Well, they do offer free delivery! They have the standard, "New: A brand-new, unused, unopened, undamaged item in its original packaging (where packaging is applicable). Packaging should be the same as what is found in a retail store, unless the item is handmade or was packaged by the manufacturer in non-retail packaging, such as an unprinted box or plastic bag." But that doesn't guarantee that it will really arrive in Canon packaging.

If money were not a concern, I'd order it just too see if it's legitimate. This sounds like another good research project for you, MT. :D

I don't like it when they don't say where they are located. Only 5,382 sales with 44 negative. Their rating is 99.2% - not too bad, but they could change names every six months after their rating drops to a certain level. Dealers often have sales over 100,000, so 5,000 is pretty low.

Better safe than sorry.

I would be interested to know how any of you with:
- multiple cameras
- multiple lenses
- multiple flashes
- multiple batteries to keep charged
- etc.
are able to keep them organized and stored when not in use. I enjoy photography as a hobby but I'm looking for a better way to keep organized than having multiple camera bags with various items stored in each one. I may need to retrieve specific lenses or adapters or other things for certain outings and it's difficult remembering where everything is located. Any ideas would be appreciated.

I have been using Canon for the past two years and I am very satisfied with my gear; however, I cannot help but notice the many flaws that Canon (as a company) has in contrast with Nikon, and it's getting me more and more frustrating as time passes because I don't feel Canon really cares about its customers, below are some of my major takes on Canon:

- Canon's policy seems to be going towards "milking the cow" when it comes to some of its high end bodies, take the 7D for example! I have been desperately waiting for a 7D MK II (or whatever might replace it in the same category) for the past couple of years in vain! I have bought one a year ago and I was not at all satisfied with my purchase although I got it for a very good and competitive price during a promotion, simply because I had tried my friend's D7000 before and immediately noticed the lower dynamic range, smaller color depth, much poorer picture quality and higher noise at lower ISO! it was a shock!!! And just to be fair, I framed the exact same shot on both cameras with the same lens equivalent and the difference was still too obvious!

- Canon is not at all transparent with its future plans and ends up confusing or (in my case) upsetting its customers! I waited so long for the long rumored 5D MKIII, but due to the secrecy and lack of transparency Canon seems to adopt when working on new bodies, I ended up buying the 5D MKII (which is by all means an excellent body) exactly 3 weeks before the official MKIII announcement by Canon!!! I was utterly mad and fuming because for a difference of around $500 at the time I would have been able to buy the much better MK III that I have been waiting for for so long (and I had the means to do so back then) and I was no longer able to sell my newly purchased 5D MKII for a reasonable price as its price drastically dropped in a few days after the MKIII announcement and no one was willing to pay me more than 43% of what I paid 3 weeks earlier for the MKII so I had to stick with it!

- I hate the fact that you cannot use EF-S lenses on EF mount bodies! It's just stupid! Especially when your direct competitor (i.e. Nikon) offers this benefit on their DX and FX lens lineup! What is Canon thinking???!!!

- Nikon offers more lenses than Canon mostly for a cheaper price and with the same optical quality (if not better in some cases). Why does Canon not have an equivalent to Nikon's FX 28-300 or DX 18-300???

- Nikon has the edge in image quality and ISO noise control, it's so obvious that it's annoying! Way too obvious! Why does Canon not care about improving the quality of their sensors? They have excellent optics but the sensor can't match them in excellence! Shame!

- Many of Canon's non "L" lenses have a very cheap feeling to them (even if they are optically good) while Nikon's non ED lenses have a much better feeling and build quality.

- And finally, Nikon seem to give you more of a perfect and well balanced bodies (in terms of specs depending on the category of the camera) in contrast with Canon who seem to give you a certain weakness (or a set of weaknesses) in each of its bodies so you can never have a perfect body!

After all the above, please tell me (aside from the ridiculous amount of money that I've invested in my Canon gear), why should I keep using their products while I have Nikon giving me everything I need? I am really desperate for an answer because every cell in my body is asking me to sell everything even with a great loss and start on a new blank page with a product that I feel is much more worth the money to me!

With all the above being said, I still think that the 5D MKII is a magnificent camera and Canon's lenses are of great optical quality but it's just the way the company conducts itself that bothers me.

Thanks,

I am seriously considering entering one of these two shots in a photo contest and I find myself vacillating as to which one to enter. Make the assumption that you are going to enter one of these two shots in a contest - which would you choose, and if you don't mind taking the time, I would like to know the rationale for your choice.

As an aside, I just had the direct eye contact shot printed by AdoramaPix in metallic form (aluminum) with a wood backing to stand it out from the wall. The results were knockout amazing. The metallic print brings it so alive it just knocked my socks off when it arrived yesterday. If you have ever considered doing a metallic wall hanger, I heartily recommend them!

The key to doing portrait photography is figuring out your style and tastes. A part of how you create your style will depend on the equipment, but the equipment should follow the style, not the other way around. Since you asked about lenses, there are two major aspects of the style which can be expressed differently by different lenses: perspective and depth of field (DoF).

When taking a full-body shot, we're making a 2-dimensional, 1 inch image of a 3 dimensional, 6 foot person. If the focal length is short, you need to be fairly close to fill the frame with the person, and angle between the head and the foot is quite apparent, giving a sense of curvature. If the focal length is long, the subject will be much further away, the angle between the head and foot is much smaller, so the image looks flatter. The same effect happens with closer portraits, though smaller, but it's more apparent because we notice this in the face more than in the whole body.

The depth of field is about what is visibly in focus and what is not in focus. Some portrait shooters like things in front of and behind the subject in focus so they can include things which help define the subject. If you're doing a portrait of an athlete, for example, shooting on their field or court could give context for what is important to the person. Having more of the area in focus is good, because it is integral to the portrait. This is a "deep" DoF. Alternatively, the portrait could be all about the person, with the setting secondary, so you want it out of focus, since the viewer's attention is drawn to things in focus. This can be done with a "shallow" DoF. One pro photographer friend described this as "incorporate vs isolate". There is no right or wrong on this, it's about your style.

To the question of which lens to use, let's say you're using the Canon 5D Mark III, and you want to take a full body standing shot of someone which fills the frame. The if we then pick a focal length for the lens, the distance to the subject is set. With these factors, perspective is simple: a shorter focal length has more sense of curvature, a longer focal length is flatter. Meanwhile, DoF depends on two more things: the focal length and the aperture, but the dependence is not simple. With a longer focal length, the DoF is also longer, and a smaller aperture (f/8 instead of f/4), the DoF is deeper.

To the question of specific lens choices, the main question is whether you want a shallow DoF? One thing associated with DoF is bokeh, the character of what is out of focus. It can be smooth and creamy or harsh and distracting. This isn't a big factor for deep DoF since everything is supposed to be in focus anyway. For shallow DoF, however, the prime lens has two advantages: for comparable level lenses, the prime will tend to have a larger maximum aperture, and their design can concentrate on good bokeh. Meanwhile, zooms offer a lot more versatility.

If you want to isolate your subjects, consider primes. If you want to include the environment in the portraits, zooms are an easy choice.

Hello. This is my first time on this sight and I want to compliment you guys and ladies. Thus far, what I am picking up on, is that you all are just ordinary, yet quite knowledgeable (and probably very talented) folks who are not full of yourselves. Do you know how refreshing that is?! There are so many forums where there are SOooo many people who are bloated individuals who just like to hear themselves talk, drop jargon, etc.

Okay...to my question. If I am going to do portrait photography, can I do it with a zoom lens such as a 24-105, or a 24-70, and simply set it at portraiture length (50-70? Or do I need a dedicated portraiture lens? In other words, by using a zoom lens which is set to the proper focal length, will my portraits suffer in quality when compared to images that I would achieve by investing in a dedicated e.g. 50 mm lens? Thank you. Terry M.

A 24-105mm would be just fine because you're not at the fully extended zoom length to achieve the 70-85mm focal length you desire. A dedicated lens may be a slight bit crisper but unless you have a real reason for it, such as doing a lot of portraits or running a portrait studio, the investment isn't really warranted unless you have money to burn.

What would matter more is whether you're currently using a lower quality 24-105mm kit lens versus a higher quality 24-105mm (typically two different animals completely) when comparing a zoom to a dedicated fixed focal length prime lens which certainly is built with a high grade of glass.

Rent a higher end fixed lens from a national rental company and compare to your zoom. If you can see a difference you're ready for buying one. If you can't, stick with what you have and do your best with it.

Investigate inexpensive DxO Optics Pro software which will have profiles for your specific camera and your specific zoom lens in it. Convert your RAW files to 16-bit TIFF and simply run your files through DxO Optics Pro so it can alter them to compensate for the weaknesses of your specific equipment pieces. It will convert your RAWs if you like but I like to do my own in any Adobe software which has a superior converter. You'd be amazed at the improvement DxO can make though. They have a trial version so you can try it out.

BTW, you just haven't been around long enough to see the bloated individuals who just like to hear themselves talk, drop jargon, etc. - bragging repeatedly and reiterating their resume of decades of photographic experience to top anyone who argues a point so they can remain Kings of Their Imaginary Hills. They're here and some are quite repulsive about it so just keep watching. But welcome anyway!