Hannes said:

Mt Spokane Photography said:

The 1D X uses two Digic 5+ and a Digic 4 for autofocus, for example. If one could do it, it might save power or break even..

Click to expand...

Don't forget that the newer smaller manufacturing processes also make the processor much more energy efficient per transistor so even if it doesn't increase the computing power over the above combo it will probably decrease energy consumption. Imagine having a 1DX with a smaller battery and make the grip optional. Then we'll just call it 3D and be done

Click to expand...

Except that the new smaller processes were supposedly in the Digic 5. I think its more about video improvements.

You should remove non-oem battery grip form camera before firmware upgrade & remember to use fully charge battery,follow instructions supplied by Canon

The T3 is fine unless you're a pixel peeper. Then the only option is full frame and that's only a budget question.
I might consider the 50mm f1.4 on your current body. The crop factor will make it a 75mm lens - generally
thought of as a maximum focal length for portraits. This faster lens will "upgrade" to full frame should you decide to make the move later.
Keep saving your money - none of this junk is going to get cheaper!

Appears the EOS-M is now being offered for $399 with the 22mm lens. Probably should have been the entry
level price given it's mediocre acceptance. Any bets on how long it takes to get to $250?

Easy, get one of them filter wrenches for $ 5.50 ... Works like a charm for jammed filters -

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/807009-REG/Sensei_FW6277_62_77mm_Filter_Wrench_Set.html

I'd recommend the following:

430 Ex
50 1.8
70-200

I'd keep the 18-55. It's not a bad lens at all. I have it and the 15-85, the 15-85 is a lovely lens, gives extra width & reach and better IQ over but given your budget it'd be a waste going this route.

Flash is a must. It'll make a huge difference and allow you to get great shots with the 18-55 indoors.

The 50 1.8 is a no brainer for the price. Great in low light when flash isn't an option.

Lastly the 70-200 will be much better quality vs the 55-250 (which I also have). It'll be useful indoors for headshots etc with the flash and it'll be a great outdoor lens.

Why not shoot a night scene using a "gray card" and let LR choose the colors?

Interesting

something to add

something to add

J.R. said:

rpt said:

adhocphotographer said:

Would f/8 autofocus on the 5D be a pipe-dream? otherwise, i'm excited about what it could possibly bring... video i don't care that much about, since i barely use it now... red AF points would be nice but i have gotten use to it now! f/8 autofocus would be awesome though... sigh... doubt it will happen though. Either way, bring it on!

Click to expand...

+100

I bought a 1.4x in anticipation...

Click to expand...

I had thought of getting a 1.4x in anticipation as well for use with my 100-400L but didn't pull the trigger. I was not putting too much faith in Canon delivering the firmware update as scheduled.

Click to expand...

I've always wanted to try the 1.4 III on my 100-400, but really wanted to see the results with it on my 7d as much as my 5d3... I think it could be quite awesome for some birding and wildlife...

hmm, maybe I should "pull the trigger" on that too! Is Version III the one with the trigger? ???

Mt Spokane Photography said:

DCM1024 said:

What do you do when....

A photo lab renders a photo that doesn't match your edit?

You need to provide them with a file that matches their printer profile. They should make a copy of the profile available. Start Here: http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/profiles.htm

A client thinks you are a photoshop guru who can make the photo look totally different from what was present. For example, I've had brides want me to change a horses ears from being pricked backward to forward, remove salt shakers from tables, etc. What is appropriate and reasonable in this circumstance? I am a photographer not a photoshop guru.

Click to expand...

Those things are commonly done in photoshop. You might hire someone to do it, or learn. However, unless you do that type of thing frequently, its not likely worth the effort of learning it. Its common to move eyes apart or closer, to make a face look better, or make a nose smaller.

Click to expand...

Agreed! In my workflow I commonly will hit blemishes, possibly lighten up the bags or wrinkles and that's it. I do additional editing for my clients and discuss it up front. If they are wanting roads removed or wires, chairs, people or anything else, fixing teeth and the such, they know right up front that they will incur a charge of $100 per hour for the extra editing requirements.

If they know they want it upfront, it is a part of my contract with them. If they don't decide until the day of the shoot, I always have a short amendment to the contract with me or I write it in and we all initial it on the original contract that I take to the shoot with me...

If they really want the editing, they always pay for it. Sometimes they will ask if I can give them a better deal, like $50 per hour. I'll generally bend... but I'll always charge for it! ;D

I had the 100-400 and don't miss it at all. IQ was fine for film but not up to digital. I'm a bit of a peep though.
Some long term use issues with the lens - dust inside, push pull tension/manual focus rings bind together. These are well doc'd online.
I have the 70-200 2.8 ii and the 2x iii and I hardly use the combo. As you know the 70-200 is a beefy lens. Now put that weight on 2.5 inch lever arm. Not well balanced on a crop but may not be as bad the 5Diii. If you go out in cold weather, wearing gloves, I've found it very difficult to keep the zoom where you want it. Since it is so front heavy your gloved hand is always on the zoom ring and it moves pretty easily.
If you have not considered the 400 5.6 I would suggest you do. It is old and has no IS. It is more $ than the 2x iii but less than the 100-400. It is sharp, easily sharper than the 100-400 and I think sharper than the 70-200 & 2x (others prefer the 70-200 2x). It is light. 5.6 is not bright and is a limit at dusk and dawn.
I really wanted the 70-200/2x to replace the 400 but it just has not happened.
550D w/ 400 and 5Diii w/70-200 and your pretty well set. (some wildlife will be a lot closer than you think)

Thank you everybody for good advises, he's going to start with filter wrench!
Risto

East Wind Photography said:

If I recall correctly, canon announced the AF visibility issue may not be fixable in the 5D3 due to the way it meters. The 1DX meters differently somehow and could possibly be fixed in that model. I wouldn't hold your breath that it will show up in 1.2.

Hobby Shooter said:

joe_bmed said:

It is 1.2.0! Can anyone tell me if the current AF points turn red at all with firmware 1.1.3? Curiously, going to Canons website for 5D3 firmware download, I didn't see the 1.1.3 firmware for download on all the OS (Mac or Windows) choices.

Click to expand...

Hmm, this is intriguing. Would be a shame though if the focus points aren't fixed.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Now when you say it I think I recall thr same thing. Well it's a very good camera anyway.

.
More often than not "questions" posed on a discussion forum are meant to prompt discussion. I believe that means bringing both opinion and relevant facts to the table.

If I thought every question was being asked of me personally because only a few people in the world have my breadth of knowledge and experience, I'd find my participation often unsatisfying.

For me, this thread seems to be suggesting that Canon may be making improvements in certain sensor deficiencies, and I'm interested in knowing if that may be true. As the OP clearly said, only RAWs will settle the issue.

You can always use the good ol' fashion sync cord that comes with your flashes... But yeah, these cameras have nearly been out a good year and we are still twiddling our thumbs for PW to show up to the game... At least with my 5d3 and PW3, i can get good results at 1/160.

As some have noted, this is a humor post. I am hoping that few posters who seemed to take it seriously were just joining in the fun. For the humor deficient, I am parodying the trolls who feel the need to jump into any new equipment thread and declare that they are done with Canon for good unless Canon comes out with a gigapixel camera for fifty bucks in the next thirty minutes.
I actually came up with the concept because I was once afflicted with a number of audiophile acquaintances who could (and did) go on for hours about how their $200 speaker wire made music so much more lifelike than that plebeian $100 speaker wire and that MP3s were the work of the devil. So I created a post saying how recorded music is passe an that the true music aficionado has a strolling chamber orchestra and chorale that follows them around. I figured this would be the visual equivalent.

Halfrack said:

You'd use something like http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/hyperdeckshuttle/ to capture directly to SSD or a http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/ultrastudio/ Mini Recorder if you wanted to capture directly to a Mac laptop (they make USB3 bits for PC's too).

I take it you're shooting static stuff in a studio setup?

Click to expand...

their h.264 pro recorder works very well and over USB 2, and their ATEM switcher is nice too. The only real downside I see is that you have to capture with their software and then move the file to your editor.

I have been using the Matrox Mojito Max and the Blackmagic decklink cards with good results for desktops, and I have the ATEM sitting on my desk right now and have liked it. we fight over the h.264 pro recorder a bit here because it works with everything and is trouble free.

androiduk said:

I've seen a number of comments in various threads about people getting stuck with 'bad' lenses that they end up having to send in to Canon for repairs, adjustments or replacement. Does Canon charge you if the lens needs an adjustment because it wasn't properly set up in the first place? Is there a quick and easy way to test the lens in the camera store to rule out most problems or will the clerk perform any tests at the time of purchase. I was thinking it might be beneficial for everybody if there was some kind of testing unit in the camera store that would test the lens's focusing, etc. I wouldn't even mind paying $5 to have the lens tested as opposed to having send into the manufacturer.

Click to expand...

It is not possible to test a camera lens in the store for some of the more subtle issues like decentering or autofocus accuracy, and you can't use FoCal in a store either.

To have a lens tested, $200 or more would be a more accurate cost than $5. Its time consuming, and a store has to pay a good camera tech fairly well. Some tests require a lot of space, you can do it outdoors on a nice day, but the cost for a indoor facility would be high.

The percentage of new lenses with problems is very low, but they do happen. Test your lens as soon as possible, and you can exchange it for another at some stores, or Canon will repair it for you.

Buying a used lens is a different issue because you are dealing with the possibility of a lens that has been decentered by receiving a blow or by dropping it. The lens may look perfect, but have some internal damage.

I never buy a used lens unless I can return it, or unless the price is low enough to allow me to have a average repair done.

What data are you actually looking for? Just photos taken with a particular lens?

In digital photography, the body uded has a effect on the IQ of a image taken with any particular lens, and sometimes a large impact.

If you are wanting to see what a lens can do on your body, you need to filter for that.

You're welcome. Cool website too. I like video as much as still photo, just finding time to do both can be a chore. Cheers!

I own the 6D and 5D3... there is no comparison when it comes to AF performance; the 5D3 stays in my hands 95% of the time I'm shooting anything that's moving. So far I have about 6k shutter actuaions on my 6D and I'm growing more and more frustrated with its inability to focus using any focus point outside of the center. If you can get a 5D3, this is the ideal camera for what you described... well I take that back, the 1DX is ideal!

If the venue is bright enough to stay under ISO 1600, the 7D/7D2 might be an ok option; however, I'm not sure how much better the 7D2 will be compared to the original in terms of low light performance... we can bet on it not being as good as the 5D3 or even the 6D. IMO shooting 8fps or higher means nothing if your shutter is limited to a sluggish speed due to your ISO limitations.

Apparently everyone who made the switch loves it. What is also nice is that my sister is apparently having fun with the 7D, since she messaged me today saying "Thank God I have your DSLR" lol.

Here's a photo I took using the 17-40 at 40mm while using my spanking new Kenko ND400 for the first time. It is pretty sharp stopped down, and I highly doubt the lack of the "WOW" factor is the fault of the lens. Skill always comes before equipment . Anyways I''ll be using it more often to try and get the hang of shooting UWA. I should also note that I'm glad I didn't spend the extra 1k+ for the 16-35mm(in a sense) because I really find myself shooting at f8 or narrower apertures most of the time.

The 17-40 and 70-200 really compliment each other well. Right now I'm considering whether I should get a Zeiss 50mm f1.4, since they're selling it for approximately 580 USD in Japan, and with a membership card I can probably save some more from the points I have. I've also been looking at the 50L and the Zeiss 50 MP

tntwit said:

Judging by your equipment list at the bottom of your posts, it looks as though you may have gone ahead with the 24-105.

Just an FYI, Canon has the 70-200 f2.8 (non IS) refurbished for under $1000. I don't recall if that was one of their 15% off sales or not, but just something to keep in mind for when you are ready for that purchase.

Click to expand...

Yes indeed I did go with the 24-105. I figured I would cover the more "used" focal ranges before getting fancy. And wow, thanks for that I'll really look into it. +1

Best Buy still has some non-IS versions of the lens on their website and they are selling for $1349. Although, a seller on Craigslist in Texas is selling one for $900. She took pictures of the lens and it looks fine. Looks legitimate and since I would be meeting the person to buy the lens, I could test it out and see if everything is functional. It's tempting because $400+ dollars savings before tax is a lot of savings (albeit with no warranty and lens is used of course). She lives quite far from where I'm at in Texas but I'll be visiting San Antonio next week and where she is at isnt long from San Antonio. Might be to only chance I can get it.

Any of y'all (yes y'all 8) ;D ) buy lenses from Craigslist before?

bseitz234 said:

RocklandDragon said:

I wanted to get the IS II but it looks like budget will be an issue. :'( If I get this lens, this is the only lens I would be able to get and I wont be able to afford a wide lens before the season starts. I'll go ahead and get the f/2.8 non IS version and get it before the end of May. I can shoot video with the wide lens or use a monopod or tripod, if I have the 70-200mm attached. Then I try to get a wide lens by August. I could really use the $900-$1000 extra dollars towards another lens.

Maybe next year, I can get the IS II.

Click to expand...

keep an eye on the refurbs- the 70-200 2.8 non-IS had been in stock for a while, apparently now is sold out, but it may come back before May. Great way to stretch your budget a little further. 10-22 and 17-55 IS are both in stock if you want to get a wide lens now...

Click to expand...