andrew_aylett

<p>real photographers don't worry about theory and technicalities , but are more concerned about creating an image , results are what counts not meaningless rambling about theory and what is percieved by other as technically correct and perfect , hence maybe if people used their equipment rather than conflaberating , they may if they are lucky beome proficent both creatively and otherwise to actually deserve to call themselves a photographer , rather than a theoretical perfection monkey who fiddles withknobs and presses buttons , many pof the greatest photogaphers knew diddly squat about the theory , and just created images .<br>

</p>

<p>Using such a converter voids the Canon waranty , if you gonna spend the $ on a 5DII you may as well use the right cards equipment etc with it . </p>

<p>It's not fake it's a Leica II made in 1933 , I used to collect them and if the leica in the photo is a fake then I'm a parrot . </p>

<p>Have you checked your AF point selection ? I have come across several people with the same issues who had inadvertantly changed the AF point and hadn't realised</p>

<p>Unless you are throwing a 50D around like a football I don't think there is any point in conflabberating about 50D toughness , I couple of my 50D's have fallen considerable distances and one was kicked by someone and went flying through the air to land about 15 feet away , the bodies worked fine afterwards and only suffered barely noticable scuffs , the lenses had to be repaired though . </p>

<p>There seem to be an infinite amount of answers to this question</p>

<p>I have had 70-200 non IS and IS versions , I am now using the non IS version as I never use IS (even on my 300 2.8 which I always use hand held) , I have noticed no real difference between the earlier and later lens , whatever version you are using you will always get superb images if you are using you equipment properly .</p>

<p>24 1.4L & 35 1.4L because they are nice and sharp and I get very crisp images<br>

85 1.2L for colour sharpness and OOF blur , 135 2.0L for colour & sharpness<br>

300 2.8L because I love using it and is easy to hand hold for such a bulky lens</p>

<p><strong>"7D is a 'near' pro camera as is the 5D2. In some aspect each is BETTER than the other. What other warm and fuzzy hugs do you require? Enjoy your camera. Enjoy your work. Don't work about geeks</strong>"(nicely said )<br>

When you consider how many "Pro"s (meaning people who actually make a living from photography ) are using 20, 30, 40 & 50D's (and I know of one or two using XTi's) I honestly think its pointless defining what a PRO Camera is (I have not yet used a 7D so can't comment but have owned 5D & 5Dii ), and if some one can produce quality work with what they have who really cares .<br>

Is there a right or wrong camera ? full frame is great for some things , crop bodies more suited to others but you can do most work with either .<br>

I guess it's all about what you are most comfortable using & having the skills to work around the pro's and con's of each particular model .<br>

So what if one model has more bells & whistles than another and in all honesty who actually uses all the settings availiable to them ? or even knows how to use all the functions availiable to them .(being of the old school of photography I haven't even bother with using liveveiw even though its there for me to use & if I wanted video I'd buy a video camera buts thats just my own opinon and people are entitled to use what equipment they like or are comfortable with without being ridiculed ) <br>

If you love your work then you work with what you have and produce the best you can with it .<br>

better for your camera to be a tool than you to be the tool behind it . </p>

<p>Hmm I never knew a 50mm could behave like anything else , well not unless it has some kind of focal opticality disorder .</p>

<p>Unless you are a very good wedding photographer and prepared to put in a great deal of time and effort you won't make enough to live on and with the ever increasing number of part time photographers many often not experienced or compident enough to produce decent quality work many full time professionals no longer do weddings .<br>

There is also the growing trend of people going on cost not quality without taking into consideration that only monkeys work for peanuts , How often have you heard people complaining about not being happy with their wedding photo's ??? I hear it all the time .<br>

If you produce quality work , charge quality prices , if you start off underselling yourself you will find it difficult to increase what you charge without people complaining .<br>

If people are not prepared to pay what you ask or negotiate on more realistic charges its not worth wasting your time .<br>

If you start off as a budget priced photographer you will most likely always be a budget priced photographer , and its all very well people saying if you don't do the job it's $450-$500 you never had and could have , but take your time and expenses into account and at those prices you have probably made a loss rather than any income .<br>

You may not agree with what I say and I may well be wrong , as I have only been been doing photography work as my main income for 29 years and I'm still learning </p>

<p> <strong>"Oh man. You need one of those like you need a hole in the head".</strong><br>

I guess he uses cheap kit lenses on his 7D too , I guess maybe he was suffering from gear envy (I wonder if he uses the <strong>P</strong> for professional mode all the time )</p>

<p>Have you consididered a constant lighting kit ?</p>

<p>I have never had any problems with my 17-55 , and have found the image quality when using this lens almost as good as my L glass , I think a lot of problems that people seem to be having are due to incorrect camera and exposure settings , and also lack of experience of some users & also that the 17-55 needs to be used with a lens hood at all times to prevent stray light upsetting the exposure . </p>