[leftnose]

My pics above are definitely straight from camera with no PP other than re-sizing to display on the web.  
 
The saturated colors: "L" lens on a full frame body shot at ISO 100, properly exposed in Av mode with saturation set to +2.  I shoot saturation at +3 unless there are people in the shot when I dial it back to +2 because +3 can produce orange skin tones. These settings only effect the JPGs.  RAW's aren't processed in camera (by definition).
 
I think I've posted this here before but this is straight out of camera with +3 saturation.
 

 
As for the photo of the three ladies, high speed sync with a flash is the best way to fix that and have a balanced foreground and background:
 
http://cameradojo.com/2010/05/31/mastering-your-flash-101-high-speed-sync/
 
For the bird, MadCow has given you excellent advise.  Getting a dark bird exposed properly when flying is very difficult to impossible with a short lens.  In fact, birds in flight may be one of the hardest types of photography to master.  MadCow is right about getting the composition right before you take the shot but, another advantage to shooting max res is that it gives you more room to crop the image after its taken and still have suitable resolution for printing.
 
One thing I like to do is enable AEB and take three shot strings either one stop or 2/3 stop apart.  Photography isn't magic.  It's just a matter of having a lot of practice so that you know the right tricks and when to use them.
 
Also, be very careful with "cheap" memory cards.  One day, one WILL fail on you and you'll lose a bunch of photos.  In fact, it's always better to have multiple smaller cards rather than one big card for this same reason.

 

[leftnose]

 
For reference, the top is the JPEG straight out of camera with +2 saturation and whatever standard processing the 5D2 adds to its JPGs.  The middle is a JPG generated from the RAW in Lightroom with absolutely no PP.  You can see the difference the saturation setting makes as well as how generally flat the RAW is.  This is standard, though: pretty much all RAWs look flat and require PP to look their best.
 
The third photo is my PP from the RAW solely in Lightroom plus a heavy crop that's allowed because of the hi-res original.  It's still over 8MP so you could easily print an 8x10 out of that.  And, if I were really interested, I would take this into Photoshop and rubber stamp out his left arm in the very lower right corner.  Digital is fun!
 
EDIT: Added the third photo

 

[hyogen]

Quote:

My pics above are definitely straight from camera with no PP other than re-sizing to display on the web.  
 
The saturated colors: "L" lens on a full frame body shot at ISO 100, properly exposed in Av mode with saturation set to +2.  I shoot saturation at +3 unless there are people in the shot when I dial it back to +2 because +3 can produce orange skin tones. These settings only effect the JPGs.  RAW's aren't processed in camera (by definition).
 
I think I've posted this here before but this is straight out of camera with +3 saturation.
 

 
As for the photo of the three ladies, high speed sync with a flash is the best way to fix that and have a balanced foreground and background:
 
http://cameradojo.com/2010/05/31/mastering-your-flash-101-high-speed-sync/
 
For the bird, MadCow has given you excellent advise.  Getting a dark bird exposed properly when flying is very difficult to impossible with a short lens.  In fact, birds in flight may be one of the hardest types of photography to master.  MadCow is right about getting the composition right before you take the shot but, another advantage to shooting max res is that it gives you more room to crop the image after its taken and still have suitable resolution for printing.
 
One thing I like to do is enable AEB and take three shot strings either one stop or 2/3 stop apart.  Photography isn't magic.  It's just a matter of having a lot of practice so that you know the right tricks and when to use them.
 
Also, be very careful with "cheap" memory cards.  One day, one WILL fail on you and you'll lose a bunch of photos.  In fact, it's always better to have multiple smaller cards rather than one big card for this same reason.

 
ahh, I see.  thanks for all the tips.  how big is too big do you think for memory card?  should I carry a few 16gb cards?  8gb? 

 

[Jon L]

"In fact, birds in flight may be one of the hardest types of photography to master."
 
Indeed..
 

 

[leftnose]

Quote:

 
ahh, I see.  thanks for all the tips.  how big is too big do you think for memory card?  should I carry a few 16gb cards?  8gb? 

 
I carry at least two 16GB SanDisk Extreme Pro CF cards with me.  8GB are safer but I'll take the convenience of 16GB cards.
 
When I travel, I carry the two 16GB cards plus a 32GB card but I hardly ever use the 32GB card as I dump to my laptop every evening.
 
Quote:

 
Indeed..
 

 
Nice!  Have you seen the animated GIF Martin Bailey put together of a Kingfisher while testing out the 1DX?  Might be the most mindblowing thing I've ever seen done with a still camera:
 
https://plus.google.com/u/0/102227359845636175866/posts/L1Hor91K5ny

 

[Jon L]

1DX..yes, indeed. At any rate, the Shorty-Forty arrived today (EF 40mm f/2.8) which is a nice little lens.
 

 
 

 

[reaqter]

Sorry to interrupt, and I might have missed it in the 100-odd pages I didn't have time to read, but does anyone have a film Canon, 60s-70s era? I've got an FTb body that I like except that it's a bit bulky, so I'm thinking of testing out the AT-1 I have stashed at home.

 

[liamstrain]

Quote:

Sorry to interrupt, and I might have missed it in the 100-odd pages I didn't have time to read, but does anyone have a film Canon, 60s-70s era? I've got an FTb body that I like except that it's a bit bulky, so I'm thinking of testing out the AT-1 I have stashed at home.

 
I still have (and occasionally shoot) my F1N cameras, and my wife still likes her AE-1. The AT-1 is basically the AE-1 but manual exposure only. I don't think it will save you much bulk over the FTb. The A series was maybe a smidge lighter and shorter ...but I'm not sure it'll really add up to much.
 
But no harm in trying. 

 

[leftnose]

When I travel on vacation, I normally take my 5DII and 3-4 lenses with me: 35mm f/2, 17-40L, 24-105 and, optionally, the 70-300L.  I tend to do much more landscape/cityscape/indoor type photography when travelling.  Recently I got both the 100L Macro and a 430 EX II.  I'm thinking that I would like to bring both of these along as well but it really becomes too much to carry.  
 
So I'm thinking of trading the 17-40 for a 16-35 so I can replace in my bag both the 17-40 and the 35mm.  I'm losing a stop of speed and a convenient small lens vs the prime but I'm also gaining a stop of speed vs. the 17-40.  In the end, it would be: 16-35, 24-105, 100L: macro, 430 EX II and, optionally, the 70-300.  Additionally, in a year or so, I will probably trade the 5DII against a 5DIII so I will get improved high ISO performance to somewhat compensate for the lost stop 16-35 vs 35 f/2.
 
Suggestions?  Ideas?  Input?

 

[MadCow]

Quote:

When I travel on vacation, I normally take my 5DII and 3-4 lenses with me: 35mm f/2, 17-40L, 24-105 and, optionally, the 70-300L.  I tend to do much more landscape/cityscape/indoor type photography when travelling.  Recently I got both the 100L Macro and a 430 EX II.  I'm thinking that I would like to bring both of these along as well but it really becomes too much to carry.  
 
So I'm thinking of trading the 17-40 for a 16-35 so I can replace in my bag both the 17-40 and the 35mm.  I'm losing a stop of speed and a convenient small lens vs the prime but I'm also gaining a stop of speed vs. the 17-40.  In the end, it would be: 16-35, 24-105, 100L: macro, 430 EX II and, optionally, the 70-300.  Additionally, in a year or so, I will probably trade the 5DII against a 5DIII so I will get improved high ISO performance to somewhat compensate for the lost stop 16-35 vs 35 f/2.
 
Suggestions?  Ideas?  Input?

 
The 35/2 is small and light enough that I don't think it would make much difference if you replace it and the 17-40 with a 16-35.
 
In my opinion, I think your 24-105 overlaps a lot, both at the wide end and at the long end. Perhaps go with 17-40 + 35 + 100 + 70-300 instead?
 
But in the end, I suppose it depends on which lenses and in which focal length you use the most. When shooting film with my old EOS 33, I used to go around with 17-40 + 50 + 85... so a "standard zoom" never really played a significant part to me.

 

[Jon L]

Just saw Canon store has refurb S95 with coupon code SHIP712 = $224 shipped! If you ever wanted a pocketable camera with largish sensor, it might be time.
 
http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_276388_-1?WT.mc_id=C126149

 

[Jon L]

Quote:

When I travel on vacation, I normally take my 5DII and 3-4 lenses with me: 35mm f/2, 17-40L, 24-105 and, optionally, the 70-300L.  I tend to do much more landscape/cityscape/indoor type photography when travelling.  Recently I got both the 100L Macro and a 430 EX II.  I'm thinking that I would like to bring both of these along as well but it really becomes too much to carry.  
 
So I'm thinking of trading the 17-40 for a 16-35 so I can replace in my bag both the 17-40 and the 35mm.  I'm losing a stop of speed and a convenient small lens vs the prime but I'm also gaining a stop of speed vs. the 17-40.  In the end, it would be: 16-35, 24-105, 100L: macro, 430 EX II and, optionally, the 70-300.  Additionally, in a year or so, I will probably trade the 5DII against a 5DIII so I will get improved high ISO performance to somewhat compensate for the lost stop 16-35 vs 35 f/2.
 
Suggestions?  Ideas?  Input?

I would sell the 35 f/2 and get the 40mm f/2.8 pancake, which is MUCH sharper with more contrast than my 35 f/2, especially in corners which is nice for landscapes.  It's quite sharp even wide open at f/2.8, sharper than 35 f/2 or 50 f/1.8 stopped down to f/2.8!  It's so small you can carry it in a shirt pocket.  You do lose a stop of speed over 35 f/2; however, I never shoot the 35 wide open at f/2 due to softness, so it's a moot point in reality.
 
There's photo comparison among 35 f/2., 50 f/1.8, and 40 f/2.8 in the middle of the this review:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-40mm-f-2.8-STM-Pancake-Lens-Review.aspx
 
I also didn't much enjoy my time with 16-35 II, which is a good lens but bit too heavy, large, and expensive for what it offers.  Canon really needs something nicer in this focal range, and hopefully the rumored 14-24 will be released before next millenia.  In other words, I don't think trading 17-40 for 16-35 is worth it, especially if most work is outdoors.  
 
Also, while I like my 5D3, I don't think the improved ISO performance over 5D2 would be the reason for upgrading.  If you shoot RAW (which everyone should), most 5D2/3 co-owners are reporting at most 1/2 stop high iso improvement in RAW (2 stops in JPEG).  Unless you need the nicer AF and FPS, I'd rather use the money on lenses myself

 

[leftnose]

Quote:

In my opinion, I think your 24-105 overlaps a lot, both at the wide end and at the long end. Perhaps go with 17-40 + 35 + 100 + 70-300 instead?

 
Hmm.  I don't always carry my 70-300, though.  It's pretty much the first to be pulled out of the bag, partially because it is "heavy."  Yes, you're right that there is a lot of overlap but I would say the 24-105 is on the camera about 60% of the time.  I'd have to look through the EXIF data, though, to see how I'm using it.
 
Quote:

I would sell the 35 f/2 and get the 40mm f/2.8 pancake, which is MUCH sharper with more contrast than my 35 f/2, especially in corners which is nice for landscapes.  It's quite sharp even wide open at f/2.8, sharper than 35 f/2 or 50 f/1.8 stopped down to f/2.8!  It's so small you can carry it in a shirt pocket.  You do lose a stop of speed over 35 f/2; however, I never shoot the 35 wide open at f/2 due to softness, so it's a moot point in reality.
 
There's photo comparison among 35 f/2., 50 f/1.8, and 40 f/2.8 in the middle of the this review:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-40mm-f-2.8-STM-Pancake-Lens-Review.aspx
 
I also didn't much enjoy my time with 16-35 II, which is a good lens but bit too heavy, large, and expensive for what it offers.  Canon really needs something nicer in this focal range, and hopefully the rumored 14-24 will be released before next millenia.  In other words, I don't think trading 17-40 for 16-35 is worth it, especially if most work is outdoors.  
 
Also, while I like my 5D3, I don't think the improved ISO performance over 5D2 would be the reason for upgrading.  If you shoot RAW (which everyone should), most 5D2/3 co-owners are reporting at most 1/2 stop high iso improvement in RAW (2 stops in JPEG).  Unless you need the nicer AF and FPS, I'd rather use the money on lenses myself

I've looked at the pancake but I think if I'm going to carry a wide/normal prime, I don't think I would want it any slower than f/2.  I think the only thing that would make me dump my 35/2 would be a 35/2 IS like the new 24 and 28mm lenses.
 
I'm also thinking that the reviewer's 35/2 might be a bit sub-par.  Mine isn't that soft in the corners.  It's probably not as sharp as the 40mm samples but it's better than what is shown.
 
However, assuming that I have a better than average 35/2 and his is more representative of the lens in general,. it's interesting how closely it matches the nifty fifty.  I'm always reading how the 35/2 is such a turd but the nify fifty is the greatest thing since 25 cent wings.  From those samples, they're about the same if you ask me.
 
And while I only mentioned high-ISO performance above, the primary reason for the upgrade  would be for the AF.  And, other than a 200 f/2L plus the two teleconverters, there really isn't a lens I want/need right now.  And that combo is way too expensive for me to buy given the amount I would shoot it.  I do shoot RAW, BTW.

 

[reaqter]

Quote:

 
I still have (and occasionally shoot) my F1N cameras, and my wife still likes her AE-1. The AT-1 is basically the AE-1 but manual exposure only. I don't think it will save you much bulk over the FTb. The A series was maybe a smidge lighter and shorter ...but I'm not sure it'll really add up to much.
 
But no harm in trying. 

Hm...I have a couple AE-1's lying around, but I always end up using full manual anyway. I wonder which will last longer over the next few years, the FTb or the AT? They're both in great condition.

 

[MadCow]

Quote:

I'm also thinking that the reviewer's 35/2 might be a bit sub-par.  Mine isn't that soft in the corners.  It's probably not as sharp as the 40mm samples but it's better than what is shown.
 

 
I suspect it's just a case of field curvature, that kind of thing always doesn't turn out well against a flat test chart.