Thanks for the suggestion.

Thanks. I'll look at that.

Thanks Jimmy,
I think we may have 2-3 days at the GC so we should have time to get some good shots.

Mark,
Thanks for the Pink Jeep info. I think my daughter just got a reservation. One question in that regard...we have a choice of 5PM-7PM which we were thinking might give us sunset shots since sunset is at about 6:40PM on the day we would be there. Does that make sense? We can move up an hour to 4-6PM if that would give us enough better light in the early part of the jeep trip, but I'm thinking that would eliminate the sunset opportunity. You opinion?

Jeep daddy,
Thanks for the info. I have done a fair amount of panos so that will be no problem. I'm hoping that with the 5Ds I can get some very good large prints to hang.

Thanks for your suggestions. You've been very helpful.

Thanks to all for your thoughtful suggestions. I'm forwarding your ideas to my daughter who is planning the trip. Sounds like the 24-105 will continue to be my main go-to lens for this trip. You have all been very helpful.

I monitor this forum nearly every day, but post infrequently. Now I have a reason to ask for your help. My children are treating me to a trip the 3rd week of March to the Grand Canyon with possible stops at Bryce, Zion, and Sedona, AZ. I read earlier someone's comments about jeep tours at one of these locations. Any suggestions for the best tours at any of these places would be much appreciated. I will be shooting with a 5D Mk II and a 5Ds. Lenses can range from my Canon 24-105L to the Tamron 150-600mm and/or the Canon 28-300L. Lens suggestions are welcome but buying one new one would be my limit in the lens category, and only if necessary. I'm mostly asking about where to spend my available shooting time. I understand that we will be shooting from the South Rim of the Grand Canyon and I don't know about the other locations. No experience from earlier trips to draw from. Your expert opinions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance...

My pet complaint, but I would like to have seen "hear" here.

I think your point is well taken. I don't do a lot of wildlife, but I do commercial images and some portraiture, among other things. It took me a while to decide that leaving some room around the subject is useful in a number of ways. Yes, I always shoot in RAW. I happen to believe that PP is a huge part of creating good images. Yes, you keep hearing about how you should get the image right in the camera, but that doesn't always produce the most creative result. With the advent of higher resolution sensors, such as the 50mp Canon 5Ds and the 30mp 5D Mk IV, we have the luxury of using a little of that resolution to provide some real estate around the subject and still have enough pixels to make sizable finished images after cropping to taste. I have been a believer in finding the picture within a picture and cropping to optimize the composition. If you leave yourself a little extra room with the original shot, you have the flexibility to make some composition decisions in PP. You can apply the rule of thirds effectively, or you can choose to break rules if you like. You simply have the resources to create more than one image from a single shot. If you fully fill the frame, you are pretty much restricted to that result. I think it makes good sense to give yourself some room for creating in post.

In my commercial work, I often give the client that extra room around product shots, for example. I find that graphic designers appreciate the flexibility. Because I frequently don't have the luxury of shooting to a pre-designed layout, I can be more helpful to the client if I leave some room with which the designer can work. Like it or not, you are often asked to put the cart before the horse, knowing full well that you would prefer to know exactly how the image will be applied. Having more megapixels available in the modern camera bodies is a real asset. The other realization I came to is that we can shoot leaving some room and then, if using a zoom lens, make it a practice to zoom in tight (or tighter) for a closeup to emphasize detail while still in position. I recall hearing a lot of howling when the 50MP 5Ds/sr was introduced. Who needed that many megapixels, and for what? I disagreed then and I certainly disagree now. I do need them!

Everyone works a little different, but....

To those who were so kind as to suggest solutions to my inquiry about the Canon 24-105mm lens problem discussed above, I said I would follow up with further info when I received an estimate from Canon on the repair. That estimate just arrived. The issue was an Err01 with an accompanying message telling me communication between the camera and the lens had failed. It suggested cleaning the contacts. After talking to Canon techs it was determined that the lens should be sent in for repair. Upon receipt of the lens at the repair facility, it was determined that the power diaphragm assembly needed to be replaced. The cost is $269.00 for labor, $35.63 for parts, and 2-day shipping is $14.00. Total cost $322.10. They assured me that a tech will check and adjust all functions and return the lens in good working order after passing a functional test. It will take 5-7 business for the repair. I determined it was well worth the cost after 10 years of trouble-free service in and out of my photo studio. I may still opt to purchase the new EF24-105mm L II since I seem to use that lens very frequently. With a 7D Mark II, a 5D Mark IV, and a 5Ds in my inventory, it is likely that the new lens version would get a good deal of use along with the trusty repaired lens. I hope this info is useful to someone. Thanks again for your feedback earlier.

Bill,
Your comments make a lot of sense. I did use isopropyl alcohol 70% in my attempt to clean the contacts, but I only used it on the lens contacts and not the camera body, since I had determined that the lens was the cause. I wish I had known more about the eraser use, but I didn't use that method with much pressure and I was sure not to get any residual eraser fragments into the lens itself. That doesn't mean it was OK, but perhaps it did no serious damage.

This is all good info for a future problem, since the Canon techs had me send the lens in for repair, suspecting that, in 10 years of use, the ribbon cable had become worn and was shorting. If that was the culprit in this case, none of this cleaning stuff would have done any good. They said that this issue is common with the 24-105 and they have seen quite a bit of it with that model. Hopefully, they will have addressed this with the version II. That being said, I am fairly comfortable that the correct action will be taken to repair this problem. That doesn't mean that we won't see other Err 01 codes that do indicate dirty contacts in the future, so this info will be valuable.

By the way, I googled the difference between the two alcohols herein mentioned and got this..."Isopropanol alcohol is synonymous with Isopropyl Alcohol. There is no difference in the chemical composition of the compound. The chemical formula is (CH3)2CHOH. It is most commonly known as rubbing alcohol". I did find an article that disagreed, saying that they aren't actually the same, but that article agreed that the two are commonly referred to as synonymous. So...in the absence of more chemistry, I guess rubbing alcohol is ok to use. I also have the Zeiss lens cleaner, so I will plan on using one or the other and will refrain from pencil erasers in the future.

Thanks for the discussion. I'll update the results when I get the quote from Canon and/or the repaired lens back.

I hate typing with my thumbs and I often have to correct errors in results. This error, however, was one of those that is like typing their instead of there or they're. Thanks for the heads up. I must proof read better in the furure it would seem. I shudder to think I might do that again.
I guess I might have said shuddering of the shutter...but I didn't.

Thanks for your concern, but I did two things that I have seen recommended by numerous members of fhis forum. It wasn't until I asked this specific question a couple of days ago that one person suggested that the eraser was a bad idea. Usually the info given here is pretty good and when multiple members recommend something you can believe it. I also noted that feedback from two different Canon techs did NOT include a warning about erasers and they had been told that it was one of the methods tried. That is not to suggest you are wrong and your warning about abrasives seems logical. In any case it is academic since the lens is on the way to the Canon service center for repair. It would be good to hear from someone who has talked directly to Canon about erasers however.

Thanks to all who have replied. I chatted with a Canon tech and he said essentially what you are saying...he referred to it as a wire, but I'm sure it is the ribbon cable that interfaces with the external contacts. He said that that "wire" wears after a time and it needs to be replaced. I have sent it off via UPS and will await the estimate. If it is only a couple of hundred dollars, it will be well worth the cost of repair. I bought the lens in 2007 and I use it frequently. I have been thinking that I will purchase the version II of the same lens because it is so flexible and I have three good bodies on which it can be used. The 2007 model is sharp and will have a lot of good service left in it on one of those bodies, hopefully for another 10 years...that's assuming I last that long. I am without warranty, just like that lens, so who knows.

I'll report the cost and results if anyone is interested.