JohnMWright

<p>I moved from Minolta MC/MD bodies (SRT-102, XD-11, X-570, and others) to Canon once it was clear digital was as good or better than 35mm film (and the repairs on the film bodies were starting to mount). I never liked the Maxxum designs, but always admired the EOS designs.</p>

<p>That said, I still wish I had a nice aperture ring on the lens. The EOS dial is clunky compared to a simple aperture ring. I went Canon because it felt the best in my hands... Nikon bodies don't seem to fit me, and those were my two main choices due to the lens systems. So, no regrets.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you rarely use your 70-200 f/4, then why would you use a 70-200 f/2.8?</p>

<p>The 135 should cover your low light/shallow DOF requirements, the zoom everything else. Unless you always end up needing just one more stop of light when you use your zoom, or wish you have a different focal length when you use your 135, then I would not get rid of them.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You can also call or write to Canon and ask for a replacement CD.</p>

<p>If you have an investment of Nikon lenses, stick with Nikon. I'd look at the D300, the noise is similar to that of the 50D. The D300 is a nice improvement over the D200. Also, Nikon has a very nice lens that I'd get if I used Nikon... the 200-400 f/4</p>

<p>I own the 50D and it takes great pictures. But, if you really do want to switch, the Canon 7D is a better wildlife camera than the 50D. The features are much nicer. IQ is roughly similar, but Canon managed to lower the noise at higher ISOs, and avoid the noise patterns with the 7D (it stays more random). As mentioned above, the 50D is possibly a step down in features for you.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You could call them and ask. They might ask you for measurements or numbers on the lens. Other brands should fit too though.</p>

<p>BTW, I use a plate that fits a 400mm f/4 which I used to own, it is a little long on the 300mm but works fine. Most of these plates have long slots and can fit many lenses.</p>

<p>I had my 50D out in a storm a couple of weeks ago, while hiking. It is not considered a sealed body, although it is said to be better than the previous xxD models. I was using a pair of sealed L lenses (I even changed lenses during the rain, using my body to keep the drops out). The rain was strong enough to soak my backpack (it took 3 days to dry it out). I kept using the camera during the rain and have not had a single problem.</p>

<p>Your 5D mark II has better seals... so I suspect your camera is fine.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You might also consider a close-up "filter" like the Canon 500D closeup lens. cheap, light, compact, high-quality (but it won't be helped by putting it on a super zoom), and easy to use... just screw it on the front of your lens like any filter.</p>

<p>One of the Gitzo carbon fiber models... they are both light and stable, but not cheap. I'd look into the 35xx series... my 3530 is 4 lbs and very very solid. I have taken many shots in windy conditions as well as long exposures without any problems. </p>

<p>I'm also happy with my Kirk BH-1 ballhead. Once locked it does not budge. There are newer lighter ballhead models that are supposed to be even stronger though. Acratech, Arca-Swiss, Really Right Stuff, Kirk, Markins all have great reputations.</p>

<p>The L model has Image stabilization (IS), the older model does not.</p>

<p>I have the non-L version, and I couldn't be happier. Very sharp, nice bokeh. The tests I've seen of the L version didn't inspire me to upgrade. I shoot all closeups from a tripod and the IS feature of the new L model didn't appeal to me. It depends on your style and needs.</p>

<p>The old classics are just boxes to hold the film, but I always loved my Minoltas. <br>

A simple way to deal with a camera that used Mercury batteries: <br>

http://www.kyphoto.com/classics/mercurybattery.html<br>

So don't let batteries be an issue...</p>

<p>When you turn the dial in M mode, nothing happens? That is the only way to change shutter speed in M mode as far as I can tell. If that isn't working, you probably need to take it in.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Eric, it was 5 years ago, new at B&H for $1600. Not cheap then, but Canon raised the price considerably since then. Given the current market, in your position, I'd just spring for the mark II unless you can find a really good deal on the mark I. </p>

<p>The more I think about this... maybe I should sell my mark I for more than what I paid for it new... and buy the mark II. ;-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have the mark I version and really, it is excellent. No one is going to say "hey, your images clearly came from a mark I and they aren't good enough". The fact that the II is better is amazing, but hardly makes the mark I images look bad...under sports/field conditions, I doubt you would notice a difference in practice. Maybe the mark II is worth the extra money if you shoot carefully from a tripod.</p>

<p>$1700 used? I paid less new for the mark I... I guess Canon must have raised the prices more than I realized.</p>

<p>I have a few extremely sharp examples posted. </p>

<p>"most of the time" means you got a few good shots? If so, the problem was not the camera.</p>

<p>Simon, the 17-40 is not likely to be wide enough for interiors, and the 10-22 will compliment your 24-105 nicely. </p>

<p>I bought a short cord for macro flash work, but I still prefer the wireless setup. It is much easier to go wireless no matter how close the flash will be. Look at the Canon ST-E2 instead of the cord. It retains E-TTL. So does the pocketwizard series, which is pricier but possibly more versatile.</p>

<p>Reflectors are of course very useful (see also umbrellas and softboxes) but you can make your own, use a wall, etc.</p>

<p>In the end, you will want both, and probably at least 2 flashes, but I'd start with getting the flash off-camera.</p>

 

<p>I have one, though I don't know the date. I paid about $800 for mine a few years ago. It is razor sharp. Unless you want IS, I would not hesitate for a second. There are times I wish I had IS, but mostly I shoot from a tripod.</p>

<p>If you did not like the ergonomics of the 40D, then you are unlikely to enjoy the feel of the 5D or 7D. The 1Ds is a lot heavier than the rebel... I think you need to head to the local store, maybe they have these available to try.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Even if the camera is cheaper, you still need lenses... that seems to eliminate any short term savings in the switch. </p>

<p>Anyway, I hope it works out for you.</p>

<p>I use a Bogen 3218 with a 3232 tilt head and a Arca-style quick release (bought it from Kirk) when a tripod won't work. I try to brace against something when I use it. IS helps too. It cannot replace the tripod but it does help in some situations.</p>

<p>I have too many sharp images from the 50D to think the camera has a problem, although yours might.<br>

The most likely issue is technique.<br>

Use a tripod, check the focus calibration (AF microadjustment is a very nice feature).</p>

<p> </p>

I have 3 spots I notice on the image when I stop down to f/16 and this is after a year of use. I finally think I need to use a blower (it isn't that urgent though). So it is miles ahead of my 20D in this regard.

 

I never have had dust problems in the viewfinder.

<p>When you don't have many lenses, you wonder what to buy. When you have many lenses, you wonder what to carry. ;-) In both situations it depends on what you intend to do, as mentioned above. If you don't have a specific need to start then I second the notion of starting with a kit lens.</p>

<p>If you are not going to get anything bigger or heavier, you can get away with just a ballhead. If you still want a gimbal style, I'd just add the sidekick as mentioned above. You can also lower the ballhead into the socket on some of the heads below, no sidekick needed, though it may take some adjustment to get used to it.</p>

<p>Good ballheads include:<br>

Kirk BH-1<br>

RRS BH55<br>

Arca Swiss Z1<br>

Acratech models<br>

Markins models</p>

<p>There are many good tripods, but I'm sold on Gitzo carbon fiber models. I'd look at the 35xx series. Pick the one that fits your height without using the centerpost.</p>