacts.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Regardless of whether the box says "LED" (Light Emitting Diode) or "LCD" (Liquid Crystal Display), the actual picture is made with an LCD panel. In the case of TVs, and computer displays, the "LED" refers to the back-lighting technology. LED back-lights are the "new kid on the block", with earlier LCD panels being illuminated by cold-cathode fluorescent tubes. LCD panels do not generate their own light, so they need a white back light.</p> <p>Note there is another, newer, technology called "OLED" (Organic Light Emitting Diode), which forms the image without an LCD panel. And Plasma is another completely different technology.</p> <p>Unless your vision is extremely compromised, a "TV"/"HDTV" is not a very good solution at all for photo editing. With digital display panels, the number of pixels is a fixed quantity. Anything labeled as a TV or HDTV will have a maximum "resolution" of 1920 pixels across by 1080 pixels down. This is for any TV or HDTV, from a 20" to 32" to a 90".</p> <p>In contrast, a computer display packs a lot more pixels into a smaller display. For example, a 27" iMac sports 2560 by 1440 pixels, about 75% more.</p> <p>I also agree with Wouter's comments about quality of the display. That matters a lot, when the viewing distance is measured in inches instead of feet.</p>

<blockquote> <p>[[The "workround" is to use equipment appropriate for the task of transmitting a video signal to an overflow lecture theatre, a very common requirement already provided for in many lecture theatres. A DSLR of any kind is simply the wrong tool for the job.]]<br> +1 and +1 again.</p> </blockquote> <p>And another +1.</p> <p>HD camcorders are FAR less costly than a 5DIII, and "web cams" even cheaper still.</p>

<blockquote> <p>But in my view, it can be made even simpler - stop comparing. First of all: focal length is focal lenght, always. 18mm is 18mm, 35 is 35 and 50 is 50. No matter which sensor you put behind it, it does not change. Next, if you shoot only APS-C, then why calculate "equivalent focal length" to a sensor size you are not using? Simply don't make these comparisons, but understand what a focal length looks like on <em>your</em> camera. Keeps things a lot easier.</p> </blockquote> <p>What Wouter says! It'll make your life a WHOLE lot easier in the end.</p> <p>It's simple. If you want a narrower field of view (more "zoomed in") than you can get now, you need a longer focal-length lens. So, if the highest focal length you have is 135mm, and you need to "get closer" with your crop sensor camera, you need a lens with MORE THAN 135mm. This could be 180mm, 200mm, 300mm, all the way up to 800mm (or 1200, if you have a house to sell for it...).</p> <p>On the flip side, if you need to get more scene in your image, you need a shorter focal-length lens. If your lens only goes down to, say, 18mm, you need something shorter, like 12mm, 14mm, 15mm, etc.</p> <p>It is an exercise in futility to constantly go back and forth with equivalent focal lengths between APS-C, APS-H, and full frame. You're just thinking too much about a far simpler problem.</p> <p>The only thing to care about is that Canon EF lenses fit and function on any Canon EOS camera (film or digital, crop or full frame), and Canon EF-S lenses only fit on Canon EOS Digital cameras with APS-C sensors (the Rebel/KISS lines, the xxxxDs, the xxxDs, the xxDs and the 7D).</p> <blockquote> <p>And JDM said:<br> Somehow we managed to avoid this confusion between 2 1/4 cameras and 35mm, and we should have never brought it up for digital cameras -- it only created confusion for everybody except the rapidly disappearing group who started on 35mm film cameras.</p> </blockquote> <p>Exactly!</p> <p>For decades, there was such a variety of film formats, cameras and lenses that any sort of "equivalency" would have been futile, at best. Even today, the humble roll of 120 film can take images in a plethora of sizes, from 6cm x 4.5cm through 6x6, and up to 6x9. It all depends on the camera.</p>