Brian

Umm...yeah. I'd return it. That guy is trying to off-load the lenses. Your lucky day, indeed. Thorium Oxide that was used in the glass of the lenses of that era and is the usual culprit for the radiation. Thorium Oxide helps cut down on Chromatic Aberration and is no longer used in today's modern lenses. Your average chest X-Ray is about 10 mR/r, and your exposure on a Jet is about 5 mR/r. So, if that's your lens readings it is double or more of what a Chest X-Ray is! Your little one would need to be three (preferably more) feet away from the lens at all times to keep exposure to a minimum. That's why nurses stand a good 5-10 feet away when you go for x-rays, either body or dental. That's also why they put a LEAD cover over you when you go for X-Rays; it limits your body's exposure to unneeded X-Rays. Plus, you are putting that lens up to your eye / head isn't a good thing, in my humble opinion. Radioactive lenses usually have a yellow tint to them, especially the older they are. It is rumored that the cure is exposure to UV Light from the sun over a period of days, which seems to help clear the yellowing. Otherwise you will be reducing the yellow cast in post on every photo. Nikon is rumored to be coming out with a new Macro Lens soon, and something more than 105mm. I'm thinking between 150mm - 200mm. Quite possibly replacing / updating that lens. I was also thinking about a Macro lens, I have a AF 60mm f/2.8 D that never gets used and I don't think a 105 would either. I myself would like a 200mm Macro. Again, I wouldn't have purchased that lens.

Umm...yeah. Especially on a full frame camera. f/1.8 is tough. It’s not like a crop body where you can put it at 1.8 and shoot all the things. That angle of view change is a tough pill to swallow. Especially if you are close to your subject. Try shooting at f/2.5 and see how that works for you. Why f/2.5? That is one stop down from f/1.8. When a person shoots at f/2.8 on a crop body, that’s like shooting at f/4 on a full frame camera. It’s about a stop difference. So that’s the aperture I would start testing with. 1.8, 1.4, 1.2...those aperture settings, you really only have 1/4 or 1/8th of an inch of whether something is in focus or not. Like one eye is sharp and the other is completely soft kind of thing.

It's not too shabby. Are you budgeting for a new display as well? Here seems to be Dell's latest and greatest Ultrasharp 24" ISP=Based Monitor. I would use what is called a "DisplayPort" cable for the best results and wouldn't use the traditional 15-pin blue VGA port. That computer has a DisplayPort on the back, it's the weird looking HDMI port.

The post above yours still applies. Intel i7 CPU 16GB RAM or more 1TB HD or more A video card that has its own dedicated video memory. 2GB - 4GB is fine. Plenty of USB 3.0 Ports I like Windows 10 Pro, but I'm a power user. Don't worry so much about the new Intel i9 CPU chips that have just been released. Photoshop really doesn't pay attention to the stuff that makes a i9 so fast. In fact, there is only about a 5-7% performance boost between a i5 and i7 CPU. Why do I recommend a i7 then? I build my computers with a 5-7 year time-frame in mind. While an i5 will be "fine" for the average user, and those who can't afford the $200 difference, I feel a i7 might be better in the long run, especially if you hold onto your computers around 7 years or so, like me. WHATEVER YOU DO, DO NOT GET SUCKERED INTO A 256GB SSD (MAIN) HD. Pay attention to those fine details in the technical specifications.

For the main "Macintosh HD" drive, yes. As far as your external drive? Probably not. Time Machine usually ignores external drives, which is a good thing. You don't want Time Machine backing up your Time Machine Drive to itself. That would be bad. If you are really concerned about your main external HD that has all your photos, make a duplicate of it to another EHD and keep that EHD off site.

A1 - Continuous AF - Release Priority. That setting allows the camera to take the photo, whether it's in focus or not. Personally, I have a much higher keeper rate when both are set to Focus Priority. Why not try setting both to Focus Priority and really test that 85mm before we get crazy trying to fine-tune that lens. Use an Aperture of f/8 and take random shots. Random stuff. Stuff that is close-up and other photos that have depth. I want to see exactly where the focus is falling off. Post some examples. Also, use Single Point AF and manually select your AF Point. This way we can see what you are choosing to focus on and go from there.

Before you start messing with AF Fine Tune, let's take a look at your Autofocus Settings. Head to the custom setting menu (Pencil Icon) and select Autofocus. What are A1 and A2 set to? There should be a few choices in each.

I would head to device manager, find the mouse in the list and right-click / uninstall it. Yes, I know this will cause the mouse to stop working, LOL!! Simply pull the mouse's cord out of the USB socket, wait about 10-15 seconds and insert it. The driver should re-install.

Is this a USB mouse?

Transfer should be unchecked or off.

Well, I don't want to turn you off from using f/2.8 altogether, there is a time and place to use it, but I find when shooting someone with glasses is on of those times that you don't. As far as your camera, it is a different metering system. Maybe it needs to be tweaked.

Hmm...this is a tough one. The problem is you are probably focused on the eyes, and in this case there is a lot of contrast swing with the dark frame on the glasses. So the camera is locking onto the frame, which isn't helping things, since they are on a different focal plane than his eyes. His shirt collar is in the same general area as the frames. That's why the collar point on the (camera) right is just as sharp as the glasses. Combine that with you being a good distance away makes the camera not see they eyes, because as far as it's concerned, they are two black fuzzy dots. Using f/2.8 along with 1/200th is tough on a Full Frame Camera. I would have probably been higher on the shutter speed maybe 1/250th or even 1/320th. I'm never at f/2.8 on my Full Frame Nikons. F/2.8 will bite you. Lowest I try to go is f/3.2, but I'm mostly at f/4 for a shot like this. When I shot a crop body, I was always at f/2.8 because it behaves like f/4 on a full frame body, due to the angle of view change that you get with the smaller sensor. I know people think you need to be wide open to get that background blurry, but that's only one part of the recipe. You have a 70-200 and something called compression at your disposal that you can use to your advantage. Had you zoomed into your subject, say 180mm to 200mm, OR had him take a few steps forward, you could have sucked in the background to make it blurry and still used f/4. Now for the noise. Your 5DMK2 was 21.1MP and the 5D Mark IV is 30.4MP. What is happening in you are cramming in an additional 10 Megapixels in the same physical area, which results in more noise. Plus, they are two different sensors and you are noticing things more. So yes, it's very plausible that a 5D Mark IV is noiser than your II. That said, you can go A LOT higher ISO-wise and still get a decent image. Plus the focusing system in the Mark IV is way better than the II. Bottom Line: This shot is acceptable for what it is. It will work fine as a 4x6 print or even a 5x7. If you are looking to do a heavy crop or do a large print, Damien will have to input his thoughts.

This is what I have: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/660321-REG/Manfrotto_496RC2_496RC2_Compact_Ball_Head.html What I do is leave the Ball Head slightly loose, meaning you want some resistance but not too much and you don't want things to flop over. I call this "Freestyle Method." You can move in all sorts of directions while mounted on a monopod.

I would invest in a monopod and a ball head. I've also found that going twice the shutter speed is better with digital. So if you are at 200mm, your SS should be 1/500 or more.

I just noticed something!! What version of the 24-70 are you using? The older / original Canon 24-70? Or the newer Version II? Or is it a Tamron / Sigma? The reason I ask is the original Canon 24-70 produces images like this, especially at 24mm and 70mm. I know several photographers in real life who can not trust the original Canon 24-70 on paid gigs. The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L Version II USM Lens fixed a lot of quirks that the original had.

Focus and recomposing is tricky. You can't move that much, as we are only talking a few inches of you moving. If you really wanted them both sharp, I would have been around f/5.6. Maybe even as far as f/8...but I'm more at f/5.6 for these shots. You could have tried f/6.3 or f/7.1 too. Don't worry about the background being blurry and wanting to use f/4 or f/3.5. The reason is, and it looks like you used your 70-200, is to use compression to your advantage, meaning you want to take a few steps back and zoom in to suck in the background, which will help blur things and maintain enough DoF to get both relatively sharp. Also, what Shutter Speed were you at? What focus mode?

What lens do you use in the studio? A prime or a zoom? Traditionally, prime lenses are always a tad sharper than zooms. Also, you are dealing with natural light, which is pretty even in this photo as there isn't a huge contrast swing to help define things. I agree with Damien, this photo is fine.

While you will have a better shot of things matching if they are the same make/model, I agree with Damien...getting them to be identical through calibration is tough. Especially if your original display has some use on it. It's best to purchase two new identical monitors at the same time. But again, there are no guarantees in getting things to be 100% matched. Which leads us to Damien's recommendation: Having a normal-use display and one for editing. That's your best case scenario. As for what size to get: It depends. If you have the same monitor, you can get a cool bracket that makes things easier to mount on your desk. Otherwise you could have a large one and then a smaller one, which could be fine or drive you nuts. Again, this is a personal type of thing.

Well, yes...that is the base of those type of sun-lit shots. The trick is something has to reflect the strong sunlight BACK into your subjects, otherwise it's all shadow. This could be light-colored dirt (Used for the Girl kissing the Horse,) a white wall (Engagement shoot) or a reflector. Damien is correct, it is all about the angle of the Sun. Depending on your geographical location, your results will vary. Places further North of the Equator (or South for you Southern Hemisphere Peeps) will produce a different look than those closer to the equator. As for the engagement set, she is surrounded by white walls and is over-exposing. This Technique is called "ETTR" or Exposing to the Right, meaning she is at least one or two "ticks" overexposed. Combine that with her Canon 50mm f/1.2L prime to get things sharp and heavy usage of Photoshop Actions pushing things further for that "Airy" look. I'm sorry, those colors in that Engagement Set are NOT natural. Porcelain Skin Tones / loss of detail (no skin blemishes and loss of detail on white shirt) are a dead give-away. They are Photoshoped Colors. Make note of the time of day when she shot that session. It's not during the golden hour, probably about two-three hours before sunset, which will allow the strong sunlight to wrap around her subjects. She chose a spot to have the sun diffused / blocked, or to put her subjects in shadow and then let the background be over-exposed. This technique needs practice. You can't expect to casually pick it up. The skill-set for things like clouds, location, time of day, the actual date that the photos are taken all take practice to learn and are applied before you put the camera up to your eye; there isn't a set recipe. I deal with this type of lighting all the time with my Wedding Gigs. Lots of crappy shots with a sprinkling of "Chorus of Angels Singing" shots. Remember that.

Dell Laptops and computers are decent for what they are. They are easy to purchase world-wide and their specifications can also be found in other laptops. That’s why I recommend them. I also have realistic expectations when it comes to Dell. I usually think they will crap out at some point and that they aren’t always made from the best components. (Just like every other brand. LOL!!) Laptops across the board are made so cheaply today. Even the “expensive” ones.

“Paging @Damien Symonds to the front desk. Damien to the front desk...” Any thoughts on 2-n-1 Laptop / Tablet combos?

If you are asking my opinion, I’m going to say no 2-n-1 Laptop / Tablet combos. I know you really want one and it’s your money. Even if the 2-n-1 laptop is IPS based. No 2-n-1 laptops. The problem is not only the touch screen technology, but the display driver that makes that technology work can be a major hassle to deal with. For example, say each time you turn on the thing if or it wakes up from sleep and the monitor profile goes back to the uncalibrated default Windows profile? Then you are dorking around with your computer trying to make it look it’s best in front of your client. Stuff like that. Of course, this is just one possible example. YMMV. I could be over-reacting, it could work fine. Or not. Damien might have a better insight. In my humble opinion, I’d use a iPad and a separate laptop. I know that’s not what you want to hear.

You actually might want to look into a Point of Sale System meant for an iPad or Android Tablet. Lots of small businesses are using them these days. Square POS System Square seems to work with QB. Since you already do IPS currently with an iPad, the learning curve should be less. Edit: Be sure to fully investigate a POS system. Many seem to be at least a monthly fee or more common, an annual fee. Some even might be a multi-year contract. Choosing the right one will be your biggest challenge, but I think it might be a better option in the long run. A quick Google search led me to this article: https://www.business.com/categories/best-ipad-pos-systems/

2-n-1 Laptops can be a HUGE PAIN to calibrate. While they are cool and all fancy-like, if you are going to edit photos, I’d get a standard laptop with a IPS* screen. Check other recent threads for makes/models. I like the Asus Replublic of Gamers Line. Budget $1000-$1500. *IPS: In-Plane-Switching Display. Color and contrast are consistent from corner to corner vs a typical TN (Twisted Numatic) display, which is better for gaming.

My answer is “Meh.” While it’s nice that it has an IPS panel, and it’s very inexpensive, I would like to see better (higher) resolution for that size monitor. I’m used to seeing 2560 x 1440 for monitors around that size. You are also looking for one that has either an anti-glare / matte screen or has a matte coating at the very least