I have to second in-lightened. The original image needs everything I can give it. No amount of post-production magic can add stuff which sin't there, and while AI can save some stuff which other programs I have used simply couldn't ... there is a lower limit beneath which Nothing can be done, and the better the original, the better the final image.

In any case---I could not care less if people use an iPhone and a bunch of automated post-processing programs and produce great images without knowing how. it's not like there is a finite number of images out there.

As in-lightened notes, these might not be images suitable to be printed a 3 feet by two feet and hung in a gallery, but I mostly want to sell images to riders who can see their smiling (or grimacing) faces as they clear some obstacle. Given the low-light conditions, and not wanting everything to get lost in high ISO noise, and tyhe very short prep time from the times the riders appear until I have to frame, focus, and fire .... These can be tough images to capture. And in that case where I might only have one chance to shoot that rider ... it is great to have so post-prod help in case I didn't get a really good shot.

But still, .... nothing can fake a good shot. if I didn't get at least 85%, I can't get to 95% with software. Its when I get 85% and can turn out an image someone likes, as opposed to having an image about which I have to say, "I just can't use this, it doesn't meet the standard," that the software is a bonus.

Trust me, I am working every bit of everything I have learned about photography, about my gear, and about the sport when I am out there. There are no easy rides to good results---at least, not for someone with as little talent as I have. But I like knowing that if I do my best, i get a few free saves from the software.

I got Sharpen AI a few weeks ago and I cannot speak highly enough about it.

I know some folks frown on post-processing and all that, but I truly do not care. I try to produce the best images I can For the Viewer--not to prove how good a photographer I am. The final image is all that matters to me, however I get there.

I spent a weekend shooting mountain bike racing, in low-light situations where racers would burst into sight and be gone almost before the camera could lock focus---and I couldn't pre-focus because every rider takes a slightly different line, is a slightly different size, rides in a slightly different posture, and at a slightly different speed. Most were head-on shots with riders approaching, which adds a layer of difficulty.

I got three times as many keepers with AI. About half were decent shots made much better, the other half were marginal shots which I could have salvaged with Photoshop, which AI made as good as my good shots. I was shocked at the improvement from the first couple batches (then I came to accept how good it was.)

Not sure if it is still available, but I got a 30-day free trial. People who never miss a shot obviously won't be interested, but anyone who sometimes wishes they could have caught a few more will probably be able to. It is worth checking out at least.

I hate to seem like an advertisement (I am in no way associated with or compensated by Any company right now (danged CCP virus)) but I also believe in offering earned praise. Check it out and make your own call.

I also suggest looking at used and refurb (especially, when you can find it) at B&H Photo and Video, and Adorama. Most of my gear is refurb, some used--I only buy the very best condition used gear, and generally it really is "as new" or with maybe a few tiny rub marks on a button or something. The refurb stuff from B&H comes with a long warranty, and I just send it back to be re-refurbed every year or two.

CHG_CANON is spot on with the Xti---it is where I started, and for anything in the daytime when the subject is not running a round, it is a fine camera---compare its features to one of Canon's pro models from a few years earlier, they are about the same. Only (I think) 3 fps and ISO only to 1600 (and usable, much less) and only 10 mpixels means you had better shoot in good light and fill the frame .... but pros used to make their livings with cameras with those same specs not all that long ago.

The best lens for you is decided by the intersection of budget and subject ... what do you mostly shoot? Can you shoot close enough with the 28-80? Would you like more reach? The EF F-4 24-105 is pricey but will do everything your current lens does, and more, and Much better.

Please keep in mind, though---all the lens can really do is make you pictures a little sharper and more colorful, and not a whole lot. I had been using Canon's (somewhat maligned) 28-135 and USM 70-300 to good effect for years before I finally broke down and got a 2.8 70-200----and that lens is Amazing. It makes good pictures into Good Pictures. It makes bad pictures into Expensive bad pictures.

Any of Canon's EF lenses are of amazing quality, in build and optics. They can deliver sharper pictures---even if, like me, you have shaky hands and bad eyes. They can also create crappy pictures, if that is what you order them to do, by using bad technique, or just being extra-shaky at that moment.

I would recommend the Canon 24-105 ... and since i respect CHG-CANON a lot , I would follow his suggestion about getting the similar Sigma model, used or refurbished.

Please ignore the people telling you not to rent equipment. There are always some folks here who say “Read the manual” and nothing else ... and you can imagine how helpful their advice usually is.

I do not see where you say whether you actually own the 18-55—maybe a lot of people are assuming you do, maybe I missed it. Either way ...

I started with a Rebel EOS Xti. Nothing at all wrong with that camera, particularly for what you would be shooting.

As do most others, particularly those who have traveled the area, I recommend wider, not longer. From my time there, I often wanted to capture a feature in its setting, or a whole vista. I rarely wanted to shoot a closeup of a single rock 100 yards way.

CHG_CANON seems to know his stuff, and I would also second the suggestion by Elliern to get (or rent) a circular polarizing filter. A lot of time (almost all day) there is harsh light which washes out all the beautiful colors and details. Unless you are willing to shoot for 45 minutes each morning and 45 minutes each night, a CP (circular polarizer) will really help. Be aware that each lens might be a different diameter, and you will need either step-up adapters or a filter for each size of lens.

I have used LensRentals, but others have had equal success with other companies. Whichever you choose—If I were you I would rent the best lenses you can afford—good glass does more for a body than a good body can do for mediocre glass.

CHG_CANON recommends the 10-18. I hear the EF 24-70 is excellent—the EF 24-105 might be better, because you won’t need a fast (big aperture) lens out there, and with the added range of the 24-105 on top of the 10-18 and the 55-250 you already have would a wide range well covered.

if you are planning to shoot wildlife ... well, your Rebel might be weak in this one area because of frame rate (how many shots per second it can take) and because of the smaller sensor—you can only crop so much.

If you really plan to shoot a lot of wildlife I would opt for the new Tamron 150-600 or the Sigma 150-600. Both are a bit weighty, so you will probably want a monopod as well—and now you will need a sturdy gear bag to haul it all .....

I wouldn’t buy anything unless you plan to shoot a lot of wildlife all the time, and a lot of glorious landscape photos all the time. Once you have gone and come back and gone through your photos and seen what the different lenses offer, you can start matching budget to wish list.

Right reply, wrong thread. Yes, as it happens, I Am a genius, but this is my weekend off.

I'd say for most would-be photographers something like his camera (more megapixels than my Canon 7D, btw) would meet all their needs fully and wonderfully.

it's like buying a car ... you might want a Honda Civic, or a Chevy Camaro ... but you wouldn't try to buy a full-on race car unless you planned to race.

Buying a DSLR, particularly the above-entry-level iterations, is like buying a race car. It will be awkward and unwieldly to handle on the street and ninety percent of what it offers will never get used---and the ten percent of its performance potential which Does get used, could be provided better by the Civic or the Camaro.

I cannot tell you how many times I have been on a bike ride and wished I had a camera ... but packing up a DSLR and a lens or two for a bike ride, and running the risk of ruining a camera and lens worth as much or more than the bike if I crash or fall .... Plus having to stop, park the bike, unpack the camera, unpack the lens, assemble everything, then try to get the shot ... then pack it all back up ....

I look back to when I was happy with a small point-and-shoot which i could literally carry with me anywhere except into the shower---Plus, I could actually take candid shots. By the time I get my DSLR out and adjusted, everyone is either leaving or posing.

I would buy a $100 point-and-shoot and see how you really like photography and what you really like to photograph. Every tool is best for certain jobs and until you know the jobs you want to do we cannot advise you on the best tool.

I would Strongly suggest Not buying a $500 "test" camera. get the cheapest point-and-shoot you can find---the photo quality will be sufficient for you to see what you wanted to do and what you actually did, and you will see what you like to do most. No need to spend $500 to learn that---you can buy some decent bodies for $500, why waste it on a camera you only intend to use for a short while until you pick the one you really want?

Get the cheapest P-n-S you can find and shoot whatever you like. With digital, the cost per picture is basically nonexistent, so have a ball.

EDIT: Sorry, I grew up in the Age of Dinosaurs--here is a much better idea.

Take your phone and start shooting everything you want to shoot. No expenditure necessary. This way you can not only learn what you like best to shoot, you can learn about composition and learn to "see" photos around you--without spending a penny.

Owning a "pro-quality" camera doesn't guarantee good pictures--I can guarantee that from experience. Take thousands of shots with your phone, and learn not only What you like to shoot, but how to shoot it---considering your phone is always in your pocket, a month of activity ought to get you plenty of information. And phones actually take really good snapshots nowadays, so you will probably like what you shoot.

Once you have some idea of what you like, I would Not look at the starter cameras form any manufacturer. It seems a lot of people spend $500-$900 on a package (body, a couple of "kit" lenses") only to spend another $900 on the camera (and $1800 on lenses) they really wanted, a year later.

If you are not going to actually shoot, you will learn that with the POS P-n-S. Once you are sure whether or not you really want to invest in this very expensive hobby, you will know what you need---higher frames per second to shoot sports? Good video? Do you like to shoot portraits or landscapes? Do you like to shoot the kids or grandkids or pets posed, or running around the yard like crazy?

Once you know what you plan to do with a camera, you can look for a camera which does those things---and the lenses and lighting which allow you to do them, also.

Another consideration is what you plan to do with your photos. if you plan to post them online for your friends to see, you don't really need a DSLR. Most P-n-S cameras should have plenty of quality for that---and some mirrorless let you upload right from the camera, so you can share your photos on Facebook as you take them or whatever.

If you plan to print 5x7s, you might not need a DSLR. If you want to print 11x17 framed wall prints, or 4x6-foot posters ... then a DSLR's bigger file size might be your only option.

You might or might not need interchangeable lenses. If you find that an electronic zoom and a small optical zoom give you all the reach you need, you will find yourself saving a Lot of money and a lot of hassle and still getting the shots you want (instead of missing them while fumbling to change lenses--been there.)

If you want to hike into the mountains of Colorado and shoot bighorn sheep in their natural habitat, you will probably need a crop-frame DSLR and a super-telephoto---and the strength of Hercules to haul all your gear up into the mountains.

You might need to buy a high-speed flash, too, depending on what you want to shoot. If you shoot a lot of low-light stuff you might need to buy a full-frame. (If you don't know what a crop- and a full-frame camera are ... then you definitely need to do a Ton of research before you spend money.)

Best bet is to shoot everything that moves and everything that doesn't for a month, while reading online (or watching videos--sorry, the dinosaur speaks, you know) about the basics of photography---the exposure triangle, the Rule of Thirds, whatever ....

Then come here with a more specific set of requirements, and the very many non-dinosaur UHH members will give you great advice on what to buy to meet your needs.

I have shot high school sports and local cycling and stuff, so I know where he is coming from. For that sort of work, quick turnaround and thus simplified tough-up is essential. it is a lot easier to take a decent jpeg, tweak it fast with a couple sliders, and print it to sell it to the proud family before they move on to other things. You can shoot in RAW and produce amazing works of art, and the family will be just as happy with a 5x7 jpeg print so long as it shows their child succeeding or at least performing.

Sometimes you need to be Michelangelo, sometimes you need to admit you are essentially working for Hallmark.

I would really like to see those results. The problem with cropping too far is resolution, not sharpness specifically.

I have the first-gen Tamron ... replacing it with a 100-400 and a 1.4 would be doubling my investment. I also have the 70-200 ... and there are shots I take with the Tamron that i simply could never get with the 70-200 ... cropping that much would mean crazy pixelation.

As to whether the 1.4 crop or 2X crop would work ... I am not sure. I crop some of my 70-200 shots quite a bit because the lens is so sharp, and I feel I get better IQ with a small piece of the 70-200 file than I would with the uncropped 150-600 ... but no matter how sharp, pixels per inch cannot be faked.

One pro I have spoken with says there is a little too much IQ loss with the 2x, but he is pretty hard-core ... most people might find the 2X images okay. If you don't need the reach, I'd strongly suggest the 70-200 2.8 and the 1.4.

The extra reach gives you a few extra options in some situations, but does nothing in some others. Depends on what you shoot and what you want.

I'd bet Mr. Todd Ferguson's suggestion would work excellently for almost everyone.

For a Canon user, the best setup for the least investment is the 7DII, the 70-200 2.8, the 100-400 Mk II, and the 1.4 extender. Get a couple circular polarizing filters and for action sports, you will have all the gear you ever need.

(Actually, for some sports and some situations you would want a close-up lens like the EF 24-70, too.)

If cost is no object, buy the absolute top of the line of whatever manufacturer you choose.

Mirrorless might meet the performance of DSLRs eventually, but so far, it seems they have not quite. In some situations they might be as good, but a sports photographer cannot only choose to shoot in those situations. Otherwise, none of the pros would be using the 7DII, 1DX, or the Nikon equivalents---and pretty much, all of them are.

I’d tend to assume that Canon is not interested in our opinions because we mostly either own as Canon or a Nikon DSLR and if we upgrade it will be to a much more capable, much more expensive camera. We probably buy more lenses.

Canon isn’t interested in us—Canon wants more models at more price points to sell to more customers who Don’t have a DSLR, or who have a really crappy point-and-shoot, or a cell phone.

Trust me, those people are not going to look at any of what we like or are used to. We are not talking about people planning what gear to take on safari or on a trip of mountain ranges in the Pacific Northwest ... these are folks who take lots of snapshots who want to take better snapshots.

(Aside—I was talking to an older pro shooter who was using a mirrorless at a racetrack. He worked for a magazine, he had a budget, he had all the gear he could ever want, but for him, at that specific moment, the ability to take a picture and send it from the camera to the magazine’s website was what sold him on the mirrorless. Since he was not shooting for the print spread at that moment (or at least, not for a cover or a full-page shot) he had all the resolution he needed, all the IQ ... and he got instant online posting, which is actually really important for reporter today (getting the photo up first get hits and Google listings, so beating the competitors by five minutes is Huge.)

Tool for the Job.)

As for a viewfinder ... people who grew up without one will not miss it. Also, the alternative is not as terrible as some folks say. And no matter how it compares ... it only Compares for people who have ever used one. For a new customer stepping up from a cell phone, the electronic viewfinder on the new Canon will be a huge improvement.

And That is the customer Canon is trying to serve—Not us.

Anyway ... I know all the nay-sayers here have done extensive market research, have analyzed the other offerings from the other manufacturers, and have compared sales rates and profit margins, and have done similar analyses of canon’s sales figures .... Right?

Or maybe ... Canon is and remains the industry leader because it actually looks at who is going to buy cameras,. not who has pretty much done buying cameras. The 77D doesn’t fit neatly between the 70D and 80D? Do you really think someone who has never bought a DSLR cars about the freaking numbering system?

Sales people use “feature/benefit.” They say, “This camera has a XXXX, which lets you do XXX with it. It’s great!” If the customer is not impressed, the sales person can then say,. “Bit This camera has XXX-1, which means you can do XXXX=1!!!)

There is a cut-off, but up to that limit, having more different packages of features at slightly different price points gives the salespeople more chances to extract maximum money. having the A, the B, the C, and the D, all at discreet price points and with different capacity levels,. is limiting for the salesperson and the customer.

Think of it this way. You can buy a pretty nice Toyota optioned to the max, or like a Toyota Avalon with a ton of options, or an entry-level Lexus with decent options, or an upscale Lexus with not a lot of options ... all for about the same price and they are actually all about the same car.

Different customers will see different aspects of each appealing.

Is Toyota stupid not to have four set models, each with set options packages, each at a determined price point? No, Toyota would lose a ton of sales that way. As it stands Toyota and GM fight it out to be the world’s biggest car company every year ... methinks Toyota has a clue.

Now Canon is using a similar strategy ... but Oh, No! people at UHH don’t approve.

I’d bet a lot of people aren’t worried.

Any sling-user who does not rig a secondary safety strap deserves the ensuing damage.

Any strap can break---any mounting system can fail. With cameras and lenses costing what they do ....

I got lucky one day ... i was carrying two cameras on slings and switching a lot, and I reached for one just as it dropped off the screw ... the screw into the mounting lug had spun out from rotating the camera into firing position every time I lifted it.

I had seen a lot of suggestions to use a safety strap when I did my sling research ... but I didn't act until I nearly lost big. A simple strap from the sling clip to any other point on the camera (I run it to the original strap mount) guarantees that my gear won't drop more than a few inches---and I use a sling for all my gear, with any lens I happen to be using, including my 150-600 Tamron. Never a problem since (though I do mount to Tamron off the monopod mount, not the body, but I attach to the body when using the 70-200 which is almost as heavy.).

I wonder how many people simply didn't tighten the screw into the lug tight enough and didn't check to see if it unscrewed? I can attest there is nothing inherently wrong with the product .... sad to think a 30-cent keeper clip and strap might have kept them out of trouble.

What I find, is that some folks seem to care more about their egos than their results.

I have had people brag that they only use SOOC, and seemed to really believe that that made them “better” or “more honest.”

I do understand the idea that using exposure, aperture, ISO, and setting up a good shot is important. I also understand that for some applications (crime scenes, newswire services) absolutely unedited images are important.

A lot depends on what is happening, and how fast. A reporter who is covering breaking news might not have time to completely readjust his/her camera if something happens with the light at his back,. and then something else happens 180 degrees away—the photographer would be forced to shoot right into the light or miss the action. If s/he stopped to adjust his/her camera, the moment would be gone, the action over, and the reason for a photograph nonexistent.

In that case, I would expect the photographer to use auto ISO and fixed speed/auto aperture—or maybe even full auto—to always be ready to capture the action.

For everyone else, it is a valid choice ... but to me it says that person (except in those cases) is more interested in showing off his/her skill than in producing excellent images.

I shoot to provide the best possible finished image for whoever might look at it. The person looking at the picture could not care less if I or how much I processed to photo—just as in back in the day, when developers did post-processing, no one cared if the tech adjusted the timing to correct over- or under-exposure.

Really, the only “SOOC” photos are Polaroids. Everything else, decisions have been made on how to convert the captured image into a viewable format.

I sometimes capture an image so well (even a blind pig, etc.) that I really don’t need to do anything to it. Part of that is luck, part is learning, and part is just happening to have the perfect external conditions. The rest of the time, I can make the final, finished product look better in post-processing. No one else cares about anything but the finished image, and that is also what I care about, so I make adjustments.

Not saying Everyone, but pretty much every single person I have heard claim that s/he “only uses SOOC images” said it with a sense of superiority.

In a field where Everything is subjective ... there really is not “right image” anyway. People like what they like, so an SOOC picture cannot be “better” or “worse” than a more processed picture. Therefore, I have to think the emphasis on “SOOC” (except where required, as mentioned above, for legal or historical reasons) is entirely a person’s opinion of him or herself, having nothing to do with the actual pictures produced.

It’s kind of funny. I don’t know much history, but as I recall, when photography was introduced it was denied status as an “Art” because it could only record, not express. Now we have people who feel superior because they only record.

Each to his own taste, is what it comes down to, in my opinion.

Can we establish a standard of econobox hatchback., minivan, dual-wheel crew-cab pick-up hauling a trailer, please, and then ... get back to cameras? :D