All Canon TV lens had a teleconverters!!!!!!!!

I think the 40D is one of the best crop cameras Canon has made. I've sold and repurchased several of them as friends and family wanted a good DSLR without spending a lot of $$. I finally replaced my last 40D with a 60D (same sensor as the 7D). Meh. 60D is fine, faster fps, etc but I'd take another 40D in a heartbeat. I also agree, stay away from the 50D. Increased pixel density was a mistake.

My suggestion - UPGRADE GLASS with good EF or L lenses. KEEP 40D unless you need better focusing.

KyleSTL said:

...the EOS M has no advantages over other Canon cameras.

Click to expand...

Except size and weight. Because a slight reduction in those is so important for a body attached to an 800/5.6 lens.

interesting video on youtube.. enjoy!

Canon EOS 6D vs 5D III vs 5D II comparison

I've certainly had no cause to suspect the lens, so it is possible I have a bad or mis-matched TC. To be honest I just used it a few times, wasn't terribly happy with it, and haven't gone back to it. All I can go by is my experience with this one model.

The AF is definitely slower with the TC, but it's not impossible to use. I felt like this was a case where a focus limiter would be handy, as the slowness was compounded by missing focus a little more often, and having to rack through the range. Even so, I was able to hand-hold 300mm in fairly low light and get ok results.

A bit more perspective, my 70-300L was an upgrade from the older version of the 70-300 IS (non-L). This was the first L lens I had. Perhaps if you already have a stable full of L lenses your perspective might be different, but I think this lens is the bees knees.

bobthebrick said:

I'm probably leaning slightly towards the 17-40 because:

• It's wider and gives me more room for landscapes
• With an extension tube it gives some crazy macro photos
• I've used the 24-105 and hadn't found anything 'special' about, the photos didn't seem to have much spark

Click to expand...

I'm currently looking for a cheaper used 17-40 (not easy in Germany since there's no well-stocked Craiglist or such) and did a lot of research and asking around before that - and the only reason to get the 17-40 is either dual-using it on crop or for the ultra-wide angle if you need it like group shots in a constrained space.

For landscape you should look at your current shots and determine if you really need something wider than 24 on ff, landscape is not necessarily equivalent to "taking it all in".

AdamJ said:

gmrza said:

Don't you know:

• Nikonrumors: Website where people whine about Nikon and threaten to switch to Canon
• Canonrumors: Website where people whine about Canon and threaten to switch to Nikon

Click to expand...

Minor correction:

• Nikonrumors: Website where people whine about Nikon and threaten to switch to Canon
• Canonrumors: Website where people whine about Canon and threaten to switch to Nikon, or already use Nikon and endlessly promote Nikon

Click to expand...

And then there's that one Sony user

neuroanatomist said:

But...in the case where the lens magnificaiton is held constant (e.g. shooting at 1:1 on APS-C vs. FF, where the framing is not the same), the APS-C will actually have a slightly shallower DoF at the same aperture.

Click to expand...

Why?

@MtSpokane: why did you prefer the 7D for macro?

I agree with Pitbullo but it would help if you mentioned what lens you are most comfortable shooting with and what your goals are with the pictures. Are you trying to achieve portraits that isolate your girlfriend, landscapes with her in the foreground, mostly indoor, outdoor, day, night, etc. Since it sounds like you will want to do it all, I would get wide lens like the 17-40 or 16-35 and a longer lens like the 24-105. Or you could even get a Tamron 28-300 VC ultrazoom for walkaround. If you want nice portraits, get a 28/1.8 or 50/1.4. Both would double as nice low light primes. It all really depends on your style of shooting. And don't forget a flash for fill. Good luck and hope you have a good time!

I use the iCab browser which with the default settings is not recognized as a mobile browser. It can also pretend to be Safari or Safari on iPad if you want to. Comes in handy on Flickr too

dhofmann said:

samkatz said:

Am one who's still hoping for a replacement for the 100-400 L that's a bit sharper, better IS(a given) and lighter weight(I doubt it).

Click to expand...

To avoid cannibalizing sales of the 200-400 lens, maybe they will announce a new 100-400 after sales of the 200-400 start to dwindle.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if I agree. Different market segments entirely..!! Not to say that the 100-400 may come later, but for certain the lenses cater to different people.

I used the Ec-S screen - so far, did not noticed any AE issues (at least for me)

however - I did not do any testing - I rarely do those things - I used it - no issues so far.

although - I could not tell any real difference with Ec-S and the Ec-CV and decided to put the CV back on and the Ec-S back to my 1D Mark IIN.

neuroanatomist said:

Mt Spokane Photography said:

my old Lens align is gathering dust.

Click to expand...

I just sold mine, actually.

Click to expand...

I have mine listed on Craigs locally, but have not had any interest so far. I may just put it up on ebay.

crasher8 said:

Thanks DHaas, now I'm seeing colors!

Lensbaby Composer @ Red Butte Garden, SLC Utah

Click to expand...

You're a riot! BTW, do you work in a QA department?

Unless you have a specific workflow-related reason to *NOT* shoot full RAW, there's no reason to shoot anything else.

If you're on assignment for somebody and said somebody has a specific setting, you obviously use that, no matter how silly it might seem to you. I've heard that Sports Illustrated only wants JPEGs, but I wouldn't even bet a cup of coffee that that's the case.

If your shots are going straight to the Web and nowhere else without any editing other than culling, you should shoot sRGB JPEG at your camera's lowest resolution (which will still be overkill). You should also use whatever picture style, sharpening, white balance, etc., settings that produce the results you want, and you should do whatever you need to to the exposure so that it looks good on the back of the camera.

Both cameras have ridiculously deep buffers even with full-resolution RAW...but, if you do happen to be in a situation where you need even more, shooting M-RAW or JPEG will practically let you fill up the card before the buffer fills up.

But for 95% of photographic situations where it makes sense to use one of these cameras in the first place, you should be shooting full RAW. Storage and processing power are cheap. Having to throw away that rare extra-special shot because you didn't nail the exposure or you can't enlarge it enough or whatever will cost far more than you might ever save by not spending another $200 on CF cards or hard disks.

Cheers,

b&

cayenne said:

You know...

Just occured to me...this is all just DATA...wonder why there isn't some way to just stream off the image data via the USB port straight to computer or via a usb wireless dongle to a computer, and just bypass HDMI altogether?

Just a thought...

C

Click to expand...

USB2 has a theoretical maximum sustained transfer rate of 480mb/sec. In practice, it's closer to half that.

HDMI video (8 bit NTSC) is 30fps*1080 vertical pixels*1920 horizontal pixels*8 bit color*3 channels=about 1500mb/sec.

Way too much data.

What a troll. 7D mark 2 my ass

Love to have some Gura Gear ;D

thanks so much for the information!
looking into the camera once more!

Dylan777 said:

christianronnel said:

infared said:

pierceography said:

Also given that Canon is now enforcing its MAP, it's unlikely we're going to see the occasional drops in price that often come a half year or so after new product launches.

If I could get this lens for under $1,800, I would. But assuming I could sell my current 24-70mm for ~$1,300, I'm not really willing to pump anymore than $500 into a focal length I already am perfectly happy with. I'd rather get a new lens.

Click to expand...

Well...I bought a 5DIII for $3499 6 months ago...and I have seen them selling as low as $800 less than I paid for it recently. I have never seen a camera body drop that much that fast ???......and since I just purchased a 24-70 II...I am expecting that to follow suit!

Click to expand...

The price dropped as much as $800 because it was overpriced probably by that much. I got mine 4 months ago and paid full price. I have no regrets because the camera is worth every penny, and because a lot can happen in 4 months. I just purchased the 24-70II last Saturday and paid $2300+ CA tax. So far not regretting the decision yet. The lens is really sharp. Although the build quality is not as good as the 1st version. It's very plasticky and I don't feel comfortable that it will survive a short drop. My copy has an indentation on the focusing ring, I'm not sure if that is normal so I'm going to have to exchange it for another one.

Click to expand...

Hi christianronnel,
This is Dylan from Fountain Valley, CA. Try Crutchfield next time. They offer reward point on all purchases. I bought my 5D III , 16-35 II and 24-70 II from them. I currently have over 10K reward points with them(over $500 in cash value). No sale tax and free shipping. Customer service at Crutchfield is awesome. Yes...they are Canon authorized dealer.

Click to expand...

Hi Dylan, Thanks for the info. I could actually buy it from B&H and get 2% reward and it's also tax free. I like supporting the local economy, although CA sales tax is really making it difficult to support local businesses and mom&pop shops.

OK, so I have enough AA chargers and I have enough AA's to make it worth the investment. (I own dozens of NiMh AA's) I have been using rechargeable AA's for years and there are always enough charged and ready to go at any given time. I keep two boxes, one marked "charged" and one "discharged". Costco here sells bulk packs of Sanyo Eneloop batteries cheap.

So, are the packs worth it? I am not talking about the "time" spent recharging batteries as it really isn't an issue to me. It takes only a few seconds to pop 4-8 AA's in the charger(s) before I head to bed, if I so happen to have any in my "discharged" box that need refreshing.

I am refering to the "bulk" of the AA's power vs that of the sealed packs.

D

unfocused said:

Ryan_W said:

Well it's about time. I'm just getting into speedlites and am not interested in:

1.) Spending $1,200+ for a two light kit, or
2.) Buying a bunch of optical-only flashes and being restricted to line of sight.

A 4XX RT flash, if miracles exist, will be priced at or below $399 and I'll be able to afford two for the price of one 600RT.

Click to expand...

The 4XX RT flash, when it is released, will almost certainly not have a transmitter. Add in another $300 for that.

Click to expand...

Right, but neither would the 600's - I can't avoid that cost, which is why I'm happy to save some money for a lesser flash. Valid point though - you have to include the transmitter with the kit and it's way, way too expensive.

I talked with Norman's (USA) and they said late December or early January before they expected to start seeing them come in...

trygved said:

It is funny to me that a camera chosen for the official presidential portrait is evaluated not even 4 years later for pro-worthiness.

Click to expand...

I agree, especially since the 5D2 and 5D3 deliver EXACTLY the same image quality in RAW. People go to great lengths to claim there's a difference, but I'm afraid there just isn't. Only Jpegs will look better thanks to the new processor and in-camera image processing, which is what most websites shoot in to promote the new tech.

The 5D2 is by no means the better camera between the 5D2 and 5D3 now, but its still as every bit as good as it was when it was released four years ago in terms of IQ.

I owned all 3. Only have the 180L left.... I felt it was sharper than the other 2. However it is a tad heavy and yes my best shots are using it on a tripod.