eric_duncan3

<p>Sorry, I forgot the second question in your post. I do not have experience with the SB900, but I simply set the Nissin units to 'Remote,' and either use the 7D's wireless flash controller, or set my 550EX flashgun to 'Master.' You can then use the menu / controls on the master flash to set the power of the remote flashes, and the remote flashes also fire when you trigger the camera shutter.<br>

You can have the master and remote flashes all trigger, or the master flash can simply emit a faint trigger flash that has a negligible effect on the flash exposure.<br>

All remote units can trigger at the same power output, or you can set them to groups, typically A, B, and C. You can then set each group to a different output power level or ratio.<br>

The Nissin units come with a CD-based manual which will explain all of this in more detail.<br>

I hope this helps!</p>

<p>Hi Oisin,<br>

I nearly bought a pair of Bowens studio heads, but so far, off-camera flashguns have been sufficient for the situations where I am not shooting with natural light only -- some portraiture, and automobile photography.<br>

I shoot with Canon 50D and 7D bodies, and bought two Nissin Di866 flashguns (now there is a Di866 MkII) to supplement my Canon 550EX flashgun. But there is a Nikon-compatible version of the Di866 also.<br>

I have been very happy with the Nissin units. They are powerful, controllable, and the light has a pleasant quality. Power is adjustable from 1/128 to 1/1 power. If you choose to use them as IR wireless flashes, either as master or remote units, mine integrate seamlessly with the canon wireless E-TTL system, and I am told by friends who shoot Nikon that the Nikon-compatible version of the Di866 works just as well. And they will be considerably cheaper than your excellent but costly SB900.<br>

The MkII version has a metal hotshoe, which will bring it a step closer than the MkI version, to the 'bulletproof' build quality of your SB900.<br>

Kind Regards,<br>

Eric</p>

<p>Excellent example, Keith. It is a pleasure to see those posts which are constructive, and topical. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I do not see Jeff's comments as 'anal' or 'pedantic.' I think they go to the heart of the matter. Other posters have cautioned against the tendency of some photographers to look at a RAW file straight from camera as the camera's ultimate image quality capability. Jeff's comment is a succinct and eloquent illustration of the flaw in that practice, that the RAW file has already been processed from the image sensor output, by the time we are able to view it, and that if we are not happy with the processing at that stage, as we know, it can be processed further.<br>

Of course the camera and lens factor heavily in the final image quality -- processing software has its limitations. Were it otherwise, we could all buy the cheapest point-and-shoot we can find, and good processing software, and forget about Zeiss or Canon L lenses, and 5DMkIIIs and Hasselblad H5Ds, for example.<br>

But I understand Jeff's point as an illustration that a RAW file from camera is not so much analogous to a transparency from slide film, in film photography, but more closely analogous to a negative, in that it is a step in the image production work flow, and not the finished product.<br>

And so we should judge a camera on the quality of the finished image it is capable of producing, and not on how well we like the resuls at the RAW file upload stage.</p>

<p>Glad you got there in the end! I know how that goes -- I give myself 30 seconds to peruse the instructions, think to myself, 'yeah, got it!,' and then spend ten times as long trying to figure out what went wrong. It would almost always be quicker to read the instructions carefully in the first place, but then we'd miss out on all the fun of trial and error!<br>

Once installed, it's a great update / upgrade, though. It might even put off a bad case of upgrade-itis for awhile. Then again, that 5D Mk3 of yours is looking pretty tempting!</p>

<p>Hi Tommy,<br>

As you have successfully installed 5D MkIII firmware, you may already have come across this. But with the 7D firmware v.2.0, I assumed the FIR file had automatically unzipped on downloading, because it had the .fir extension, and not .zip. But when it would not open or transfer to the CF card, I right-clicked on the file, and it gave me the option to unzip / expand it. After that, it transferred and installed in the camera without a problem.<br>

Best Regards,<br>

Eric</p>

<p>I just bought the Photoshop CS6 upgrade yesterday (upgrading from CS3), after testing the free beta trial. <br>

A big and obvious gain in convenience of workflow is that Camera Raw 7 recognizes the raw files from my Canon 7D, whereas the last Camera Raw compatible with CS3, ACR 4.6, did not. No more DNG converter!<br>

But the speed of working and convenience alone would not have convinced me to purchase CS6. What sold me, was the big increase in quality that CS6 and ACR 7 can extract from my 7D raw files, in terms of detail rendition, noise reduction, and rendition of tonal range, as compared to CS3.<br>

When I have more experience with CS6, and can do its full capabilities more justice, I plan to post CS3 vs. CS6 comparison images.<br>

So far, I am very impressed. The difference in print quality from CS3 vs CS6, from the same raw file, really illustrates the point that digital photography image quality is just as dependent on post-processing and printing as it is on camera, lens, and capture technique -- much the same way that the quality of a silver halide print is dependent as much on the enlarger and darkroom technique as it is on the camera, film, and capture technique.<br>

Admittedly, I skipped 2 Photoshop versions, so those currently using CS4 or CS5 may not see as great an increase in quality extraction from your camera's raw files, on upgrade to CS6.<br>

Before I made the decision to invest in CS6, I even downloaded the free Gimp 2.8 and UFRaw software, and tried them, too, determined not to be a captive Adobe zombie. But as much as I love the concept of open source, free software, and in spite of many positive reviews, I found the latest Gimp 2.8 to be less capable than Photoshop CS3, not to mention CS4, 5, or 6.<br>

I cannot speak for CS4 or CS5 users, but I do not think that anyone changing to CS6 from Gimp, or from Photoshop CS3 or earlier, will regret purchasing (or licensing) CS6, nor do I think they will fail to be impressed with the immense capabilities of CS6, of which I am so far only scratching the surface.<br>

In my opinion, the launch of Photoshop CS6 widens Adobe's lead over the competition. There is just nothing else like it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Lies, damn lies, and statistics!<br>

In short, I subscribe to the point-of-view of those who argue that DxO comparative scores between cameras are based upon arbitrary manipulation of data, introducing substantial artifacts into the comparisons, therefore rendering them of little validity.<br>

Objective, repeatable measurements form the basis of scientific conclusion. Arbitrarily weighting criteria in such a way that may vary from photographer to photographer forms the basis of a subjective opinion blog.</p>

<p>Q.E.D. -- Some people work in camera shops because they are passionate about photography, while others don't care what they do, to pay the mortgage. Although I must admit, I will use Stanley tools to put up a shelf, but to work on bathroom plumbing, I only use Sears Craftsman. ;)<br>

It might be fun to go back to that same Ritz saleswoman, and say you are serious about upgrading your Canon DSLR to a Hasselblad H4D or Phase One, for studio work, and see what rationale she would come up with, to steer you toward Nikon. (The D800 may offer 36MP, but if it really did rival medium-format digital image quality, I do not think Nikon would be so foolish as to sell it at a price point so far below the medium-format alternatives.)</p>

<p>Andres,<br>

I have both a 50D and a 7D, and I strongly second Brad's nomination of the 7D. I really like the 50D, but have rarely used it, since buying the 7D just over a year ago.<br>

Resolution, viewfinder, high-ISO performance, AF, and overall feel (almost 1-series, with the excellent Canon battery grip), are all superior to the 50D, in my experience. And then of course there is 1080p video, and frame rate choices of 24, 25, 30, and 60 per second.<br>

I am not particularly interested in when the 7D MkII will be released. The 7D is that good. <br>

The 5D MkIII and Nikon D800 are interesting. And I would love to make the foray into medium-format digital, one day. <br>

But the 7D is a great camera, and while everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, I would suspect that anyone who would call it a 'flop' has never used one, or has failed to use it properly.<br>

In the words of Yakim, 'Happy shooting!'</p>

 

<p>My advice to fellow photographers: do not buy the Canon 5D Mk III. Do not buy the Nikon D800, either. In fact, stop taking photographs altogether, because when the first yottapixel (YP) camera is introduced a decade from now, with ISO 128 trillion, today's arguments about 22 vs. 36 MP will be laughable, and the images these cameras produce, hopelessly passe!<br>

The YP camera will be the great equaliser among genres: resolving detail on a subatomic scale, it won't matter if our images of baryons and leptons are landscapes, portraits, or whatever. I can't wait!<br>

With tongue firmly in cheek,<br>

Eric</p>

<p>It is certainly true that most of us who post on this website are not 'Uncle Bob's.' But that was exactly my point -- all the more reason we don't need to hope that up-to-the-minute technology will enable us to produce exciting and highly competent photography. We already do so.<br /> But would I prefer that Canon, Nikon, and others stop spending many millions developing and marketing new cameras? No. My previous post was about what we really NEED to produce high-quality, desirable photography.<br /> But what we may WANT is a different topic. If we want something, and it is on the market, and we can afford it, then I would agree that there is no harm in being able to buy what we want. But it also does no harm, periodically to reset our perspective on what we actually need.</p>

<p>I think that Brad's comments, and similar observations by others, help to reset our perspective on how much camera do we really need, for what we require it to do? The many many millions of advertising and marketing dollars spent by Nikon, Canon, and others, have been hugely successful, fueling mass paranoia that our work is doomed to extinction if we do not leap onto every upgrade in the hardware arms race. We are convinced we are dinosaurs if we are shooting with a 'mere' 12-megapixel machine, while the photographer down the street shoots with the just-launched-this-morning 90-megapixel beast controlled by a Cray supercomputer chip, that brushes his teeth while he shoots.<br>

Never mind a Nikon D800 or Canon 5D MkIII, most of us have lost sight of just how capable cameras such as the Canon 5D Mk I, or Nikon D700, or even the Nikon D80 or Canon EOS 20D, really are.<br>

My sister wanted a sunflower decor theme for the solarium in her new house in Maryland, and we happened to have gorgeous sunflowers growing in our garden in England. At the time, I had Bronica ETR-Si and Minolta X700 medium-format and 35mm SLR film cameras, and I was making my first foray into digital with a Fujifilm 3MP bridge camera.<br>

I decided to use the Fuji for a sunflower shot for my sister, exposing for the sky, and using a burst of fill flash to correctly expose the sunflower. I made minimal tweaks to the image in Photoshop 7, but left the file size at its native 3MP, and printed the shot at 19 x 13 inches.<br>

There is no visible pixellation, and ten years later, my sister continues to receive positive comments on the photograph, including one just this year, by an art museum curator friend, who asked her from which gallery did she purchase this beautiful photograph? <br>

And this, an A3 print from a ten-year-old 3MP compact with a tiny 1/1.7 Bayer pattern sensor, anti-aliasing filter, and all!<br>

I will worry about an upgrade when my photographic requirements exceed the capabilities of my current EOS 50D and 7D bodies. I do not expect that to be while the D800 or EOS 5D MkIII, or their successors, or their successors' successors, are current models.<br>

One final thought, what combination would you put your money on, to produce the better photographs: a Kiev in the hands of Patrick Demarchelier or Joe Cornish, or a Hasselblad with an 80MP back, in the hands of the proverbial 'Uncle Bob?' (The relative oft referred to by wedding photographers, with far more money for equipment than photographic ability.) Sorry, Uncle Bob, mine's not on you.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hello Greg,<br>

I have a 50D, and a year ago bought a 7D with the idea of using the 50D as a backup, or to carry it with a different lens than the 7D.<br>

The 50D is a great camera, and I think that your budget and current lens collection are important factors to consider. If you already have very good lenses for your preferred genres of landscape and sports, and can afford the 7D, then it is very unlikely that you will regret the purchase.<br>

In spite of my original intentions, my 50D, great camera though it is, has been parked on the shelf, since I bought the 7D. <br>

To echo some earlier comments, the 100% viewfinder is excellent, and the autofocus system is superior to the 50D for action applications such as sports. The 8fps capability is also superior to the 50D's 6.3fps, for action.<br>

With the Canon battery grip, the feel of the 7D is much closer to a 1D series camera, than the 50D, and so is the weatherproofing, which may be important, as your photographic interests are outdoors.<br>

You also mention that you shoot a lot, so the 150,000 actuation average shutter lifespan of the 7D may be important to consider, though the 50D shutter life rating of 100,000 is very respectable, too.<br>

There are many more considerations in this decision, but I think that these are some of the most important, for landscape and sports.<br>

Rest assured that they are both great cameras, so you are not likely to feel you have made a big mistake, whichever decision you make.<br>

Enjoy shooting with either!<br>

Kind Regards,<br>

Eric</p>

<p>John,<br>

While I agree with the previous comments, that a ring flash shot directly at the model, and flash bounced from a large umbrella, produce different lighting effects, it may be that you feel that overall, a large umbrella will be more versatile than a ring flash, for the type of photography you shoot. If that is the case, then a large umbrella, especially a reflective silver one, may replicate enough of the character of a ring flash to meet your needs. If you Google 'Adorama TV Westcott 7 Foot Parabolic Umbrella,' Mark Wallace demonstrates these big umbrellas, and he comments that the silver one, placed behind him as he shoots, produces an effect that looks a lot like that of a ring flash. Silver reflective umbrellas produce much punchier specular highlights than do white reflective ones, and this can give the shots some of the character of a ring flash.</p>

<p>Thanks Q.G. -- I should learn when it's time to go to bed, instead of reading forum posts!</p>

<p>Apologies to Jenny -- I only saw the first page of comments, and misread 'kiss my ass' as her comment. My mistake!</p>

<p>Gregory's post is concise, but it is commentary on medium format photography, and on the present climate for photographers, both in equipment trends, and econimically, and therefore not pointless. It is Jenny's comment which says nothing about photography, and is a pointless personal attack. Jenny, if you thought Gregory's post pointless, why did you waste precious time posting a response, and not simply move on to a post in which you did see a point?</p>

<p>Sorry Rohin -- your comments posted while I was writing mine. You more succinctly state similar recommendations!</p>

<p>Further to Jason Weddington's nomination of the 70-200 L, it does make a great complement to the 17-55 f/2.8, in terms of focal length coverage, and image quality. I think there are four current versions of the 70-200 L, and I have the least expensive f/4 non-IS. I use this focal length range with a monopod or tripod most of the time anyway, so I have found this lens very useful, even without IS. Image quality is worthy of the 'L' suffix. And because you mention portability, the f/4 non-IS is also the lightest of the four 70-200s. My cameras are a 50D and 7D, so should be very similar to the performance you would see on the 60D. Among others, I also have the 60mm macro, and a Sigma 30mm f/1.4, which I like for really low light work. (IS on the 17-55 helps to close the gap, but although a claimed 3-stop hand-holding advantage is probably about right, IS is not a total substitute for 2 more aperture stops.) But your 85mm f/1.8 is a very good performer in low light, too, and with a maximum aperture of f/2.8, plus IS, the 17-55 isn't bad, either. So as an all-around complement to the lenses you already have, I second Jason's nomination of the 70-200L in any of its versions. (But beware the price tag of the f/2.8 IS!)</p>

<p>And "May the Fourth" be with all photographers, Canon, Nikon, or other. Sorry, couldn't resist carrying on with the Star Wars references, especially given the date. Welcome, John -- seems like you are already seeing what a stunning machine the 5D Mk II is, and a great selection of lenses, too!<br>

I plan to add a 5DII to my 7D and 50D, as I have been very happy with Canon DSLRs, and would like to add the bigger sensor format to my camera bag. I keep telling myself to wait until the 7D fails to deliver something that I ask of it -- but so far, that looks to be a long wait. I guess I should be happy about that! But your post has me thinking....<br>

Enjoy!</p>

<p>Rob, have you tried this, with a 7D? I have one, and Maciej is right -- without power to the camera, the viewfinder does become grainy, and much darker.<br>

Also, to the earlier comments that there is no relationship between the image in the viewfindwer, and the image on the sensor -- of course there is! -- light to form both images passes through the lens! So any problem with the lens IQ will affect both the viewfinder and the sensor image. (Not the problem in relation to Ted's original post, admittedly, but I just wanted to make the point that it is not correct to say that the image in the viewfinder and the image on the sensor are COMPLETELY unrelated to each other.)</p>

<p>The Nissin Di866 is a great flash -- nice, clean light, and very powerful and controllable. Great color LCD display panel, too. I have two of them, in addition to my older Canon 550EX flash, all of which I use wirelessly or on-camera with a Canon 7D and 50D.<br>

I find the Nissin units to be very easy to work with, and compatibility with the cameras is good, even in wireless ETTL. They work as master or remote units, though a master unit is not needed with the 7D.<br>

The price is not as high as many might think -- a Di866 can be bought brand new in the UK for just under £200 (about $320, US), an attractive price compared to a Canon 580EXII.</p>

 

<p>I have a Canon 7D and 50D, and I own two prime lenses, a Canon EF-S 60mm macro, and the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. The Sigma is well-made, and feels of a nicer build quality than the 60mm macro. It also compares favourably to the very sharp 60mm Canon in terms of sharpness and other aspects of image quality. As already pointed out, sharpness falls off slightly, wide open at f/1.4, but it is still good and very useable. And f/1.8 or f/2 maximum aperture lenses simply have nothing to compare to this lens at f/1.4!<br>

I have not used the Canon 35mm f/2, however, so I cannot say how image quality of the Sigma compares to the Canon 35mm f/2 lens at f/2 and smaller. But I can say that the Sigma is a delight to use, especially in low light, and holds its own against the Canon 60mm f/2.8 macro. A prime lens of course ought to compare well against zooms for image quality. And the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 upholds this rule of thumb, even compared to my two best zooms for image quality, the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 and 70-200 f/4 L.<br>

I, too, have read that Sigma optical quality can be alarmingly variable from one example to another. But I own four Sigma lenses, and have never been unlucky.<br>

One final point, as users of cameras with APS-C sized sensors, even one as extremely good as the Canon 7D, it is still in general more important than it is for 35mm sensor-sized camera users, to have high quality lenses fast enough to avoid the highest ISO settings in low light, where noise can begin to significantly degrade image quality.</p>