Brian

Final thought: It's really crappy for Canon to do this. It's just not the 5D Mark II either. Many other Canon bodies suffer the same fate. It's pathetic and unacceptable for a company as large as Canon. My (Retired) Entry Level Nikon D40 with its 3 whole AF points runs circles around a Digital Rebel from that era when it comes to focusing. A friend of mine stopped using his AF system completely. He manually focuses and his results are way better than his Canon body's AF system. People pay good money for this sh*t and they shouldn't have to fork out $3000 for an accurate AF system. /end rant

In addition, you need to practically be on the surface of the sun for a 5D Mark II to lock on your subject. Of course I'm exaggerating and having a bit of fun, but I'm also serious. You need to have enough light and contrast swing in order for a 5D Mark II to lock on consistently. Of course, there are exceptions and others might disagree with me, but you aren't the 1st person to question accurate focus with a 5DMK2.

Oh! The 5D Mark II only has ONE RELIABLE FOCUS POINT!! It's the CENTER AF point. All of the others can be hit or miss. So it may not be you or your lenses. Why you may ask? Canon is a company that likes to cut corners with their camera bodies. The 5D Mark II uses the same focusing system from the 5D Mark I, which was from 2005. It only has one cross-type AF point, the center one. The newer Canon 6D is the same way. Canon's solution? Purchase a 5D Mark III.

It is the correct place to ask this question. Basically, you are asking about Cloud Storage. I think Backblaze is the one that most use. You have to really pay attention to the fine print with these Cloud Services. Often they will delete your files within 30 days if they aren't installed on your computer. So if you move a bunch of photos from your computer to the Cloud Service, and not keep a copy on the HD, you will get a nasty surprise of deleted photos when you need them 60 days from now. Not fun.

I haven't really had much personal success with this sort of stuff. I'm very fortunate to have my lenses and camera body that play well together. There are plenty of DIY things you can print out, but I would HIGHLY RECOMMEND PRINTING THEM ON A B&W LASER PRINTER. The "OfficeJets" and ink-jets of the world may not produce crisp enough lines for something like calibration charts / guides. Of course a tripod will be required, along with a remote trigger of some sort. If your camera has a Mirror Lockup function, be sure to use that, as it will cut down body shake from the mirror flipping up.

Yes. She should change it back to RAW. I'd honestly switch to JPEG, set it to "Large" or just leave it at "Medium" (which sets it to 24MP) and choose JPEG Fine for the quality. In reality, if she shoots Raw, it doesn't matter what the JPEG is set to. Oh while you are messing with stuff, change the camera to sRGB.

Yes, it's time for an upgrade. The 5D MKIII is a fine camera. I highly recommend it. In your case the 6D, is also an option. Fortunately, with the current Nikon announcements (Nikon D5 & D500,) Canon is about to release a few new bodies of their own. So by the time Spring / Summer rolls around, you might have some new choices. In addition, before you take the plunge to Full Frame, we will need to review your current lens line-up. The majority of the time, crop-body-only lenses really cripple a full frame camera and really are not recommended. So if you have any EF-S lenses, they are CROP BODY ONLY lenses. It's the EF lenses that are full frame. So it can be a shock to some that the average cost to switch to Full Frame runs about $4000-$4500, conversationally speaking. (Figure a $3000 FF body and a few prime lenses or a single zoom lens for around $1500 or so.) So lets talk lenses, tripods, camera releases and then camera bodies. You have plenty of time.

I would contact the manufacture's customer service and see what they recommend. The Geek Squads of the world will want to nuke your HD and then charge you lots of money. The software on that recovery partition is very specific and it just can't simply be deleted, unless the manufacturer's tech support gives their blessing.

Lenses will improve the ability to let light hit the sensor. Which means you won't have to crank your ISO as much in "typical" situations. So indirectly, yes...it does help with ISO. Having the option to zoom out to 200mm @ f/2.8 is two whole stops of light. Which means if you are shooting at ISO 1600 with your current 55-200VR, if you use a 70-200 f/2.8 VR II, you could shoot at ISO 400, because you are gaining two stops of brightness. In reality, the two go hand in hand. So to really recap, here are my thoughts. Both the D750 and D500 are excellent choices, but I feel that you are so used to the limitations of the consumer-grade kit lenses, you think that buying a bigger body will solve your problems. Of course, that's what the camera manufactures want you to believe; keeps you thinking that a new camera body will make you a better photographer, produce better images. While that is true to some degree, as newer technology will almost always trump older technology, nothing can replace good technique and having the best lenses as one can afford. There is a huge difference between the glass you are used to and the professional-grade stuff. Here is a lens that I routinely shoot with, it's much bigger and heavier than your 18-55, but the images from that lens are so much better: Nikon 17-55 f/2.8G Seriously, it will blow your 18-55 out of the water. Here is one of my favorite photo taken with my D300s and 17-55 f/2.8G. My D300s dates from 2009 and I'm about to make the switch to Full Frame: Kristen & Benjamin (I'm in the process of redoing my website, so FB will have to do for now.) The 17-55 is the "24-70" for crop bodies. It's a pro-grade lens, released when the Nikon D1 and D2 eras were new. Up until the Nikon D3, the "Professional Grade Bodies" were crop sensors. It wasn't until the Nikon D3 did we have affordable Full Frame Sensors. (Yes...for most people, $6000 isn't "affordable," but for the photographers that were forking out $10,000-$20,000+ for the 1st digital cameras, it WAS affordable at $6000.) Anyway... Back to the D750 vs. the D500. D750: You will get Full Frame. Low ISO capabilities, but the only lens that will make the D750 work as intended is the 50mm f/1.8. All of your DX lenses will throw it in "crop mode" which really cripples things. You could purchase a AF-S 85mm f/1.8, which will perform how your 50mm does with the D5300. With a crop sensor, your angle of view changes due to the smaller sensor. So a 50mm f/1.8 performs like a "Portrait Lens," even though optically it's still 50mm. With a full frame body, 50mm is 50mm and 85mm is 85mm. With a FF body, the angle of view is more "normal." Bottom Line with D750: Great camera. Highly recommended. I recommend spending the little extra in getting the D750 vs a Nikon D610, which is a ENTRY LEVEL FX body. Downside, you are going to need glass and even though you saved up, you are going to need to save more. The average cost to switch to Full Frame is around $4000-$4500. D500: Brand new. Hasn't hit the shelves yet. Has a lot of technology from the new Flagship Model: The Nikon D5. Weather sealing is better than what comes with the D750. It's built better, AF system is more robust. Basically, it's the "Professional Grade" DX body. I've shot plenty of gigs with my D300s and am now just starting to long for something better. That said, I've been buying pro-lenses the last few years in order to prep me to switch to Full Frame. Cost should be $1999 and it will work with all of your current lenses. Bottom Line with D500: For your situation, it is more affordable. Though I really would HIGHLY recommend upgrading your lenses. You could even rent them to see what I'm talking about.

Oh. In addition to 12 and 14 bit settings, you can cut (turn off) the megapixels in the camera's sensor which help save space and can speed up shooting. That's how you increase the fps from 5 to 6.5, by putting it in DX mode which creates 16MP images. (I think.) I don't know anyone personally that has done this. Going from 36MP to 24MP, sure.

That recovery D: drive is just a partition on your main HD. Think of a hard drive like a bookcase, and the programs / data are the books. The individual shelves in the bookcase are the HD partitions. You just have a single bookshelf that's really full. As long as you haven't put ANY files on that recovery partition, it should stay the same forever. If it keeps growing, you have another issue and I'm thinking you'll need to talk to support. In either case, create the recovery media.

Ok. The D750 is kinda off the table. All of your lenses are really meant for DX bodies, except for the 50 1.8. So if you could live with just one lens, then a D750 is fine for what you shoot. While it's true that you can use a DX lens on a FX camera, you will essentially cripple the full frame body. What happens is the image you see in the viewfinder will go dark around the edges and the camera's resolution will be cut, since the image circle formed on the sensor is smaller by using the DX lens. Believe me, it's no fun seeing what you are "missing" in the viewfinder when you use a DX lens on a Full Frame body. It's one of those things...just because you can, doesn't mean that you should. That said, you could use Live View on the newer camera bodies, which does show you the image on the LCD, without the dark edges. There are pros and cons to using this method, as using Live View can drain your battery a little quicker and if you are really shooting fast moving objects, ideally...you want to be using the viewfinder for that sort of subject. But Live View is useful in a pinch and some even prefer it, especially when shooting video. The D500 might be overkill. Honestly, you need better lenses than a new camera body. If you really want to improve your image quality, start with lenses. What don't you like about the 35 1.8? Is that the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G DX lens? If so, I love mine. What problems are you having with it? Oh, one thought. Be careful with believing the marketing hype with the sample images. I have a friend who had a image used by Nikon for a commercial. It was to promote the then new D3300. Guess what her image was taken with? A Nikon D3s and 24-70. The ad actor said, "You could take this image with a Nikon camera..." So they weren't "lying," but not telling the whole story. Don't think for a minute that those D500 sample images were taken with a 18-55 kit lens.

Set the camera to JPEG and then change the size. In reality, that setting is for JPEGs. The reason it's greyed out is because you are set to Raw only.

Throw me a bone here, which lenses specifically? Oh, what camera body are you shooting with now?

The majority of the time, if you bought a name-brand computer, it has software that will create the recovery media for you. It's usually in the Windows Start Menu, under the manufacturer's name or in a "Utilities" folder. Phrases to look for: Create Boot Media, Create Recovery Disks, Create Emergency Media, Create Recover Media...things like that. Or there is a program simply called, "Recovery Manager." It's probably been sitting there waiting for you. Keep in mind, you can only create the media once, so make sure you use quality discs / DVDs, I prefer the Verbatim & Sony brands. Also, for computers from around 2010 to current, there is often an option to create a Thumb Drive, which is quite handy as you only need one. I'd recommend using a 16GB Thumb Drive and store it in a marked bag and kept somewhere safe. Only the recovery media can be installed on it and as I said before, you have one shot to create it.

You leave that disk alone. You don't put ANY files on it, it is used to restore your system if things go horribly wrong. Speaking of which, have you created your bootable recovery media? Usually, it takes a few CDs or a 16GB Thumb-drive. Most people don't and then they have all sorts of problems if they have their HD replaced.

Thank You!

This one is a tough call. The reason is due to the screen. If you are editing and traveling consistently, it sounds like a Desktop Computer isn't going to be a good fit. So what does your budget look like? Also, how is your backup strategy? If you are without your main computer for lets say, 4 weeks...how do you pickup where you left off at? What make and model is your laptop?

Are you interested in going full frame? What does your lens lineup currently look like? What is your primary thing that you shoot?

I'd use the Epson software to create 24-bit Tiff files and then import them into PS.

I just found this nifty little tutorial for the V700. I'm sure the V800 isn't THAT different: How to scan 35mm slides wtih an Epson V700

The main difference between the Spyder5 Pro and Spyder5 Elite is the software. The hardware calibration device between the two is the same. In fact, you can turn a Spyder "Pro" into a Spyder "Elite" by purchasing the $99 software upgrade. That said, it's cheaper in the long run if you bought the Spyder5 Elite to begin with. The biggest difference with the software, is that the Elite has ALL of the bells and whistles turned on. It's not limited in anyway, all the features are available. In addition, a Spyder Elite has a better time in calibrating multiple displays, so if you are running a Windows computer with dual 24" displays and really want to get them matching as close as possible, then be sure to purchase the Elite. If you are just running a normal single display, chances are the "Pro" is fine. Edit: Since you are running a MacBook Pro, those "Elite" features will not be available to you. The only thing you can adjust is brightness. So as a Mac user myself, the Spyder5 Pro is fine.

I'm also wondering, are you using Apple's iPhoto or the new program called "Photos?" If so, I'll bet you that's where they are hiding. You see, those programs import photos automatically, unless you tell it not to, and stick them in a catalog. You never see the individual photos on the HD. It's just a big catalog file.

Do you run multiple logins on this Mac? If so, photos might be taking up space in another profile. I would download and use this program, Disk Inventory X: http://www.derlien.com/ It gives you a graphical snapshot of your HD by color. The bigger the color-blob, the more space on the HD the files are taking up. You can click on the various colors and see exactly which file is in that location. Also, I would HIGHLY RECOMMEND purchasing a program called "CleanMyMac" and run it weekly. Here is a link with a coupon code applied: http://macpaw.com/store/cleanmymac?coupon=ACTIONOVER12

Wow! The very first post!! Congratulations! Keep the 24-105 f/4L. It's a professional grade lens. Not only is is sharper, having the fixed aperture is a nice thing to have. You can be at f/4 @ 105mm, 24mm 58mm, whatever. With the 18-135, as you zoom out, the lens automatically stops down to f/5.6. The only time you will get f/3.5 is if you are at 18mm. The problem that you will have to decide is zoom capabilities. You want to go wider, but if you are constantly zooming, that causes issues with the lenses you want to buy. For instance, I would HIGHLY recommend the older 17-55 f/2.8, which is the "24-70 f/2.8" for crop bodies. Right now your 24-105 is acting like a 38.4 - 168mm. (Focal Length x 1.6 = Angle of View Change / Crop Factor). The only downside to the 17-55, is that it's a crop body lens only. So I get with what you are saying, this is a tough call. Keep in mind that if you ever decided to go full frame, the 24-105L is a full frame lens. You'll get your "wide" back if you upgrade. As for the 70D, I've seen people complaining about noise issues. So while it may have all the gadgets & gizmos, your results may not be that great. Perhaps a Canon user will chime in.