I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)

[awinphoto]

Wow... they require a full frame camera... granted when I was at school full frame digitals were rare... the original canon 1ds was your only offering... I dont recall if the nikon d1x was full frame or not... be that as it may, the 7D will definitely get your skill level up and when your in school and ready for your second class you will be more than ready for the 5D mark III =) As i've mentioned before in other posts, from spending almost a decade with various canon digitals (10d, 1d, 30D, 50D, etc...) this was the first camera where I actually had to learn and sharpen my game a bit to fully utilize it to it's fullest potential. You should also be able to resell it for a good chunk when your ready or keep it as a second backup camera.

Funny how I thought the same thing about the 17-40 vs 17-55 on my original tests... I got the 17-40 because it's forward compatibility but others swear by the 17-55 but it is a personal preference. I'd definitely look at the 70-200 F4 IS and non IS... the non is around $700 and the IS is closer to 1200... something to consider on a budget. Good luck and let us know how it goes. =)

 

[neuroanatomist]

I already own a 17-40mm. After extensive testing and comparison I found it to do significantly better than the more expensive 17-55.

Funny how I thought the same thing about the 17-40 vs 17-55 on my original tests...

Interesting - how was it significantly better?

I tried out a 17-40mm and definitely preferred the 17-55mm from an optical standpoint - especially stopped down to f/4, the 17-55mm is sharper across the frame, and the EF-S lens, surprisingly, has less barrel distortion at 17mm than the 17-40mm, despite a broader zoom range and the 'sweet spot' effect of using an EF lens on a crop body. The only place the L lens won was less vignetting. From a build standpoint, the L lens is definifely better, of course.

I ended up getting the 16-35mm f/2.8L II instead of the 17-40mm for use on FF (as good or better at comparable apertures), and the 17-55mm on the 7D outperforms the 16-35mm II on the same body, from my own testing. I shoot a fair bit of wildlife with the 7D and a telezoom, and bring a standard zoom along 'just in case' - in the rain, I bring the 16-35mm II, but otherwise I grab the 17-55mm lens, and in fact, I hung onto that lens after getting the 5DII for just that reason.

 

[awinphoto]

I already own a 17-40mm. After extensive testing and comparison I found it to do significantly better than the more expensive 17-55.

Funny how I thought the same thing about the 17-40 vs 17-55 on my original tests...

Interesting - how was it significantly better?

I tried out a 17-40mm and definitely preferred the 17-55mm from an optical standpoint - especially stopped down to f/4, the 17-55mm is sharper across the frame, and the EF-S lens, surprisingly, has less barrel distortion at 17mm than the 17-40mm, despite a broader zoom range and the 'sweet spot' effect of using an EF lens on a crop body. The only place the L lens won was less vignetting. From a build standpoint, the L lens is definifely better, of course.

I ended up getting the 16-35mm f/2.8L II instead of the 17-40mm for use on FF (as good or better at comparable apertures), and the 17-55mm on the 7D outperforms the 16-35mm II on the same body, from my own testing. I shoot a fair bit of wildlife with the 7D and a telezoom, and bring a standard zoom along 'just in case' - in the rain, I bring the 16-35mm II, but otherwise I grab the 17-55mm lens, and in fact, I hung onto that lens after getting the 5DII for just that reason.

It's hard to say... when I did my testings I tested it against the sigmas and tokinas (my local store didn't sell tamrons so i couldn't test their version which has gotten good reviews) as well as each other... I dont know... I just felt when I did my unscientific tests, the 17-40 locked focus a tad faster, felt more robust (i need my gear to keep up and be ok if it has a little bang here and there)... the L had weathersealing and IQ i felt was close but not near enough to warrant the price difference. The 2.8 would have been nice but that wasn't a driving factor because I was ok with my cameras ISO if needed. For what I do and how I shoot, that's how I made my choice. BTW, the sigma and tokina lenses tested were horrid in focusing in low light. The 17-40 I was able to focus almost in the dark without even needing the AF lamp... I'm sure under certain conditions the 17-55 could produce sharper images but I've been pleased with my lens.

 

[lady]

I already own a 17-40mm. After extensive testing and comparison I found it to do significantly better than the more expensive 17-55.

Funny how I thought the same thing about the 17-40 vs 17-55 on my original tests...

Interesting - how was it significantly better?

I tried out a 17-40mm and definitely preferred the 17-55mm from an optical standpoint - especially stopped down to f/4, the 17-55mm is sharper across the frame, and the EF-S lens, surprisingly, has less barrel distortion at 17mm than the 17-40mm, despite a broader zoom range and the 'sweet spot' effect of using an EF lens on a crop body. The only place the L lens won was less vignetting. From a build standpoint, the L lens is definifely better, of course.

I ended up getting the 16-35mm f/2.8L II instead of the 17-40mm for use on FF (as good or better at comparable apertures), and the 17-55mm on the 7D outperforms the 16-35mm II on the same body, from my own testing. I shoot a fair bit of wildlife with the 7D and a telezoom, and bring a standard zoom along 'just in case' - in the rain, I bring the 16-35mm II, but otherwise I grab the 17-55mm lens, and in fact, I hung onto that lens after getting the 5DII for just that reason.

It's hard to say... when I did my testings I tested it against the sigmas and tokinas (my local store didn't sell tamrons so i couldn't test their version which has gotten good reviews) as well as each other... I dont know... I just felt when I did my unscientific tests, the 17-40 locked focus a tad faster, felt more robust (i need my gear to keep up and be ok if it has a little bang here and there)... the L had weathersealing and IQ i felt was close but not near enough to warrant the price difference. The 2.8 would have been nice but that wasn't a driving factor because I was ok with my cameras ISO if needed. For what I do and how I shoot, that's how I made my choice. BTW, the sigma and tokina lenses tested were horrid in focusing in low light. The 17-40 I was able to focus almost in the dark without even needing the AF lamp... I'm sure under certain conditions the 17-55 could produce sharper images but I've been pleased with my lens.

This, on top of the fact that I only had to pay $600 for the 17-40mm because they had a used model. The 17-55mm was $1200 and did not have the weather sealing that the 17-40mm did. I also didn't really like the 40-55 zoom range on it and would rather get a 50mm prime (which is what I'm doing) because the sharpness on the 17-55 just wasn't up to my tastes. in the 17-40 I didn't notice any barrel distortion what-so-ever. I pulled up the images next to each other on a 30" monitor in the store and there was no visible distortion at all. It may have been my settings, or it may have just been that you got a bad model. I'm not sure why someone would see barrel distortion on that lens.

I'm trying to stock up on EF lenses right now, not EF-S. That's a huge thing. I do plan to get one or two EF-S lenses, but for now I'm alright with the 17-40. In the future I'm thinking of the 10-22mm mostly.

The 16-35mm I drool over, on a completely unrelated note.

And on another one.

Could someone please explain to me the point of fisheye? I always thought it was a phase because I never really liked the way certain photos looked with fisheye lenses. Is there a valid use for it besides deceptive real estate advertising?

 

[awinphoto]

Could someone please explain to me the point of fisheye? I always thought it was a phase because I never really liked the way certain photos looked with fisheye lenses. Is there a valid use for it besides deceptive real estate advertising?

It's a niche effect lens... It's used often in skating magazines and other extreme sports where people are moving fast and may be out of frame in a split second so they use that to ensure they capture it when close up... Some people love it, some people dont. I tried it a few times but not anything I would use professionally.

 

[V8Beast]

I've been photographing things for years on manual settings with various compact camera models. I tested the 60D out for a day, but it felt far, far too cheap to work for me. The ergonomics were wrong, the photos were not being taken at the speed I would have liked, and the entire thing felt like plastic. I mean no offense to people who start out with the 60D, it's just that the 60D is not enough of an upgrade from my compact camera. When I rented the 7D I was in heaven, the entire thing just responded to me and did exactly what I wanted it to do. I have yet to fully try out the 5D Mk ii. The 7D is the cheapest one I will accept, and I do need it for the fast shutter speed (yes, even if I had the 5d I would need it).

Also, I very rarely need to correct error in photoshop when I shoot. Unfortunately now the problem I'm running into is that any of my cameras in my collection are just not professional enough to do what I want. I don't have enough control over them (with regards to aperture, iso, lens, etc) to get the effect I both desire and know how to achieve. My photography isn't perfect, not by a long shot, and I'm far from being pro, but trust me when I say the 60D would be a complete waste of money. Money that I cannot afford to waste.

I completely understand. I'd never buy a camera that "felt cheap," either. It's why I opted for a 20D over a Rebel, and why I prefer the feel of a 1D/1Ds (especially when mounted to a big, heavy long lens) over a 5D. If you tried out the 7D and liked it, I think it will suit your current needs better than a 5DII. You mention that you need the fast FPS, and the 7D blows the 5DII in the weeds in that regard.

As for fisheye lenses, I know they're popular with skateboard magazine photogs, but I don't see them being used much in any other fields. IMHO, a 16-35 or 17-40 is plenty wide enough for most landscape and architectural work. I suppose some people just like the goofy, overly distorted look

 

[lady]

Ah, skateboarding I had completely forgot about! Thanks both of you!

It's nice to have someone who understands that. I worry people will take it the wrong way when I say things like that. I always want the best model I can possibly afford, not the cheapest one. Someday I hope to have a 1d (or one of its future variations) as well.

 

[awinphoto]

Someday I hope to have a 1d (or one of its future variations) as well.

It's always nice to have aspirations =) We try not to judge when your sincere about your questions/request.

 

[lady]

I got the 7D today with the 50mm F/1.4 to complement my 17-40mm.

I have another problem. I'm fairly petite. I'm 5'5 with a very small body frame. We're talking very small.

That's a 24" monitor box. My fiancé could close it with me inside.

The canon strap that comes with the camera is not going to do it. I need a non-slip strap that is supportive and isn't going to result in shoulder pain. Any brand recommendations for me to look at?

 

[V8Beast]

I worry people will take it the wrong way when I say things like that. I always want the best model I can possibly afford, not the cheapest one.

Like someone else already suggested, have fun with the 7D now, and by the time you're ready to upgrade, hopefully the 5DIII will be available by then. That said, I'm surprised your school requires full-frame bodies. I don't see how they can expect students to come up with that kind of money. Maybe they're just trying to get you accustomed to getting raped on camera gear early on in your career

 

[lady]

I worry people will take it the wrong way when I say things like that. I always want the best model I can possibly afford, not the cheapest one.

Like someone else already suggested, have fun with the 7D now, and by the time you're ready to upgrade, hopefully the 5DIII will be available by then. That said, I'm surprised your school requires full-frame bodies. I don't see how they can expect students to come up with that kind of money. Maybe they're just trying to get you accustomed to getting raped on camera gear early on in your career

They said the 7D is allowed, but that we'll do so much landscape and architecture and portrait shooting that I'll be desperate for a full frame within the first year and that I should probably save up for one now. It's a very competitive school, though. Any person I've met who came out of it was phenomenal. It's a rigorous and unforgiving program and I think they're trying to deter the people who are just "trying out photography for fun" by requiring that you get top notch gear first.

Full frame is required for the 4th quarter (it's a 6 quarter program) because they start some very ultra wide angle stuff. A crop frame would not function. However, by then I would hope that I have a full frame camera. I absolutely LOVE the 5d mk ii. Love. I played with it some more today. The local camera shop is happy that I shopped there.

I know I could have saved some money online, but I like supporting the locals whenever I can. They were happy. They then said I could come in and try various cameras any time I wanted. Nice people. One of the people who works there does sports photos for the local news paper, and he's REALLY good. It was cool to be able to talk to someone who takes photographs you idolize.

 

[epsiloneri]

Other good uses for fisheye are all-sky astrophotography, meteors, aurorae, wast landscapes, cool perspective shots (close-ups with huge DoF). It's a relatively cheap super-ultra-wide you can turn into a rectilinear lens with postprocessing.

That's a 24" monitor box. My fiancé could close it with me inside.

That's a funny photo... I hope, though, it was taken with a cell phone and not your 7D+50/1.4

 

[dstppy]

They said the 7D is allowed, but that we'll do so much landscape and architecture and portrait shooting that I'll be desperate for a full frame within the first year and that I should probably save up for one now. It's a very competitive school, though. Any person I've met who came out of it was phenomenal. It's a rigorous and unforgiving program and I think they're trying to deter the people who are just "trying out photography for fun" by requiring that you get top notch gear first.

Full frame is required for the 4th quarter (it's a 6 quarter program) because they start some very ultra wide angle stuff. A crop frame would not function. However, by then I would hope that I have a full frame camera. I absolutely LOVE the 5d mk ii. Love. I played with it some more today. The local camera shop is happy that I shopped there.

I'm confused about that first part. Landscape, maybe, but desperate for FF on portraits?

 

[chase]

They said the 7D is allowed, but that we'll do so much landscape and architecture and portrait shooting that I'll be desperate for a full frame within the first year and that I should probably save up for one now. It's a very competitive school, though. Any person I've met who came out of it was phenomenal. It's a rigorous and unforgiving program and I think they're trying to deter the people who are just "trying out photography for fun" by requiring that you get top notch gear first.

Full frame is required for the 4th quarter (it's a 6 quarter program) because they start some very ultra wide angle stuff. A crop frame would not function. However, by then I would hope that I have a full frame camera. I absolutely LOVE the 5d mk ii. Love. I played with it some more today. The local camera shop is happy that I shopped there.

I'm confused about that first part. Landscape, maybe, but desperate for FF on portraits?

well i guess because FF has better bokeh then APS-C camera for portrait while most professional architectural photographer prefer using large or medium format cameras so putting that to digital perspective means using FF, you'll also have an advantage in wide angle view and less noise...

 

[neuroanatomist]

The canon strap that comes with the camera is not going to do it. I need a non-slip strap that is supportive and isn't going to result in shoulder pain. Any brand recommendations for me to look at?

Personally, I use and really recommend a BlackRapid strap. Convenient in that the camera hangs at your side leaving your hands free (possible but unwieldy with a neck strap), the weight is on your shoulder but the strap is very comfortable, and it's fast and easy to bring the camera up for a shot. I routinely walk around for hours with a gripped 7D + 100-400mm (a load of >6 pounds) on a BlackRapid RS-4.

They said the 7D is allowed, but that we'll do so much landscape and architecture and portrait shooting that I'll be desperate for a full frame within the first year and that I should probably save up for one now. It's a very competitive school, though. Any person I've met who came out of it was phenomenal. It's a rigorous and unforgiving program and I think they're trying to deter the people who are just "trying out photography for fun" by requiring that you get top notch gear first.

Full frame is required for the 4th quarter (it's a 6 quarter program) because they start some very ultra wide angle stuff. A crop frame would not function.

A crop frame would function just fine. The EF-S 10-22mm on APS-C has equivalent angle of view to the EF 16-35mm on FF (so, a little wider than your 17-40mm would be on FF). Optical quality of the 10-22mm is equivalent to the 17-40mm in most ways, and if you end up shooting a lot of architcture, the 10-22mm on APS-C is substantially better than the 17-40mm on FF in terms of barrel distortion (click to compare 10-22mm @ 10mm vs. 17-40mm @ 40mm).

16mm FF-equivalent not wide enough for you? The widest prime Canon makes is the 14mm f/2.8L II, and that will set you back $2200 (but you could get the MF-only Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 14mm f/2.8 lens for $400). However, Sigma just released a rectilinear (i.e. not fisheye) 8-16mm lens for APS-C, which at the wide end is equivalent to 13mm on FF - that's wider the rectilinear options for FF. The idea that you need FF to achieve ultrawide angles was true several years ago, but has been obviated by developments in lenses.

I'm not saying you shouldn't get the 5DII - it's really an amazing camera (provided your subjects aren't moving). But if your reason for wanting/needing it is for ultrawide shots, you can achieve that with your 7D, and for a lot less $. OTOH, for architecture if you splurge, it's tough to beat a TS-E lens on a FF body.

 

[awinphoto]

They said the 7D is allowed, but that we'll do so much landscape and architecture and portrait shooting that I'll be desperate for a full frame within the first year and that I should probably save up for one now. It's a very competitive school, though. Any person I've met who came out of it was phenomenal. It's a rigorous and unforgiving program and I think they're trying to deter the people who are just "trying out photography for fun" by requiring that you get top notch gear first.

Full frame is required for the 4th quarter (it's a 6 quarter program) because they start some very ultra wide angle stuff. A crop frame would not function. However, by then I would hope that I have a full frame camera.

Well Good luck with your schooling and as I mentioned in one of my first replies.. make sure your fiancee is fully on board with the costs of photography... Money and budgets could be a detriment to young marriages and it took a while to even get my wife get used to me spending thousands on camera bodies and lenses.

Also try to get as many critiques from strangers as possible towards your portfolio. At my school, professors (industry professionals) had no qualms on ripping you and your work to shreds if they didn't think they were up to par. Some professors I've heard of were infamous for throwing away peoples assignments because they were displeased with the work and or passing out McDonalds applications to students. They also would blatantly tell you if they felt you didn't belong at that school. They basically were the Simon Cowells before Simon Cowell became popular. Most would call them jerks or worse, they hardened us to the realities of customers expectations... Getting used to this will help you avoid the shock and awe of these critiques when you get to school.

Dont Give Up. I cant stress this enough. My school during its hay-day when I was there, anyone who had high purse strings and could afford the tuition and THOUGHT they could be photographers went to my school. It was a very expensive school and became very large quickly. The problem was it was so tough and expensive half of incoming freshmen quit by the end of the first 2 classes and even more by the end of the first year. By graduation of my class, probably 1/8 of the original class I started with graduated to get the full BA on time. Others probably graduated but their graduation dates delayed for whatever reasons. Schools like ours are meant to weed out those many hopefuls and graduating the select few. They are good at shaking out those who cant hack it and it's easy to quit. I went in hoping to get straight A's... that didn't happen, but I graduated, so in some perspective I feel is just fine with me.

 

[awinphoto]

Lady, one last thing to ask your school... does their rental department rent strobes or just on camera flashes? What about C-Stands/light stands? Sandbags? Light modifiers? Diffusion? Reflectors? It may help to know which lenses the offer so you can plan accordingly... What about studios or studio equipment such as seamless backdrops and background muslins? Do they offer q-flashes and Wireless transmitters and recievers? Umbrellas and or Softboxes? This may all seem trivial but it's nice to know so if they dont offer any of these, you know to save up for them. You may also want to check which flashes they offer? Do they offer monoblock strobes (wireless) or powerpack (wired). Stuff like this, if they dont have them, they may seem like small purchases but costs as a student add up and when an assignment pops up that requires such equipment and you need to buy said equipment and you are pinching pennies to pay for food, it is better to know about this before hand.

 

[lady]

For those of you that are curious, I picked up the camera with the Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens. My other lens is gonna be picked up tomorrow, Saturday, or Monday.

So far I've had a bit of an issue with certain lights and I'm still adjusting to the focus system. When I have my house lights on pictures can appear very yellow and I end up having to change the white balance later on through photoshop. I'm still troubleshooting on how to fix this. I'll have to read through the camera manual some more tonight.

BUT here are my first few test shots. I'm warning you, I was mostly just playing with the AF system and getting a feel for the camera itself, rather than trying to seriously take a shot, so they're a bit sloppy. However once I understand the system more it will get better.

This one is an example of DOP:

Today I hope to go outside and take some photos. Can anyone give me a critique?

The canon strap that comes with the camera is not going to do it. I need a non-slip strap that is supportive and isn't going to result in shoulder pain. Any brand recommendations for me to look at?

Personally, I use and really recommend a BlackRapid strap. Convenient in that the camera hangs at your side leaving your hands free (possible but unwieldy with a neck strap), the weight is on your shoulder but the strap is very comfortable, and it's fast and easy to bring the camera up for a shot. I routinely walk around for hours with a gripped 7D + 100-400mm (a load of >6 pounds) on a BlackRapid RS-4.

They said the 7D is allowed, but that we'll do so much landscape and architecture and portrait shooting that I'll be desperate for a full frame within the first year and that I should probably save up for one now. It's a very competitive school, though. Any person I've met who came out of it was phenomenal. It's a rigorous and unforgiving program and I think they're trying to deter the people who are just "trying out photography for fun" by requiring that you get top notch gear first.

Full frame is required for the 4th quarter (it's a 6 quarter program) because they start some very ultra wide angle stuff. A crop frame would not function.

A crop frame would function just fine. The EF-S 10-22mm on APS-C has equivalent angle of view to the EF 16-35mm on FF (so, a little wider than your 17-40mm would be on FF). Optical quality of the 10-22mm is equivalent to the 17-40mm in most ways, and if you end up shooting a lot of architcture, the 10-22mm on APS-C is substantially better than the 17-40mm on FF in terms of barrel distortion (click to compare 10-22mm @ 10mm vs. 17-40mm @ 40mm).

16mm FF-equivalent not wide enough for you? The widest prime Canon makes is the 14mm f/2.8L II, and that will set you back $2200 (but you could get the MF-only Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 14mm f/2.8 lens for $400). However, Sigma just released a rectilinear (i.e. not fisheye) 8-16mm lens for APS-C, which at the wide end is equivalent to 13mm on FF - that's wider the rectilinear options for FF. The idea that you need FF to achieve ultrawide angles was true several years ago, but has been obviated by developments in lenses.

I'm not saying you shouldn't get the 5DII - it's really an amazing camera (provided your subjects aren't moving). But if your reason for wanting/needing it is for ultrawide shots, you can achieve that with your 7D, and for a lot less $. OTOH, for architecture if you splurge, it's tough to beat a TS-E lens on a FF body.

Thanks, I'll check out black rapid. I don't think I'll ever give up my 7D. Having a crop frame will come in handy even when I do decide it's time for me to need a full frame. The 10-22mm is actually on my list of lenses to get!

They said the 7D is allowed, but that we'll do so much landscape and architecture and portrait shooting that I'll be desperate for a full frame within the first year and that I should probably save up for one now. It's a very competitive school, though. Any person I've met who came out of it was phenomenal. It's a rigorous and unforgiving program and I think they're trying to deter the people who are just "trying out photography for fun" by requiring that you get top notch gear first.

Full frame is required for the 4th quarter (it's a 6 quarter program) because they start some very ultra wide angle stuff. A crop frame would not function. However, by then I would hope that I have a full frame camera. I absolutely LOVE the 5d mk ii. Love. I played with it some more today. The local camera shop is happy that I shopped there.

I'm confused about that first part. Landscape, maybe, but desperate for FF on portraits?

well i guess because FF has better bokeh then APS-C camera for portrait while most professional architectural photographer prefer using large or medium format cameras so putting that to digital perspective means using FF, you'll also have an advantage in wide angle view and less noise...

This. I almost always prefer portraits that are taken with a full frame because of the lack of noise and the way the subject stands out. The 7D is much better for action shots (though, not with the lens I'm using).

They said the 7D is allowed, but that we'll do so much landscape and architecture and portrait shooting that I'll be desperate for a full frame within the first year and that I should probably save up for one now. It's a very competitive school, though. Any person I've met who came out of it was phenomenal. It's a rigorous and unforgiving program and I think they're trying to deter the people who are just "trying out photography for fun" by requiring that you get top notch gear first.

Full frame is required for the 4th quarter (it's a 6 quarter program) because they start some very ultra wide angle stuff. A crop frame would not function. However, by then I would hope that I have a full frame camera.

Well Good luck with your schooling and as I mentioned in one of my first replies.. make sure your fiancee is fully on board with the costs of photography... Money and budgets could be a detriment to young marriages and it took a while to even get my wife get used to me spending thousands on camera bodies and lenses.

Also try to get as many critiques from strangers as possible towards your portfolio. At my school, professors (industry professionals) had no qualms on ripping you and your work to shreds if they didn't think they were up to par. Some professors I've heard of were infamous for throwing away peoples assignments because they were displeased with the work and or passing out McDonalds applications to students. They also would blatantly tell you if they felt you didn't belong at that school. They basically were the Simon Cowells before Simon Cowell became popular. Most would call them jerks or worse, they hardened us to the realities of customers expectations... Getting used to this will help you avoid the shock and awe of these critiques when you get to school.

Dont Give Up. I cant stress this enough. My school during its hay-day when I was there, anyone who had high purse strings and could afford the tuition and THOUGHT they could be photographers went to my school. It was a very expensive school and became very large quickly. The problem was it was so tough and expensive half of incoming freshmen quit by the end of the first 2 classes and even more by the end of the first year. By graduation of my class, probably 1/8 of the original class I started with graduated to get the full BA on time. Others probably graduated but their graduation dates delayed for whatever reasons. Schools like ours are meant to weed out those many hopefuls and graduating the select few. They are good at shaking out those who cant hack it and it's easy to quit. I went in hoping to get straight A's... that didn't happen, but I graduated, so in some perspective I feel is just fine with me.

This is probably some of the best advice I will ever receive. Thank you so much for it. I think my fiancé understands--though not much. His uncle is a professional photographer and he knows his uncle has spent more money on his camera/lens collection than his car. Thankfully money has never really been one of our issues because we both have slightly expensive hobbies and both accept them.

A lot of schools are doing that now. I went to a prestigious equestrian school as a working student for one summer, and they were brutal. I'd been riding horse for 15 years and they called my seat sloppy, kept saying I should give up, and even at some points wouldn't let me ride and would force me to watch others who had been riding for longer to "learn". Within the first week I improved a lot, but it is tough. There's no room for error. This could potentially be very stressful to me but I agree, it's important not to give up.

Lady, one last thing to ask your school... does their rental department rent strobes or just on camera flashes? What about C-Stands/light stands? Sandbags? Light modifiers? Diffusion? Reflectors? It may help to know which lenses the offer so you can plan accordingly... What about studios or studio equipment such as seamless backdrops and background muslins? Do they offer q-flashes and Wireless transmitters and recievers? Umbrellas and or Softboxes? This may all seem trivial but it's nice to know so if they dont offer any of these, you know to save up for them. You may also want to check which flashes they offer? Do they offer monoblock strobes (wireless) or powerpack (wired). Stuff like this, if they dont have them, they may seem like small purchases but costs as a student add up and when an assignment pops up that requires such equipment and you need to buy said equipment and you are pinching pennies to pay for food, it is better to know about this before hand.

I'll know that when I visit. I've written all of those things down on a list. Thanks

 

[neuroanatomist]

So far I've had a bit of an issue with certain lights and I'm still adjusting to the focus system. When I have my house lights on pictures can appear very yellow and I end up having to change the white balance later on through photoshop. I'm still troubleshooting on how to fix this. I'll have to read through the camera manual some more tonight.

BUT here are my first few test shots. I'm warning you, I was mostly just playing with the AF system and getting a feel for the camera itself, rather than trying to seriously take a shot, so they're a bit sloppy. However once I understand the system more it will get better.

Today I hope to go outside and take some photos. Can anyone give me a critique?

Canon dSLRs do't do all that well with Auto WB in mixed lighting - if there's tungsten light in the mix, the images tend to have that yellow/orange cast you're noticing.

One important tip, assuming you don't already, is to shoot in RAW. That allows you to make adjustments to color temperature with no penalty on IQ (unlike the case with a jpg modified in post). If you'll be shooting a series of shots under similar lighting (like in your own home), shoot a gray card or other WB tool (I use an X-Rite ColorChecker Passport or a Datacolor SpyderCube), and use that to set a custom WB with the eyedropper tool in your RAW converter.

Another random tip - rotate your camera. Get in the habit of imagining a shot in portrait vs. landscape, or trying both. The second shot would have been better in portrait orientation.

The 7D's AF system is powerful and very customizable - lots of trial and error involved. Since I mentioned switching orientations, for example, there a custom function that allows you to select a favorite AF point for each orientation (you get three, since you can rotate either way for portrait) that is automatically selected when you rotate the camera.

Yet another random tip - a good habit is to move your eye around the edges of the frame in the viewfinder before you press the shutter. The 7D's 100% coverage is a help there, you'll get no surprises in the final image. For example, the part of a foot in the second shot and the 'amputation' of the tip of the tail in the fifth shot would be things to avoid (the first can be fixed with a crop in post, the second cannot).

Maybe one more...I really like using 'back button AF' where you assign autofocus to the AF-ON button on the back, and the shutter half-press meters, but does not AF. That enables you to easily take multiple shots if you focus then recompose, and also works very well for shooting moving subjects in AI Servo. Here's a link to a Canon DLC article on back-butotn AF.

I don't think I'll ever give up my 7D. Having a crop frame will come in handy even when I do decide it's time for me to need a full frame. The 10-22mm is actually on my list of lenses to get!

I agree - the combination of a 5DII for landscapes/portraits and a 7D for action/wildlife works very well, IMO.

 

[amarlez]

Please excuse for repeating anything that may have been said. I only scrolled through the first page of this thread.

Here's another thought: What about a 60D?

Of course, it's not going to shoot equestrian as well as the 7D, but if you're just beginning photography school, you may not be ready to really fully use the advantages it has over the 60D. With that extra money, you have a ton of options:

-pick up the 17-50 2.8 is
-get a nice telephoto for the equestrian
-buy a 5D now
-save your pennies for when you need a 5D Mark II
-save your pennies for when the 5D Mark III comes out, presumably with better AF and presumably good enough to keep up with the horses