Emailing with the 50D?

[tanbark]

But first, EG, thanks for the handhold. :)


I have a new 50D. Took some soccer shots, and I'm trying to email them to my friend, the coach. I have yet to see anything in the Canon software with the thumbnails, or the enlarged-view photos, that says: "Email images" or "Share", or "Optimized images for email"...all of which things are in the software with the Sony DSC 505 that I've been using for 8 years now. It's very easy to email photos with that software.

Am I missing something, or with the Canon, do I have to download the shots into a file in the computer, create an email, and then click on "attach" and go and get them?

Also, I was told that it MIGHT be possible that the Jasco (I think it is) software could recognize the Canon camera. Anything to that that anyone knows of?

I understand that the higher pixels I'll be shooting at, will make for a slower upload and download (Much slower, apparently) but it would be nice to have the simplicity of emailing photos.

Thanks, tb.

[sapearl]

Hi Tanbark and welcome to POTN.

You will need some sort of image editing S/W to process and send your files, in the desired resolution and file size. This could be Gimp, Photoshop, Elements, etc. If you are sending files purely for viewing purposes, then they need only be formatted for screen resolution and sized small.

This would be like 72 dpi, 800x600 pixels, medium image quality or thereabouts. In Photoshop there is a SAVE feature called SAVE FOR WEB DEVICE. This would give you those results. You play with the controls for the desired result. File sizes would be in the range of 50-100K approximately. My proof web galleries are around this size. My fine art galleries are larger.

If you want to send images for printing, they will need to be much larger in order to result in fine print quality. The resultant JPG file size can be huge if you desire it, but that will make for slow emailing.

Generally, a 1MB file can render a very very nice 5x7 print and even a decent 8x10 print depending upon how good it was processed and captured. The files I send to my commercial lab for my wedding work are in the range of about 2 - 5 MB. Basically you would just save the file as a full resolution JPG (don't need to select 800x600 or any other dimension) and then indicate a quality level of either low, medium, high, very high or maximum, depending upon the s/w. It should display the file size at this point.

I would also recommend at this point that you read some books on editing your images. There is also a TON of phenomenal information on this forum. You just have to mine it with the search feature. All questions are answered here.... seriously; you just have to find them :lol:.

What will the coach be using the files for, printing or displaying in a web gallery? Hope this helps. Keep asking if you have more questions. Stu Pearl ;)

[int2str]

Tanbark,

I would advice against emailing pictures. It's awfully slow on both your end and on the recipient side. Instead, use an image hosting service and send out a link. I shoot youth soccer pictures and regularly send the images out to the coaches and parents using Google's Picasa and the workflow is easy and convenient. Oh, and it's free...

Here's what I would suggest to you:
1) Sign up for a Google account if you don't have one yet
2) Download and install Picasa from here: http://picasa.google.com/

If you shoot JPEG, then here's the workflow:
1) Download images to PC (either using the EOS Utiliry or a card reader)
2) Fire up Picasa (it'll find and index the new images)
3) Hit "Upload to web album"
4) Email the resulting web link

Picasa will automatically resize the images to 1600x1200 and upload them. You also get to choose the access level. Album's can be completely public, or they can be "unlisted". If you set them to unlisted, only the people who get the direct link can see the album. That is perfect for soccer pictures since you may not want to make images of all the other kids publicly viewable.

You can also easily straighten pictures, crop them and fix basic issues without any advanced knowledge.

Give it a try. In my opinion it's the easiest workflow and you can have your pictures up literally minutes after a game. And the coaches/parents can view them online, download images from Picasa and view slideshows. All much quicker and more convenient than email.

These days I'm shooting RAW and my only intermediate step is to use DPP to do basic cropping & adjustments before I convert to JPEG and hand it over to Picasa.

[tanbark]

SA, thanks for the info. I surely bought more camera than I know how to use, but the quick autofocusing (much quicker than the D90, it seemed) and the 6 FPS, were attractive, for soccer, my main interest. My sends would be, at this point, only for viewing, or for making decent prints. As you note, the high MB's are for commercial-level stuff, and I have no need of them right now. And of course, they take forever to get up and down. I need to reduce the pixels I'm shooting at, for a first step.

I also think I'll uninstall the Canon software and just see if the old Sony software will recognize the new camera. The clerk at Best Buy insisted that there was a good chance of that. I was wondering if there's any way I can isolate or temporarily block the Canon software, so that it wouldn't pre-empt the Sony, which I believe is Jasco. Any thoughts on that? Thanks again, for taking the time. tb.

[tanbark]

Int: Thanks for your help. I'll save that, for future reference. But, with the Sony, eamailing shots that weren't of what you'd call commercial quality, was incredibly easy. It's hard to believe that 8 or 10 years after that software was available, that Canon has ingnored it. It's very user-friendly, and the Canon instruction booklet, and the functions, are generally that way too, but not seeing the word "email" in their book, or in their software, was a shock. :o)

[tanbark]

BTW, Int, what lens(es) do you use?

[sapearl]

In2str - thanks for that very nice write up. I'd heard about that service but never really explored the features since I upload to my PBase gallery. But that's good to know for some possible alternatives. - Stu

[tanbark]

EG, Stu, Int; You guys are GREAT! Thanks a ton for taking the time to help someone who's in over their head. I am so analog, you wouldn't believe it. :o)

At bluegrass and blackwater diving, I do fine. Digital photography?

Sometimes, it's downright embarassing.

Muchas grassyass, to you guys.

[int2str]

I use my 70-200mm for soccer along with the newly aquired 1.4x TC

Here's an example of an unlisted Picasa Album:
http://picasaweb.google.com/int2str/20090502RBRecGame7?authkey=Gv1sRgCMaHxeHDl6ydmAE#

You can click "Slideshow" in the upper right corner once you're there and then even use your left/right keys on your keyboard to flip through the shots.

[tanbark]

Nice stuff! Your timing is excellent, and that's what it's all about, to me, for shooting soccer.

If I've got it right, your extender turns your 200 zoom into 280. Does it cost you a stop then, and is the autofocusing still quick? I plan on getting the 100-400, when I get the rubles, and I know the camera doesn't support the 2X extender, but it would be great to have that reach, and I don't mind manually zooming, and the push-pull mechanism with that lens is also not a downside, to me. (Most of the reviews for it are good, with a few, knocking it some.)

[tanbark]

I should have said, the camera won't support AUTOFOCUS with the 2X. Sorry.

[int2str]

Yes, the extender turns the 200mm into a 280mm. You do loose a stop. With the Canon extender I have (can't speak for others), the camera also notices this and shows f/4 in the displays.

I'd think that the reach of the 100-400mm would be plenty. If you really need it, I'd add the 1.4x TC at most. On the smaller youth fields, sometimes 280mm feels too long already at times and I have to quickly switch to portrait mode (turn the camera) to get the full frame.

As far as the AF speed, I honestly never really understood what people mean by that. The lens is a slight bit slower focusing from infinity down to the subject, but I just don't do that constantly - that's not how I shoot my pictures.

I shoot soccer in AF-Servo mode. When I'm ready to take a shot (or a burst of shots), I press the AF-ON button and start following my target/ball. Then when I catch the moment, I fire away. This means that the camera has to make a "large" focus adjustment only once while I start acquiring my subject. While I'm tracking it the lens doesn't have any issue at all keeping up.

What I'm trying to convey is that with my shooting style, raw AF speed just doesn't seem to matter much. I've just never worried about it. 1.4 TC or otherwise. The only time where it *might* be an issue if the camera is focused out to infinity (not sure why it would) and I yank it up for a quick candid shot or unexpected event. There the camera might take too long to acquire AF and I may miss the shot - but that's just not how I shoot and it's never happened to me yet.

[tanbark]

Int; thanks again. Those are good tips.

I favor high school level soccer. So much of the time, with the little kids, it's:

"Herd left; herd right; herd-up-the-middle." Although, when I was living in the Santa Cruz area, I spent a good deal of time in San Jose, reffing in the Peninsula league, and I'd occasionally stay and watch a kids game. Some of them were already getting a good spatial sense, by the time they were 9 or 10. That's one of the hotbeds for the game.

Dumb question; on my 50D, I'm still trying to find out how to reduce the fps from that max of 6, down to 3 or 4. I haven't found it in the book yet. Also, can you change the length of time the viewfinder info remains up? 4 seconds is too short for my cognitive skills. :o)

[int2str]

If you look at the top display when you switch to burst mode, the first burst mode icon has a small "H" at the bottom right. As you scroll through the modes, the next mode has the same icon (stack of images) with no "H". That's the 3 FPS mode.

Not sure about the viewfinder timeout. Just a tip: You can bring it back at any time by half-pressing your shutter.

[egordon99]

EG, Stu, Int; You guys are GREAT! Thanks a ton for taking the time to help someone who's in over their head. I am so analog, you wouldn't believe it. :o)

At bluegrass and blackwater diving, I do fine. Digital photography?

Sometimes, it's downright embarassing.

Muchas grassyass, to you guys.

Cool! I'm a big AKUS fan, along with Nickel Creek, Bela Fleck, and my Dad actually was friends with David Grisman growing up :)

I play a mean flat-top acoustic as well ;)

Banjo, not so much :(

Glad we could get you sorted out with the photo stuff!

[tanbark]

Int; I am ON it, thanks to you and the other guys. I am so grateful for the help. What a fine forum, for the canoneers. I had a couple of Nikon FM's way back when that Iused with a Sigma 105 macro for artifact shots of slave tags, confederate buttons, bottles, and the like, and I had thought to get the D90 for the big change-over, but when I got my hands on the Canon, it just felt better.

EG; you talkin' some goood pickers and singers. I knew Grisman 40 years ago, when he was coming down to Union Grove with Winnie Winston and The New York Ramblers. They won the band comp there a couple of years running and there were some great bands there, too. Not bad for a bunch of city-billies, as Pete Seeger puts it.

You into Bryan Sutton? He's pretty much the bull-goose for acoustic flatpicking these days. Unbelievable. And, of course, Tony Rice is the old maestro. I've got a cut of him pickin' and singin' "John Hardy" with the Bluegrass Album band: Doyle Lawson, Jerry Douglas, J.D. Crowe (J.D.'s the man!) and Vassar Clements and Bobby Hicks. They count it down:

"1! 2! 3!!!" and it's like a coiled spring being released. Goosebump stuff, if you like hard-driving bg.

Here's Tony and Douglas, Sam Bush, and Blaine Sprouse, on fiddle, gettin' "9 pound hammer". Merle Haggard's smilin' a mile wide:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u964a0f38s

[tanbark]

Dangit! Merle TRAVIS. There go the synapses again; gettin' into another barfight in my head.

[tanbark]

Int, how do you get in burst mode? I've got the directions, on page 89 of the book, but using the quick-dial, they just move me back and forth between the H and the self-timer.

I'm option overwhelmed.

[egordon99]

H is burst mode :)

I believe it cycles between one-shot, burst (3FPS), high speed burst (6.5FPS), and then the two self-timer options. I just checked it on my 40D so it should be the same on the 50D.
Make sure you're in either Av, Tv, P, or Manual. I believe in any other mode, certain options are disabled.

[tonylong]

tanbark,

Just so you'll know, the 100-400 with a 1.4x TC will not cooperate with AF. The combo reports f/6.3 with the zoom fully retracted and f/8 fully zoomed, and the camera (all excep the 1D series) require f/5.6 for AF.

I've heard that there are ways of circumventing the reporting, although in doing so you risk having your AF be unreliable/inaccurate.

Anyway, that's the scoop.

[tanbark]

EG, you dood it. That was the key; putting it in the right mode. But I swear I can't find that little instruction in the book. Thanks much.

And thank YOU, Tony, for the post. And some lens review people are dishonest or misinformed, because I've read at least two reviews of that lens in which they say that while the 2X extender won't autofocus, the 1.4 will. Appreciate the heads up.

Looking at what I'm getting with the little 28-135 "kit" lens, I'm not at all sure that the bare 100-400 won't get me to any part of the field Iwant to cover, particularly since they don't seem to mind people shooting from the sidelines at the high school and college games around here. If you LOOK like a photog, then.... :)

[tonylong]

tanbark,

If you have the opportunity to rent, you might try out a 70-200 f/2.8 as well as the 100-400 and compare. You are likely to get better results with the 70-200 withing its range, and it will take TCs as well. Something to consider. If you can move along the sidelines and go for the closer action, the 70-200 (bare) will have better focus and delivers very crisp images (a well as be able to handle lower light shooting with a constant f/2.8).

As far as the information you've seen about the 100-400 and AF working with a 1.4x TC, well, the only cameras that can do that are the 1D series -- their AF goes to f/8. So they may be thinking of that rather than the fact that the rest of our bodies only go to f/5.6. Hopefully, people won't make the mistake of buying in to misinformation.

[tanbark]

Tony, thanks again. That about the 70-200 sounds very sensible. I'll have to consider that when I get the jings together.

How do you guys feel about extended warranties? I still have a few days in which to decide if want the Best Buy warranty, which is for 4 years at $300. That seems high to me, but I don't know what the rates are now, for camera repair, so maybe it isn't.

I know the digital stuff is...tenderer...than the old film cameras, but I do take care of my tools. Has the 50D been out long enough to talk about how reliable and durable it is?

[sapearl]

Personally - IMHO - I believe that for GOOD products, extended warranties are a waste of money and just icing on the store's balance sheets.

The profit on those things is HOOOOGE for those people. Usually I don't buy them. I don't particularly baby my gear, but I certainly don't abuse the equipment and always store and carry them well, using good common sense in their use.

I agree that $300 is high. As for camera repair - there is a local pro repair shop and anything that walks in the door and gets disassembled and inspected/cleaned starts at around $85. Back when I was still using my Hasselblads, the film magazines ran about $105 for clean, adjust, lub and new film seels.

......How do you guys feel about extended warranties? I still have a few days in which to decide if want the Best Buy warranty, which is for 4 years at $300. That seems high to me, but I don't know what the rates are now, for camera repair, so maybe it isn't.

I know the digital stuff is...tenderer...than the old film cameras, but I do take care of my tools. Has the 50D been out long enough to talk about how reliable and durable it is?

[Gilthanass]

Tony, thanks again. That about the 70-200 sounds very sensible. I'll have to consider that when I get the jings together.

How do you guys feel about extended warranties? I still have a few days in which to decide if want the Best Buy warranty, which is for 4 years at $300. That seems high to me, but I don't know what the rates are now, for camera repair, so maybe it isn't.

I know the digital stuff is...tenderer...than the old film cameras, but I do take care of my tools. Has the 50D been out long enough to talk about how reliable and durable it is?

That reminds me of the simpsons quote when Mo was sticking crayons up homer's nose in order to make him stupid again. After making progressively more stupid comments everytime a crayon was inserted, the scene culminated with the line "Extended warranty, how can I lose!".

So, here it is: extended warranties never make financial sense. When you look at the number of failures within the time period of your extended warranty (only after a standard warranty would expire) you see that it's essentially a sucker's bet. You will be charged ridiculous amounts of money for something that will likely never happen to you. So, at $300 dollars, you're talking about a quarter of the (new) price of the camera. Do you really think that more than 1 in 4 people will have a defect in their camera that the warranty would cover? Of course, by the time that comes into effect (what's the standard? a year?) your camera will be worth much less than that, so for that bet to make sense, you'd expect there to be a 1/3 chance your camera is going to suddenly implode right after the warrenty expires. If that happened, do you think Canon would still be in business?

And, personally, I have never bought an extended warranty for anything in my entire life (and I have been offered quite a few). I've also never run into a situation where an extended warranty would have been useful.

[tanbark]

Saw this at Adorama, for the 70-200 Canon zoom:

http://www.adorama.com/CA70200AFLK.html

The price was the lowest I've seen, and there are some goodies with it. I'm wondering about the discrepancy between their price and that of some of the other places.

Best Buy has it at nearly $1800. Amazon, for around $1600 I believe.

Is the lens in the Adorama ad gray market, without a USA warranty?