I'm really impressed with the Phottix Odin--100% reliable so far, radio ETTL with any Canon Flash, HSS down to 1/8000, and sync cords for studio strobes and other speedlites. $350 or so. What more could you ask for?
Are you aware of the creep on the 15-85 though? Ours has started to get pretty bad after a year from new, but a chunk of that's been with the lens hanging downwards from the body on a strap, so possibly not the best care regime.
I strongly recommend the 15-85 and have to disagree a bit about the build quality. I've been banging this lens around for the past three years with no issues.
When someone says it doesn't have "L" build quality – well that depends on what "L" lens you are referring to, since Canon has absolutely no standards or consistency for defining an "L" lens. The 15-85 is not weather-sealed, but neither are many of the "L" lenses. It's not made of metal, but it's certainly not lightweight or plastic-y either.
Is the 17-85 an improvement over the 28-135? And is the 15-85 worth paying almost twice as much for than the 17-85.
No, and IMO, yes. The 15-85mm delivers L-series optical quality (but not L-series build).
A little piece of me died seeing the picture of the 50/1.0, I sure hope they bought the insurance.
+1As I wrote, the problem was the color in portraits was distinctly worse. The blown highlights were an added problem. I'm talking about using the cameras for actual photography, not lab tests. So, yes, consistent with its price, the D7000 was distinctly worse in actual photography. The D7000 was a bit like a kid who scores great on a standardized test, but is lacking in essential people skills.The 5D Mark II's won easily; the D7000's were actually worse in color and more prone to blowing highlights.
A camera being prone to blowing highlights says more about its metering than its dynamic range. The dynamic range of the D7000 is demonstrably worlds above that of any of the 5D cameras. Yes, despite its price. It's all about saturation well capacity & read noise (& megapixel count of course, if we're talking about normalized results).
Having worked with both Nikon and Canon RAW files, I respectfully disagree. The "quality of the RAW file" includes the quality of the color. Both RAW files have a certain color cast to them. As I stated originally, you can post-process quite a bit, but just as some prefer the shadow recovery of Nikon RAW files, I prefer how color is captured (and corrected if necessary) with Canon RAW. For me, I can get the right exposure most of the time so shadow recovery is less of a concern for me than getting the colors just right. Can I post-process Nikon files and make them look great? Sure. For the look I want, it's less work with Canon RAW.
(And, I agree the lens matters a tremendous amount...)
1. Have you worked with Nikon RAW files from the latest generation - D800, D800E, D600, D4, D3200?
If you're talking about Nikons from 2008, forget it. Stone age, comparatively speaking.
2. "For the look I want" - ah, a personal opinion. Your taste. Well gee, that's important to us all
Perhaps this has been stated before, but I tend to view the sensor as the "digital film" of the camera. Every film has a different grain structure and some will test "better/higher" than other film depending on how you structure the test. (Therefore, you can get different scores depending on how you weigh things). You can post-process just about anything to look just like just about anything these days, but in the end, you pick the "digital film" that you prefer. I've always preferred the look of Canon "film" for it's skin tones and visual pop. This is even when I used old Nikon prime lens with an adapter. No score can convince me otherwise.
In the high-end audio world, forums would blow up about tube vs. solid state amps and the argument always ended up being how cleanly an amp "measured" vs. how pleasing it actually sounds, and there was rarely a correlation between the two.
This is true because film is a hardware device, or can be true if you shoot JPG.
Shooting RAW you can work on whatever you want, the only limit being the quality of the RAW file and the amout of information stored. DXO score is useful in comparing this.
Shooting RAW it really doesn't make sense to say "Oh, the Canon colors!". That is today more a lens trait than a sensor's.