Lightroom is a high volume, batch RAW conversion processor, with light image editing capabilities. It can make a number of global image adjustments rapidly and easily, but is not all that great at selective and fine detail work on images. Lightroom also serves for cataloging, keywording, sorting, rating, EXIF editing (copyright info, for example), website photogallery maintenance, slide shows and more. It's designed for pro shooters who do a really large volume of work. Especially RAW shooters. It is not really designed or intended for "finished" images.

I use Lightroom edit and rate 1200 images in a day, then to generate proofs of the "keepers". But I very rarely consider an image from it completely "ready for printing", so I also use it to prepare images to hand off to Photoshop for final finishing.

Photoshop is the "Mac Daddy" of image editing programs. It has so many features that I doubt anyone ever uses them all. It doesn't do high volume, batch conversions and processing particularly well. But in skilled hands it can do wonders finishing an image. Photoshop also has a massive learning curve and is quite expensive.

Elements combines "light" versions of main features from both Lightroom and Photoshop. If you don't need the high volume, batch processing of Lightroom, I'd strongly suggest start with Elements. It's also a good way to begin learning Adobe products, in case you later want to "step up" to Photoshop or Lightroom, or to Lightroom + Photoshop.

AFAIK, Adobe hasn't tried to force Elements onto "the Cloud" yet. You can still buy an actual copy of it and will be licensed to use it indefinitely. They are really pushing the Cloud based versions of Lightroom and Photoshop now. But I'm not a fan of "renting" my software, so I had to do some searching to find hard copy updates (or even downloads) of LR and PS the last time I upgraded.

BTW, I don't think "the Cloud" is working out too well for Adobe. I notice the price of it has been coming down and down... Started out as an intro offer of $20 per month for PS for a few months, to increase to $30 a month "regular pricing" at the end of the intro period. Then the intro offer was extended to a year. Next, for the same amount they also offered to include LR too. Just today I got their latest offer of $10 a month for both LR and PS, I assume the same one year after which the price will increase, but I didn't even open the email. So I guess some other folks aren't wild about renting their software, either. I've also heard some who have gone over to "the Cloud" complaining about the very frequent automatic updates (I get enough of that with my anti-virus software) bogging down their workflow.

I have a Sidekick I use on one tripod and a full size gimbal on another 'pod.

If you have a heavy duty ballhead with an Arca Swiss compatible QR platform, I recommend the Wimberley Sidekick. It simply slips into the ballhead that's been tilted fully off to one side. I've used one for over ten years and it works well. It would be plenty strong enough for that Tamron lens (I've used it with up to Canon 300/2.8 IS and 500/4 IS lenses).

The beauty of the Sidekick is that the ballhead remains on your tripod and you can quickly and easily convert it back for normal usage. It just takes a few seconds to remove the Sidekick and reposition the ballhead. This is an advantage over a full size gimbal that completely replaces the ballhead, sort of making a tripod "dedicated to big lens use only" (unless you take tools into the field to swap out the tripod heads).

Another, unadvertised benefit of the Sidekick is that it mounts to the lens from the side... i.e. you rotate the lens' tripod ring foot off to the LH side to use the Sidekick. I discovered this also makes the Sidekick neatly usable to set up any camera fitted with a shorter lens and an Arca Swiss release plate in vertical/portrait orientation, so it isn't necessary to fit a bulky, expensive L-bracket on the camera for this purpose.

Full size gimbal mounts designed for use with the heaviest lenses position the mounting platform below the lens, sort of cradling it. This is good with the biggest and heaviest lenses, but it doesn't allow you to mount the camera in portrait orientation, as described above.

However, some full size gimbal mounts, including the one I use, can be pretty easily modified to mount to one side or the other and might serve in the same way. The platform that sits under the lens is vertically adjustable. It also can be completely removed, and the lens can be mounted from the side instead, same as with the Sidekick. I just wouldn't do this with the biggest and heaviest lenses.

Whatever you do, some other things you might consider...

Hopefully you already have a pretty sturdy tripod (and, if you choose the Sidekick, a sturdy ballhead).

You'll need a somewhat longer than usual Arca Swiss plate on the foot of the lens. This is so that you can slide the lens & camera forward and backward a bit to set up a good balance on the gimbal. Some gimbal mounts come with a lens mounting place, but most don't.

Be sure whatever plate you get has anti-rotation features. This can simply be a couple nubs on the plate that prevent it from twisting, or it might be double mounting screws, or a pin that fits into a socket on the lens foot (which you might have to drill), or similar. There's a lot of torque on a heavy lens and camera rig, so be sure there's something preventing that lens plate from twisting.

You also might want to consider a leveling platform on your tripod, under the head. When using a gimbal it's often important to have the head near perfectly level, for the panning motion. Without a leveling platform, this involves a lot of fiddling around with the length of the legs to get it leveled. Then, if you move the tripod at all, that setup is lost and needs to be redone. More fiddling! Depending upon what tripod you have, there are various types of leveling platforms. Some replace any center column on the tripod completely (Gitzo). Others can be used in conjunction with a center column (Manfrotto). The leveling platform will add more than a pound of weight to the tripod, but I feel it's well worth it for the time saved setting up quickly and easily.

That NEST NT-530H looked interesting! I have three carbon fiber tripods and several carbon fiber bicycles, so I really appreciate the benefits CF offers: lighter weight, strength, fine vibration dampening. However, I just looked up the NEST gimbal head online and see that it weighs 1336 grams. My $100 Chinese-made gimbal mount (that looks exactly the same, except it's metal... it's identical to the Opteka and Beike, too, for that matter), weighs 1180 grams with a camo cover added to it!

So, as is all too common with some unusually low priced "carbon fiber" parts for bicycles, I'm suspecting "fake".... I'd be surprised if NEST weren't simply a standard metal head clad with a layer or two of carbon fiber to give it the high tech "look", while keeping costs low. I can't confirm this one way or the other online... but if it were truly mostly made of carbon fiber, it should weigh considerably less, not more than a comparable all-metal head. Tech info on the NEST from their Chinese wholesale distributor: http://nest.en.alibaba.com/product/544140170-213784987/NEST_NT_530H_gimbal_head_tilt_head_bird_watching_head_with_Quick_Release_Plate_and_Carry_Bag.html

No, you don't need anything heavier duty than the Opteka... it's rated to 30+ lbs! The Tamron 150-600mm weighs about 4 lbs and most cameras, even with a battery grip, are less than 3 lbs. That's a 4X to 5X safety ratio! (My 500/4L IS and one of my cameras weigh nearly twice as much, and I trust them to either the Sidekick or the Chinese-made full size gimbal).

The Sidekick doesn't have a listed weight rating... But any ballhead used with it needs to be pretty heavy duty. Both the ballheads I use my Sidekick with are rated to 50 lbs (Kirk BH-1 and a Smith-Victor B8). The tripod you use also needs to be fairly sturdy, mine are rated to 25+ lbs (two Gitzo 1325 and one 1348).

It would be a very nice upgrade. I went from 50D to 7D (primarily for AF system and higher ISO usability).

The 19-point AF system is very nice and has an additional Zone Focus pattern that your 50D doesn't have. (Note: 70D's AF system is very similar to 7D's... a slight downgrade in that 7D has two more focus patterns: Spot and Expansion Points).

If you shoot any video, 70D is the best APS-C Canon has offered to date for that purpose. The Live View/Video Dual Pixel focus is a real game changer for Canon. The articulated LCD screen is very nice for video, too... might come in handy for high or low angle shooting, too.

If you use it, your 50D has same Micro Focus Adjustment system as 7D (Canon, for some unknown reason, omitted MFA entirely from 60D)... 20 lens, one adjustment per lens, not lens specific (an adjusment for an EF 50/1.4 will be the same for all EF 50/1.4 used on the camera).

70D has Version 2.0 MFA.... up to 40 lenses, with two adjustments possible on zooms, and lens-serial-number specific (an adjustment for an EF 50/1.4 is for that particular lens only, other EF 50/1.4 can be set up with different adjustments, for example). It's the same as on 1DX, 5DIII and 6D.

We all have our own opinions on what ISO is usable on any particular camera and depending upon our workflow and post-processing. Basically I found a stop higher usable ISO going from 50D to 7D. I think you'd find about the same, maybe a little more, going from 50D to 70D.

You would need to swap out from CF memory cards to SD. Fortunately, memory is pretty affordable these days.

70D uses LP-E6 batteries, same as my 7D. I found I got about 30 to 40% more shots per charge, compared to the BP511/511A I used before. That's good, because the newer batteries are more expensive (roughly $60 each for OEM LP-E6, compared to about $50 each for BP511A... cheaper third party versions of both are available).

You would need to get accustomed to using the multi-controller button pad, instead of a "joystick". Go handle a 70D in a store, to be sure you are okay with the ergonomics. Some poeple with large hands find it less comfortable.

The Active Matrix/Transmissive LCD focus screen takes a little getting used to, as well. But it's neat and works well, once you are accustomed to it.

70D, like 60D before it, is slightly more plasticky... Still feels quite solid and well made though.

What, exactly, are you hoping to achieve by getting a "full sensor camera"? Just wondering, because there's more cost to it, than just buying the camera.

Your Sigma 18-250 is a "DC" lens, which means it's crop sensor only, too. So three of your lenses will be unusable on a full frame camera.

Also note that "1D" cameras are not full frame... they are APS-H, which is a larger sensor than in your XSI, but still not 24x36, which is what is considered "full frame".

1Ds cameras are full frame, but may or may not be a sensible "upgrade".

Depending upon what you are expecting or trying to do, you might be better served upgrading to a newer crop camera and putting money into lenses, instead. But without any idea what you are trying to do, it's hard to advise.

Yes, the camera's buffer and speed of the memory card have an effect...

But some cameras... including my Canon 7Ds that are rated to 8 FPS... often have to slow down to meter and focus. Try using manual exposure. And you'll likely need a minimum shutter speed of 1/250.

If your AF system allows, make settings that give shutter release/frame rate priority over focus accuracy. Also turn off things like auto lighting optimizer.

The Canon 1DX can shoot at 14 FPS, but only with the mirror locked up. With normally mirror function, it maxes out at 12 FPS.

Other responses are correct... Unless you are working for someone when taking the photos under a "work for hire" agreement or have some other document in place surrending your copyright to your images... You own the copyright the moment you make an image. It is intellectual property you created and own.

The reason for registering your copyright via the US Copyright Office's procedure and paying the fee is to further protect your copyright.

If not registered, you have limited legal recourse if anyone ever infringes your copyright. Basically, all you can do is ask them to pay "going rate" usage fees and/or ask them to cease and desist. In the case of online infringement, you might get a web host to shut down their website. But you have limited recourse beyond that. If it comes to it, you will be suing them in local small claims court without representation (unless you are willing to pay for the cost of representation out of your own pocket). You might get a judgment against the infringer, but have a hard time enforcing it or collecting any small award in your favor.

On the other hand....

If registered, your images are added to a searchable database and you have substantial additional legal recourse. In addition to usage fees, you can potentially sue in federal court for punitive damages that can greatly increase the amount of any awards in your favor. And, because once copyright is registered you can recover legal fees too, you will be in better position to have legal representation assisting you in your efforts. In a nutshell, attorneys are more likely to take your case on a contingency basis, since the awards for registered copyright infringement are so much higher.

The date the image was taken/made isn't very important. But images must be registered "within 90 days of first publication", to qualify for all the enhancements of registration. So if you are going to register them, do so before or very soon after submitting to any stock agency (or posting them anywhere online for any reason, for that matter). You can submit images for registration in large batches for a single fee.

You no longer need to put any sort of visible mark on your images to "protect" them or indicate your ownership of the copyright. However with digital files I still would recommend editing the embedded EXIF to indicate that the images are copyrighted (and don't "save for the web", which often removes EXIF data).

One of the enhancements of registration, for example, is that anyone other than the owner found guilty of deliberately removing copyright protections (deleting EXIF data, signatures, watermarks, etc.) can be found liable for up to $35,000 per instance. This is just one enhancement of registration.

But, hey! I ain't no attorney and don't even play one on TV.... So consult an Intellectual Property legal eagle for the latest and greatest info.

Can't say anything about other manufacturers, but all Canon cameras with the self-cleaning sensor system have an adhesive strip alongside the sensor, that traps loose specks of dust when they are shaken off the sensor. Of course, at some point that adhesive strip itself will be saturated with dust or lose it's tackiness and need replacement.

My pair of 7Ds have this cleaning system, are about 4.5 years old and have taken about 100,000 images each, often under extremely dusty conditions...

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3816/8981749757_62b13d9a13_b.jpg

I've found the automatic sensor cleaning system on these cameras to be very effective. One of my 7Ds has never been cleaned. The other one has been "wet cleaned" once. My 5DII also has the sensor cleaning system and has never been cleaned, but it sees less use and isn't often used under such dusty conditions.

Hi Mark,

Not long after I switched from film (i.e. full frame) to crop sensor digital ten years ago I started searching for an ultrawide to replace the Canon 17-35/2.8L I'd been using, but was no longer wide enough. I took four different ultrawides for fairly thorough test drives: Canon 10-22mm, Tamron 11-18mm, Sigma 10-20mm and Tokina 12-24mm. Following are my conclusions then and some observations since...

IMO the Tamron 11-18mm, now discontinued for some years, was the weakest of the bunch. It was rather bulky for such a narrow range of focal lengths and variable aperture lens. It's main saving grace was that it was the cheapest of the bunch. But it had more optical issues than I could live with.

The Sigma 10-20mm that I compared has been revised a couple times since, so might be a very different lens now... but back then I rated it the second worst of the bunch, mostly for flare issues and some image softness. It was also the second cheapest.

Today there are two versions of the Sigma 10-20mm: One with variable aperture that's cheaper, updated optically and with HSM (like USM focus drive). The other is considerably more expensive and quite large (82mm filters), with a non-variable f3.5 max aperture.

Sigma also now offers an 8-16mm, which is the widest of the ultrawide (there's a big difference with just one or two mm, at the wide end), has some inevitable, inherent wide angle distortion effects and is one of the more expensive. I haven't used any of these last three, so if interested you'll have to search around for info about them.

Tamron replaced the 11-18mm with a 10-24mm some years ago. I also haven't used this lens much, have heard it's generally an improvement over the 11-18. Most think it's a wee bit soft between 20-24mm in the zoom range, but fine at other focal lengths. It's the widest ranging zoom of the bunch and one of the more affordable models.

I ended up buying the first version of the Tokina 12-24/4. The image quality was quite good and it feels like one of the best built. In fact, it reminded me a lot of the L-series lens it was replacing... very similar in size, shape and construction. At the time, it also was a couple hundred $ less than the Canon 10-22mm, but very close to it in image quality, and felt even better built. I also liked that it was a non-variable f4 aperture... the only ultrawide with that feature at the time.

Today there is a second version of the Tokina 12-24mm offered. There really isn't much difference in the Canon mount version I and II. The Nikon mount version got a built-in AF motor (similar to AF-S Nikkors), so was a much bigger deal. Tokina fiddled with them all a little (supposedly "improved coatings" on the Canon version) and re-issued all mount versions as "Mark IIs" at the same time anyway.

There is also the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 (also now in a Mark II version). It's the only f2.8 ultrawide. If anything, it's a wee bit sharper than the Toki 12-24mm, right up there with the Canon 10-22. However, it's highly prone to flare issues (which can be a common problem with ultrawides, simply due to their extra wide angle of view). It feels to be built about the same as the 12-24... in other words, excellent. Tends to sell for about $100 US more than the 12-24, though. And that's for a very narrow range of focal lengths, just to get f2.8 (which, to be honest, isn't really all that necessary for many, heck, maybe even most ultrawide users).

The Canon 10-22mm has come down in price in recent years and has the best image quality of them all. It's sharp edge to edge, well corrected for an ultrawide zoom (tho there are still inherent wide angle effects) and it is the most flare resistant of all... exceptionally so, in fact. It's a bit more plasticky than the Tokina and Sigma lenses, but that doesn't seem to effect durability and it does have USM. I now use one of these too. Got it used for a good price a couple years ago (you now can buy new for about what I paid, the price has come down). Another minor negative, the 10-22mm's matching lens hood is huge.... as in a small Frisbee size! I tried to get by without it, but tests showed it's effective so I now carry the hood with me too, even tho it's a bit of a pain. I rank the 10-22mm as the best of the ultrawides avail. for Canon crop cameras, against which all the others are measured (and to be fair, I haven't tried them all).

I haven't noticed any CA on my Canon 10-22mm. While it's possible there's a problem lens or two out there, I'd venture to guess that anyone who does see a lot of CA has a cheap "protection" filter on their lens (I only use protection filters in extreme shooting conditions... My lenses all go filterless until a filter is actually needed, and then I try to only use very good quality, multi-coated).

A couple things about the Tokina zooms... First, they rotate the focus and zoom rings the opposite direction from Canon... they rotate Nikon (and others) style. Also, Tokina uses an interesting "focus clutch" mechanism to switch back and forth from AF to manual focus... you slide the focus ring forward or backward. I worried a bit that these differences might bother me when shooting, but after using the 12-24mm in the field I quickly found it was a non-issue. I think some Tamron lenses might use similar arrangements of ring rotation and/or to turn AF on and off on (tho I can't recall if the 11-18 did or not).

The Tokina also doesn't have USM-style focus drive. Before using it, I worried it might be slow to focus. That also turned out to be a non-issue. It's quite fast focusing simply because an ultrawide only has to move it's focus elements a tiny bit to achieve focus. Plus a very wide lens naturally has so much depth of field, any minor focus error is completely covered.

So, in a nutshell, I'd rank the lenses as follows, from best to worst...

1. Canon 10-22mm
2. Tokina 12-24mm
3. Tokina 11-16/2.8
4. Sigma 10-20 (early, non-HSM version)
5. Tamron 11-18mm

I haven't used, so can't rank: Tamron 10-24mm, Sigma 10-20mm (more recent HSM version), Sigma 10-20/3.5 HSM, Sigma 8-16mm HSM.

FYI, there is also a Sigma 12-24mm.... That's actually a full frame capable lens - the widest of the wide for FF, in fact - costs considerably than any of the above (but nowhere near what an EF 14/2.8L costs). It has it's share of optical issues, as one might expect with such an extreme zoom. It would be sort of wasteful to spend so much for a FF lens only to use it on a crop camera when there are more capable crop-only lenses for less money. I only include it here because you might see it while shopping.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Have fun shopping!

I'm new here, but my 2 cents worth.

If you shoot sports or any other type of action and do a high volume of work, mostly stills and not a lot of video, choose the 7D. It is a more robust camera. It has a 150K rated shutter (vs 100K in 70D), more magnesium body panels (vs plastic in 70D), has a slightly higher frame rate of 8fps (vs 7fps in 70D) and has a slightly superior AF system for sports/action (five AF patterns vs three). plus a slighlty nicer 100% viewfinder (70D's is 98% I believe).

7D is arguably a more "pro oriented" camera, 70D is more "consumer oriented". 7D has slightly less "automation" and slightly more user customizability. 7D is a bit more demanding to work with because it's designed with more experienced users in mind, from initial camera setup and right on through post-processing. 7D RAW files tend to need more post-processing work, appear a bit soft straight from the camera but sharpen up quite nicely with plenty of detail (soft appearing images are due to a fairly strong anti-alias filter... it was the first 18MP Canon model and they got a bit carried away with the AA filter!)

7D uses a discrete chip to drive the AF system, same as the 1D series cameras. This is a big part of what makes it such an excellent sports/action camera and so good at tracking moving subjects. It also has dual image processors, 1D style, to support up the camera's high frame rate.

70D has a single processor, but it's a generation or two newer (Digic 5+ vs Digic 4) and considerably more powerful, which partially offsets the difference and brings 70D AF and frame rate performance quite close to that of the 7D.

If you shoot a lot of video, or possibly a lot of macro (i.e. low angle shooting), choose the 70D. The articulated LCD screen will be useful for those purposes. 70D has the new Dual Pixel focus in Live View/video mode, which is a real game changer for Canon. Some other manufacturers use similar dual pixel focus, but Canon's is unusual in that it's usable almost anywhere on the image area. Most others are limited to one or a few specific points within the image area. (Note: Canon has just announced retro-active implementation of Dual Pixel focus in the 500C cinema camera via firmware upgrade. There are rumors that it will be implemented similarly on 5D Mark III, too... that the 5DIII's sensor is "dual pixel" ready.)

Most users feel 70D offers slightly better high ISO/low light image quality, too (tho it's not a lot and still not up to the level of FF cameras).

Full frame is another thing entirely. First of all, there are still some advantages to sticking with a crop sensor camera such as 7D or 70D, such as smaller, lighter, less expensive lenses, generally speaking, plus useful "extra reach" with telephotos. And unless you make really big prints or have other large use planned for images, there's relatively little advantage to FF other than low light shooting, where the FF can typically beat the cropper by one or two stops.

People note how "superior" FF images appear... and, yes, they do look great when you are pixel peeping them during editing.... But by the time you have sized those same images for a print or serriousl downsized them for online display, there's a lot less difference to be seen, if any.

The most recent Canon FF cameras (5DIII and 6D) also are able to auto focus in lower light than the croppers or earlier FF models. 6D's is a very simplistic AF system compared to 7D or 70D, but it's able to focus at -3EV (approx. moonlight, center AF point only), compared to -1EV with the croppers (and 5DII). The 5D Mark III's AF system is quite sophisticated, almost on par with the 1DX. It's also able to focus to -3EV (with up to 41 of the camera's 61 AF points, actual number varies depending upon lens).

Back to 7D vs 70D...

The 7D has "1st generation" Micro Focus Adjustment system (20 lenses, single adjustment per). 70D has "2nd generation" MFA (40 lenses, dual adjustment on zooms).

70D might be preferable for HDR work because it has expanded bracketing capabilities (up to 7 frames, if memory serves, vs 3 frames in 7D).

70D is slightly smaller and roughly 18% lighter. 7D is actually close to the same size & weight as a full frame 5D model (a few grams more than Mark II, a few grams less than Mark III).

7D uses a shutter release button that's same as 1D series models and makes for durability and slightly reduced shutter lag. 70D doesn't use the same type release (assume it's same as 40/50/60D).

70D's buffer is good for up to 16 RAW or 65 JPEGs. 7D's is rated for up to 25 RAW or 130 JPEGs (with 2.0.x firmware installed).

70D uses SD memory cards. 7D uses Compact Flash.

There are a lot of current rumors of a new 7D Mark II coming soon. OTOH, there have been rumors of that happening for a couple years now. It's anyone's guess, really. But the 7D is now over 4 year old model, the oldest in the Canon line-up, though they did a major firmware release last year that "refreshed" the camera to some small extent.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I mostly shoot with a pair of 7Ds myself, along with a 5D Mark II. I'll likely upgrade to 7D Mark IIs, if and when they come available (not holding my breath).

EDIT: BTW, someone mentioned the exposure mode dial lock on the 60D and 70D, but not on the 7D. Yes, that's definitely a nice feature... can't tell you how many times I've had some shots ruined by an accidentally bumped dial that I didn't notice and correct right away. You might be interested to know that you can have that locking dial feature added to the 7D (and the 5DII for that matter). Last time I looked, it cost about $100 US plus shipping and only took a day or two at Canon Service Dept. That looks much better than the piece of black gaffer tape I slap on the mode dials of my cameras to keep them secure! :roll: