Your comments are always positive and appreciated and if anyone yells at you they probably should not be posting. Keep up the good work and positive energy.

Hi Linda. When I said get it right in camera, does not mean I don't process pictures. If you spend a bit of extra time getting the picture right to start with, much less time will be spent processing and I believe you will end up with a better end product. As far as whether to use jpg or raw depends on amount of time you want to spend processing and what the end result is being used for. My raw files are 70MB each and my jpg are about 25 MB each, so processing a 70 MB raw file to send to a jpg to a web site or print an 8x12 picture is more work than I want to do. I find it easier to just pull the jpg into LR and do a few touchups and downsize to the needed resolution. For larger prints or important images, then I will spend the extra time converting the raw to 16 bit tiff and then process in Photoshop and work as a psb file with the print sized to the dimensions I want at 300 dpi . Then I flatten at the end and send to the printer as a tif file. That way I have the psb file with the layers in case I want to resize it again or do changes. Everyone has their own preferences and workflow and none are right or wrong, so much as what works for you with the equipment you have and what the end product is. I think the reason why so many people are on UGG is that we would sooner shoot the bull than shoot and process pictures😂😂

I hear you. I always shot jpg or jpg plus raw for landscape. Saves a lot of processing time. If a picture is good, the jpg is good. If the picture is bad then the raw will be able to get more detail out but it still is probably not a good picture. Best to get it right in camera. That's why there are histograms in the camera

I normally size my pictures at 300 dpi instead of 240 dpi. Not sure if the difference is percepable or not

I had a 50mm F1.4 and ended up selling it right away. The 24-70 F2.8 ii is a lot sharper at 50 mm. The 50 mm F1.8 usm is supposed to be a lot sharper than the F1.4 and about 1/3 the price. The F1.4 is susceptible to focus ring damage if dropped when the lens is partially extended. The repair price is more that buying a new F1.8. If you can afford it the F1.2 is supposed to be good and the new RF lens even better. A lot of fast lenses have to be stopped down to get a real sharp image. By the time you do that, the 24-70 at F2.8 becomes an attractive option for me.

So how do you mount it to a tree and get it to automatically zoom and take pictures?

I always use file explorer as well so I know where the files are and move them between drives etc. if I want to process them, I open Lightroom and drag and drop the files into LR. When LR gets confused I just delete the catalog. Works great since LR is only one of several programs I use

I agree. You can't beat the 100-400 ii

I agree with this speaking from experience. If you want high high resolution then this will give it to you. If you want a Nikon, get the D850. If you want Dony, get a life😂

The version iii is a major upgrade from the ii. I bought the iii and sold the ii right away

There is a major improvement in sharpness between the F2.8 ii and iii. I sold the ii and bought iii

I have the 2.8 version iii and it is absolutely stunning. I would probably recommend the F4 version because of IS, lighter, cheaper, it is supposed to be of similar IQ. The IQ on the one I have is one of the sharpest lenses I have put on my test bench. I mainly use it on my 5DS-R.

So getting totally off the topic, did the original poster but a lens?

You can go onto the Canon web site and download DPP for free. It just asks you to enter your camera serial number before it will download

Use the Canon Digital Photo Professional that came free with you camera and export it as a 16 bit tiff file