Brian

Get a 16-35 instead. Either the f/4 or f/2.8 version. Do not cheap out on glass. Glass BEFORE body!!! I can not stress this enough. With today's newer sensors being in the 20-24MP range (on the average, conversationally speaking) the older 17-40 really doesn't perform that well with the higher MP sensors. "But it's so expensive!!" Believe it or not, it's not as expensive as you would think. Yes, you are out a higher up-front cost, but in the long run it will save you money. Which is cheaper? A lens that costs you $1800 and will last you 20+ years? Or a cheap lens that you will replace sooner rather than later? That $1800 lens will out-live those 4-5 camera bodies @ $1200-$1800 each in that time-frame. Think about it...in 20 years time, at 4-5 years for each camera body @ $1500 (give or take,) that cost is between $6000-$7500. The costs go up if you spend $2000-$3000 on a camera body. So paying a single payment of $1800 that lasts a long time isn't so bad. Plus, if you decide to sell your gear, the expensive glass holds onto its value more. For landscape photography, a single AF point is usually all you need, but using the center one (only) will not help you composition-wise, especially if your foreground element that you want to nail focus on is towards the edge of the frame. When you focus and recompose, you really can only move a few inches at most. Focusing on a rock and then moving your camera 30 degrees in a different direction will usually yield poor focus results. That said, you really don't need cross-type AF focus points on something stationary. Just keep in mind, crop-shooters are also spoiled (myself included) having AF points all over the view-finder. I just picked-up a D700 about a month ago and am now starting to really get comfortable with the AF points clustered in the center and not along the edges. As far as lenses, a 35 and a 85 is a good combo, just like a 50 and 100. Something wide and something long. So I think you are fine in that dept. For your next lens purchase, you have to ask yourself, what is on your camera the MAJORITY of the time? If it's the 10-20, then look at getting the 16-35 f/4 at the very least. If you are using your 50 a lot, you might end up using your 100 more on a full frame body, due to the angle of view change. If you can, pick up a Canon 6D and give it a spin. Sometimes a local camera store or even a Flagship Best Buy store will have them on display. Make note of how the AF points are clustered in the viewfinder, go into the menus and see how things are laid out. Camera bodies are a personal thing and I'm just some guy on the interwebz. LOL!! In the end, it's your personal experience and wallet that matter...but keep in mind, "Buy it Right - Buy it Once."

I dislike the 6D as much as the Nikon D600/D610. I'm not wasting $1500 on a "Entry-Level" anything. I've done the whole, "Well...I can only afford this, even though I really should buy that..." scenario. Multiple times. Within a year, I'm regretting my purchase and am kicking myself for not saving up and getting what I truly want. Plus, I hate the fact that Canon forces you to the 5DM3 to get a reliable focusing system. The only Cross-Type AF point is the center one. The others aren't. Sure, the other AF points will work for you, but to have the best chance to have consistent focus, you need to use the center one. Now, for those who are used to Full Frame bodies, this probably not that big of an issue, especially 5D Mark II users, as they had the same problem with the center AF point being the only reliable one. Coming from a crop body and discovering just how small the AF area is...it's a bit of an adjustment. Since the Crop Sensors are physically smaller, the AF points cover more surface area, so you can easily go out to the edges and select a AF point. Not with full frame. Those AF points are usually clustered in the center in the viewfinder and that takes getting used to. I'm sure there are lots of people who disagree with me and that's fine. The Canon 6D will be an upgrade and will most likely meet or exceed her requirements. But it boils down to the lenses she has. The Canon 16-35 f/4 lens will run you about $1000. The 16-35 f/2.8 lens is $1450, on top of the $1500. Both are fine lenses for photographing landscapes. That said, she is pushing that $3000 mark fairly quickly and could easily hit $4000 without much effort going the full frame route. That's why I recommended that she take a hard look at a Canon 7D Mark II, it's a upgrade to her current body, which is in a difference class of body, and she can use all of her current lenses.

The "average" cost to switch to full frame, in my humble opinion is around $4000. ANY EF-S lenses you have are really only meant for crop body / APS-C cameras. It's the EF Lenses that are full frame, but it sounds like you know this, since you only mentioned two lenses. Now, here is where things get a little tricky. Because the Angle of View changes with the smaller crop sensor, your 50mm on your 600D acts more like a 85mm lens would on a full frame body. So in order to get that "look" that you love, you'll need to purchase a 85mm lens. Now here is the kicker, the 85mm f/1.8 suffers from really bad chromatic aberration. (The purple fringes that you see around tree branches against a bright sky.) A better lens would be the non-macro Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 portrait lens, but you already have a 100mm non-L macro, so that's the same focal length. I also wound NOT PURCHASE THE ORIGINAL CANON 24-70 F/2.8 L LENS. It sucks. I know several photographers both online and in-person who have a hate relationship with their 24-70. I even know of a camera store in NJ that won't sell you the 24-70, they make you take it out for a weekend to see if there are problems with it. Basically, 3-4 out of 5 lenses had issues and they were tired of the returns/exchanges. Fortunately, Canon came out with the newer EF 24-70 f/2.8 L VERSION II Lens. That lens seems to have addressed most, if not all of the quirks, that the original 24-70 had. That said, I know photographers who got a good copy of the original 24-70 and it's fine. However, the downside is the Version II of the 24-70 is more expensive, and the current price is $1749, which is down from the original price of $2399. A cheaper alternative would be the well regarded 24-105 f/4 L lens, which retails for $999. Right now there is a bundle for the Canon 6D and 24-105 f/4 L for $2099. Which isn't a bad price. The only downside to the Nikon D600/D610 and Canon 6D is that it's a "Entry Level" Full Frame body that's meant to be outgrown. So in a sense it is an upgrade from your 600D, but to really get a true upgrade that will last you for years, you are looking at a Canon 5D Mark III. A 5DMK3 with a 24-105 f/4 L lens will set you back $3200. The Canon 80D is the latest and greatest in the advanced amateur class. It's not that much better than the Canon 70D, but the 70D seems to have issues and really wasn't well regarded, at least from what I've heard of through the grape-vine. I feel a better alternative might be a Canon 7D Mark II, but since you have mostly EF-S lenses and the Canon 80D body-only is $1199, it might fit your needs better. So it really boils down to what you want to spend. It seems that there are a bunch of photographers that are suffering from what Thom Hogan calls "The Last Camera Syndrome." People are longing for the days of having a camera that will last for years that they won't have to upgrade. Kinda like inheriting Grandpa's Nikon F2 and a box of prime lenses from the 1970's. Unfortunately, cameras today are computers that think they are cameras. You really only get about 4 years or so out of them. Sometimes more, sometimes less. In order to have a camera that you won't outgrow quickly, you need to pony up the dollars. As in 5DMK3 dollars. Or more. Since you are mostly into landscapes and treating this as a hobby, you could go in either direction and I feel that sticking with the Crop Bodies might be a better fit for you and in my opinion, I feel you should give a Canon 7D Mark II a hard look. Yes, it's more expensive than a 80D, but the body has more robust features and better focusing system, so it may ultimately last you a bit longer. As for an alternative, a great lens to replace the 18-55 kit lens, is to get the older Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 lens. It's the "24-70 f/2.8" for the Crop Bodies and is a very nice lens for the money ($749 new.) If it were me, I'd pair up the 17-55 f/2.8 with a Canon 7D Mark II. That will give you the best bang for your buck and give you a body that you could grown into. Here is a thought, buy used from KEH.com to save a little.

1. You need to get an External HD dedicated for Time Machine. For your computer a 2TB drive is fine. We can't fix your problem until you get a dedicated EHD. (Well we technically could, but then you would have no backups at all of the Mac HD, which is bad.) 2. Run the Time Machine program so it will create a backup on the new EHD. This process can take a hour or two the 1st time. So I'd run TM with the new HD and go to bed. It will be done when you wake up. 3. Temporarily disable Time Machine, then reboot the computer. This will eliminate the "Backups" and possibly the "Other" files that are hogging up the space. 4. Re-enable Time Machine with the new & dedicated EHD hooked up. Be sure to EXCLUDE and other externals from backing up to the TM EHD. I think it's under the Options button in Time Machine. You do not want your 3TB Lacie Drive being backed up to the TM drive. You only want the internal Mac HD being backed up. 5. Once you get TM setup properly, it just runs in the background and you don't need to worry about it.

Before we talk camera bodies, let's talk about what lenses you currently have now. We also should talk budget. Photography is a slippery slope. LOL!

IT CAN BE ANY EXTERNAL HD!!! That's just Apple's Marketing trying to sell you a overpriced EHD. In fact, ANY hard drive can be a Mac HD. It just has to be partitioned and formatted for use with the Mac, and that utility is built into the Operating System. Heck, I built my own external. (I used a 1TB HD that was laying around and bought a external case. Took 5 Min to build. It drives me nuts seeing a "Mac Formatted HD" that costs $30 more than the Windows' equivalent. Why do manufacturers do this? Because they know that people are used to paying more for Apple's products and they are banking on the consumers accepting this fact. "Oh...my Mac is so expensive...I guess I have to get the more expensive 'Mac EHD....' NOPE!! Here is the dirty little secret...IT'S THE SAME FRIGGIN' HD IN THE BOX. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS ONE HAS A NTFS PARTITION AND THE OTHER IS A JOURNALED HFS+ PARTITION. All you have to do is re-partition and format the HD with the Disk Utility that is built into the Mac OS. After formatting, (Erase tab in the Disk Utility) the Mac OS will ask you if you want to use the HD for Time Machine. You simply click "Yes" or "OK." Easy-Peasy. Here is a 2TB USB 3.0 HD that is already Mac Formatted. I own and like G-Technology's stuff.

No. Time Machine is built into the Mac OS. You need a clean (and dedicated EHD) for Time Machine to utilize. Before we continue, do you have a clean external HD for TIme Machine? About 2TB in capacity?

In order to load your Canon 6D RAW images, you'll need either CS6 or Photoshop CC. If you are running CS5, you are out of luck. ACR version 7.3 or 7.4 was the ACR version that supported the 6D and that ACR does not work with CS5. So if you do have CS6, make sure your are running the last update, ACR 9.1.1. (CS6 is no longer getting ACR Updates, version 9.1.1 was the last.) Photoshop CC and its various incarnations is up to ACR 9.6 or above by now. Some info: https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/kb/camera-raw-plug-in-installer.html#9_1_1

Oh, that's Time Machine creating local snapshots of your Mac's Internal HD. This happens when you don't have a EHD that's dedicated for Time Machine hooked up, Time Machine starts creating a "Safety Net" type of thing and sticks those backups to your local drive, thereby hogging up space. What you need to do is hook up a EHD and run Time Machine. Get a current backup, this might take awhile or not. Then head to System Preferences, find Time Machine and open it. Turn off Time Machine by flipping the switch. Close out all the Windows and Reboot. You should get your space back. Oh, I think this "Safety Net" thing started with Yosemite, but I'm not sure. My Mavericks' Time Machine doesn't do this. If you don't want to permanently disable Time Machine, then have a dedicated TM EHD hooked up at all times, just be sure to exclude any other externals. To do this, head back into Time Machine in your System Preferences, then click options. Have the other EHD (Like you Lacie 3TB) in the exclude list. You really don't want to backup a Internal Mac HD and a large external Mac HD if you don't have a extremely large EHD for Time Machine. That will result in something bad happening.

Late 2013...You have a Thunderbolt port. So buy that Cable Matters - Thunderbolt to DisplayPort Cable that I linked to. As far as VRAM, you have 1.5GB, so you should be fine driving two displays and using PS.

That $159 isn't a bad deal. If I wasn't going on a big trip at the end of July, I would buy that 3-pack.

Found this bundle for $159: https://www.creativelive.com/bundle/lighting-essentials-bundle

Oh, I'm a huge fan of Zack Arias and his style of teaching. He has a few videos on creativeLIVE as well as his "One Light" Educational Video. In fact, on Day 3...is the setup for the "Person in front of the TV Shot" that you are trying to do. LOL!! In this cL video, he goes over all sorts of modifiers and stuff. I HIGHLY recommend buying this: Studio Lighting with Zack Arias

You are going to have to go fiddle somewhere else to learn. A small bedroom will drive you insane. You need space. A garage, dining room, back alley...someplace else. Oh, it sounds like you have the gear that you need. If you did that Westcott RapidBox, just get the 26" Octa and that $20 Deflector Dish.

Well, instead of him, use something like a Coffee Can or Stuffed animal. I've actually thought about buying a used Mannequin off of Craigslist for $50-ish. They don't move, complain or get tired. Fixed the Video Link. Here it is:

Here is a video with the Westcott Rapid Box kit in action. I just hate that it's $400 friggin' dollars.

That's the cool thing about photography, specifically flash based photography. If you don't fit in the room, then use a different room! Use the "Inverse Square Law" to your advantage. If your room is dark, and all I see is black in the photo, who cares if it was shot in the dining room instead of his bedroom? What matters is the end result. Now, as far as modifiers go, the larger the modifier, the softer the shadows. So if you have a tiny little modifier on your flash and it's only 2 feet away from your subject, you are going to have blow-outs and contrasty / hard light. Now comes the slippery slope with modifiers. They can get expensive, and you will never have enough. Think of them like Drummer's Cymbals. LOL!! Just one more honey!!! For example, I have this modifer. You will need a kit like this to utilize it, unless you have something similar or an existing light stand. While I like the output from it, it's a pain to adjust as the flash sits INSIDE the thing. I'm tempted to purchase this as the flash sits outside on the mount. Combine that with the Deflector Plate and you could have a nice modifier. Or go for broke and get the $400 kit which has everything, except for the 2nd flash. That being said, I created this photo using my Nikon SB-600 and Westcott Micro Apollo on a stand, camera right. The flash was a good 6 feet away from the cable. You'll have to really learn (I'm still learning) about the Inverse Square Law and how it applies to photography.

Now before someone asks the question, but what about a shot like this? Clearly, the person is looking at a computer screen! Well, again, that's two different shots combined. The light on the subject's face is a different color temperature than what is on his hands. So you take a photo without flash with a slow shutter speed, model doesn't move his hands (aperture should remain the same, to keep DoF the same) and then you remove the monitor (or move it to the side) and photograph the subject's face. (Probably used a LARGE Softbox for that example and with a strobe, like a Profoto.) Dava, I'd try re-creating this photo that I linked to in this post, it will be easier to compose and learn the techniques used for composite photos. Plus the LEDs that you will ultimately see in the photo won't look out of place. So give it a try and post your results. I'd like to see. Start with photographing your sun sitting in front of his screen, without the screen. Get his exposure dead-on and use a tripod!! If you move just a little, it's a real-pain combining photos in PS.

Finally! A photography question!!! Your flash is over-powering the LEDs. You'll more than likely need to set your camera on a tripod, take a photo of the setup without flash (and your son,) possibly a long exposure, then take a photo as you normally would and combine the two in PS. A simple mask on a separate layer should help. In addition, I'd move your flash further away from your son. You are blowing out areas on his face (hot-spots) and the angle of the flash needs to be tweaked. You seem to be in between Rembrandt Lighting and Broad Lighting. I recommend that you pick one, or not use either. LOL!! I'd take a look at the 6 Standard Lighting Patterns that everyone should know and master loop-lighting as it is the most flattering for the majority of different face-types. It works well with thin or wide / broad faces. You'll know loop lighting when you see a "loop shadow" coming out of the subject's noses. In the article I linked to, the wedding couple example, look closely and you will see the "Loop" coming out of the B&G's left nostril on the side of their noses. The phrase, "Never Broad-Light a Broad" comes to mind. With Broad-Lighting, if a person has a wider face, you will ADD pounds to it. If you just change the position of your flash and use a short-light method (or turn your subject's face in the opposite direction) you will thin out a wide face. Rembrandt lighting, I don't think it will work for this photo. I don't like how your son's right eye is mostly in shadow. Oh, those "Glowing TV" shots with people eating pop-corn? You know the shot of a person watching a scary movie with their eyes wide open and mouths stuffed with pop-corn, a classic cliche shot. Well here is a secret: The TV is Powered OFF!! That's right, there isn't light coming from the TV. It's from a flash placed inside the TV (usually with the Tube removed and the flash sitting inside it) with a Blue Gel (or similar color) mounted on the flash. That's how you get those shots. It's multiple flashes, and the only light is coming from flashes. Surprise!!

So you have a 21.5" iMac. What model year is it? If it has a Thunderbolt Port, I'd use a Thunderbolt to DisplayPort Cable. It even comes in a 3' length. If you have a older iMac, say from 2009-early 2011 and it only has a Mini Display Port, I'd use a Mini Display Port to DVI-D Cable. Dell Monitors usually come with DVI-D cables, so all you would need is to use this adapter. Hopefully you have a Thunderbolt Port and enough video memory to support a 2nd display. With today's software and dual monitor setups, 1GB of Video Memory is recommended at a minimum, preferably 2GB. PS with two monitors at that resolution should work fine with 1GB of video memory, but from what I've seen written by Adobe Tech Support, 2GB is the "Sweet Spot" when it comes to dual monitor setups. The reason is that current versions of PS use the VRAM to help with performance, and the better the graphics card and more VRAM that is available, the better PS likes it. That said, you could have a 2009 21.5" iMac like me, that only has 512MB of dedicated video RAM, and would be reluctant setting up a 2nd display. Of course, It might work just fine, or there could be all sorts of lag and crashing when working in PS. But 512MB of video RAM could also work at a basic level. Just like Windows works with 2GB of RAM at a basic level. If your system only has 256MB of VRAM, I'd forget buying that 2nd display. Bottom Line: Cable Matters stuff works really well for the price. If your system has at least 1GB of dedicated Video Memory, you shouldn't have any major issues.

Oh, I just found this website: http://elcapitanslow.com/ I couldn't have said things better myself. Try things on that list. But unfortunately, it might just be a quirk with El Capitan, which along with Yosemite, I do not recommend upgrading to. I'm still on Mavericks myself, because I refuse to upgrade to El Captian due to all of the quirks with Adobe's products. In addition, are you by chance running a Wacom Tablet? If so, you might need to update the drivers. I've seen a few posts recently that slowness problems / weird behavior were being caused by older Wacom Drivers. So if you are using a Wacom Tablet, be sure to look for the latest-and-greatest driver and install it.

I personally use this program weekly and HIGHLY recommend it: CleanMyMac from MacPaw. There is usually a coupon code floating around to give you a discount. That program helps keep things in check. Now, to see what is occupying space, I use a free program called Disk Inventory X. Here is the main webpage: http://www.derlien.com/index.html What that program does is give you a visual representation via color blobs of what is taking up space. The bigger the color blob, the more space is being taken up. The color blobs represent different file types. So it's worth seeing just what is hogging up all the space. In addition, the Mac OS treats external HDs as if they are internal. So if you have an external HD that's 90% full, it will slow things down on your Mac. So after figuring out what files are eating up space, clearing a few hundred more gigs off the HD, running CMM...then eject any external HDs and remove them. Give your Mac a reboot as well and see if things speed up.

Yep! It's the 100GB free. Plus one more thing: CLEAR OFF YOUR MAC DESKTOP!! Seriously, the more files and folders you have on your Mac Desktop, the slower it runs. So if you have bunches of sessions on the desktop, those items are treated as open files, at least as the OS is concerned. Got 800 photos from the Smith Family Session at the park? Got a few weddings in a folder on the desktop with a few thousand images? That's a few thousand "open" images which will slow things to a crawl. So clear off that desktop in addition to getting stuff off your main drive. Target: Free up 300GB.

You could go out and buy a device that is a Network Attached Storage Unit. (Think mini file-server or a EHD that has it's own IP address.) The easiest and probably cheapest way is to use a Router that has a USB port on it, and attach a EHD to it. Then access the HD over the network. Otherwise, you are sharing a HD and have it hooked up to a computer, in which case you'll need to setup a Workgroup Network, and blah-blah-blah. Of course, you'll need to setup the EHD on the Router and do stuff to get it to work. Stuff I won't tell you how to do for free.

Yep! If you don't want to use Dropbox and have an existing HD acting as a NAS (Network Attached Storage) and is formatted to FAT32, go that route. Just be sure to NOT go larger than a 32GB Partition. Once you go above 32GB with FAT32 on a HD, things get kinda weird and unpredictable. So says Microsoft. Oh, if you do want to use this method, I'd partition and format the FAT32 HD on a Windows computer. Even though a Mac can do it, I personally still want to setup that partition with a Windows computer. It doesn't have to be a fancy computer either. A Windows XP computer should be able to do it fine. Heck a Windows 98SE with a USB 2.0 port should be able to do it. I just don't format Windows drives on my Mac.