For the first time, Canon didn’t just tweak the settings on a camera with a firmware update, they actually enhanced the camera. But after updating the 5D II to allow manual exposure, they still had a lot to do. And today, finally, it seems they’ve done it.

So what’s the big deal with the new firmware? Hit the jump to get a simple explanation of frame rates and audio samples, as well as the complete list of firmware changes. But if that sounds all too boring, feel free to just click here (scroll down, hit “I Agree”) to get the firmware and be on your merry way!

First, a list of the changes, and while it’s only a list of six, they are huge:

Firmware Version 2.0.3 incorporates five enhancements to the movie function and a fix to the manual sensor cleaning function of the EOS 5D Mark II camera.

1. Adds or changes the following movie frame rates.
   • 1920×1080 : 30 fps (changed – actual 29.97 fps)
   • 1920×1080 : 24 fps (added – actual 23.976 fps)
   • 640×480 : 30 fps (changed – actual 29.97 fps)
   • 1920×1080 : 25 fps (added – actual 25.0 fps)
   • 1920×1080 : 24 fps (added – actual 23.976 fps)
   • 640×480 : 25 fps (added – actual 25.0 fps)

NTSC: PAL:

2. Adds a function for manually adjusting the sound recording level (64 levels).
3. Adds a histogram display (brightness or RGB) for shooting movies in manual exposure.
4. Adds shutter-priority AE mode (Tv) and aperture-priority AE (Av) mode to the exposure modes for shooting movies.
5. Changes the audio sampling frequency from 44.1 KHz to 48 KHz.
6. Fixes a phenomenon where communication between the camera and the attached lens is sometimes interrupted after manual sensor cleaning. (This phenomenon only affects units with Firmware Version 1.2.4.)

Next up, What’s the deal with all those frame rates?

It’s all about standards. NTSC is the standard used for broadcast across most continents (PAL being the other standard). It’s also the standard used for DVD’s and Blu-Ray discs. And the players. And the standards for most editing programs that create those DVD’s and Blu-Ray discs. Basically, to not adhere to NTSC (or PAL) standards, is to ask for a whole lot of work just to get your video to work within those standards. So what are those standards . . .

29.97 fps for video, and 48Khz for audio. Which means every time you used a 5D, you had to resample that video and upsample the audio to match the standards. And that resampling was not perfect. your audio might not match perfectly so it would get slowed down (albeit by .1%, but still). And that audio, 44.1khz on the 5D II, is a great standard . . . for CD’s. But video has required 48khz for over a decade (maybe two. When did DVD’s come out again?)

Sure, the 7D and now 1D IV offer all these features. But neither has the one killer feature that made the 5D II such an attractive camera despite all those issues.

Being a full frame sensor, the 5D could really simulate the “film look” in video, which is a mix of that shallow depth of field (check), and the old film speed of 24fps (d’oh!). Which is funny because we were just talking about the NTSC standard of 29.97, and here I am harking for 24fps. Well, actually, since the beginning of film to tv and dvd conversion, a process called telecine has been used to turn 24fps film into a compatible 29.97fps video. After a while, they decided to make it easier by switching that standard to 23.976 (which is a perfect 4/5 of 29.97 and therefore easier to work with).

So, back to the point: Canon, with this firmware, has made the 5D II compatible with the NTSC standards, 29.97 and 23.976 fps, with 48khz audio.

On top of that, they added a few nice features, like allowing 64 levels of audio recording. Previously this was automatic, which meant you couldn’t really capture consistent sound levels, and without sound, your video is basically pre-talkie.

The histogram feature for video is also nice to have, as it lets you see exactly what the camera is capturing, rather than relying on the back of the screen (which may all well be fine, but isn’t very scientific at all).

All in all, this is a great step forward for Canon. Their support for an older camera shows that they are listening to their current user base, and attracting new users, all without forcing users to buy a new camera, and without having to release another new camera.

Here’s how important this is to me: I’m currently a Nikon user, and formerly a Canon user. I still have the equipment, but haven’t used it much (except for remotes). I own a D3s, and love it. It also does video, and also has a full frame sensor, but it suffers from some of the same issues as the 5D II. Only 24fps, not 23.976 or 29.97. Oh and it’s 720p, rather than full 1080p (so 2004). I even bought a 7D, figuring it had everything I needed (except that full frame sensor). Hated it. Sold it 3 days later (at cost, so no loss to me). Figured after that, I wouldn’t really dabble in Canon for a while, using my remaining equipment as alternate and remote gear.

But now? that 5D II really has me considering a purchase. Nikon, the ball is in your court. Better step up that video game.

BTW, if you need more details on anything I said, I will gladly elaborate on anything asked in comments, via meebo, email, phone, smoke signal, morse code. You send the message, I’ll be there to answer it. I understand some of the standards I mentioned above might be confusing. It’s confusing to me, and I’m a video guy, having worked at a TV station as a broadcast graphic designer. You’d think this stuff would just make sense to me, but it has me shaking my head from time to time. BTW, you think this is bad? Ask me why TV’s were 4:3 standard forever, but DVD’s were 720×480 (a 2:3 ratio), yet fit perfectly. Damn engineers.

Goodnight!

1/1000th, f/4, ISO 4000, D3s and 200-400 f/4.

Just a quick post. I received my D3s yesterday.  Merry Thanksgiving!

Today I shot the ASU vs U of A game, and it was the perfect storm of circumstances that let me shoot the D3s under several scenarios. The game was in full daylight, then got cloudy, then it started to rain, then hail. Lights were on (even in daytime) and as the clouds and rain and darkness took over, I ran the gamut from Auto everything (ISO, WB, etc) to full manual. I full expected it to outdo the D3 as far as high ISO capability, and it did. Handily.

ISO auto worked as well as it did on the D3. I rarely if ever use Auto WB, but the mix of stadium lighting, mottled sunlight, direct lit to overshadowed field, let’s just say I was hoping Auto WB would do ok. And it did. But just ok.

Oh and weather sealing was excellent. Once it started to rain and hail, I figured I’d test that out. Just in case I asked another long time Nikon user if their weather sealing was any good. He affirmed, and I held steady and shot in the rain. The D3s didn’t skip a beat, but I also had a D3 on my shoulder and that took the rain well also.

I loved the new histogram. You can zoom into a part of an image and it will give you the histogram for that area only.

My full take on the camera and its features will come later on. I’m hoping to shoot at the fringe of available light (12,800 to 25,600 and beyond!), and perhaps shoot a video interview with it. While I can say with confidence that I’m happy with the D3s, I really want to test it out more for a full write up.

It sounds good. But so did the 1D III, which hasn’t faired so well for Canon.

Continue after the jump, and you’ll get some links to more info and specs, including some videos on the 1D (boring, except for the fact that you might recognize the host if you were at all interesting in throwing a Microsoft Windows 7 party. That’s right. . . a party for an operating system), and more importantly a video made with the 1D.

And of course you can find all this on the net. Most likely you will find them before you find me. But if you found me, you’ll also get my take on both camera systems. Of course, all this is speculative since I don’t own either of the new cameras, just a few of the older 1D III’s and D3′s.

More after the jump (and I mean a lot more. I wrote way too much).

First, the bad. Canon has two videos on the 1D IV image quality and Autofocus, both found on the Canon Digital Learning Center Site. But if you have a second, check out the Windows 7 Party videos. The same guy is the host here. Epic Fail, Canon.

But Canon was smart enough to get Vincent Laforet (of Reverie fame) a few 1D IV’s, and he put out another video to intro the camera: Nocturne. Enjoy. Did you notice (if you clicked) that the Digital Learning Center Site looks a little unfinished? No clue why, but that’s weird. Anyhow, their Canon USA site looks complete. Check it out for more info. And of course, Rob Galbraith breaks the announcement with a few pages, images, specs, and other information. In fact, I don’t buy anything except as a rumor until he announces it as real.

So, looking at the specs and features, you can see that Canon really tried to match or surpass Nikon, offering the same or better feature set with more megapixels, and even a better MSRP (4999 vs 5199). On paper at least, the horse race is very even. But as I said before, the ID III was also impressive when the specs came out (remember, at the time the D3 was months away, and Canon was handily beating them on high ISO image quality), and really put the screws to Nikon. Once it came out however, the technical marvel of the 1D III was overshadowed heavily by reports of less than stellar autofocus. And then Nikon came out with the D3. And slowly but surely, we saw photographers switching from Canon to Nikon.

So in announcing the 1D IV right on the heels of the D3s, Canon is trying to keep up, and perhaps regain some users back. While announcing quickly so as to avoid losing more users was a smart move, their efforts to announce seem hurried. And the biggest problem I have with them? They never admitted problems with the 1D III, so they’re not endorsing their 1D IV as anything other than having “improved AF”. So it’s definitely buyer beware if you want to get a 1D IV.

All that aside, I have an interesting choice to make. I can go either way and get tremendous ISO performance, HD video (24fps 720p with an awesome full frame sensor, or 30fps 1080p video with a sorta awesome 1.3x crop sensor), and a big file, which honestly, after 10 or so mp, was more than enough since I don’t shoot panoramic landscapes or anything. But what about the intricacies of each camera, and their detailed feature set. They do things differently, and so you have to pick a side.

If my main interest was 1080P video, then the 1D IV really makes a statement. It’s not the full frame sensor of the 5D, but the high bitrate and quality of the image is insane. If I need video but it doesn’t have to be anything more than 720P, then the D3s and it’s full frame sensor would give you that awesome cinematic DOF that people loved so much about the 5D II.

That full frame sensor is so hard not to love. The D3s has it, and it’s very much like the old high speed film cameras, which is why so many people loved the D3 when it came out. If you want full frame, you just want it, and the D3s makes sense. Of course, if you need the reach of a crop sensor camera, that 1D IV turns your 300 or 400 mm lenses into 390 and 520mm lenses, which helps on the various large fields of play, or for wildlife shooters.

Nikon certainly had the advantage when it came to flash. Even when Canon was trouncing them in high ISO image quality, Nikons iTTL was remarkably better than Canon’s eTTL (and eTTL II). But with ISO 12,800, is that going to matter as much anymore? Well of course, but it just won’t be as necessary in low light situations. You’ll still want it for creative purposes, and in that case, Nikon still has the edge.

Nikon seems to like making a button for everything. Everything. The D3 has buttons to change the usual shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. But they also have buttons to change the sensor crop, white balance, image quality, autofocus mode, bracketing, image exposure mode, etc. It’s awesome if you want access to the most used features quickly, but it can be overwhelming. Canon makes a cleaner camera, with less buttons, each having multiple screens for features. It’s interesting, but sometimes the most important features are often buried in menus. You can create your own menu, which is great, but it does take time to do that. Honestly, I prefer the buttons, but I wouldn’t sacrifice image quality over it. It’s a push if you ask me.

Optics are very important. Nikon has the advantage of something like 50-80 years of lenses being compatible to some degree with all their cameras. This means you can pick up good glass for cheap, if you’re willing to shoot manual focus and exposure. This is great if you’re setting up remotes. With Canon, their old FD mount lenses won’t work without an adapter that is not sold anymore. Is this a big deal? That’s your call. But I had to mention it.

Current lens lineup? Canon has more primes available. 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 85 1.2. Can you live without those? No? Well you know your answer. But Nikon seems to excel at making zooms. the 14-24 2.8 image quality can’t be explained. You just have to see it for yourself. Their 24-70 and 70-200 are both excellent. Nikon also makes the 200-400 4, a zoom Canon has no answer for. In daylight, attached to a D300, it’s a 300-600mm effective lens, and very sharp. Put it on a D3 and you get a very usable 200-400mm range for most sports. Both have the usual assortment of super telephotos. 200 2, 300 2.8, 400 2.8, 500 4, and 600 4. But Nikons telephotos are much more expensive. However they do have a 5 year warranty, vs Canons 1 year.

VR vs IS. Under normal circumstances, I prefer IS. VR seems jumpier to me, and doesn’t always seem to engage. Both have standard modes where you shoot at a low shutter while not moving. Canon’s second mode only inhibits camera shake across one plane, thereby allowing you to improve panning shots. While I don’t do these a lot, it’s a common technique for sports photographers. Nikon’s second mode is for shooting from a vehicle while trying to maintain a low shutter. If you’re on safari, awesome. Otherwise, when could you use this?Aside from that, like I said, I really do prefer IS to VR. Canon’s been at it longer, so I sorta expect them to be better at it.

Image quality. Nikon is amazing at high ISO, but Canon is no slouch. And Canon can go down to ISO 100 normally, and seems to have amazing quality in detail at those ISO’s compared to Nikons files. It’s not that the D3 files aren’t any good, they’re just not as crisp. If you shoot a lot of daylight work, there’s something to a Canon image. But if you shoot in poorly lit environments, the D3 really had no equal. The ID III was good, but the D3 was just better. This may even out with the newer cameras matching at high ISO, but until I shoot some samples, I can’t say.

AF. As I said before, the 1D III has had consistency issues with it’s AF. If this weren’t true, I probably never would have considered shooting Nikon. Even now, having both, I have to say the Canon AF is faster, but wilder. The Nikon AF is much more deliberate, so it’s slower, but once it pegs its mark, it sticks to it. The 1D III is always thinking, perhaps too much, so it finds initial focus amazingly fast. After that, it’s a crapshoot. The D3 is funny, in that if it can’t find focus, it will sometimes get stuck hunting. I’ve often had to “reset it” by focusing on something very close or very far to quickly start it up again. Hard to explain but if you have a D3 you might know what I mean. Still, it’s been much more consistent and that’s very important. Enough so that I don’t know what to think of the improved 1D IV autofocus. I want it to work. I want it to be excellent. But I just don’t know, and until I use one, I won’t know.

Overall, I have to say that it all depends on the 1D IV autofocus. If it’s as inconsistent as the III, then I can’t imagine people jumping into it, and more people will switch over to Nikon. But if you held out, and waited for the IV, and it comes through, there’s no point in switching (unless you really want full frame and high fps).

And one last note: I can’t wait to see what’s going to happen in the prosumer range. The improvements on both sides will trickle down to the smaller cameras, and soon we’ll have these cameras, like a 60D or a D400 that will be able to shoot ISO 3200 that looks like ISO 800. If you’re shooting in reasonable lighting a lot, it almost makes sense to see this new technology trickle down, and rather than get 1 1D IV or D3s, get 2 or 3 of these other cameras, and have a more complete kit for the same price.

Amazing. I still remember when I had a 1D and thought it was amazing that I could shoot 4mp at 8fps with ISO 1600. I still miss the file from that camera. 4 meg RAW files are so easy to deal with.

So, now that this all came out in 2009 instead of 2010, I can’t wait to see what happens in 2011.

Comments, questions? Feel free to reply or email me.

We laugh now, but wait til we hit 2011 or so, and ISO 102,400. At some point the ads will just start saying that we can shoot under any lighting circumstance. Like during a power outage with no moonlight. Or black holes. Ok, I’m getting silly (until 2011).

Ya, so apparently Nikon decided that we couldn’t wait for the new decade, and just released this in time to put it on your Christmas list.

I would love to say that this is the perfect camera, but I can’t. Damn close though. More after the jump, including links and my take on it.First things first: check out www.RobGalbraith.com to get the scoop on this thing. He writes it up pretty well, and includes specs and other technical goodies.

How bout pictures? the Nikon Imaging Site has a D3s page. Take a look at that shot at 12,800 ISO. Wowwowweewow (yes that’s a word. Go watch Borat).

But the D3s does video now, right? So let’s see some movies. Nikon has a D3s/D3x microsite with videos. Too bad they’re tiny and in Flash video format. Great way to show off the quality, Nikon. Epic fail.

Finally, a D3s Brochure. So, enjoy the downloads to your hearts content.

So let’s start with the “bad”. First off, 720p video at 24fps, Nikon? really. So 2007. The 5D does 1080p, has full manual, and records at a fairly nice 38mbps. So what could Nikon have done to mix things up?

Well 1080p would just be a match, but how about variable framerates? 23.96, 24, 29.87, 30, 59.94, and 60. This would really make the D3s an amazing action camera, and force people looking to spend 5-10K on video equipment to reconsider. This could almost even infringe on the RED territory.

How bout something very editing friendly. The JVC GY-HM100U can record in a Final Cut friendly .MOV format. The 5D II records in AVCHD, which is standard, but Final Cut tends to rerender that file, which can take some time.

By going in the .MOV format, Nikon could have presented itself as THE camera for media journalists on the go. Imagine taking a CF card, copying files over, and being able to drop clips right into a timeline. While others are rendering files to start editing, you’re rendering out your video to publish.

I’d ask for some sort of audio options, like XLR, but that’s physically too big to introduce to the camera without major restructuring of the shape. But how bout an addon that would take wireless audio through the same port that the WT-E4A uses to transmit files wirelessly. Possible? No clue. But that port is there, so might as well use it.

Ok enough about the video. How bout the images?

Listen, they beat what I said (102,400 ISO) by a year and a few months. I’m still amazed. I totally expected 12,800 native (which the D3s has) and ISO 51,200 for the next rendition. Not this. So, ya, wow.

But why no low ISO love? Unless you get a D3x, you can’t get ISO 100. And even then its 100-1600 native, 6400 extended. Is it too much to ask for a compromise of say, 100-12,800, with extended to 51,200?

Any hope of a true 16bit NEF file? The pipeline for image data is already at 16bit, so keeping it at 16bit could be possible. And of course, higher dynamic range is always welcome. Imagine being able to shoot one of those dreadful high noon games and actually being able to see detail under the helmet/cap/sombrero.

I can’t really gripe about the lack of change in frame rates and megapixels. To be honest, 12 is a nice sweet spot and I hoped we could stay at that. I could even forgive 15mp in a full frame camera (which is why I have no love for the 50D and its clown-in-a-volkwagen-beetle stuffing 15mp on a 1.6x crop camera. Don’t even start me on the 7D). So kudos for sticking to 12mp, Nikon.

So that’s the bad. I think I took it easy on Nikon. Most of these things seems quite possible given todays technology. I won’t go asking for anything like an electronic shutter so you could go back to high shutter sync speeds of 1/500th or 1/1,000th  (CMOS sensors just can’t do that because they have a warm up and cool down time, whereas CCD can turn on and off instantly, hence the electronic shutter). I won’t ask for 15 fps or something crazy, or even RAW video (which the RED does now, but thats very proprietary and built from the ground up to do so, while Nikon is a camera company that happens to put video in their cameras now).

The good? Really, by now you should have read the links.

102,400 ISO. Anyone who’s ever shot HS football, or soccer, or volleyball, or any other sports in one of those horrible fields that’s lit by prayers and fireflies will rejoice. Once they can pony up the 5k for the camera.

Me? I’m hoping Santa has a soft spot for me. Maybe I can cash in a couple of Christmas’ worth of gifts for this one gift. Well two actually. I like two of the same camera. Maybe a third. Ya know, so I could set up a remote.

One last bit: For those of you that don’t know, I am currently using Nikon equipment, but even as recently as this weekend, also use Canon equipment. So if you think I’m biased to one or the other, I’m not. I really really want Canon to come out with something epic. Ultimately this type of competition is good for the consumer. Remember, a few years ago, if you needed to shoot at 1600 ISO and have it look good, Canon was pretty much it. Now? Not so much.

Questions, comments? lemme know.

In this quickie article (Its 11pm, after all), I’ll do a roundup of links to some specs and a forum or two, and my thoughts on it. Oh and Canon’s also released an updated lens, the 24 1.4 II, as well as announcing a few new P&S cameras, including the G10 (an update to the very cool G9), and others.

I see some good points, like full HD video, up to 29:59, and a connection for an external mic. This makes a lot of sense, since Canon has been a major force in video cameras. Nikon may have beat them to the punch with the D90 (did I mention I’m playing with one? It’s real nice for the price), but the external mic connection trumps that, since you can now do interviews with decent sound that also run over 5 minutes (the limit on the D90).

Canon took a cue from Nikon and got their act together on the LCD. It’s also now 920,000 pixels. Welcome to 2008, Canon!

Oh and it’s supposed to be about 2699. That’s 10% less than a D700 and only about twice as much as a 50D.

Digic IV processors work their magic on this camera, so the 5D now matches the D3, and can do a native 100-6400 ISO, with 12,800 and 25,600 available. I can’t wait to see how the 5D’s 21mp will match up to the D3′s 12, especially at high ISO. But different horses for different courses. The D3 can do 9fps with everything enabled. The 5D tops out at 3.9.

But I do see some bad points. 9 points to be exact. That’s the number of AF points on the 5D II. And the previous 5D. And the 50D, 40D, 30D, and 20D (which is now over 4 years old). Really Canon? Even the D90 has 11. The D300? 51 (same as the D3). So you see that LCD’s should be high resolution, but you don’t even consider bumping up the AF points. I’d even take 11. Just as a token of good faith, letting me know that you understand that perhaps, because we didn’t buy the lowest end camera (the XSi, or even the 50D), that perhaps we may want a mid range AF. Can’t even make it into double digits eh?

And the ugly point: the Direct Print button still lives. Ok, it can now engage Liveview, but really, why not call it a custom button. It would relieve us of the stigma of the DP button, but also let us know that we can give it a custom command. Even if the DP button lets me change it to any other button, just calling it DP makes me wince.

Ok enough enough. Even if the 5D serves as a photographic martyr, ushering Canon into HD video, better LCD’s, and insane ISO ranges. 25,600!! We laugh now, but wait til we hit 2011 or so, and ISO 102,400. At some point the ads will just start saying that we can shoot under any lighting circumstance. Like during a power outage with no moonlight. Or black holes. Ok, I’m getting silly (until 2011). Link time (and I’ve been updating it as more sites have come to light).

Canon’s Spec Page

Canon Japan Site (with Photo and Video Samples)

Rob Galbraith posted an in depth article on the 5D II.

And one of my usual haunts, Fred Miranda, discusses it in one long thread on their Canon Forum

DPReview, as always, has some info. Be careful though, the forums there can REALLY get out of hand. You’ve been warned.

Gizmodo has a few articles, not just on the new 5D II, but also on their other releases ( G10 anyone?)

Feel free to comment here, I’d love to hear what people of all sorts have to say.

Me? I’m just not sure whether I’m buying it. I don’t need 21mp. What I need is a really really clean ISO 25,600 or better in a sporty model. D3, I know I know. But I’d like to see if Canon responds to the bad PR they got with the 1D III and brings out some mind blowing 1D IV. I want to see ISO 51,200, 16mp, 12fps, enough AF points to play a game of Minesweeper with, and let’s work that price point down. Canon owes some people for their previous purchase. (Me? I’ve been lucky. Two 1D III’s that work well, but they are certainly a bit quirky)

Remember the Minitrekker Video? Well that up there is an Airport Security bag, by ThinkTank Photo. And surprisingly, when it’s closed, it doesn’t bulge at all. But if a picture is worth a thousand words, what’s a video worth?

I’ll cover some of what I do when I travel, and my reasoning for it, like why clothes are less important than gear. Here’s a hint: Renting a 400 2.8 could cost 70 bucks or more. Buying a bunch of socks and other space occupying clothes wherever you travel to? Less than 70 bucks. More to come tomorrow.

I will try to share what I do during X-Games in blog posts throughout the weekend. Stay tuned.

While covering a game between the Phoenix Mercury and Detroit Shock, I did a video segment on remote setup basics. It’s easier than you think, so read on, and check out the video. Before you know it, you’ll be able to set up your own remotes.

First things first, let’s look at a checklist of what you need to do a remote, and then onto the video:

• Safety. This involves using the right cables, asking permission, and being insured. You need all of this before you even attempt to do a remote of any sort. If you can’t meet these requirements, don’t bother.
• A spare camera and lens. Remotes are usually manually prefocused, and lenses are set to higher apertures, so you don’t need an expensive setup. The main image above was with a 20D and 17-40. Combined, you can get them used for less than the price of a new 40D. Lighter lenses are preferred for easier balance. This is why I use a 17-40 rather than a 16-35.
• A wireless transmitter and receiver setup. Pocket Wizard units are the gold standard, but there are other options.
• A pre-trigger cable. This connects your wireless receiver to the camera and keeps it ready, akin to holding down the shutter halfway. Good pre-triggers come with a switch to turn this on and off. When it’s on, you cannot access the menu features of the camera, since it’s in a ready to shoot state.
• A camera stand. There are all sorts. You need one that will support the weight of your lens and camera, and permits movement of the setup so you can adjust the angle. For basketball, I made my own. Total cost: under a buck. Wanna know more? Check the video.
• Gaffer tape. If you don’t already carry a small roll, make your own. I use it to bind my stand to my camera, and also to mark my spot, so if I need to move my remote, I can put it back down in the same general spot, no guesswork. You also need it for your lens, to tape down the settings.
• An angle finder. It’s like a little periscope for the viewfinder on your cameras. If you need to put your remote on a floor, or field, or in an awkward place, the angle finder will really help. Or, if you have a newer camera, you may have some live view feature on the camera. That’s good too.
• Large capacity CF card. I drop an 8 or 16gb card in my setups, so I don’t have to go changing cameras in the middle of an event. If your remote is also in an awkward place to get to during the event, a large card makes sense. They’re cheap now too, and I’ve written about where to get them.
• Fresh batteries. AA’s for Pocket Wizards, and freshly charged Li-Ion’s for my camera. That way you don’t have to worry about changing those out mid-event. And if you don’t notice your batteries dying, then you may keep on shooting without knowing that the remote is not functioning.
• Time. Show up early to do all of this. It’s easy once you get the hang of it. Pressed, I could prop one up in a few minutes. But the first time, it took me a while. And when I shot the video, the chaos that was all around, plus the video segment itself, made it a lengthy process. Had I not shown up two hours early, I might not have pulled it all off. Better to be done early, and relax, than rush to get it all set up.

Lengthy list huh? This is why I did the video. It does a fine job of showing how the above list of items all comes together to produce a remote, but I’m sure there will be more questions, so feel free to email me and ask me anything about the video, the list, or any specifics. I’ll be glad to answer them.

I’ve embedded the video, but you can also download it, just do a save as.

Thanks for taking time to do this, I really appreciate it.
Right now I have:

• 20D, nearing the 50k shutter count.
• 28-105 3.5-4.5
• 50 1.8
• 70-200 2.8

My budget is roughly $2200. I could come up with a few extra hundred dollars if needed. I use my 70-200 by far the most, and often it is not long enough. I was thinking that I would pick up the 300 f/4 non-IS to cover the longer focal lengths.

I use my 28-105 for more wide angle shots, but it is awkward for me in terms of focal length. It is often either not long enough of not wide enough. For this reason, I was considering selling it and picking up either the 17-40, the 24-70 or even the 17-55.

I was also considering either the Mark II, 40D or 30D as a second body, to go along with, not replace my 20D. I am attracted to the Mark II for obvious reasons, but right now I am thinking the $ might be better spent on some fast glass.

Another consideration is that my shooting consists of perhaps %85 sports, I have all the other events at my school to cover, hence my wishing for a WA of sorts. I am torn between the 17-40 and 24-70 in terms of useful focal length and aperture. And then it was thrown out there I should look at the 85 1.8 (?)

Some combos I was considering…

30D + 300 f/4 + 24-70 or 16-35 (for journalistic type shots)
40D + 300 f/4 + 17-40
Mark II + 300 f/4 (keep 28-105)

Thanks again for working on this.
______________________________________________

Ok Zander. One approach would be to keep the 20D until it died. The 28-105 would go, because it’s not fast enough for night sports. Keep the 50 and 70-200. With your 2200, plus 150 or so from the 28-105, you’d have 2350 to spend. with maybe 200 more if you sell your cat/soul/friend or something.

First things first: the 17-40 or 24-70. Ignore both, and head for the Sigma 18-50 2.8. You’d have a gap between 50 and 70, but you’d have 18 covered at 2.8 instead of f/4. Forget new, and go for it used, where it might cost you around $350 or so. 2,000 left, maybe 2200.

Get an 85 1.8. I’ve seen under 300 used, figure 280. That leaves you 1720, maybe 1920.

Sell your pet/organ/friend and get about 150 or so dollars, then get a Sigma 120-300 2.8. Yes, there’s overlap, but you can’t really get 300 2.8 for under 2k without the Sigma. And a Sigma or similar 300 prime would be in the same price range as the zoom, so you may as well get the zoom, since it’s an easier lens to find on the buy and sells. Your final kit would be:

• 20D
• Sigma 18-50 2.8
• 50 1.8
• 85 1.8
• 70-200 2.8
• 120-300 2.8

You have a range from 18 to 300 covered at 2.8, with the 50 1.8 or 85 1.8 primes serving for anything from portraits to low light indoor gym shots. Your next purchase would be a cheap 20D, not a 30D. Forget the bigger screen and not so big difference in ISO noise (remember, same sensor between the 20 and 30D), save that for more lenses. With 2 20D’s, you could be very versatile. If you can live without the 85 1.8, you can get the 20D instead, and then go 18-50 and 70-200 on the bodies, or 18-50 and 120-300. Either way, you can cover low light events decently.
______________________________________________

Next approach: If you had to get a newish camera, get the 40D. New sensor, more versatility with live view. Get the grip. So you’re down from 2200 to about 1200. Get the Sigma 18-50 2.8. Down to about 850. Sell the 28-105, back to 1k. You can then either get the 300 4 IS for that, or the 300 4 NON IS for about 325 less, which you then parlay into an 85 1.8. The difference would be that the old 300 is no longer serviced by Canon. Good range, two cameras, but not especially good for night field sports, since you’re at f/4. Final kit:

• 20D
• 40D
• 18-50 2.8
• 50 1.8
• 70-200 2.8
• 300 4 IS OR
• 300 4 non IS plus 85 1.8

Oh, and no need to sell kitty to get some extra cheddar for your purchases.
______________________________________________

Final approach. Sell the 70-200. Sell the 28-105. Figure you got about 3250. Get the Sigma 120-300 for 1850 or so. 1400 left. get another 20D perhaps with grip for 525 or so, leaving you with 875. Get a Sigma 18-50 for 350, 525 left. Tamron 28-75 2.8 for 300 or so, 225 left. Sell the family pet and get 125 bucks, then go get a 100 2 for 350. Two cameras, all 2.8 or faster lenses, two wider type lenses, but a gap between 75-120 with a 100 2.0 to fill that gap. Final kit:

• 20D
• 20D
• 18-50 2.8
• 28-75 2.8
• 50 1.8
• 100 2 (or an 85 1.8, but the 100 fills the gap better).
• 120-300 2.8

Bottom line, you have some choices to make. Each kit sorta aims for a need, first one getting you range at 2.8, but you only have one camera, and a gap. Second one gets you 2 cameras, a 40D even, but f/4 at 300 really limits you. Last kit gets you 2 cameras, 300 at 2.8, but you sell that very versatile 70-200 2.8. It’s up to you to decide which kit best serves your purposes. Be flexible in your choices so long as every lens serves a necessary purpose.

Rules: Buy used, you can’t the cost of going new. Don’t get the latest generation camera unless you feel it’s absolutely necessary. And sell the dead weight lenses. That 28-105 won’t net you much, but it can go towards a lens you would use, and could actually produce images with in a low light environment. I’d say drop the 50 1.8 but that’s so cheap that you may as well keep it.