|
Articles and Reviews
|
Home >> Old News Items What's New Archives 2006 July-December December 30, 2006 - Comment by reader:
December 24, 2006 - Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everyone from CameraHobby! For the secularists amongst the readership: Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral, celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practised within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all . . . and a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2007, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make Canada great, (not to imply that Canada is necessarily greater than any other country), and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, choice of computer platform, or sexual preference of the wishee. By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law. It is also revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher. The wishee further agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the wisher, along with its heirs, assigns, officers, directors, shareholders... December
22, 2006 - So, Hoya
is buying out Pentax – the news release talks of a merger between the two
companies, but Pentax shareholders are being offered Hoya shares to consummate
the deal, so it really is Hoya taking over Pentax.
I’m
quite surprised that Hoya is the one taking over Pentax. I’m not surprised
that Pentax is being taken over, because I had expected it for some time,
but my assumption was that Samsung would be the one to buyout Pentax. Samsung
already sells D-SLRs and lenses that are merely renamed Pentax units, so it
seemed fitting for the huge Samsung to easily swallow Pentax.
Pentax
is one of the smaller of the big name photographic companies and with Minolta
giving up on the business after their merger with Konica, how much longer
can Nikon remain an independent? And even if Nikon were available, who would
be the marriage partner?
Of
the major Japanese photographic brands, we now have:
There
are also some niche players, but I kind of doubt that Sigma or Tamron will
be buying out Nikon anytime soon J
My
next wild and likely incorrect assumption would be Fuji taking over Nikon.
It seems like the right kind of fit doesn’t it?
As
nice as some of the Fuji S series Pro cameras have been for picture quality,
the cameras usually blew and were far below the quality needed for the S series
to be considered professional quality.
The
coming S5 Pro finally addresses the pro-quality camera issue by utilizing
the Nikon D200 as its base, but Fuji should just takeover Nikon and get access
to the ergonomically superb D2 series bodies.
On
a somewhat strangely related side note, Hasselblad could possibly benefit
from a Fuji/Nikon marriage because their current auto focus H series is really
a FujiBlad amalgam utilizing auto focus technology from Minolta. Ditch the
Minolta stuff and put in some Nikon Matrix metering and build the FujiBlad
lenses with Nikon’s AF-S and VR technologies. Hell, Nikon could even get back
into medium format lens making by producing OEM lenses that Hasselblad could
slap their name on (Nikon use to make lenses for the Bronica cameras way back
in the 1960s).
Nikon
could also win out by having access to Fuji’s Super CCD sensors and no longer
have to rely on their new D-SLR competitor, Sony, for all of their camera’s
sensors.
Is
this all Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds hallucinations coming to fore in my
warped mind? Most likely yes, but I wonder just how much longer Nikon can
go it alone.
December 21, 2006 - More comments about the Buffalo NAS:
After perusing through the Japanese language site that Engadget pulled the news from, I'm encouraged by the promised increase in transmission speed by three times. However, even a three times increase in speed is still too slow for copying files from the Buffalo NAS back to the computer. December 19, 2006 - As a postscript to yesterday's posting, I didn't mention that the dead hard drive also contained my cousin's wedding photo files and for some stupid, brain dead reason, I had not backed up the most important files to my NAS either. Thankfully, I had a 300 GB external drive stored off site that I retrieved and copied back those files. Lesson learned the hard way, but this time around I was smart enough to backup and be able to come out smelling like (dung covered) roses. December 18, 2006 - I had a Maxtor hard drive die on me a few days ago, causing my computer to not boot up properly until I disconnected it from the MOBO. After removing it and replacing it with a Seagate drive, I realized to my horror that I had some important files on the dead Maxtor, files that due to my laziness, had not been backed up yet. So, how do you tell a friend who is between equipment upgrades and had borrowed your primo Nikon gear to photograph his sister's wedding, that his files are all gone because of a dead hard drive? You don't! You do some research and find out about this last gasp of hope about freezing the hard drive and then seeing if that might somehow bond the molecules together long enough to recover the files. Unfortunately, this did not work for my paperweight of a hard drive. Next, you buy Lexar's Image Rescue 2 and then run it on the compact flash card that was used to capture the wedding and hope to God that enough of the file residue is left to pull them from the card. Thankfully, even though the card had already been formatted, it had not been used again since the late November wedding, so Image Rescue had no problem in rescovering every file on the card. In fact, Image Rescue was finding images taken months ago when I stopped the deep retrieval process (there are different levels of recovery with Image Rescue). So, with the files retrieved, I can now call up my friend and joke around about the dead hard drive and his sister's wedding photos...resulting in a tense, silent moment over the telephone until I assured him that all the files were retrieved and backed up in triplicate this time around on three separate hard drives (once in the CPU, once on an external drive, and once on the NAS). Just one little fly in the ointment about rescued image files. Image Rescue, like other retrieval software I've used before, see RAW files as TIFFs. This makes sense as RAW files are actually a variant of the TIFF file format; however, these retrieved files are no longer virgin RAW files. First, they're retrieved as .tif files and even though I manually changed the extension to .nef, Nikon Capture balked at editing any of them. Adobe Camera Raw was better, but a significant number of the files were still not available for editing and conversion. Bibble Pro to the rescue, as this application had no problem with converting any of the rescued and renamed RAW files. And when my friend came by to edit the files on my computer system, first he was blown away by the huge Dell monitor and then he was blown away at how powerful and great Bibble is for RAW file conversion (he's a digital newbie with minimal experience with RAW conversion). Moral of this little tale, backup, backup, and backup your files religiously no matter if it's to hard drives internal and external, NAS, or to CD/DVD. You can never be too safe or too anal about backing up in this digital age. Sometimes people contact me for advice or information; advice and information that isn't too hard to find on one's own. But, you'd think that people who do ask me for information could at least get my name right. The name is Edwin and is most certainly not Ed, Eddie, Edward, Irwin or any other variant (with all due respect to those with such names) ;-) December 11, 2006 - I've been a bit sick the past couple of weeks, so I'm slowly trying to get myself back into the reviewing thing and actually produce some new content. Now that a course is also finally completed, I actually have some time back in my life again, at least until the next course begins in the new year. For the time being, I hope to appease all of the readers with a cursory review of the Dell 3007WFP LCD monitor. November 29, 2006 - Reader's comment about this website (I'm blushing):
November 26, 2006 - Public comment and question about the Buffalo TeraStation Pro:
I just completed some timed tests using 1.51 GB of data to try and mirror the magazine's test.
Even taking into account that my network is 1-gigabit, it would appear that my network betters the times by more than 30-percent. However, trying to copy the files from the Buffalo back to the computer is absolutely and astonishingly brutal in how slow it is. I don't know enough networks or hard drive technology to understand how it could be bearable one way, but so slow the other way around. November 25, 2006 - In World War I, the Germans utilized a howitzer that could fire shells weighing over 800 kg. This howitzer was nicknamed after the manufacturer's wife and was known as Dicke Bertha in German - "Fat Bertha" or "Big Bertha" in English. It wasn't the biggest howitzer or cannon developed and used during WW I, but it was likely the first of the big guns and gave rise to an arms race of developing the biggest artillery piece by both sides. The nickname "Big Bertha" was also co-opted and used for a couple of other guns used by the Germans, including the massive Paris Gun. Big Bertha is now synonymous with just about anything huge, or biggest of its kind. Which leads into the Big Bertha of the computer monitors available for consumer use. In mid 2004, Apple announced the biggest LCD monitor available for consumers, the 30-inch Apple Cinema Display. Gorgeously huge and fantastically expensive when it became widely available in the beginning of 2005. One-year later, Dell announced availability of their own 30-inch LCD for less than the ACD. From the beginning of 2006 to now, the price has slowly dropped on the Dell 3007WFP from its introductory list at CAN $2300 to its current CAN $1800 (free S&H at this time). A couple of things happened to push me towards buying the Dell 3007 and welcome my own Big Bertha as the jewel of my digital darkroom system, but more on that in the formal review to come.
November 24, 2006 - The Lensbaby 3G is now in-house for review and soon, Big Bertha will be too... November 23, 2006 - Art. What is it? What defines it? And, does it matter what is used to create it? Take the Nikon D50 SLR; once upon a time, the D50 was Nikon's entry-level digital SLR and when I had the opportunity to use it for a couple of weeks earlier this year, I didn't think it would be the right tool in my hands despite it being better than my old D100 for overall image quality and especially for high ISO quality. However, I didn't dismiss out of hand and felt that it was a very nice camera for those that aren't willing to expend every last penny pursuing photography as a passion. According to rumour though (and unfortunate if true), there have been some that made it known that the D50 was the worse camera that they had ever used and refused to review it. Still others don't care whether the D50 is professional-grade or not (a subject that can be ill-defined, because isn't whatever a pro uses "professional-grade?) they just go out and create art. Take a look at this short film by Martín Miguel Crespo, Opaco, made entirely of still images taken with the D50. Three-days of shooting 15,000 frames and two-months of sound editing produced "art." November 18, 2006 - Reader's comment about the Leica M3 review:
November 16, 2006 - The D40 is officially announced after a couple of weeks of rumour and speculation on the Internet. I hadn't given the camera much thought because it's entry-level at level below even the already fairly basic D50. I actually first came across the D40 rumour quite some many months ago, long before the current brouhaha began, but again, I never paid it much attention because of its low-end status. However, there are some that are miffed at what appears to be a deliberate release of information through official and unofficial channels by Nikon, while the miffed are under an NDA to not reveal anything until the news embargo has been lifted. I'm rather unsympathetic at such hurt feelings. From my perspective, corporate Nikon doesn't even know I'm alive even though I operate the biggest linking resouce website that's all about Nikon. Hell, I'm just grateful that regional Nikon Canada has seen fit to acknowledge my existence and put me on their reviewer's list, not that I even have any products at the moment, or get to use any of the gear for extended periods of time. Unlike the whinging reviewer that is provided with pre-production and production samples for extended periods of time from not only Nikon, but all of the major brands. All of whom help the reviewer and his website generate what would certainly seem to be a tidy sum of advertising coin. It's a symbiotic relationship, the reviewer needs the manufacturers to write reviews to continue to draw traffic and advertising revenue, and the manufacturers desire the widespread exposure.
Peculiar as our game may seem to NFL fans, we've nurtured the likes of Warren Moon, Joe Theisman, Jeff Garcia and Doug Flutie over the years. This year, we even gave a home to the exiled Ricky Williams, but he was not at all a dominant running back in our pass-oriented game. Anyway, my hometown BC Lions were playing against Saskatchewan and blew them away to secure an opportunity to play in the Grey Cup game next week in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Being the equipment whore that I am, I of course, took note of the pros working the sidelines. Even though this is one of the biggest games of the year in the CFL schedule, there were not very many photographers covering the event. A mid-season Seattle Seahawks game would see three to four times as many photographers covering, even if Seattle is playing the worse team in the league (in some years past, Seattle might have actually been the worse team, or at least, one of). Another surprise, the ratio between Nikon versus Canon was at worst equal, and by my rough count, I think there were actually a couple more photographers shooting the big N. But then again, Vancouver is a Nikon town with both the city's papers using Nikon pool equipment. I suppose it helps having one of the three national Nikon Canada service centres in town, whereas Canon is located in Calgary. Inside the big marshmellow, otherwise known as BC Place Stadium, our seats were about two-dozen rows below the BC Lions' owner's box. His guest of honour was BC girl made "good" (or dubiously bad, as in bad taste, according to some) Pamela Anderson. In the second half of the game with the Lion's well on their way to victory, everyone around us kept on gawking back at the blonde actress. One fellow a few seats below me kept trying to get shots of Pamela with his Nikon D-SLR and a 70-300mm lens. His consumer status was given away by him trying to use his SLR's built-in flash unit to illuminate Pamela from probably 40-50 feet away. Bon chance! I resisted the urge to steal away his camera and slug him with it for firing his flash in my eyes every so often. Maybe what I should have done is take his camera and taken the shots for him ;-) Reader's comment:
November 13, 2006 - Still over a month away until Christmas arrives, but I've cleaned up my desktop and reconfigured a few things in anticipation of an early present to myself...stay tuned 8^) November 10, 2006 - Reader's comment about NAS:
November 9, 2006 - Reader's comment about the Buffalo TeraStation Pro:
You don't need to use any special software with the TeraStation, as it's just seen as a big hard drive by the OS. Just use Windows Explorer to copy or move files to it. If you don't need constant access to your files then it may well be overkill and using USB or Firewire drives may still be a viable option. I like Seagate drives, as they run cooler than the Maxtors I have now, but Seagate just bought Maxtor, so the product line may eventually become streamlined. I don't know if any are available yet, but I'd look for a Firewire 800 capable drive and install a Firewire 800 card inside the PC to get faster speed. November 7, 2006 - I think Hell has frozen over, because I finally have a new review to post. My look at the Buffalo's 1-TB capacity TeraStation Pro is now available for reading. I didn't actually get into too many details in the review, but as hinted at in my Nov. 2 posting, I had a devil of a time trying to get a network going in my office. Routers, switches, 100 Mbps, gigabits, and firewalls took up a weekend of time troubleshooting my bad assumptions and network settings. However, don't let my experiences scare you from trying to create a network at home; it's actually fairly simple and the Microsoft wizard does work, but one big tip if you use Kaspersky's firewall, make sure you don't have it set on "Stealth" mode, otherwise, your network will not work properly. November 2, 2006 - Been putting the Buffalo TeraStation Pro through its paces and will have a review posted soon (yes, good Lord, Edwin will finally post some new "real" content). However, working with the TeraStation has got me trying to figure out how networks, er, work. It's been giving me a headache so far, but more in the review. November 1, 2006 - A coworker is currently working on a project to document the construction of the Canada Line, rapid transit system being built in Vancouver. The Canada Line is the long awaited rail system to finally link downtown Vancouver with the airport located on Sea Island. It's obviously quite an undertaking to build this new infrastructure and without the 2010 Winter Olympics coming to Vancouver, I have doubts that any of the levels of government would have coughed up the fundings to see such a project to completion. The effect of all of this construction going on in Vancouver is snarled traffic in certain sections of town where the Canada Line will run through, as well as near the waterfront where the new trade and convention centre is being built. Vancouver is definitely changing, becoming a 21st Century city, but in reality, Vancouver has been undergoing this transformation since 1986 when the world discovered during the world Expo 86. After Expo 86 wound down, the whole of the north side of the False Creek waterfront was sold off to Hong Kong billionaire, Li Kai Shing, to develop. At the time, many, especially those on the left side of the spectrum, cried foul at selling such prime property for what seemed like a pittance of a hundred million plus change. However, there was massive a clean-up because the land was formerly industrial use, then there was the massive building of high rise condos, so that now, as one enters downtown from any of the three main bridges of Cambie, Granville and Burrard, one sees a wall of gleaming glass towers. That's a whole lot of tax revenue paid by all those residents and it's turned Vancouver into a chic and urban-oriented city. And I suspect many of those lefties have become latte drinking residents of those towers 8^) The 2010 Olympics have the potential to transform Vancouver once more. In addition to the Canada Line, we will finally see a real highway being built to link Vancouver with yuppie-ville, otherwise known as Whistler. No more two lanes of winding and treacherous driving, as we will soon welcome a safer four lane highway. Vancouver is definitely living in interesting times. October 31, 2006 - Bibble RAW converter has been given a minor update - this link takes you to the download center. October 27, 2006 - I was recently asked for an opinion about digital SLRs and which one would I recommend. The two choices the person wondered about were the Nikon D80 and Canon Rebel XTi – ah, another Nikon versus Canon argument. Now – regular readers know this already – I am a Nikon user, so you’d think that maybe my answer would be biased towards the brand I know best, however, my opinion was solicited because, apparently, I was considered less biased than another person (a Canon user) ? Flattery gets you everything and I promptly proclaimed the D80 to be the superior camera despite it being a bit more money than the XTi. However, the quick answer merely led into a more detailed look at other considerations and what follows here is me fleshing my thoughts out even more. Consumers have an abundance of choices now in the D-SLR world. It’s almost getting as good as it was back in the film days when we had many choices available from four major brands (Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax) along with a few other brands on the periphery of market share (Contax, Sigma, Cosina, et al.). I’ve not mentioned Leica because it’s not a brand that most consumers would consider and I included Contax because towards the end of the film era, Contax did produce a consumer-oriented SLR for much less than their mainstay enthusiast and professional SLRs. Today, we have a slight re-jigging of the big four with Minolta replaced by Sony. Sigma is still around, as is Cosina, but it’s not a digital player (it’s partnership with Epson in creating the RD-1 being an exception). We also need to add in a rejuvenated Olympus, long dormant for film SLRs, now producing a range of D-SLRs, along with Panasonic (Olympus-based cameras) and Samsung (Pentax-based cameras). Of the new players on the market, none has so far gone after the professional market dominated by Nikon and Canon; all have started at the consumer level first, which makes sense. The consumer market is huge and right now, there’s a lot of pent-up demand for good, affordable D-SLRs. Nikon and Canon expect to produce about 2 million units of the D80 and Rebel XTi respectively, whereas a few years ago, there would have only been 2 million total D-SLRs produced worldwide; now we have just one model being produced in such numbers. The technology has matured enough and production is significant enough now that the cost of entry has dropped significantly. Four-years ago, the very consumer level D100 cost me over $3000 to purchase, nowadays, you can buy a much better camera for under $1000 with more downward price pressure as everyone scrambles to accommodate the low-end of the market to achieve greater market share. Added to all this downward price pressure is an increase in resolution and useful features. 10 MP is now the new 6 MP so far as resolution standards are concerned and we also have a few of them offering in-camera CCD stabilization (Sony and a couple of Pentax cameras). The Sony Alpha is an okay camera, but it’s not one that I’d desire, but the coming Pentax K10D, now that one is a camera that caters to all of my hubris for a well-built, well-sealed SLR, offering high enough resolution to satisfy most printing needs. No, it’s not as good as the D200 in operational speed, but it also doesn’t cost like a D200 either with an expected price of $1100. Of all the 10 MP cameras available to the consumer, on specs along, the K10D is the best of the bunch and is one that I tell people to strongly consider. Of course, we do have to wait for production models to be reviewed before we can make any comments about its image quality, but Pentax has a track record now with various models under its belt, so I’m not concerned at all about the K10D’s potential image quality. Cameras such as the Alpha and K10D allow one to use any compatible lens and have instant image stabilization without the need for dedicated image stabilized lenses. Along with auto focus, I think image stabilization is one of the most significant photographic technologies developed, much more so than ultra sonic lens motors – but AF-S, USM lenses are definitely the cherry on top of the sundae though. Sony/Minolta have some ultra sonic lenses now and Pentax is planning to introduce some of their own in 2007. This is just a verbose way of me saying that in the 10 MP SLR sweepstakes, for a person with no SLR history or baggage (i.e., lenses of a particular brand to use), the K10D floats my boat in a big way. This of course changes if one does have lens baggage and thus, for those owning Nikon glass, the D80 is a fine choice, and so it goes for those owning Canon and Minolta/Sony. In the Nikon world, for consumers that would blanch at the though of spending thousands for several good lenses, I’d suggest the 18-200 VR lens as a perfectly fine all-in-one lens that they can keep mounted to the camera, more or less permanently and never worry about dust. Do keep in mind that I’ve not used this lens (haven’t even seen one live), so I can only pass along an opinion based on everything I’ve read about the lens. In the Canon world, you’ll need two lenses to cover a similar range, the 17-85 IS and 70-300 IS. It will cost you more, but since most consumers will have never heard of a tripod, not much choice to ensure that all your shots will be image stabilized. You at least get extra reach and likely better image quality at the longer focal lengths than the Nikon super-duper all-in-one lens. I’m not familiar enough with the lens offerings from the other brands to make any suitable choices. Also, for those with higher ambitions than the consumer range, you have to decide between Nikon and Canon for professional quality SLRs. However, that’s a kettle of fish I’m not interested in cleaning at the moment ;-) October 25, 2006 - Reader's comment about workflow; sort of an offshoot of the Lightroom comments from the past few days:
October 24, 2006 - In case some of you missed it, I changed the home page's pixel dimension to be 1000 pixels wide instead of the old 790 pixels. Any dissenters out there for this increase in screen real estate? Down the road, the extra width makes it easier for me to place side by side comparison photos in the review pages, but if it's too much for some of you, I'll consider changing it back to 790 pixels. But, is there anyone out there still using 800 pixel wide monitor resolution? My 1 TB Buffalo TeraStation finally arrived last night. Surprise for me though as it's the TeraStation Pro instead of the TeraStation Home server I thought I ordered, which means forking out a few more bucks to my supplier. No matter, I'm happy it's here because I really needed backup storage. Unfortunately, no time until the weekend to set it up as I have to complete some accounting course homework and study for a mid-term. David Cardinal’s most recent newsletter discusses the need to work with 16-bit TIFF files as opposed to 8-bit TIFFs (and for some, high-quality JPEGs). I cannot recall the last time I worked with 8-bit TIFF files, as most everything I’ve worked with have been 16-bit TIFF files converted from RAW since purchasing my first D-SLR a little over four-years ago. With my current D2X that means 20 MB RAW files turn into 70 MB 16-bit TIFF files. I must have had David Cardinal’s article percolating in my subconscious because as I was heading out to work on Monday morning, I had one of those Ah-ha, moments. Except in this case, it was more of a Holy Crap, moment ? But, first, let me fill in with background information. I was doing some shooting with a co-worker on the weekend and invariably we got into a discussion about resolution and the chase for megapixels. He asked me if I was satisfied with what I had. I hedged and remarked that if we were talking about the film era, I would have said yes. With my F100 and 6x6 medium format cameras, there really wasn’t much more that I could have desired from the film equipment with the only persistent desire being a medium format capable film scanner, which, to a degree, I still desire. In the digital age, my answer would have to be no. I know the limits of the current technology will comfortably allow for at least 24 MP in a full 35mm size frame. That’s my target for satisfaction knowing full well that it will never end and down the road some new technology will arise to start the chase once more, but for the here and now, the next generation professional cameras expected from Nikon and Canon is my answer to Jack Nicholson’s question, is this as good as it gets? I’m not even going to discuss the medium format digital backs because that’s mortgage the house, sell the kids into a life of indentured service, get a divorce, kind of territory. So, put together the thought of full frame 24 MP in a Nikon D3X, as well as 16-bit TIFF files, and we lead to my “holy crap” moment inside my dusty and sometimes convoluted mind. Extrapolating file sizes from today, we can expect 24 MP RAW files to weigh in at 40 MB, which would translate into 140 MB 16-bit TIFF files, which would mean all of seven images per GB of storage on your computer’s hard drive after conversion. I’m starting to have nightmares about the amount of storage one full day wedding will require, because as it is, I’m burning through over 100 GB per job when I’ve created all the files that I need to. Mind you, I can toss away a fair bit of data once I’ve burned CDs and DVDs and handed them off to the client, leaving only original RAW files and converted TIFFs for printing purposes, but the TIFFs still chew through most of my storage requirements. Not only is there an issue with storage, there is also the issue of computing horsepower. From I’ve read of some pro’s experiences with their new Core 2 Duo based PCs, the speed increase is working out really nicely with D2X and D200 files, but will it still be so sweet when the D3X comes out? Consider that the D2X is already nearing two-years of age and the Core 2 Duo has only started to become widely available in recent times, so the computer industry is lagging a bit when it comes to matching processing speed with next generation sensors. Quad-cores are expected in 2007, so will we finally be at equilibrium where current computing technology matches what photographic technology produces? Then there’s the cost factor for all this. You can be sure that Nikon’s pricing for the D3X is going to be very costly, just as Canon’s 1Ds cameras have been pie in the sky for most photographers. Let’s assume that these next generation cameras hold to the precedent set by Canon at US $8,000, but what about the cost of the computer? It’s been said by some that the computer you desire will always cost you $5,000 (minus monitor and any other accessories) and I find this to be pretty close (maybe a bit under these days). Add in few sundry items like NAS storage and more flash cards and we’re talking about a cool $15,000 or so, give or take, for the privilege of partaking the pleasures of the next generation photographic and computing tools. Never mind any new lenses that may be required because the new high-resolution cameras reveal every single flaw of your current lenses. I’m starting to think that what I have now will indeed be very satisfactory for many years to come ? However, I do acknowledge that this is not the kind of thought process for the majority of photographers. This is pie in the sky for me too and when these products become available, I’ll certainly not be in the first, second, or even third rush in to purchase. Like with the D2X, I’ll have to bide my time for the right moment. I mentioned a while ago that I had planned to convert my elderly D100 to become a dedicated infrared camera. I had literally packaged the camera up, ready for mailing, when my wife chewed me out and tore me a new hole in my nether region for considering doing such a thing. At the time I thought that she was miffed at the $200 cost of the conversion, which is pocket change compared to all my other indiscretions in 2006 (do I really have to get into details)? Now, I think I know the real reason why she was so PO’ed; she wanted the D100 for herself. She’s made less than subtle hints that she wants the D100 so that she could learn how to take photos. Hey now, I’m all for that and whatever it takes to get her involved, I’m happy to do ? October 23, 2006 - More comments about Lightroom:
Did an engagement photo session yesterday morning and then afterwards, stuck around the park I did the session in and took a few shots of the fall colors for myself. It's sometimes talked about how when you photograph, you feel a particular emotion and the editing process is the process you take to try and express that emotion in your image so that your viewer can take in some aspect of that emotion. Or perhaps, you have a particular intrepretation of how you want your image to look so that you reader can again, take in some of that aspect of your intrepretation. I say take in some, because you always lose something in the translation. Here is a shot taken from the camera and converted with RAW conversion defaults, i.e., no editing whatsoever:
Here's the shot run through some the basic RAW conversion edits I do when using Nikon Capture:
Here's the final version that's been warmed up considerably in Photoshop by layering, Gausian Blurring, Saturating and Curving, and is what I had in mind when I was taking the photos:
What I did above is not unsimilar to what I did for this photo some years ago:
Seeing the above image in print always gets me some oohs and aahs, but when I first posted it on this page way back when, one wag remarked that (paraphrasing) that it was a good try, but ultimately still lacking and it hurt his eyes. Everyone's a critic 8^) October 22, 2006 - Reader's response to another reader's comments about Adobe Lightroom:
First off, excellent photos in your gallery! Really nice stuff! Onto Lightroom: I’ve just dabbled with Beta 4.1 yesterday and today on my “new” HP desktop, just to get a feel for it and definitely not to do any serious editing at this point. Lightroom is really slick and very easy on the eyes for its layout. There are a lot of nice touches and features that make it a versatile RAW editor. However, I find it too sluggish still, which I know has been an ongoing beef during these beta trials. Even though Lightroom is doing its edits via XMP files (sidecar files) it feels like Nikon Capture at times with that editor having to render full sized NEF files instead of using sidecar files like Bibble. It also seems to only like dealing with “virgin” RAW files – that is to say files that have been saved to the hard drive with no modification whatsoever. I found that RAW files that had already been renamed could be opened and edited, but would fail to export to Photoshop when I wanted to work on a TIFF or JPEG. I could export only with pure original RAW files. I would say though that my brief work with a converted file did look pretty good compared to how a file came out via Nikon Capture - yes, I do plan to compare the output to Bibble too once I have time to do some more critical trials. As much as the layout is very nice and well integrated, I’d love to see dual-monitor support to move the editing palettes off of the main screen. I don’t like scrolling, so being able to adjust the windows to fit my desired layout would be awesome. However, this could all be moot when I finally get that 30-inch LCD and retire my big and heavy CRTs ;-) Lightroom definitely holds much promise for RAW conversion and I look forward to the final product that should see a big increase in speed. Just wonder what the pricing will be like and if it will be integrated into the coming CS3 package like ACR is. October 20, 2006 - Reader's question:
I installed one of the earlier beta versions for Windows, but never did much with it; just not enough time back then. I’ve downloaded the latest beta 4.1 and plan to muck around with it in December, when I finally get a breather from not having to do a night course and its attendant homework. Back in September when I had a large amount of RAW conversion to do, I stuck with Bibble and Nikon Capture, as there’s way I’d ever work with important files through a beta converter. Once I’ve had a chance to see what it’s about, I’ll report back my thoughts. October 16, 2006 - Thanks to those of you that offered their information about the state of computing and what may be coming. I've decided, based largely on the super smashing deal I'm getting on the HP XW6200, to keep it despite some limitations this computer has. I see it as a short to medium term solution for my computing needs until the quad-core CPUs come out (sometime in 2007 apparently). It would also be nice to wait for Vista to be introduced to make for a seamless move to full 64-bit computing, by which point the 64-bit Photoshop CS3 should also be available. Due to the small form factor of the XW6200, expansion is severely limited to only two bays left after the two existing hard drives and single optical drive are factored in. I don't even have the parts necessary to mount any of my existing spare hard drives - the curse of using proprietary parts that big brands like Dell and HP like to do. The short-term solution is probably to buy a 750 GB drive and replace the existing 300 GB drive to give me more flexibility, but there is a question of whether the HP can handle larger than 500 GB hard drives. I'm very embarassed to say that my Buffalo TeraStation has still not arrived despite ordering it many moons ago. I know a few of you have wanted a review of this NAS unit, but the only thing my supplier can offer is "end of the month" due to these units being special and back ordered. My supplier's source is a huge distributor, and he's ordered the 2 TB model for himself and is "screwed" at the moment just like me. He's offered to swap his 2 TB version for my 1 TB on order though, which I may take him up on as the cost has now become more sane and is no longer worth more than two separate 1 TB units. One can never have too much storage ;-) On the topic of storage, I bought a Seagate 320 GB SATA drive to tide me over until the TeraStation arrives. Big difference in the amount of heat compared to the Maxtor drives I've been using in external cases. The Seagate runs much cooler and my supplier, who sometimes takes cues from me about what he should buy for himself (re: the TeraStation and Maxtor drives), was advised very directly that he should buy Seagates instead. I've no plans to dispense with the old P4 anytime soon given that it's still a pretty good , if, these days, a somewhat slow computer. I can use the two computers separately to speed up some processing jobs. How does the old P4 compare to a dual-processor workstation? Not that badly actually. In some instances, the HP definitely spanks it, but in a lot of everyday computing usage, I hardly notice a difference. Using some Photoshop speed tests, the HP didn't produce a huge improvement. One test had the P4 clock in at around 2 minutes while the HP clocked in at 1:35 minutes. Another test had the P4 do the job in 2:10 minutes while the HP did it in 1:37 minutes. An improvement for sure, but not huge. One meaningful improvement was using Adobe Bridge to crunch through some 16-bit TIFF files and create thumbnails from them. A folder of 188 D2X and D200 originated TIFF files had the HP better the P4 by about 50-percent. Nikon Capture, a slug of an application if there ever was one, also had more snap, but it's still a bit of a pig with the HP. The improvements are nice, but not as major as I had expected given the use of two separate processors and double the amount of RAM over the old P4. These tests were prior to enabling the /3 GB switch in the boot.ini file, so maybe giving Photoshop its maximum 2 GB of addressable RAM might help more, but prior to the switch, I was still giving it about 1.7 GB of RAM. I can't wait for the quad core CPUs and affordable 2 GB RAM modules to go up to 8 GB on board. And oh yah, when the heck is solid state storage coming so that we can do away with mechanical hard drives? Or maybe we'll soon come to a time when everything can be stored in non-volatile RAM - give me that octo core CPU with 2 TB of memory ;-) One nice benefit of the HP is that it comes equipped with a very decent FX3400 nVidia graphics card so that when I'm able to afford the 30-inch Apple Cinema Display, I'm all set with dual-DVI connections ;-0 Readers Comments
I'm getting a bit sick of the slowness of my external drives. It takes way too long to move completed projects back and forth (about 100 GB or so for each project). I need the second computer just to allow me to continue to work without twiddling my thumbs waiting for the data transfer to finish. I'll be looking forward to the day when the current hard drive/storage technology goes the way of film ;-) October 14, 2006 - A question for the knowledgeable computer user out there: is there anything on the horizon suggesting that someone is going to produce a dual-processor capable mobo for the Core 2 Duo processor? The Core 2 Duo is looking really fine with its dual-core architecture, but being the greedy SOB that I am, I'd like to get as much processing power as possible and wondered if a dual-processor Core 2 Duo system could be built to mimic a quad-processor system. The reason why I ask is that I will be evaluating an HP XW6200 this weekend to see if it's worthwhile to purchase. The HP appears to be a mid-level workstation and comes equipped with dual 3.4 GHz Xeon chips - the older Xeons, not the dual core Woodcrest chips. 4 GB of RAM, 36 GB SCSI OS drive and a 300 GB SATA drive round out this basic configuration, which would require me to add in a couple more hard drives and another DVD burner to get it to similar specs as my old single processor P4. While I don't doubt that the XW6200 will be an improvement, will it be enough of an improvement, or should I just wait for something better that could be just over the horizon. Given that I've done the bulk of my large editing jobs for this year, it's not imperative for me to have a new machine until next wedding season. Any insight would be appreciated. October 9, 2006 - Happy Thanksgiving to my fellow Canucks! I've placed a What's New date in the top section so that regular readers can quickly determine if the site has been updated or not. I know some of you would like postings every day, but believe it or not, there are times when I don't actually think about photography. In fact there are times when I want nothing to do with photography, like when I'm in the middle of editing hundreds if not thousands of files at once 8^) A recent thread on the Photo.net Wedding and Social Photography forum got into the topic of Uncle Bobs – those friends or family with perhaps better than average equipment taking photographs at the same time as the hired professional. Some professional wedding photographers stipulate in their contract that only they are allowed to photograph a wedding and they take a hard stance when the Uncle Bobs show up and start snapping away. Some pros feel greatly offended that they do not have exclusive control of the event and perhaps feel that the more Uncle Bobs allowed the less print sales they will make: Uncle Bob robs the pro of his bread and butter. In this day of digicams in just about everyone’s hands, taking an old school approach may still be acceptable in some quarters, but you really gotta go with the flow and accept that for just about every wedding attended, there will be plenty of guests taking shots. Some will undoubtedly get in your way and some will undoubtedly stand over your shoulder to copy the same shots, but you can no more stop this from happening than you can control the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. What you can do though is act as a professional (that is why the couple hired you, was it not?) If guests are getting in the way, be polite and ask for a clear shot. If you need to explain anything to errant guests, simply and very politely explain that the couple is paying you a lot of money to take the photos and that you’re sure that no guest would want to impede this professional coverage – with a big, friendly smile on your face ? And if you need to elbow your way to get the shot, then do so with plenty of "excuse me’s" and "so sorry about that old chap." More often than not though, guests clear themselves out of the way when they see you coming, but more on that later. I’ve never had a problem with guests photographing at a wedding, but then my attitude has always been that it’s the bride and groom’s day, not yours, and you’re not there to make an ass of yourself by acting like a big shot photographer. You should be comfortable in your own skin about being a hired photographer and do what’s needed to get the job done with a minimum of fuss. About the only time I’ve gotten frustrated at weddings, was not due to other photographers, but by the videographer getting in my way. One time I lined a group up, turned around and saw the video guy standing right where I needed to be to take the shot. Staring at him for a few seconds finally clued him in that he was in my way and he moved, but of course only after he spent several seconds filming the group, which got me thinking as to how a static shot of the group, could in any way, be usable for a video? Isn't the whole point of video supposed to be of capturing live action of an event instead of people standing around waiting for a photo to be taken? Another time, another video man also always seemed to be right where I needed to be to get my shots during the ceremony, but since he was the father of the groom, I wasn’t about to make a fuss and just worked around him. I still got my shots by being a bit of a contortionist ? Walking around with two or three cameras with big lenses attached also gives you a certain intimidation factor too. People move out of the way when they see you coming, walking with purpose with a big 70-200 lens held like a weapon to clear the crowd. While digicams abound, seeing people with really good D-SLRs is still quite rare, just as it was rare in the film days to see guests with high-end SLRs. If I do see a D-SLR, it’s usually an entry-level model with a tell-tale kit lens mounted and pop-up flash being used. Another reason not to fret because those shots won’t be competing against yours provided that you’re using top notch cameras and lenses with good technique. In the old days with film, a typical guest with a point and shoot camera likely loaded the camera with no name brand ISO 100 print film when shooting in cave-like restaurants. The guests that actually had a clue might have loaded Fuji or Kodak ISO 200 film and the truly knowledgeable loaded the camera with Kodak Gold or Superia ISO 400 film. Meanwhile, we professionals were using Fuji professional NHG/NPZ ISO 800 film, down-rated, to ISO 640 to obtain better shadow detail, while still being able to take photos that showed some ambient details. Oh yes, we also had flash units that could blast away with much better control over longer distances, off of the lens axis. We also didn’t rush over to the supermarket the next day to process the film in one hour on printed consumer-grade glossy stock paper. A job I worked on a few years back had the couple take their time to finally come around to view their proofs. Couple had mentioned that many of their friends had taken photos and had already supplied them with prints before the proof album was ready, so they thought they had all they actually needed. Then they saw the proof album and remembered why it was that they hired professionals – our photos kicked on all the photos taken by the Uncle Bobs, Cousin Ernies, and Sister Sues. I’ve been an Uncle Bob myself, but I can only recall being in this role for maybe three weddings I’ve been invited to. On those occasions, I stayed out of the way and picked my photos based on not duplicating the hired pro. On two occasions, I could feel the pro giving me the once over with a somewhat dismissive look, but since I was never around them, they had nothing to complain about. Another occasion though had the pro come and seek me out and we had a very pleasant chat after he had finished for the evening – a mutual admiration society of gearheads. In this digital age, my equipment (even without counting the D2X) is still better than average and while the D200 sells like hot cakes, I've not seen any in my travels this year (other than my own), which just shows that most consumers don't go out blowing $2000 (CAN) on just the camera itself. I recall chatting with a friendly retailer in one of the local shops and he remarked to me "Edwin, consumers just don't spend $1000 on a lens!" The best D-SLR I've seen being by used by an Uncle Bob so far has been a D100 back when I would blanche at the thought of shooting a wedding digitally with the same camera. Along with the equipment is the experience I've developed over the years that I would hope would get a decent shot or two for the couple. Put it all together (experience, vision, attitude, and some kick-ass gear) and a professional photographer should be able to deal with whatever may happen at a wedding with aplomb. October 5, 2006 - Following some recent photographic experiences in which I hand-held all of my shots in low light, made me appreciate just how good VR (IS, OS, SR, etc.) is in such situations. Even using a fast lens wide open to get me faster shutter speeds didn't pan out the way I had hoped. I used the 85mm f1.8 at f1.8 or f2, got shutter speeds in the 1/60 range, which would normally be okay to get a sharp image, but a lot of my shots had the tell tale signs of hand-shake (subject motion was also an issue at times). Curiously, shots taken with the one-stop slower 17-55 f2.8 lens seemed to net me more sharp images than the short telephoto prime lens despite the shutter speed dropping to the 1/30 range. I believe this result is due to the 17-55 being a much more massive lens, providing a dampening factor to my shaking hands that the smaller and lighter 85mm lens could not provide. Made me somewhat sorry I didn't hold out for the heavier 85mm f1.4 version 8^) There's also the 1.5x crop factor that mimics (but isn't) magnification, however, it does change the dynamic of the old rule of thumb of focal length equals shutter speed, eg. with a full frame camera, an 85mm lens should be used with a shutter speed of 1/85 (or closest equivalent) in order to obtain a sharp image handheld. While you don't get real magnification, you still have to treat it as such and consider the 85mm lens as a 128mm lens on a DX camera and ideally use a shutter speed of 1/125 to maximize sharpness. Now, I really wish that either Nikon make an SLR with in-camera VR like Pentax and Sony, or come up with more VR equipped lenses in the wide and normal focal lengths. The 18-200 and 24-120 VR lenses are too slow for me to bother with them in low light situations and my preference would be for a new SLR with in-camera VR to seamlessly allow me to use all of my existing non-VR lenses. On the thought of a Nikon camera with built-in VR, how delicious would a full frame FM3D VR be with some of those new Zeiss lenses 8^) Lastly, with hindsight being 20/20, I should have just bumped up my ISO to 800 (instead of trying to stick with ISO 400) and just lived with the noise in order to maximize my potential for getting sharp images. Lesson learned for next time around. The new Z large format printers from HP seemed really exciting with their 12-inks (11 color plus 1 gloss optimizer) in the 3100 series and the intriguing built-in spectrophotometer to automate paper profiling. Really snazzy, but after reading some more objective comments, I'm not so sure that I actually like the idea of a built-in spectrophotometer in the printer. Speed and time really aren't any better with a built-in spectro (assuming overnight drying, which I recommend) and you can't profile other printers and paper combinations, as you could with an external spectro device. Besides which, I still have an Epson bias and am looking forward to seeing what they will produce for the 7800 replacement. Even if all Epson does is make the 3800 equivalent of their 24-inch wide printer, I'd be happy. On a related note, now that X-Rite is doing away with their own spectro devices in favour of the much admired GretagMacbeth device, looks like the Can $1600 Eye One Photo is "the" kit to buy for the serious amateur/professional crowd without spending crazy money on the really high-end color management kits. September 27, 2006 - Commenting on cameras I've never used is always a risky proposition, but here goes (as I slip on my flame-resistent underwear): I had much hope for the new Fuji S5 Pro SLR when I heard that it was going to use the Nikon D200 as its base. Finally, Fuji gets a decent body to house its very promising digital guts instead of the consumer oriented Nikon F80 film SLR that Fuji used for the S2 and S3 D-SLRs (and F60 for the original S1). Unfortunately, I'm underwhelmed by what Fuji has actually produced in the S5 - incidentally, if you're wondering why there is no S4, the Japanses language is derived from Chinese and in those languages, the number 4 is a homonym to the word for "die" or "death" and thus considered unlucky. And continuing this train of thought, if you've ever wondered why the number 8 is so highly regarded in Asia, it rhymes with the Chinese word for "fortune." The S5 appears to be no more than taking the S3's 6 MP sensor and putting it into a superior body. The S5 is what the S3 should have been all along, but it took Fuji this long to finally secure a decent camera from Nikon (for whatever reason). Fuji calls the S5 (and S3) a 12 MP camera, but that's being very liberal in describing the two 6 MP sensors in the chip (one sensor for regular capture information and the other for highlight capture information). The 12 MP output is an interpolated figure although Pop Photo magazine described the S3 as being able to produce the equivalent of 9 MP of detail. Got that? The S3 and S5 really only have 6 true MP of resolution, but put them together, interpolate and you'll have a file size equivalent of 12 MP, but capable of producing only 9 MP of detail. Sounds like numerical voodoo. What the heck is Fuji thinking? They finally get a good camera body to build their flagship D-SLR around and all they do is produce a warmed over version of their old flagship. What happened to that 11 MP full frame sensor that Thom Hogan mentioned Fuji had a couple of years back? If the S5 were a true 12 MP it would keep them competitive and even warrant their usual price premium compared to other brands thanks to the superior dynamic range and clean high ISO quality. I really like where Fuji is going with their Super CCD sensors, but I "want" more real resolution. By the time the S6 arrives to address the resolution, both Canon and Nikon will likely have their next generation, full frame, and very high resolution cameras out (22 and 24 MP respectively, as the rumours go) and this may still leave Fuji on the outside looking in if they don't keep up on the resolution count. Yes, I know resolution isn't everything and we are indeed reaching a point where we will soon question the need for more resolution (already there at the consumer level), but I haven't hit that point yet even with a true 12 MP camera on hand 8^) September 25, 2006 - So, Epson will be introducing a new 17-inch wide printer called the 3800, and it's what the 4800 should have been all along with the ability to fit nine ink cartridges at once. Meaning no more stupid black ink changing and wastage of massive amounts of money down the toilet everytime one wanted to switch from glossy paper to matte, or vice versa. Am I sorry that I didn't wait longer for the 3800...well, maybe a tiny bit, but that's generally true of any product that you buy that will eventually be superceded by a superior model. Since I'm not much of a matte paper printer anyway, missing out on the 3800 isn't a huge deal and I still have an R2400 available for matte paper printing, so I'm still golden 8^) What I'd be more interested in now is the replacement for the 7800, the 24-inch wide printer and the next logical upgrade from the 4800 - not that I have "any" plans to upgrade anytime soon since I consider the 10 and 12 MP cameras I have now to be ideal matches for the 17x22 cut sheet sizes the 4800 can handle. When the 24 MP D3X comes out then the desire (not necessarily need) for a larger printer would intensify. It's been a busy weekend for photography. The Opus Dei Prelate events and then heading into downtown to help a coworker take promotional photos of his local male choir, Chor Leoni. I didn't do any photography, as I mostly stood around and watched my coworker organize his fellow choir members into the arrangements he desired for the photos. He was so busy, he didn't even have time to get himself into the photos. This was an interesting session for me because we were given after-hours access to the Vancouver Art Gallery. We started outside first and did some shots on the back stairs and then went inside the rotunda that looks up to the dome that caps off the Art Gallery. The Vancouver Art Gallery is of the classical Roman/Greco tradition with columns and dome, sort of like a mini Capital Building and luddite that I am, I had never been inside the gallery. September 24, 2006 - The Prelate of the Opus Dei organization of the Catholic Church, Bishop Javier Echevarría, stopped in Vancouver as part of his worldwide tour. My friend Larry was hired to photograph two events held for the Bishop, and he asked me to come out and photograph with him. And no, the real Opus Dei organization bears no resemblance at all to the fictional one made disappointingly infamous by the Da Vinci Code. The first event was an intimate setting held in a private residence for the male members of the Vancouver Opus Dei organization and a photographic challenge. The second event was held in a very large hotel ballroom and also a challenge as well. In both situations I wished I had done things a bit differently, and at times, wished I had a different type of camera altogether, albeit one that does not exist at this time. While Larry and me were officially sanctioned as official photographers by the organizers at both events, we were still under some restrictions imposed by the organizers. They didn't want the photography to be a distraction, which meant little to no flash use during the speech. We had to stay out of sight of the video cameras taping the events and we had to minimize being in the way of the audience. For the first intimate event, Larry and I had the same thought about our ideal camera independently of each other. We both thought that a digicam with so shutter sound at all, with a fast lens, VR/IS, and very clean high ISO would have been the perfect tool. Unfortunately, I don't believe such a camera exists and given the way SLRs are coming down in price, I have my doubts that such a camera will ever exist. Sony was the only brand doing any really serious work for this style of camera with their R1, but with the success of their Alpha SLR, will Sony ever produce a new version, one with either a stabilized lens, or sensor? For the second event, I was shooting wide to normal and moderate telephoto with my 17-55 f2.8 and 85 f1.8 lenses and brother, am I ever a shaky person. A lot of my 85mm shots suffered from hand shaking even wide open and at 1/60 shutter speed. As the Bishop wasn't moving fast and stood still on many occasions to get a good shot, I'd have loved something like a 105mm f2 VR lens. In case you're wondering, I loaned Larry one of my D200's and my 70-200 VR lens, because he's not digital yet. Since Nikon does not have a professional-quality wide and normal zoom lenses with VR, I was thinking that there's a lot of merit in going with an in-camera IS/VR system the way Minolta/Sony and Pentax have done, so that all of your lenses benefit from stabilization and not just one or two expensive lenses in your arsenal. The new Pentax K10D is suddenly, very, very interesting...with tongue firmly in cheek given my investment in Nikon gear 8^) September 22, 2006 - Bibble Labs Releases Version 4.9 Upgrade, Including Clone & Healing Tool, Sensor Correction and 5-Star Ratings - Last major upgrade before 5.0 and supports Nikon D80 and localized interface As taken from Bibble's news release:
|
November
14, 2006 - I was at the CFL's Western Conference Championship game
last Sunday - CFL is the Canadian Football League. For the American readers,
we play three-down football in the frozen tundra up north and it makes for
a much more wide open style of play than the NFL. 
