Home

What's New 2010

February 20, 2010 - Reader's comment:

I had the exact same reaction to the DP review. Do these guys ever review what they wrote in the past. Unbelievable! The difference between 12 and 24 megapixels is pretty irrelevant for most of us. My bias here is as a recent D3S owner, but still, I think Lloyd Chambers has it correct. He has always liked the "high-res" stuff. But, when he got super excited about the D3s ...it had a lot more to do with what the files looked like at all ISO's. The real advantage of the D3s is at ISO's of 800 - 3200. These files simply look amazing at these settings. Yes, the camera is capable at stratospheric ISO settings, but that isn't why I bought this camera. The files at "real-world" ISO's is simply amazing ...simply outstanding. The files shot at 800 look like 200 or BETTER! This is the real advantage of the camera to NON-PJ's, in my opinion. It's surely nice to be able to go up the ISO ladder, but WOW ...the files at 3200 are just stunning.

Also, my initial issue with purchasing this camera (the most expensive I have every bought) had to do with the size. What was I thinking? This thing is a tank. What I have found is that the best low light shooter is one that is very steady. I can shoot this at low shutter speeds because it just doesn't move. With just basic good low-light technique, you can hold this puppy very steady. The mass of the camera is a huge benefit. This is a great revelation ...I always wanted the smaller, lighter DSLR's when I was "street shooting" because of the walk. No more. BTW: most people don't know what camera you have when the light is really low, so the issue of having "too nice a camera" is not very problematic when it is really "dark."

Nothing like these kind of comments to get the green-eyed monster in me glowing with envy.

You know, I like DPReview because they have a consistent way of writing reviews and offering various crops so that you can objectively compare one camera to another, but they do seem to live in the moment and, as you said, seem to forget about what they wrote in the past.

Take the Canon 7D. A nice camera and all, but what I recall DPReview saying about it is that it has the same noise characteristics as the Canon 50D. This is considered a good thing given that the 7D offers another 3 MP of resolution over the 50D, so Canon was able to increase resolution while keeping the high ISO noise at the same level as a previous generation camera.

However, the 50D was essentially trashed for high ISO noise compared to its predecessor, the 40D. So in essence, the 7D has worse noise than a camera two generations older than it, which should not be the way it goes when cameras are retired and replaced. You expect succeeding cameras to be better.

And, while we're talking about the megapixel wars, looks like Canon has broken the cease fire and gone ahead with a full bore assault now that its higher end Rebel model offers the same 18 MP resolution as the 7D.

Do the people Canon expect to buy the new Rebel really need 18 MP? I've made no bones about being a resolution whore myself and I usually, but not always, think that more resolution is better, but you need to accept the baggage that comes with more resolution.

More powerful computer, more storage space, more editing time, more flash memory cards, etc. When I upload 7D and 5D2 files into Lightroom for some editing, my eight core Xeon box barely keeps up. It's very zippy when crunching through 12 MP files from the Panasonic cameras (or my old 12 MP Nikon files), but it drags when it comes to browsing through the Canon files.

I accept that computer performance hit, because I desire the flexibility that a higher resolution file offers for producing up to 16x20 inch prints. But, do consumer photographers need that same flexibility? If all they do is snap sRGB JPEG files and then have those files printed at a quick printing station for a stack of 4x6 prints, they'll be throwing away nearly 90% of the resolution available from an 18 MP camera. Or worse yet, if all they want to do is post their photos on a social networking site or public gallery site, they'll throw away even more resolution. It's nuts!

You may recall a project I tried when I had the D3X last year, which was to digitize a bunch of 35mm and 120 format slides with the D3X and 105mm f2.8 AFS VR Micro lens. The results did not satisfy and $10,000 worth of camera and lens did not match the quality provided by a $500, dedicated film scanner, when I did some comparison of the files.

I was kicking myself for delaying this project until the last evening I had the D3X and not trying it sooner to see the initial results and then tweaking the setup to try and get as good a quality as I could. I wondered when I would ever have such an opportunity again to use a high resolution SLR in this manner.

Stupid me, I already have a high resolution SLR available in the Canon 5D2 and now that I have the 100mm f2.8 IS Macro lens and a Canon cable release, I have all the time that I need to try again and tweak the setup to optimize the quality.

Over the next couple of weeks, as time permits, I'll be digitizing the slides again. I know it's a compromise in not having all the right equipment, e.g. copy stand and high quality light table, but it's just not fiscally prudent to spend $3,000 on a Nikon CoolScan 9000. There are much better ways to spend that kind of money these days.

February 19, 2010 - Remember when Nikon was praised for sticking to a conservative resolution of 12 MP for its landmark SLR, the D3? Remember when Canon was praised for taking a step backwards with resolution in the popular G series digicams? Remember when many were praising the camera brands from continuously upping the ante in a resolution war?

Well, DPReview recently posted their Nikon D3S review and one of the main criticisms they throw at it is that it does not offer enough resolution now. It almost seems like they were grasping at something, anything negative to make themselves look more objective. Doing so now makes them hypocrites since DPReview was a leading complainer about the megapixel wars.

While the D3S is a versatile camera used by many different types of photographers, I think it's pretty safe to say that like the D3, Nikon is primarily targeting photojournalists. This generally implies speed, which the D3S has at 9 fps and very good low light capabilities, which the D3S is unmatched by any other brand at this time. I think PJs have it easier nowadays with internet access readily available in major cities, so it shouldn't be that big of a deal to upload files to their editors, but you still don't want to be trying to upload large files. 12 MP files are still a lot easier to upload than 16 MP files from the Canon 1D4.

You would also think that DPReview would appreciate that sticking to a conversative resolution allows Nikon to obtain more low light quality than trying to add in another four or six MP of resolution. But, they seem enamoured with the Canon 1D4's 16 MP resolution, even though it clearly does not match the quality of the D3S at high ISO settings. DPReview even seems to pooh-pooh the notion that anyone really needs to use faster than ISO 3200 or 6400.

Oh, I beg to differ and clearly, DPReview don't hang out in dark and dingy hockey arenas or other venues where the light is meagre and photographers would give the left family jewel for want of a D3S.

And, if you really want to get into a megapixel war, how about Dalsa's new 196 MP sensor...

February 18, 2010 - Thom Hogan recently posted his review of the 200-400mm f4 AFS VR lens. This is a lens that has garnered near universal praise since it first came out and I wonder how some users will react to Hogan’s review. Basically, Hogan states that the lens is awesome at close distances, but not so good at far distances, which is surprising since this is a telephoto zoom lens that you would think should do very well for distant subjects. However, it’s not actually Hogan’s opinion that caught me by surprise, but the realization that the 200-400 lens is already seven years old.

Where did the time fly by? When Nikon introduced (or is it reintroduced, since there was a manual focus version from years ago) the 200-400 lens, I really wished that I had the money to buy one. Not withstanding Hogan’s review, I still wish I had the money to buy one, because one never knows how long good lenses will last in Nikon’s stable of lenses.

A good lens will go along for a number of years and then all of sudden, it’s gone with nary a word or warning from Nikon. Once gone from the line up, used lens prices trend upwards until the ridiculous occurs of the used price being more than the new price. This is what happened with the 28mm f1.4 lens, but one wonders if this will hold once the new 24mm f1.4 lens becomes available in the retail chain. Other examples of coveted lenses that sold for more than their new cost are the 300mm f2 and 200mm f2, both old style, manual focus lenses from decades past.

The current 200mm f2 AFS VR lens is another that I wish I could afford, perhaps even more so than the 200-400 f4 lens. It’s not all that long, but it’s fat and stubby and while handholdable, should really be used with a mono or tripod. It’s another lens that has been universally praised since it was resurrected from Nikon’s glorious past.

The speed makes it fairly versatile, because with the triplet of Nikon teleconverters, you can go from 200mm to 280mm to 340mm to 400mm, while still being able to auto focus at full spec (slower than f5.6 and AF can get iffy in low light). At around CAD $4500, it’s possible for me to realistically think that I can afford one if I had enough discipline to save my discretionary bucks for a couple of years and not get caught up in the SLR upgrade wave. I keep thinking I gotta do this sooner rather than later, because who knows when Nikon will decide to pull the plug and stop production for another two decades.

That same attitude extends to the new 24mm f1.4 lens; how long will Nikon produce this lens and will it end up being like the 28mm f1.4. If you want it and you can afford it, better buy it in the early years.

Speaking of the new lenses, I think I’m going to end up buying the 16-35mm f4 lens. 16mm is plenty wide for me and the lens’ more svelte dimensions will make it easier to pack than the 14-24mm lens with its massive front element. Doesn’t mean that I plan to sell off the 14-24 in the next garage sale though, so don’t bother asking J

Some lenses will never disappear, being such core elements of a stable of lenses and while important, are not what defines a line up of lenses. It’s the exotics and special purposes lenses that tell a user that the brand is committed to providing its users with some serious tools, even if those special lenses are not big sellers. These include fast, prime super telephoto lenses (400mm f2.8), tilt/shift lenses, very fast lenses (24mm f1.4, 50mm f1.2). telephoto zoom macros (Nikon 70-180), etc.

Every so often, I throw up some comments about what I think might be coming or what I would like to see come from the camera makers. There’s no crystal ball, there’s no inside information, it’s just some extrapolation based on what’s happening now.

I don’t know what the next big thing will be, but my guess is that it will have to be sensor-based. How much more can the engineers continue squeezing the current technology and Bayer interpolation process? How many more pixels can we fit onto a given sized sensor? The way cell phone cameras are going with increasing resolution, we’re approaching the theoretical limits of the physics of light.

Those in-the-know keep talking about how the Bayer interpolation degrades resolution and how a true RGB sensor (Foveon anyone) can capture more detail. Throw in the effects of anti-aliasing filter and are we really getting 24 MP from the Nikon D3X? Maybe the D3X only gives us the equivalent of a 6 MP, RGB, non-filtered sensor.

Maybe what we’ll eventually see is the pro line SLRs use new sensor technology while the consumer line continue using the old Bayer interpolated, anti-aliased sensors. How about a 24 MP FX sensor in a $500 SLR while the pro camera uses a new 12 MP RGB sensor that provides more detail and superior color fidelity than the consumer 24 MP camera, while also providing ISO 1 million…Mechanical shutters go the way of the dodo because the astronomical ISO capabilities require commensurately fast shutter speeds. Imagine the kinds of high-speed photography that will develop.

Dropping back down to earth and looking at things from an evolutionary instead of revolutionary way, there are still a few things camera makers can do to enhance the tools and none are ideas that have not been mentioned before.

Focusing points covering the entire viewfinder and/or like the Panasonic cameras, a focus point that can be positioned just about anywhere in the viewfinder. All points should be cross type for best focus acquisition and speed.

Improve electronic viewfinders to the point that we can dispense with optical viewfinders. This can be huge, because it will eliminate the mirror box and prism hump. Designers can come up with new shapes. Lens makers don’t have to deal with retro focus limitations (think Leica M lenses). Shutter speeds can easily sync with flashes at the highest speeds; the limitation will be the flash speed and power instead of the shutter.

Improve the algorithms for tracking moving subjects, something that will never be good enough for sports pros.

In short, there are a lot of little tweak things that camera makers can do right now to make our tools better, but I can't wait to see what kind of whiz-bang stuff Nikon or some other brand is gonna come up with next.

February 17, 2010 - Brooks Jenson recently posted an audio blog about a gallery exhibition of photographs taken with cell phones.

He is less than impressed at the idea that a gallery would actually go to the trouble of exhibiting such photographs. He’s so mocking of the notion that he offers an idea for some intrepid photographer to apply for a grant – to take landscape photographs using the backup camera in his car.

Now, we need to ensure that you, dear reader, understand that when Brooks refers to his backup camera, he is not discussing an extra camera that he keeps in the trunk in case something happens to his current camera, the Panasonic G1. No, when Brooks mentions the backup camera in his car, he really means the camera built into the back of his car that displays a video view on the dashboard’s LCD. The car’s camera is, I suppose, a safety feature so that you can better see as you backup the car – something that I wouldn’t mind having actually.

So, we’re clear on which camera Brooks is discussing right? Then, once he’s composed the view with the car’s backup camera, he’ll take a picture of it with his cell phone’s camera. And, assuming he gets his grant, he’ll have a nice gallery show of such images.

If we’re talking about the art world, like Brooks, I would not be surprised that such a vapid idea will find its fans and supporters. Exactly what the message would be about such art, I have no idea and I won’t even try to pretend to come up with some pseudo mumbo jumbo…okay, let’s just call it what it is…bullshit…to justify its existence.

Given what has passed for art, I don’t see why Brooks’ idea wouldn’t pass muster. After all, there’s guy from New York, who took pictures of magazine ads and claimed it as his own original art. Yes, a picture of a picture is “art.”

The particular picture is of a cowboy for a Marlboro ad and the original was taken by former National Geographic staffer, Sam Abell. The “artist” is Richard Prince and if I recall correctly, what Prince did is known as “appropriation art,” which seems like a polite, art society (read, cowardly) way to say theft.

So, if a picture of a picture can be art then why not a cell phone picture of an LCD’s display of a landscape depicted by a car’s camera?

This whole cell phone camera craze is a bit weird for me, because I’m just not into any of this social networking fad. Now, writing and posting on my website can be considered a form of social networking, but you know what I mean, as in MySpace and FaceBook, et al.

It’s been quite incredible to see the explosion of digital imaging from its nascent stages in the 1990s to what it is now in 2010. Cameras in cell phones mean that most people have an imaging device immediately available almost all the time. Images and videos can be emailed and/or uploaded to a social networking site for immediate gratification. The numbers must be in the billions of images taken each year.

So many photos are taken that I think we’re at risk of losing the meaning of a fine photograph, because too many are taken with crappy cell phone cameras or digicams. When I say fine photograph, I mean that from a technical and aesthetic basis. Technical in using good gear to ensure the upmost in quality and aesthetic in subject matter and composition. It’s not impossible to do with cell phone cameras and digicams, just not as easy and capable as with better cameras.

However, others would counter that cell phone cameras are the great liberators in democratizing photography. Also, that with most people having a cell phone with them, they will always have a camera with them. This is the Chase Jarvis model.

Jarvis is the Seattle-based commercial photographer who has in the last couple of years, really seen his “brand” skyrocket with his early adoption of the convergence of videos and stills. He does shoots for Nikon and Hasselblad because he favours those brands. More recently, Jarvis wrote a book about using the Apple iPhone as your always on hand camera and even created an app for the iPhone to edit the photos taken with it.

Is it the influence of Jarvis and his evangelism that has led to a gallery offering to hold an exhibition of photos taken with cell phone cameras? Does it matter? How many times have we heard, it’s not the gear, it’s the person using it? If a photo is really good, does it matter what kind of camera was used?

I suppose too that how big the photos are displayed in the exhibition will be a factor for how well people accept them. Print too big and we’ll see all too clearly the limitations of tiny pixel pitch and everything else inherent with cell phone cameras. Print too small and, well, what’s the point.

Art can be a strange thing. I think it was Brooks Jenson again who brought to our attention the exhibition of photos taken by a meandering feline. The cat’s owners outfitted the animal with a digital camera that took snaps at regular intervals and after a year, accumulated enough photos for an exhibition. Prints could be bought for a few hundred bucks each. I think, at the time, I wondered out loud if I could do the same by outfitting my toddler with a digital camera, or maybe I offered up the scribbles of my kids for a token $50 per sheet.

There’s always something happening in the art world that make absolutely no sense to me (or to Brooks Jensen).

February 15, 2010 - Vistek in Toronto sent an email ad with prices for the new Nikon lenses:

• $2,349 CAD for the 24mm f1.4
• $1,399 CAD for the 16-35mm f4

Also, caught this little Freudian slip by the Vistek copywriters for the ad posted below that also came in the email. Maybe what they say about the convergence of the big two brands into Canikon will come true 8^)

At first read, my hopes were raised at a new "tweener" SLR from Nikon, but alas, this is merely the Canon 7D. A fine enough SLR, but I would really, really like to be shooting with a new Nikon SLR come next hockey season (with that new 70-200 lens too).

Freudian slip by the Vistek ad writers for the ad above

I’ve recently started using a feature on my cameras that I’ve never used before. It’s a feature that if you have never had to use it before, you would never think twice about it unless it had been accidentally adjusted and you suddenly wonder why you cannot see anything with proper focus in the viewfinder.

I’m talking about the dioptre adjustment for the viewfinder.

As you may recall, I had some “minor” issues with my eyes starting last summer, which has left me wanting for seeing clearly. On an everyday basis, I don’t really need my new eyeglasses and I certainly don’t like wearing them when I’m photographing something, so what to do?

I kept on photographing without the glasses and while I could see acceptably well through the viewfinder, it certainly did not have the crispness that I had prior to the eye problems. However, with auto focus technology and focus confirmation indicators, I placed a lot of trust in the camera’s decision.

This seemed to go okay until one day, I remembered about the dioptre control available on the all the cameras I use and wondered, hmmm, what happens if I rotate the dial one way (minus)? Not so good with everything going really soft and fuzzy. How about the other way (plus)? Hey…HEY!

Set to the maximum (plus) available on the Panasonic and Canon cameras, I’m now able to see quite well and can easily forego the glasses. Of course, people who borrow or use these cameras might be wondering why they cannot see clearly through the viewfinder J

It’s a small thing, but when you need it, it can make a huge difference. It also cuts me back down to earth, because before I had my own eye issues, I was dismissive towards others who complained that the dioptre adjustment on the camera was not enough and that they needed accessory viewfinder lenses or adapters to get the proper correction.

I suppose we could all just learn to photograph with glasses on, but I cannot imagine that it’s much fun if you need bifocals. And, I should consider myself lucky that for the time being, I don’t need any more correction than what the cameras offer.

I seem to be in a rut lately for writing anything interesting. Part of it is has been due to, until recently, a lack of interesting (to me) news that don’t get the gears going inside my head. Part of it also is a lack of interesting writing from other photographers, which also has the same effect to get me thinking and wanting to post comments.

I’m not one of those people that can write for the sake of writing, although, as with photography, if you want to be good at it, you need do it regularly and consistently. However, I do find that I write by rote, my comments are lacking in fluidity and humour. I’m more of the type that writes when “inspired.”

An idea may pop into my head and germinate for a while before I sit down to type out my rambling thoughts. Or, as is often the case, I may read something that provokes me to write. This is similar to how columnists in newspapers and magazines will cite and reference the writings of other writers as the basis of their column. In good spat or peeing contest, there is often a back and forth exchange as one writer responds to the other and then responds again. The National Post newspaper does this on occasion when two writers discuss a really topical and contentious issue and publish point/counterpoint essays with follow-up responses afterwards.

With that out of the way, let’s discuss something a bit more interesting (to me).

A little while ago, the TOP offered some perspective on the high cost of Leica cameras and lenses. Yes, within the realm of photography, Leica products are priced rather extravagantly, but when compared to other high end pursuits, are they really?

I’ve made my own comments before that compared to high end audio, photography, even at its most expensive, has nothing on audiophiles. High end audio is the world of speakers and amplifiers that can cost well over $100,000 per component. Stereophile recently reviewed the top of the line digital playback system from British firm, dcs. The cost? Nearly USD $90,000…for a fancy CD player!

Mikie Fremer, one of Stereophile’s lead reviewers, went into debt to finance the purchase of an Aussie made turntable that cost something like USD $150,000 retail – and remember, pro audio reviewers enjoy accommodation pricing, which could mean 50% of retail, but even at this level, accommodation pricing is still staggering.

Now, it’s one thing to spend six figures on components. Those are tangible. Those you can at least pry open and marvel at the technology, the expensive parts quality, and the craftsmanship in putting it all together. You’re paying for the genius of the designer who poured all his energy into the product. The pricing is still ridiculous, but at least tangible.

Now consider wires and cables.

This is the comparison that the TOP used when discussing the Leica’s price. TOP mentioned cables made by long-time cable maker, Nordost, and while I don’t recall the exact prices quoted, rest assured, they are astronomical even by high-end audio standards. It makes the Leica M9’s price look like chump change and if you were to outfit your entire hi-fi with Nordost’s top line cables, you may even make a Phase One digital back look cheap. It’s bloody scary to think that a full complement of cables should approach six figures, but who ever said high end audio is about rationality.

With cameras and lenses, we have tangibles that can be measured, viewed and compared against others. We can look at a camera’s or lens’ build quality and determine whether the price asked justifies the cost. We can look at the images taken by a camera on a monitor and print and compare to other cameras and also determine if the price justifies the cost. We can post comparisons and reviews online and while imperfect, they do allow for many armchair photographers to view and come to their own conclusions (assuming the test was done fairly and objectively).

Not so with audio. While I don’t think it would be that difficult to determine if one component lets you hear more than another, that’s maybe as objective as we get, because music is subjective and what we listen for with the hi-fi is also subjective.

Getting back to cables – yes, they do make a difference and sorry, that old lamp cord you’re using to connect the speakers to the amp simply won’t do. More expensive cables do offer more than the throwaway pieces of junk that come with mass consumer electronics. As with anything, at a certain point, you will reach a point of diminishing returns where you will have to spend extraordinary sums of money to get incremental improvements in sound. Where that point is, is again, subjective based on how far you want to go, or perhaps, where you can afford to go. For some of us, that could well mean blowing as much as what a full load BMW X5 will cost to wire your audio rig. Nothing wrong with that at all.

In the same way that photographers should not begrudge those that can afford to use the best cameras and lenses, the same goes for other pursuits, whether it be audio or exotic cars, or pleasure yachts; whatever turns your fancy.

What makes us the way we are is that desire to seek out the best, to push the boundaries in every field. That competitive spirit is all around us and is why capitalism triumphs over socialism and communism. Pursuing the state of the art has costs, for sure, but there will always be people who seek the best, which keeps the cycle going.

At the end of the day, whether that Leica M9 costs $9,000 or $5,000, makes no difference to me, and it may as well be priced like the Nordost cables for that I can afford to buy these days. It might make a difference to me if it costs $2500 and if the lenses could be had for under $2,000 each, but as Buddy Holly sang, that'll be the day...

Leicas (and other big buck gear) are something I can appreciate from afar, but won’t ever venture towards. Note though that respect towards the normal M9 does not mean that I have any respect for Leica’s penchant to come up with anniversary and special edition versions of its cameras, for which, Leica richly deserves all the scorn hurled its way.

Friday, before the Valentine’s Day weekend, I wandered off to Chapters, Canada’s big chain of bookstores, similar to Barnes and Noble in the US. I was in search of a present for my wife, a biography about her favourite pop singer. Since the singer is a very well known Canadian chanteuse, I figure that there must a few biographies written about her already and that it should be quick and easy to buy one at such a last minute, especially in the biggest bookstore in town.

I was sorely mistaken. When I searched the store’s inventory for anything they had about the singer, I came up with zilch even though the database had several entries. All could be conveniently ordered, but nothing was in stock.

When I was browsing the biographies, I came across one that I wanted for myself, so I grabbed it and even though there was no sale price, I decided paying regular price was okay for the convenience if I could also find the book for my wife. With no luck on my wife’s book, I put back the book I wanted and departed the store. I later checked Amazon Canada’s website and found the books I wanted, with the usual Amazon discount off regular price and immediately ordered them. Because the value is above $35, I get free shipping, so I paid less than what I would have at Chapters. Too easy!

Yes, Chapters has the cost of books and mortar stores, but if they don’t stock the books you want when you want them, useless. Plus, I don’t need to leave home to shop. While this is an example about books, the same can be said of photographic equipment. Chapters also has a online store, but I'm pretty much sold on Amazon, because they offer other products not available from Chapters.

My favourite shop in town does not carry Panasonic cameras, so anything I want for my two cameras, I may as well order from out of province and save myself the provincial sales tax. If I bundle an order large enough at my usual out of province outlet, Vistek, I get free S&H.

Most of the local shops in Vancouver don’t carry big dollar cameras and lenses. You want to even see what a 300mm f2.8 lens looks like, you’ll have to buy one. Don’t even think that you’ll ever see a 600mm f4 lens in stock. The one exception is Leo’s where they used to (maybe still do) have a Sigma 800mm f5.6 lens on display.

It might seem strange that a city of 2 million, large enough to host the Winter Olympics, does not support big buck photographic equipment, whereas Toronto can. Of course, Toronto is at least twice as big and since all the big advertising work is done from that city, there’s more of a need for the big dollar gear used by the city’s commercial photographers.

February 11, 2010 - As we gear up for the Winter Olympics, beginning this Friday, a reader sent along a link to this cool panorama of Vancouver.

February 10, 2010 - Some new lenses from Nikon and they aren’t 18-XXX kit lenses. The 24 f1.4 and 16-35 f4 are significant, quality lenses that help patch a long seen hole in the line-up and harkens to the start of a new series of lenses catering to enthusiasts without the pro lens budget.

The 24 f1.4 answers the call for those that have long lamented the demise of the fabled 24 f2 manual focus lens. It not only meets those demands, but also matches Canon in producing the fastest, true wide angle lens, and thirdly, I think it also settles whether Nikon will produce a new version of the 28mm f1.4 lens (no).

It’s an obviously premium lens and as such, it has a premium price of USD $2200, however, like the price of the new 70-200 Mk II lens, that price may not stick. Where the 70-200 zoom lens was once priced at CAD $2700, it is now available for CAD $2400, and with some negotiation, the actual buying price should be less. But, I have to acknowledge that the 70-200 lens is a workhorse that “has” to be in the camera bags of many pros and amateurs alike, whereas the 24 f1.4 is specialized and is not going to sell in the same numbers.

The 16-35 f4 is hopefully the first in a series of f4 lenses that, like Canon’s f4 L series, will provide enthusiasts with all the quality of Nikon’s pro lenses without the pro price and compromising only in that last stop of lens speed. At USD $1260, it comes in significantly more than the old 18-35 f3.5-4.5, but less than the also old 17-35 f2.8.

With the 14-24 lens available, will Nikon replace the old 17-35 with a 16-35 f2.8, or is this it? I’m thinking this is it. You want f2.8 speed, you pony up for the big 14-24 and live with the consequences of having such a massive and bulbous front element. Or, if you want a normal sized lens that can use filters, you buy the 16-35 f4. You don’t get f2.8 speed, but then neither do you pay for it, so to me that’s acceptable compromise. You also get VR with the new wide zoom, which is another first and I hope a trend for Nikon to implement VR in as many lenses as possible, even for those that don’t seem like obvious candidates, such as wide angle or fast lenses. I’m all for getting as much technology, benefit and edge as possible.

Next up (in my opinion) should be a replacement for a lens universally regarded as being the worst in the current line-up, the 24-120 f3.5-5.6. A 24-105 or even another 24-120, but done properly, would be welcome. Finally, the 70-200 f4 to complete the trifecta of f4 lenses.

A well-known Nikon commentator lately seems to lace his comments with cynicism and sarcasm whenever Nikon introduces new products, but I like looking at the positive. It’s a good sign for Nikon to be introducing new lenses and I don’t have an issue with all those 18-XXX lenses, because it indicates that Nikon is selling shiploads of consumer SLRs that will turn into profits, which in turn will help pay for R&D into the gear that I really want to buy. What I would prefer is for the lens announcements to come out more frequently so that the entire lens line-up is updated to 21st Century standards. Unfortunately, we have to recognize that Nikon is a small company without the resources of Canon or Panasonic – even as big as Panasonic is, it could not keep up with North American demand for the GH-1 and GF1 M4/3s cameras.

As the Nikon USA news release hints, this is the just the start for Nikon introducing more FX lenses this year. Sounds damned good to me!

When I was surfing through some business news last week, I came across a series of articles about Apple’s new iPad. As I read them, I also clicked on some related articles, one of which was an interview with an executive at a regional newspaper publisher in the US. The part of the interview that got my interest is when the executive discussed putting up pay walls to access the publisher’s content.

He gave an example of an online asset owned by his company that was originally setup as a pay wall site. The site established a following and generated X amount of revenue behind the pay wall, but when they decided to take down the pay wall down, the traffic and revenue increased well beyond X.

It made me think of various photographers’ website where they put the most interesting and useful content behind a pay wall. There are also forums that require a membership to access the content, with some being successful and some not so.

Contrary to my personal politics, I guess I lean towards a more socialist attitude towards online content, the freer the better. I don’t begrudge the photographer from wanting to monetize all the hard work and effort that has gone into producing a first class review, but if you’re good, word will spread and people will visit, which will ultimately attract advertisers. Think of the Strobist blog, which while not a review site per se, has done so well for David Hobby that he decided to take a sabbatical from his day job as a photojournalist and see if he could support his family from just his website. So far, he seems to be doing well enough to not venture back to his old job and he has expanded with producing tutorial videos for sale to supplement the web revenue.

I recall that Michael Johnston of the TOP considered making it a pay-for site in which he would allow access to his interesting (and at times, infuriating) commentary on the state of photography to those willing to pay for the content. While I’ve no doubt that he would make some money, I do doubt that he would receive as much traffic and advertising as he does now with a free access blog. Advertisers like traffic and the more traffic, the more valuable your site to sell the ads.

Another model is to offer free content, but also develop significant, standalone products for sale like the Luminous Landscape with the video journal and tutorial products. While he seems to have tailed off in the amount of reviewing he does, Reichmann is still an intriguing read and his ability to access some big dollar, much desired products on a regular basis, makes him a must read no matter what one might think of him. For the record, I like my fellow Canadian and have followed his website since inception. He’s got money and he’s not afraid to spend it to pursue his passion and I’ve stated before that I would be doing and spending the same as him if I were so fiscally fortunate. I’m not about to call the pot black when my pan is crispy fried and burnt.

Probably the best-known photography review site that offers no other free content is ReidReviews, where you must pay to access the highly regarded reviews by Sean Reid. Lloyd Chambers has a hybrid site where he blogs and offers commentary on mostly Canon and Nikon gear, but the most detailed and best content is behind a pay wall. I’ve not read either site’s pay-for reviews so cannot offer an opinion on whether the reviews are worth the toll charged.

It’s quite interesting to see how people continue to try and find ways to monetize the internet. Prior, the only way a pro wanting to be compensated for reviews would be from a magazine, but the internet now allows anyone with a connection to post reviews and opinions. While there’s a lot of noise in amongst the quality signal, thankfully, there’s still enough good, free content that I’ve never felt the need to pay to read an online review.

It’s a little ironic that I don’t have qualms paying for magazine subscriptions, but balk at paying for an online subscription or access to online reviews. Part of it is that some reviews cover equipment that mostly do not interest me (ReidReviews) and the other is already mentioned, that there is already a significant amount of free content, that together, will give you a good idea of how good or bad a prospective piece of gear is.

February 8, 2010 - Apologies for another lame post. Between getting sick the past weekend and Super Bowl, I've been laggard and haggard. We'll see how this week goes for anymore new Nikon gear to be announced and if there's anything to be said about them.

You may recall that after I finished reading all those Wayson Choy books about the Chinese experience in 1930s and 1940s Vancouver Chinatown, that I had an idea for a photographic project. The photo of the Birks store in downtown Vancouver is the first photo in this longish term project, which is to photograph some of the significant parts of Vancouver writtened about by Choy in his books.

The Birks stores is mentioned as a source of cherished dishes for Choy's mother in his first memoir, Paper Shadows. Birks is an old name and store, as can be seen in the classical architecture of the store and women of all races and classes love to receive a gift that come in the famous Birk's blue box.

I see this store every work day, because my downtown bus stop just happens to be right across the street from the store. In the morning, it is bathed in the glowing blue lights and is what attracted me to it photographically (that and the coincidence of the Wayson Choy project).

February 5, 2010 - After nearly two years of service, a hard drive has died in my first Drobo storage robot. I’ve had the first Drobo for three years, but after the first year, I swapped out the original four 500 GB drives for four 1 TB drives. It is one of the 1 TB drives that has failed. The way I use the Drobo is not to have it on continuously, as the Drobo has always been a device used intermittently to backup my files stored on the computer’s hard drives. Thus, I would say that the hard drives have had a relatively easy life in my system.

A quick and simple recap, a Drobo storage robot is like a RAID without being a RAID. There are pluses and minuses to either approach. A consumer level RAID is often a network-attached device, which generally means pedestrian speed for access to data. A RAID 5 is the most common structure for an external storage device that uses more than two hard drives. In a four-drive array, three of the drives are for actual storage while the fourth is used as a parity drive to ensure data integrity if one of the drives goes bad.

A RAID 5 array is usually built and then left alone, as upgrading the capacity would take a long time. For example, if you built a four-drive array using 1 TB drives, but wanted to upgrade the capacity to all 2 TB drives, you would have to replace one drive then allow the RAID to rebuild itself before replacing the second drive, and so on and so on. Depending on how much data needs to be rebuilt, the completion time can be significant, as in many days (weeks?) of continuously rebuilding of the array. Given the time and expense of buying four new hard drives, it would be much easier just to buy a new RAID box to create a whole device.

The basic Drobo looks like a RAID, because it allows up to four drives to be mounted. Notice I said “allows” because you do not need to use four drives all at once. You can start with two and then add more capacity as needed. Just like with a RAID 5, the Drobo uses a large chunk of the overall capacity for a proprietary way of keeping parity. That’s the biggest knock against the Drobo, that if something happens to the Drobo itself, all of your data is at risk. You would need to repair the Drobo or replace it with another Drobo in order to access the data on the old hard drives. RAIDs follow a standard convention so in theory (as far as I know) you should be able to rescue your data in another RAID, however, I think either process is going to be expensive and time consuming and don’t see all that much advantage with a traditional RAID device.

The Drobo offers some conveniences over a network-attached RAID, with USB, Firewire, eSATA and iSCSI interfaces available (depending on the model). The faster connections provide better speed than over a network. While not cheap, I think the really fast RAID devices are still quite a bit more expensive than the basic Drobo.

My first Drobo is the original USB 2 version whereas my second Drobo is the Firewire 800 version. Both have four 1 TB drives mounted to provide 4 TB storage devices. Of that 4 TB of capacity, only about 2.7 TB is available for storage. As I understand it, a multiple drive failure would result in a major if not total loss of data (same risk with a basic RAID 5). The new Drobo Pro and Elite can handle multiple drive failures.

The brand of hard drive that failed in the USB Drobo is made by Seagate. Curiously, when I removed the faulty hard drive from the USB Drobo, it felt odd in my hand, as if the innards had shifted to create an unbalanced load.

I cannibalized a 1 TB Western Digital drive from another external storage device and mounted it in the USB Drobo. The Drobo allows for easy and fast hot swapping of drives. After a few minutes, the red light blinking to indicate a drive failure turned green to indicate the new drive is okay. After recognizing the new drive, all four hard drive lights started to blink from green to orange continuously, indicating that the Drobo is incorporating the new drive for storage.

I checked the Drobo dashboard on my computer and noted that the estimate time to complete the rebuild is 40 hrs. 40 hrs! Sheesh! The rebuild process began around 11 pm. When I checked again eight hours later, the estimated time jumped up to over 50 hrs. When I came back home from work and checked again at 5:30 pm, the hours declined to 27 hrs. As I work on this update, it's close to 8 pm and the hours remaining is 19 with the progress bar close to, but not quite indicating halfway done. As you can tell, the estimated time indicator is useless.

That would be another knock against the Drobo, that it’s too slow when you replace a drive and the Drobo needs to rebuild the data. I have no idea how long it would take a RAID to do the same, but I don’t think consumer RAID devices are much better for rebuilding an array.

So, after three years, two Drobo units and 12 hard drives, there has been one hard drive failure. With my belts and suspenders approach to backup, nothing was ever at risk, because the drives in the computer had the original data and the second, Firewire Drobo has an up-to-date backup of the primary data. And, the data from the USB Drobo could still be accessed despite the drive failure, so I still had three sets of data.

Over the many years of computer ownership, I cannot recall very many hard drive failures in my first decade of computer use. However, the second decade seems to be punctuated with regular drive failures. There’s no consistency per se, as failures have occurred across brands, across capacities, across ages of drives, across 2.5 inch notebook drives and 3.5 inch desktop versions. The only way you can protect yourself from loss of data is to expect that hard drive failures will occur, often without warning and that you need to backup regularly (with some religion) and to have redundancies.

Speaking of hard drives, it would seem ideal for us to move towards the solid-state drives. SSDs are still pricey on a per GB basis, but as with anything technological, the price will come down as SSDs penetrate more of the market. The performance benefit is already intriguing for those that demand the best speed, but the niggling issue is how many write/erase cycles can SSDs handle, e.g. if an SSD can handle 10,000 write/erase cycles, how long is that under typical usage? However, I don’t think that’s going to stop me from wanting the expected 12-core Mac Pro fitted with an SSD for the OS – probably still have to use the old school drives for storage due to SSD capacity limitations and cost.

February 4, 2010 - The E-PL1, another M4/3 camera from Olympus and yet another indicator that the maybe the original E-P1 is more a beta product from Olympus, because it probably felt pressured to do something, anything, to meet demand and expectations after Panasonic’s success with the G-1, which is the first M4/3 camera.

As some are indicating, the E-P2 is what the E-P1 should have been, but it’s still not considered the Panasonic GF1’s equal for auto focus speed. However, to be fair, the Olympus cameras do have in-camera stabilization, which is a significant, deal-breaker feature for some.

The newly announced E-PL1 looks…well, it looks like a GF1 with its coincidentally similar pop-up flash unit and a dedicated video recording button to allow for easy video recording. The price is nicer though at USD $600 and hopefully, this is the start of a trend to push down the cost of the M4/3 cameras and its future competitors. And, I'll be honest, the GF1 is a great camera, but it's annoying to know that entry level DX SLRs are still better for high ISO image quality.

So, let’s see now:

• Olympus with three M4/3 compact cameras with interchangeable lenses
• Panasonic with three M4/3 compact cameras with interchangeable lenses (with strong hints that another is on its way this year)
• Sigma with a fixed lens camera offering a large Foveon sensor – Sigma is the pioneer of this movement to large sensors being deployed in compact cameras
• Leica with the fixed lens X1
• Samsung with an announced proprietary lens mount camera that’s similar to the GH-1
• Sony hinting that it will be offering its own competitive camera

Who’s missing…oh, yes, that’s right, Twiddle-Dee and Twiddle-Dum, otherwise known as Nikon and Canon – I’ll let you decide who’s Dee and who’s Dum J

By the time these two get around to producing their own cameras, most of the market will be satiated with the earlier and, more importantly, actually available products. I’ve not heard about Canon doing much for this new class of camera, but there’s some rumour that Nikon is working on something and some speculate that this is the so-called “surprise” that’s been generating some buzz in Nikon world.

If the rumours are true that Nikon designed the Leica X1, then don’t too surprised if what Nikon has to offer is looks remarkably similar. Much like some older Leica products were merely rebadged Panasonic cameras and lenses.

I’ve belatedly realized that I have not produced many photo albums the last few years. It used to be that I would regularly work on printing sheets of family photos and putting them into binders to create albums.

I now have thousands of images taken, but never seen or displayed. All are stored on the various hard drives (principal and backup storage) and by this point, the task of editing and printing them into binders is monumental.

During the house move last September, I also realized just how much space the existing albums take and how difficult it is to store them properly and securely – as in away from the destructive hands of my kids. My girls like looking at their baby photos, but they’re not all that careful with handling the albums, so it’s always with a bit of cringing whenever I see them with the albums. Those albums also weigh a helluva lot, as my back discovered from moving the boxes around during the move.

Other than for the occasional burst of interest, how often do we actually look at photo albums? Some people have not looked at their wedding photos since the blissful day and same with other significant events. Yet, we still feel a need to document moments visually with photographs for future posterity. I pity the historians and archivists of the future having to sift through the billions and billions of photos taken yearly since digital became viral around the world.

I’m not sure what I’m going to do with my images, because creating physical albums does not interest me due to space and weight consideration. I would need a large, heavy-duty wall sized shelving system to accommodate everything that needs to be printed. I’m thinking much more convenient slide show DVDs, but that also requires time, which is in short supply, as readers will have noted with the dearth of postings in recent weeks.

I think ultimately, I’m going to take the lazy man’s way out and output my RAW files to HD resolution JPEGs for storage on a portable hard drive and access them via my WDTV for display on the TV. Maybe that iPad might be useful afterall...

February 3, 2010 - Nikon has announced some new Coolpix models. For those that like to follow the rumours, this is no surprise as the model numbers were even known well in advance.

What I find amusing is how some sites and some well known personalities seem to be trying to out do each other for who posts the more accurate rumour or who has the more accurate leak/source. Pissing contest anyone?

We still have a ways to go before PMA, so we'll see if any of those new SLR and "surprise" announcements come to fruition. BTW, what happened to the new lenses some of the rumour mongers were so sure about... ;-)

February 1, 2010 - The new Apple iPad looks snazzy, but given its price and specs, it's not a stripped down MacBook made to look like an iPhone or Touch, so much as it is an iPhone or Touch made larger to look like a tablet. What I mean is the USD $500 starting price indicates that there is not that much power behind the iPad and I doubt that you’ll be wanting to run Photoshop or Lightroom on it. As an aside, Brooks Jensen made several references to using a NetBook running Adobe Lightroom on a big trip to Japan and China last fall, so I'm kinda curious how much power these little devices actually pack.

Not that you could run Lightroom or Photoshop even if you want to since the iPad uses a variant of the iPhone’s software, which is not OSX for regular Macs. However, if the iPad takes off, I don’t see why Adobe would not want to leverage the platform and come up with a Photoshop and/or Lightroom app for it. I like it and immediately want it even though I’m not exactly sure what I might use it for J

Well, maybe I do know what I would use it for…

I can already see the iPad being the control station for computer-based audio with the iPad taking the place of my iPod Touch as the remote control. With only 64 GB capacity in its most expensive configuration, that falls well short of what I need to store all my AIFF files, so it won’t be a source in itself.

As for a reader, well I like reading the newspaper while having lunch and there’s something about the pleasure of unfolding the newspaper for a leisurely read. A newspaper is highly portable and you won’t be crying about dropping it like you would a $500 iPad. However, if my favoured newspapers and magazines get in on the iPad action and make it a seamless transition then I might be amenable to switching from print to electrons. Currently, I don’t like the software used by many magazines for their electronic subscriptions and have thus far eschewed them in favour of the actual print version even if it does cost me more. It would be so nice to just have a magazine come to me as a PDF, but I’m sure why they don’t is to protect the contents from mass distribution that a PDF would allow.

Although I wouldn't mind having one now, I think I'll wait out the generation two model to see if Apple listens to the critiques and makes some improvements (processing power, storage capacity, more inputs). The much larger screen over the Touch will make it a much nicer surfing and reading experience, because I find the constant need to make web pages larger for comfortable reading annoying. I also find it annoying having so little text available on a screen that I could not fathom how others can put up with reading novels on the Touch or iPhone.

I also wonder how soon it will be before we see a host of third party accessories for the iPad. First idea is a car seat harness and adapter system so that the iPad can be a multimedia device to entertain kids while on a long road trip. Or, as a huge GPS system, but that might be that practical given the size.

I’m surprised at sticking with USB 2 instead of going with USB 3, as the new standard would eventually allow for fast data transmission to and from the iPad to external devices, i.e., files from a high resolution SLR.

As others have noted, the iPad will be a convenient way to store a portfolio of photographs to show others. Is this yet another nail in the coffin of that 20th Century medium known as the photographic print?

Two weekends ago, I was at a cousin’s place, helping him out by picking up his new rocking recliner and then delivering it to his condo – it seems, when you own a minivan, many weekends are spent being the extended family’s delivery service. Anyway, I was able to pick up the chair and deliver it with time to spare before the big Vikings/Saints game, wherein my cousin could sit back and now be another armchair quarterback - that Brett Favre, geez, talk about the real "Wild Thing" that you live or die by.

I sat back in the new chair and took in a bit of the Jets/Colts game on the 50-inch LCD with an HD cable feed. I could immediately tell that the HD feed provided an immensely superior quality than regular cable. To be sure though, my cousin flipped to the non-HD channel for me to do a direct comparison. No contest whatsoever even to my less than perfect eyes.

What does this have to do with photography? Bear with me…

A couple of weeks ago, I received a 15x20 inch print from my friend Oleg, a Russian ex-pat living and working in Shanghai. China. Oleg is an accomplished photographer and travels often into the Chinese landscape for photography. On one of the recent trips last fall, Oleg had an opportunity to borrow a Hasselblad CVF-39 digital back to use with his classic V system 503 SLR.

The CVF-39, as the name indicates, is a 39 MP back offering a tiny bit more than 5400x7200 pixels. It costs a substantial USD $14,000, but that’s a lot less than what you will pay for the higher resolution backs from Phase, Leaf and Hasselblad. By comparison, the Nikon D3X offers a tiny bit more than 4000x6000 pixels (24 MP) for USD $7500 and you get the camera thrown in free, unlike the CVF-39 (tongue-in-cheek). The Canon 5D2 is about USD $2500 and offers around 3700x5700 pixels for 21 MP. The Sony A850 offers 24 MP for USD $2500.

Oleg prints with an Epson 4880, which like my older 4800, can print on cut sheets up to 17x22 inches. An image taken with the CVF-39 will produce a 15x20 inch print at 360 dpi. In other words, at native resolution, using one of the optimal print resolutions for Epson printers, the smallest Oleg can print is 15x20 inches. Going smaller would result in throwing away resolution.

Using another common Epson printer resolution, Oleg can produce a 22x30 inch print at 240 dpi without having to interpolate the image file. That’s a lot of sweet resolution to work with!

Like other medium format digital backs, the CVF-39 has no anti-aliasing filter, so there’s no need to do a capture round of sharpening as is required with 35mm based cameras, because all of those cameras use an anti-aliasing filter. Needless to say, Oleg is mightily impressed with the quality of the image files from the CVF-39. He sent me a print to see if I might have anything to say given my experience (short and limited) with the D3X and (longer and less limited experience) with the Canon 5D2.

At 360 dpi print resolution, the 24 MP D3X produces an 11x17 inch print. To produce a print that is 20 inches at the long dimension requires either interpolation of the file or reducing the print resolution to 300 dpi. That’s not a stretch by any means for the D3X, but I do have some difficulty in making any quantitative comments about Oleg’s print, shown below:

Certainly, the print is sharp from foreground to background. The colors are boldly saturated and the geography looks very arid, almost a desert-like region. Oleg’s composition shows a road that meanders through the arid hills and it reminds me of landscapes that have old river systems in them, because old rivers similarly meander in big S curves. The print shows off details in the many little rocks and pebbles outlining the road.

In short, it’s a fine looking print, but as to whether it is markedly superior to something that would be produced from a D3X or even a 5D2, that I cannot state with any confidence. Without having a print taken by one of the 35mm systems and then comparing it alongside Oleg’s print, it’s just pure speculation, but I suppose you still want that speculation.

My speculation is that at 15x20 inches, I am not going to see meaningful differences between a $15,000 digital back and an $8,000 SLR, or even a $2,500 SLR. The 15x20 size is not large enough to allow the qualities of the CVF-39 to shine through. Maybe even a 20x30 might not be big enough, but at 24x36 or bigger, I’ll bet that there will be a clear difference that favours the CVF-39.

I base this thought on that somewhat infamous test by Michael Reichmann at the Luminous Landscape to compare the output of a Canon G series digicam to his huge dollar Phase One digital back. Up to a certain size (maybe 8x10 inches) even experienced professionals could not reliably tell which print was made with which system.

So, I've taken the safe, easy, sit on the fence way out, but for Oleg, who has experience with scanned medium format film and has compared those files to that of the CVF-39, there's little doubt that the digital back offers cleaner and sharper image quality. And, I fully trust in Oleg's conclusion that the CVF-39 produces wonderful image quality.

January 26, 2010 - Posted some thoughts (scroll down) on Wayson Choy's All that Matters. This will be my final book review for a little while and although it initially had nothing to do with photography, reading all of Choy's books has given me an idea for a little photo project. Stay tuned...

Remember that Hermes Leica? Well that famed German camera maker is at it again with another special edition camera specifically catering to the Chinese market and gaudy Chinese tastes. I'm not even going to touch the politics of commerating the anniversary that Leica is celebrating.

January 25, 2010 - Sorry folks, was kept busy last week with work and family demands. Also kinda slow for news anyway. Will try to get back at it this week with some more X-Rite ColorChecker usage and comments on a print made with a 39 MP digital back - a friend sent me a print he made after using said back for to look at and comment on. I'm also working on a review of the last of Wayson Choy's four books, All that Matters (for the few of you that may be interested).

January 19, 2010 - As I just finished updating NikonLinks, including a link to a review of the Coolpix S1000pj, I was reminded that, hey, I've seen this camera before and some of the image files from it.

I'm thinking the quality sucks so badly that I must have quickly compartmentalized the memory of seeing those files into the deepest recesses of my mind 8^)

Seriously though, the Coolpix S1000pj is a one trick pony with that gimmicky projection feature, because as a camera, well nothing to see here folks, just move on along.

My brother-in-law bought one and tried to used it during Christmas, but soon gave up after realizing that the camera offers sluggish performance and poor quality in the low light of our house. Lots of motion blur due to the slowish shutter speed and a decidely soft, crunchy look to the photos - I hesitate to even call them "photos."

Now, to be sure, most (all) digicams perform very poorly in low light with a high ISO setting. My Sony W170 digicam offers similarly poor quality when the ISO is pushed to ludicrous speeds - ludicrous for such tiny sensors, e.g. ISO 1600 and 3200.

The world can still use a digicam that doesn't suck past ISO 400. While some cameras, such as the Canon S90, seem to offer good ergnomics, I would still consider them crippled if used in low light settings. Hell, even very good SLRs can be challenged in low light, so why would we expect a tiny sensored camera to come up with anything other than mush.

January 18, 2010 - A look at the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport is now posted.

January 15, 2010 - I've posted more comments about my reading of some more books written by Wayson Choy, but since these have nothing to do with photography, I'll spare everyone from having to scroll through all that stuff on this page. For those interested, you can read my thoughts on this page.

I'm currently working with the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport and should have a first-use review posted by the weekend.

Over at the TOP, there’s been a couple of interesting recent posts. One is the camera of the year, as selected individually by most of TOP’s regular contributors – each person made his own selection and wrote a brief piece as to why. The other post noted that the Canon 5D2’s retail price has dropped to USD $2500, which calls into question the motivation of Canon for doing so.

In the first, camera of the year, post, the telling thing, as noted by some readers’ comments, is that no Nikon or Canon camera made it to the list. Not even the D3S, which is significant given how it changes the way we think of photography in low light. I guess the original D3, with its groundbreaking extreme high ISO has already conditioned us enough that a once impossible ISO 100k does not surprise and thrill as it should. Not too surprisingly, two of the contributors name the Panasonic GF1 as their camera of the year, because it best meets the need for a compact, yet high quality producing camera. The GH-1 and Olympus E-P2 also made the list, which makes it a clear win for the Micro 4/3 format in 2009 and again, no surprise, because M4/3 cameras are addressing and fulfilling a niche market long demanded by serious photographers. Again, where the heck are Nikon and Canon in this new horse race?

Surprisingly, one film camera still made it through, the Fuji GF670 (aka the Voigtlander Bessa III), which would have interested me a decade ago, but no longer, even if it offers the ability to take 6x7 medium format sized photos in a compact package. Too little too late and too much of an anachronism.

If I were to pick, the Nikon D3S is my pick on sheer technical prowess, because its incredible high ISO liberates us from always having to compromise noise versus freezing action with a high shutter speed and makes expensive, fast glass that much less of a necessity. On a more realistic level for all of us that have to work for a living, the Panasonic GF1 takes the nod, because while it’s not perfect, it comes closest to embodying the concept of an SLR in a (largish) digicam size. If the Olympus E-P2 offered better AF and other improvements over the E-P1, it might have won me over even though I’ve not touched either of the Olympus cameras in person. That in-camera IS can be (and has been) the clincher for many choosing between the GF1 and the E-P1/E-P2.

The second post I found of interest about the 5D2’s price drop makes one wonder if Canon is clearing stock for a replacement or if as the TOP speculates, is a strategic move to mitigate the rumoured announcement Nikon will make in February for their next FX camera (D900 appears to be the moniker).

Some readers’ comments dismiss the 5D2 as being nothing special, so no loss if Canon is indeed replacing it. But, really now, is that fair?

The 5D2 is in that awkward position of, as the TOP accurately described in a previous post, being second best in most categories.

It’s second best for resolution because the Nikon D3X, Sony A900 and A850 offer 24 MP resolution compared to the 5D2’s 21 MP. It’s a nearly meaningless quibble, because practically speaking, it amounts to a one-inch difference in print size, e.g. if I can print a 14x20 from 24 MP at 300 dpi print resolution, I’ll get 13x19 from 21 MP at 300 dpi.

Amongst the reasonably priced FX cameras, the 5D2’s build is also second best compared to the tank-like build of the Sony SLRs. The D3X has the best build, but it’s not reasonably priced.

For frame rate, it chugs along at 4 fps, which really, when you consider the amount of data it’s gotta process, is okay.

For AF speed and quality, it’s definitely consumer oriented with only one good AF sensor in the middle with all the other AF points being nearly useless in very challenging situations. I have no experience with Sony SLRs, so can’t cmment on how good or bad the 5D2 is compared to them, but I don’t hear high praises about the Sony AF either. But then, if you’ve used Nikon and Canon’s best AF systems, that will spoil you for any other brand’s AF module.

What the 5D2 is about is high resolution in an average body at a reasonable price. It’s not a speedy sports camera, nor is it a rugged camera to be beaten up in the bush. It’s a generalist camera for people like me who are not going to pound nails with it. While I’ve used it for sports, it’s not my first choice, but consider that based on the choices I had in early 2009, between the Nikon D300 and the 5D2, I chose the 5D2 for hockey photography.

I went with the 5D2, because the resolution is very useful for certain types of shots I needed for the end of year posters I created (think heavy cropping), and because the full frame sensor allowed for cleaner ISO 3200 photos than the DX format D300 at ISO 3200. While that’s all good, the bad of the experience is that I threw away thousands of photos that were not in focus, because the 5D2’s AF module is not meant for fast action.

With the 7D available in my camera bag, I’m in a comfort zone where I can use different cameras for their appropriate capabilities. The 7D is the obvious sports camera, although, I admit that I still need to learn how to use all the various AF capabilities to their best advantage. The 5D2 sees less use now, but it’s the first one I grab when I need quality and enlargement capability. It’s telling that I have a Kirk L bracket for the 5D2, but nothing for the 7D, because the 7D is always used handheld whereas the 5D2 is most often used on a tripod.

I don’t like to discuss pie-in-the-sky products, because it depresses me that I cannot ever hope to afford them. I would love to shoot with the ultra high-resolution medium format backs, but given that they cost as much as a nice car, it just is not going to happen. Then there’s the cost of the camera and lenses to make use of that digital back. By the time you’re finished, you will end up shelling out what a young couple might put down on their first home.

Surveying the scene with some semblance of reality, the Canon system, at this time, represents a compelling system that is hard to ignore. There’s the big dollar, pro-oriented 1 series that offer speed in the 1D or high resolution in the 1Ds. This is mirrored at the enthusiast level with the 7D offering speed and the 5D offering high resolution.

Sony has the high resolution covered, but there’s no 7D or D300 equivalent that a user can invest in to mitigate the speed shortcomings of the A900 or A850. Although, the replacement for the A700 might fill that gap, we shall have to wait.

On the Nikon side, the D3S and D3X provide the same two-camera speed and resolution punch as the Canon 1 series. The D700 provides the speed in the enthusiast category, but thus far, there has not been a resolution equivalent to match the 5D2 or A900/A850. February may change that.

The D700 appears to be on the way out and the question is, what is Nikon’s game plan to replace it? Will a D900 offer a compromise of near 20 MP resolution coupled with the D700’s speed to offer, essentially, an FX version of the 7D? Or, will there be a D700S/D800 offering the same sensor as the D3S with a D900 offering the D3X’s 24 MP?

January 12, 2010 - In case you’ve spent the past year doing a Rip Van Winkle, you know that smartphones are the next big “thing” following on the success of Apple’s iPhone and RIM’s various Blackberries - actually, I might suggest that smartphones are already yesterday's big thing given that now, everyone and their grannie is trying to cash in on the action. The next big thing might actually be 3D HDTVs coming soon from Sony, Panasonic and others.

I love the concept of the iPhone and I’m immensely jealous of all those that have and use one. My green eyed envy is mitigated a small bit by the iPod Touch, which is essentially an iPhone without the phone. However, because of the lack of instant cellular access, the Touch is a Wi-Fi only device when you want to check email or do some quick surfing.

In Canada, until recently, the cost of using an iPhone was a princely CAD $60 per month for the lowest cost package available from Rogers. Rogers is no longer the only source for the iPhone as the other two major cell carriers, Telus and Bell, also offer the iPhone with some cheaper (but more limited) packages than Rogers. If $60 per month made you gag, that's because Canada has some of the most expensive wireless rates in the free world thanks to the oligarchy of Bell, Rogers and Telus controlling almost the entire Canadian market.

I won’t be rushing out for an iPhone of my own as I already have a Blackberry for work. While the good old Blackberry looks staid and old compared to all the newcomers with their fancy touch screens, if email and texting are your thing, I’d much rather have the Blackberry than the iPhone or any of its imitators without a real keyboard.

Having used the Touch for some typing, I can resoundingly declare it as a piece of tactile doggy doo. The touch screen technology of the early 21st Century aint’ nothing like what you see on Star Trek where the actors’ hands fly on those touch screen consoles.

I initially though the real keys on the Blackberry were too small and would make it too hard to type quickly and accurately. How wrong I am, because I find that I can type quite quickly and accurately. No, I would not want to try and type a very lengthy email or article, but neither would I fear it if I had to. I wonder if Twitter’s 140 character tweet is a recognition that so many of today’s wireless messages come from cell phones with their ganged up three letters per button keypad or the aforementioned dysfunctional touch screens.

However, I have to recognize that the dysfunction might be entirely my own in not warming up to typing on touch screens. There are plenty of people out there using touch screens for typing, tweeting and even blogging and I don’t mean small postings or short sentences. But, I have also read blog entries by a Blackberry user and was astounded at how much and how quickly he could type, as he followed and reported on a human rights tribunal case as it was being conducted (he had to use the BB because he experienced a laptop malfunction on the first day of coverage).

On the topic of smartphones and texting or emailing, I have to shake my head at some users and their addiction to the instant communication capabilities. Yesterday, while walking to the bus stop to go home, I had to stop an intersection. The intersection is a busy one and before pedestrians can cross, there is an advance left turn for cars to make the turn first. Standing beside me was a tall lady with umbrella nestled against her chest, shoulder and crook of her neck while both hands were holding up a Blackberry. When the light turned green with a clear signal for the cars to make their left turn, she casually strolled across the street without looking up or behind her; oblivious to the fact that she put herself in harm's way.

I shook my head and made some comments inside my head about her idiotic behaviour. When the light signalled for pedestrians to cross, I made it halfway across and noticed another woman angling right at me from the opposite side. Her umbrella was angled down so that she could not see me and I had to step out of her way. As I did so, I noticed that she was texting on her cell phone and she only noticed that she was walking like a zombie as we walked by each other. I made some additional choice comments inside my head.

Being able to stay connected is a nice convenience, but sheesh, some people just don't seem to understand that the rest of the world does not care what they did on the weekend or what they're going to that night, as I hear too many times on the bus with people conversing on their cell phones for the entire duration of the bus ride. At least texting and emailing are quiet.

In BC, we will soon have a new law coming into force that will make it illegal to use cell phones normally while driving. Cell phones must now be capable of hands free operation, which makes Blue Tooth connectivity a hot item and makes one of my brothers-in-law quite prescient when he purchased a new SUV a couple of years ago specifically because it allowed him to converse on his cell phone, hands free.

There's no question that cell phones are invaluable during an emergency, as there have been several instances of people using them to guide rescuers to their location. However, I find so much of cell phone conversations to be mundane and unimportant in nature and I wonder, did they really need to call me and tell me that right at that moment, because it really could have waited. Ah well, I better get used to it, because it's only gonna get worse.

First Sunrise of 2010

January 11, 2010 - Okay, I'm a liar. The photo above is not the first sunrise of 2010 for Vancouver; it was actually taken last week shortly after arriving at work and looking out the window and noticing the colors in the sky. It's merely the first bit of sun seen in this new year, because Vancouver has either been overcast or raining since the year started. Par for the course for Vancouver.

The colors in the above photo are not the ones that caught my eye though. The colors in the photo at right are the ones that made me take notice and take out the GF1 for a few snaps.

I had to stretch to get the shot, because my view is largely blocked by buildings. I then went looking for a better vista of the eastern sky to take the photo above, but by that point, the dramatic colors were starting to go.

Both photos had some judicious minus compensation to goose the saturation in-camera with additional goosing in Lightroom 2. However, while there is some mild additional saturation, I mostly left it alone with the main edit being to boost up the black to turn the buildings into silhouettes.

I've been thinking of audio gear in recent times due to the tube in my Sonic Frontiers preamp starting to go. I'm wondering, do I spend $100 and replace the tube and continue using my old, but still okay preamp, or do I take the opportunity to get something different and more with the times?

One idea is to get a HeadRoom Ultra Desktop headphone amp to use as a preamp. This amp has a volume controlled set of output jacks to allow use as a preamp. Plus, it also has a decent DAC with optical and coaxial S/PDIF inputs, as well as USB jack to allow a computer to be the source component. The HeadRoom Ultra is a Swiss Army knife kind of component and the price is reasonable for what it offers. HeadRoom has a nice package that includes the amp, an external PSU and set of AKG K701 headphones. The package price almost makes the K701 a freebie.

However, I think the option that I would really like to pursue is to get a PS Audio PerfectWave DAC. This DAC can act as a preamp and has a number of inputs and source options, such as a NAS thanks to the network connection option. It has the same kind of filters seen in much more expensive DACs and CD players and it's much more functional than the Ayre QB-9 that I've also had thoughts about.

Before I figure any of this audio stuff though, I think I'll wait to at least the end of February and see if all those rumors of pending Nikon announcements come true ;^)

January 7, 2010 - For BC-based photographers, here's some news to pass along about a call for photographic submissions by the Immigrant Services Society of BC:

Immigrant Services Society of BC (ISSofBC) is now accepting entries for the New Faces of British Columbia photography exhibit, to be held in Prince George, Abbotsford, Nanaimo and Vancouver.

Whether you are an aspiring photographer or a seasoned professional, we invite you to submit photos that reflect on your view of British Columbia’s changing demographics. This event will celebrate our province’s multicultural spirit and will bring together new Canadians with long-term residents. As people make up the beauty and diversity in Canada, the photos should reflect the many people that call British Columbia their home.

In the spirit of sharing British Columbians’ stories, we encourage you to include a description of your photograph. We will accept a wide variety of write-ups, including anything from lengthy descriptions of the stories behind photographs, to a brief write up of the photo. Although story-telling is the ultimate goal (so a write-up is great), submissions without write-ups will be accepted.

Your photos will be viewed by a panel and those selected will be included in a travelling exhibit to be held throughout the province in March, and in Vancouver in May. Photos will also be featured in ISSofBC’s print materials and website.

Official call for submissions at the ISSofBC website

New Faces of BC website and PDF of the New Faces program

So, after playing around with Bibble 5 and Lightroom 3 Beta, and despite not intending to, I decided to look at other RAW conversion possibilities just to see if I’m missing anything spectacular out there. Normally, I don’t like to download trial software and bloat up my primary editing computer, but since I’m hoping to do a Windows 7 upgrade soon, I’m going to nuke the OS hard drive anyway for a clean install, so I might as well play before going all Zen-like again with the new OS. It’s also a good time to clean up my file structure for the photo files, because I’ve been a bit sloppy the last few months. Although I use Lightroom as a library of sorts, my primary organization is still folders based in Windows Explorer (or Finder in Mac OS).

One downside to the way I organize my files and in not having access to the latest version of Adobe Camera Raw is that I have to import temporary, one-off RAW files into Lightroom in order to edit and convert them to JPEGs for posting on the website. Back in the day when I used cameras supported by CS3’s ACR, it was very convenient and efficient to work on those one-offs with ACR and then dump them when I was finished. My Lightroom library would be uncluttered and only have files that I want to keep long term. However, this kind of convenience, on its own, does not warrant an upgrade to CS4.

What prompted a look at some other converter options was a time-limited discount on DxO 6 for Windows. Instead of the usual USD $300 price, up until January 5, it could have been bought for USD $200. Since I was checking out other options, I might as well download the trial for Phase Capture One and see what it’s like too even though I’m not thrilled with the USD $400 price.

The older I get, the more I abhor trying to learn new software, but the recent experience with trying to correct lens distortion made me realize that Lightroom is not perfect and that maybe I should not be so blinkered and blind to what other apps can do.

Looking at Bibble, DxO and Capture One here is not about trying to learn every facet of their operation within the 15-30 day trial period. My look is more a quick and dirty with some test files to check for three primary things:

1. Noise reduction quality
2. Lens correction quality (if offered)
3. UI for ease of editing and efficient workflow

DxO
It’s taken a long while for me to get around to looking at DxO again, but it’s always been in the back of my mind due to the camera and lens correction capabilities offered by this converter.

DxO can be used as a standalone RAW converter, but DxO also offers some integration with Lightroom; however, I don’t find the integration as good as it should be. While an image can be exported out to DxO from Lightroom and then roundtrip back in, any edits you may have applied in Lightroom first, are ignored by DxO, which seems to defeat the purpose of having a plug-in to Lightroom. You may as well start in DxO alone and then import the files into Lightroom for additional editing and archiving into the library module. Unfortunately, when you roundtrip a file from Lightroom, it does not come back as a RAW file, but as a TIFF file, which may limit what you further do in Lightroom.

What DxO offers over Lightroom is an automated correction routine that applies DxO’s specific camera and lens calibrations to the RAW files. The files can be corrected for lens sharpness (or more accurately, lack of), barrel and pincushion distortion and light fall off in the corners. DxO also has a noise reduction feature that can work quite effectively. The question for me is how effective is the noise reduction and lens correction capabilities and is it worth the cost.

DxO has a different workflow then is typical of other converters such as Lightroom or Bibble. You browse for a folder of images, which is fine, but then you need to select the images you want to work on further into a “project,” which is separated from the thumbnail view of the folder by a bottom-oriented thumbnail section that shows the project images.

After selecting the images for a project, you select one from the bottom thumbnail section and DxO will do an automatic correction to the image. The corrections can be manually overridden through the tools found on the right side of the DxO work area.

Processing an image in DxO is not very speedy and while the lens correction process can be effective that’s only if your particular camera and lens combination is supported. Each camera and lens profile has to be created by DxO and if you use a newer camera, such as the Canon 7D, it may take a while for profiles to be created even with popular lenses. After installing DxO, I was prompted to download the appropriate camera and lens combinations relevant for me and I found that there are a number of combinations that I have that are not supported and probably never will be, as some of the cameras are now discontinued models. A similar problem exists with Bibble 5, in that you need Bibble to create and provide newer camera and lens profiles for its lens correction feature. Lens correction is a fantastic feature in both DxO and Bibble, but only if your camera and lens combinations are supported.

Another knock against DxO is that it does not support the Panasonic GH-1 or GF1. Only the FZ30 is supported at this time, which I find ridiculous given the popularity of Panasonic’s G series. Since I find myself shooting at high ISO quite often with these two cameras, they could definitely benefit from DxO’s noise reduction feature, but it would seem silly of me to spend money on a RAW converter that cannot covert files from two of the four cameras I use regularly.

I still find it quite an interesting application, but the workflow with Lightroom is not ideal for me.

Phase Capture One
If you read reviews and user comments, you may find that Capture One is considered to be best RAW converter when purely discussing the quality of conversion. For USD $400, which is twice as much as Lightroom or Bibble, it had damn well better be the best not only in RAW conversion, but also in the user experience and other features.

While it does have two of the key features I desire (noise reduction and lens correction) I dislike the UI and the floating editing windows; however the editing windows can be locked in place on the left side of the Capture One work area. The UI is a matter of taste only, but it is more straightforward than DxO.

I found Capture One slow in applying an edit but what it can do for quality looks very promising. There's a handy "Auto" mode edit that's worth trying out to see what it can do. I used the Auto mode on the team photo above and it gave me a great looking image and damned if I have to admit, better than what I produced via Lightroom and Photoshop. That really annoys me ;^)

However, the UI, speed and cost won't have me splurging to purchase it. I fully admit that my look at DxO and Capture One are short and cursory and specific to certain features. My rationale being that if one offers “knock me off my feet” capabilities, then I could make an investment and learn to use the application at my leisure. That did not happen (closer with Capture One than DxO), but the experience did make me appreciate that the software engineers at Adobe really nailed it for the UI and providing an efficient workflow for processing a large number of files.

I would still prefer being able to customize the Lightroom work area to move the left and right file access and editing sections off to a second monitor, but on the whole, the way those sections are laid out has thus far been the best of the bunch. However, I recognize that I have an inherent bias towards Lightroom since I’ve been using it for a few years. It could also be speedier in handling the large files from the Canon 5D2 and 7D, but I still found it faster and less frustrating than working with DxO or Capture One.

I also took a closer look at how Lightroom 2 deals with noise reduction compared to Bibble with Noise Ninja and I found that I could reduce the noise almost as effectively. Lightroom 2’s noise reduction is not considered state of the art so when Lightroom 3 moves onto production release, there should be some promising capabilities. However, stupid me, I keep on forgetting that I actually do have Noise Ninja available for Lightroom, as Noise Ninja offers an external editor compatible with Lightroom.

This just leaves the issue of correcting lens distortion using a Lightroom workflow and stupid me again, but I’ve just discovered PTL as a plug-in for Lightroom.

The edit will be subtle in these screen shots, but above is pre-correction and below is post correction for barrel distortion using PTL's external editor for Lightroom 2.

I'm repeating myself here, but a plug-in for Lightroom is a misnomer, because it’s not like the typical plug-in or filter for Photoshop. Just as with the Nik ColorEfex plug-in for Lightroom, you need to render a TIFF or JPEG file for exporting to PTL as an external editor to Lightroom. After finishing the edit, external editor will send the rendered image back into Lightroom’s library for any additional editing that needs to be done. It breaks the RAW editing workflow, because now, if you continue with the edits, you are no longer working with the RAW file. Ultimately, it would be nice if Adobe would license (or buy) PTL technology and incorporate it right into Lightroom so that roundtrips are no longer necessary.

With having Noise Ninja already available (I bought the license years ago so I get to enjoy using it as a standalone, as a plug-in to Photoshop, and as an external editor with Lightroom), all I need to do is spend $25 for a PTL license and I'll have what I've been seeking to adapt to my Lightroom workflow.

No, it's not as ideal as it is with Bibble with everything built-in so that you always work with RAW files, but it's more wallet friendly and it means not having to dramatically change the way I've been working the last three years.

January 5, 2010 - As referred to in yesterday's post, the other book that I read over Christmas was pure pleasure; Wayson Choy's The Jade Peony.

I have at times wondered if I could have ever been an author, but knowing myself, I'm just not that creative that I would have a good story to tell. However, if I were so talented, The Jade Peony is the kind of book I would have loved to have written.

Celebrated authors write about what they know best. Mordecai Richler wrote about the Jewish experience in Montreal; Dan Brown writes about the Catholic Church; Tom Clancy writes stories woven with military influences; and Wayson Choy writes about the Chinese Canadian experience of the 1930s and 1940s in Vancouver's Chinatown.

Choy was born in Vancouver and grew up during the aforementioned decades in Chinatown. Although Choy is of my parents generation, I found so much that I could relate to in his first novel. It does not matter that his stories are of the big city from decades past whereas my own experience is of the small town in the 1970s and 1980s, the culture is palpable across the years. Despite the age difference, our experience are much more similar than you might think.

Choy was born to immigrant parents, just as I am and we are of the transitional generation that bridges the old country with the new one. We experienced some existentialist angst trying to figure out if we are Chinese, Canadian, or Chinese-Canadian. In some ways, we don't belong to either, because we have one foot straddling the old culture and one foot straddling the new one. These days though, I unambiguously identify myself as Canadian; I am not a hyphenated citizen of this country. It does not mean that I ignore the old culture, but Canada is where I live, grew up and developed into the person that I am and there's nothing in the old country that I can identify with other than ethnicity. I do not have the ability to speak or write Chinese and my values are based on Western liberalism. I'm also a spendthrift compared to the stereotypical frugality that Chinese have - old school Chinese don't crack open their wallets very easily, unless they're trying to save face and impress friends and relatives by fighting over the dim sum bill.

I have an oldercousin who would always pay the bill when going out to dinner with his family. Even when I made it clear that I would be paying for the meal, he would sneak ways to pay the bill, including feigning going to the restroom. At the end of the meal, we waited for the bill to come but none ever did, because my cousin paid it while "using" the restroom. Another time, another cousin visited from out of town. Being a college student, he didn't have a lot of bucks, so I gave him some money to pay for the dinner in front of the older cousin. But, when the bill arrived, the older cousin immediately grabbed the bill and paid it before my younger cousin could even reach for his wallet.

Being Cantonese is another shared experience with Wayson Choy. Vancouver's Chinatown is populated with and visted by immigrants from China's Guangdong province (formerly known as Kwangtung), which has as its capital city, Guangzhou, formerly known as Canton. Not very far away is Hong Kong, a westernized business Mecca for Cantonese speaking Chinese.

Although, one can generally state that the citizens of Kwangtung province speak Cantonese, the reality is that there are many dialects and that only the people of Guangzhou and Hong Kong speak "proper" Cantonese. The rest speak a variation or a dialect based on which village they are from. The number of dialects spoken in Chinatown is mentioned regularly in Choy's book and the key dialect is from the city of Taishan, better known as Toisan.

Toisan is the origin of most North American Chinese, many of whom will have roots going back to the building of the transcontinental railways in the USA and Canada during the late 19th Century. The people of Toisan are like the Scots; there are more Toisanese living outside of Toisan than are in Toisan.

My family is not from Toisan, but I can confirm that the Cantonese I grew up hearing is not quite the same as spoken in Hong Kong, which is more nasal and higher pitched in sound compared to the flat tone of my parent's village dialect. As a child, my mother explained to me that some of the Chinese friends in my BC hometown came from other Chinese villages and would say things differently than us, but they all seem able to communicate with each other without difficulty, much like the grandmother in Choy's book, who could praise you in one village dialect and then insult you in another.

Some of the phrases used often by Choy are all a part of my own history (my spelling is not necessarily the same as used by Choy in his book):

• "Dai-ga Hong yen" - we are all Chinese people, with the "Hong" being the Cantonese pronouncement for "Han," which refers to the ancient kingdom and dynasty that united China (also the ethnic origins of the Chinese people)
• "Ai-yah!" - I don't think there's really a translation for this, as it's more of an expression of surprise and shock; the utterance of a Chinese mother discovering that her toddler has just taken off his poopie diaper and has proceeded to spread his messiness on the floor (written with a recent experience of mine in mind 8^)
• "Hum Sui Fawl" - Salt Water City, which is what Vancouver is called by Chinese Canadians - Choy at first uses the English "Salt Water City" and when I read it, I knew that it was very familiar, but couldn't quite place it until Choy used the phonetic Chinese words that I remembered that this is what my parents and their friends called Vancouver when I was a young child. Given how long it's been since I've heard this phrase, I'm not sure that it's in much use, but since I don't visit Vancouver's Chinatown at all, I cannot be certain.
• "Mo no" - No brain or mindless; a phrase I've heard a few times in my youth as my parents would admonish me if I did something silly or stupid. The phrase is used to describe Choy's youngest main character, who cannot get straight the proper way to address his elders, because in Chinese, there seems to be a specific term to describe just about every relative and non-relative relationship.

In proper and respectful addressing of elders, a younger person never calls them by name; it's always a title of some sort. An older brother is "dai goh," which is simply, bigger brother. Uncles on the mother's side are referred to one way and uncles on the father's side are referred to another way. Same with grandparents, which caused me some confusion when I read of Choy's children character's referring to their grandmother as "poh-poh."

Poh-poh is what my children call my wife's mother, whereas the kids call my mother, "ma-ma." When I read "poh-poh" in Choy's book, I automatically associated her with the mother's side of the family, but as I read further it was made clear that the "poh-poh" is actually the father's mother. To confuse things further, I never understood the distinction between poh-poh and ma-ma until I had my own kids, because these are not the ways I addressed my own grandmothers. Yes, it's a bit of mess probably due to village differences and the fact that one of my grandmothers was actually a step-grandmother.

Other information gleaned from Choy's writings that I found interesting is the old custom of digging up the bodies of deceased Chinese seven years after the original burial for reinterring in the old country. I know some European cultures request that at death, the body be shipped back to the old country for burial, but I had never heard of this custom in Canada (likely because it must have stopped many decades ago). It would make sense for this to be requested by those born in China with no family and ties to Canada, that the final resting place should be in the old country. However, I know within my own extended family that the opposite has occurred, that ancestral bones have been exhumed in the old country and brought to a new final resting place in Canada.

Other tidbits that I recognize are the arranged marriages, multiple wives and adoption of children. It may seem odd and anachronistic in 21st Century Vancouver, a city teeming with Chinese, that some people still return to the old country to find spouses, but it continues to happen for men and women alike. I also remember as a child, hearing my parents talk about one of their family friends wanting a little sister for their son. A little while later, we visited those friends and there sitting in a chair, quiet and shy, was a little girl, perhaps two or three years old. Being a "mo no" kind of kid, I didn't think it remarkable that one day, out of the blue, my childhood friend would all of a sudden have a little sister without having gone through the baby stages. But, then, you didn't talk much about the girl's past before the adoption, because once she arrived, she was treated like she had always been there by family and friends.

The secretive nature of Chinese is a theme that permeates Choy's book and it's another experience that we Chinese know oh so well. Chinese do not seem to like to talk about their own personal histories, especially in front of the children. Some basics can be found out over time, but I know from my own history that there's been a secret that my parents kept from me until I was in university. Without getting into the details, it's another thing that I have in common with Wayson Choy.

The Jade Peony is a beautifully written book, but then I'm biased, because it speaks to me and my identity. I read through it voraciously and finished it much sooner than expected, because the stories nourished me.

If Evelyn Lau's brutal teenage experiences speak to the dark side of Chinese culture, Wayson Choy speaks to the romantic, nostalgic side that tries to dig into what it means to be Chinese in Vancouver. This is a changing position in Vancouver, for while the Chinese are the largest visible minority in the city, no longer are the Cantonese dialect speaking Toisan the most dominant group within the Chinese Diaspora.

In the 1990s, leading up to China reclaiming Hong Kong, many Hong Kong citizens immigrated to Canada. Having that valuable Canadian passport was a huge mitigation of the risk of what might happen when Communist China took over. Since 1997, with China taking a fairly hands-off approach to Hong Kong's dynamic capitalism, Hong Kong immigration has relaxed. However, immigration from Taiwan and mainland China has increased significantly. Where once, the only Chinese spoken in Vancouver was Cantonese, Mandarin is quickly catching up and I notice that Chinese salespeople must be able to converse in both dialects to be competitive in the stores.

Chinatown itself is still primarily a Cantonese stronghold, but we're talking about old generation Cantonese, like my parents. As far as I know it, the new immigrants eschew the old, rundown looking Chinatown for the shopping district in the suburb of Richmond, where Chinese are likely now the majority of the residents.

After finishing Lau's book, I had enough of her, whereas I immediately ordered the three other books written by Choy (two memoirs and a second novel that continues the story from the first book).

Xmas Lights

January 4, 2010 - I waited too long during my Christmas break to take the Christmas lights photo above. Everytime I wanted to go out and take a photo, something came up and pushed back my outing. By the time I finally had a day open, it was already January 2 and while I waited for the sun to set, the rain started coming down moderately hard.

I made it no further than two blocks before turning back to get an umbrella. After restarting the walk, along the way, I could see the sunset peaking through the clouds, giving the surrounding clouds a magenta tint:

On the way back, the rain stopped (Mr. Murphy and his law striking at me again) and I walked by a school that had a view of the distant clouds parting to let the last slivers of sunlight to show:

As you may have guessed in looking at the above shot compared to the Xmas lights photo, I tweaked the white balance in the lights photo to make the sky bluer. I also took the photo from an angle instead of head-on because of the utility pole seen 1/4 of the way in the frame.

Xmas Excesses and Three Cameras
Now that we have welcomed the start of a new decade, I hope Santa has been good to you and brought much merriment to your homes and your families.

Since my family happened to have the newest and largest house in 2009, we were "volunteered" to host the Christmas day get together and dinner. We had the usual group of my wife's siblings and all the kids plus many more extended family members coming by for dinner. In all, we had close to 40 people for dinner and it made for a loud and boisterous house with younger kids playing computer and video games upstairs and older kids watching movies downstairs while the adults conversed on the main floor. We barely had enough dishes and utensils to accommodate everyone.

The usual frenzy of exchanging gifts continued this year and the recent recession seemed like a distant memory. The extended family did its part to help spend Canada out of the economic downturn.

The major gift for me this year turned out to be very photographically relevant with the Panasonic GH-1 I've been using since September 2009 now officially mine thanks to the family. I couldn't acknowledge it until now, but it's one helluva present, which I used to record our Xmas gift opening session.

I can now look towards expanding the Panasonic-based system a bit more now that the GH-1 is mine to keep. I would love to add the Lumix 7-14mm lens to give me a two zoom lens combo that can handle a very wide range of everyday photography (and videography), but given its cost, I won't be rushing to buy this lens just yet - especially since I still need to see my wife's Christmas shopping bills 8^).

However, one of the first accessories that I have bought for the GH-1 is the Panasonic DMW-FL220 flash unit. The FL220 is a very compact flash that takes two AA cells for power. Being compact, it will not have a large amount of power and it does not offer a tilting flash head to bounce the light for better looking flash photos. However, it does allow for flash photography without being forced to use the GH-1's otherwise useless built-in flash and size-wise, it matches the compactness of the GH-1. When I describe the GH-1's flash as "useless," it's because the 14-140mm lens is almost always mounted and it's length creates a shadow when using the pop-up flash.

As far as the FL220 flash is concerned, there is not much more to say about it for features (minimal) and use (TTL Auto mode). It behaves like any other camera-mounted flash unit in that flash output is dependent upon on distance of the subject. Focus on a subject six or seven feet away, but with a foreground object in between and the flash will provide proper lighting for the focused subject but the foreground object will be overexposed. Using a higher ISO helps to burn in the ambient light so that the flash photos don't take on the usual and brutal looking deer-in-the-headlights look (bright, flash lit subject surrounded by black).

Depending on how well I get along (or not) with the FL220, I may have to get myself a more serious Panasonic flash that offers tilt and swivel for the flash head, which will alleviate the shortcomings of the FL220. As I hear it, the more expensive Panasonic flash units may actually just be re-badged Olympus flashes. Or, I may seek out a cheaper, third-party alternative, e.g. Sunpak or other (assuming that one can be found, as most third-party flash brands fully support Nikon and Canon with a smattering of support for Sony and Pentax and thus far, nothing for Panasonic or Olympus).

With two Panasonic cameras in tow, the GF1 with the fast 20mm lens is my ambient light camera, especially since now that I have the DMW-LVF1 external EVF, it becomes inconvenient to constantly swap out the EVF for the flash and vice versa. Besides which, the slow 14-140mm lens on the GH-1 practically forces the use of flash indoors.

The FL220 is appropriately sized for the GH-1 and is absolutely puny compared to a full sized flash, such as the Canon EX580 II

Being able to do video so easily make the two Panasonic cameras very convenient and I'm pretty happy with the video quality (being a video nube), but in looking at videos from the GF1 versus the GH-1, the image stabilized 14-140 lens helps with smoother looking videos. Technique also helps to remain steady, but I'm going to want to do videos with the GH-1 more than with the GF1.

The LVF1 EVF on the GF1

Interestingly, the LVF1 EVF can be tilted upwards to a 90-degree angle, but it does not mean that you can use it for some surreptitious shooting, as you still need to peer into the EVF to frame properly. Compared to the GH-1, the LVF1 presents a smaller, dimmer and coarser image. It's not even a close contest when compared to side-by-side and going back and forth, but on its own, I find the LVF1 to be acceptable.

It presents the same bottom row of data as the GF1's larger LCD, but not the top row, which is fine since the bottom row is the important one that shows the shutter speed, aperture, exposure compensation and remaining shots. You can use the LVF1 in the same way as the GF1's LCD to make camera and menu adjustments and to review images taken.

It does make the GF1 less pocket-friendly though as the GF1/LVF1 combo now barely fits into the pockets of the jackets I wear during Vancouver's wet winters. However, I like it because it gets me back to using a camera the traditional way instead of a foot in front of me, as is the case when using the GF1's LCD.

Moving onto the Canon 7D, I am finding a little more respect for what this camera can do (subject to change if and when I get around to doing more anal retentive comparison photos). The focusing quality makes it difficult to go back to the 5D2's consumer quality AF engine when shooting action, but all is not perfect with the 7D. Either I expect too much or my technique is too sloppy, but I still find myself throwing away a lot of hockey photos because the camera could not achieve focus quickly enough. When it does acquire focus, the 7D does seem to have a very good ability to recognize when another subject has temporarily passed in front of the main subject, which happens often in hockey. The 7D will maintain the correct focusing distance for the original subject and not automatically try to acquire focus on the new, foreground subject that passes by.

For high ISO quality, if you can dial in the right exposure, the 7D can produce nice looking ISO 3200 files. But, there's the rub, dialling in the right exposure can be a tricky thing in the poor lighting of hockey arenas. Lighting is not necessarily even from one end of an arena to the other and where on one side, I end up with overexposure, at the other end I may end with the right or underexposure. You need to get to know an arena intimately and understand its lighting so that you can compensate accordingly. For the time being, I've been dialling in plus 1.3 compensation in my son's home arena and accepting that in a small number of photos, I'm going to end up with no detail in the ice surface, even after editing in Lightroom.

With all this talk of Panasonic and Canon, you would think that I've abandoned Nikon, but not so. I'm merely waiting out Nikon to see what it has in store for future FX cameras. The D3S has made it clear to me that the D700 is not in my future and while I would very much love to see that D3S sensor in a D700S (or D900 anyone?), that's speculation that no one outside of Nikon knows anything about.

Sensor or lens limitations
A while ago, a reader asked me about whether I think we're sensor limited or lens limited for digital photography. I kept meaning to respond, but kept on forgetting due to daily emails pushing the reader's question lower and lower in the inbox.

I'm going to answer, but cheat by merely passing on another person's opinion. I recently watched the latest edition of the Luminous Landscape video journal (#19) and this same question was posed to Norman Koren, a scientist and software programmer who created the Imatest package of lens and camera testing.

At the highest and most expensive levels of photography, we are sensor limited, meaning the best of today's lenses from the likes of Leica, Zeiss, Schneider and Rodenstock, will out resolve the sensor. For the rest of us that cannot afford such brands, we're lens limited in that the sensors can resolve more detail than consumer brand lenses.

The interesting aspect of this lens versus sensor debate is that the best lens brands are confident with sensors that have five micron sized pixels. Smaller than five microns and the current generation of lenses won't be able to keep up, but remember, we're talking about the best of the best in both lens and sensor technology.

Real world implications? Beats me, because I'm one of those luddites that ultimately judges by how good the print looks. I've not really tried to wrap my head around the idea that the smaller pixel pitch of a sensor will lead to diffraction limits sooner than expected, e.g. instead of resolution limiting diffraction setting in at f11 with say a 12 MP DX sensor, we may be hitting diffraction at f8 with 18 MP on a DX sensor.

Xmas Photo Project
My photo projects have been few and far between, but one recent one that I enjoyed working on just before Christmas was to take a team photo of my son's hockey team at the coach's request.

The concept is quite simple: the coach wanted a dressing room photo of all the players sitting on the bench with shin pads, socks and pants on but no elbow or shoulder pads. The jerseys with the numbers showing would hang on the wall behind the players.

I agreed to take the photo and we discussed which dressing room would be the best for this concept. As it turns out, within the local arenas the team plays in, only one arena has a long enough bench to accommodate all the players and as luck would have it, along the long wall are exactly the number of hooks needed for the number of players on the team. As luck would further have it, our team would play its last game before the Christmas break in that arena.

I brought out my 600 w/s Visatec mono lights to fire into my 60-inch umbrellas and at maximum power, they gave me f8 light at ISO 100 using the Canon 5D2. Usually, you angle the lights inwards towards the subject, but because the subject is a long row of 16 hockey players, I had to angle the lights out slightly in order to even out the spread of light. Even so, I still did some vignetting edits in Lightroom and Photoshop to even out the lighting a bit more - software technology is just so f'ing brilliant these days!

I took the photo three different ways:

1. Traditional, straight on using the widest lens I had available for the Canon system, which is the 17-40mm f4,
2. Panorama style by taking several sectional shots from the same tripod location, for later stitching in Photoshop
3. Sectional style by moving the tripod to three spots in the room with the idea of manually merging the photos in Photoshop

I think number 3, the sectional style, could have been the best solution...if I had the space to do it properly and if I had the time to prepare and measure out exactly where the tripod needed to be placed in order to ensure the proper scale and perspective. This was the last of the three types I tried and I was a bit rushed and lacking in space to properly position the tripod. When I opened up the files in Lightroom, I could tell that the positioning was off and did not even bother trying to manually merge the three sectional photos into one long panorama in Photoshop.

Number 2 was a wildcard attempt to see what Photoshop could do. My primary concern was with how Photoshop would merge human subjects and would I end up with Picasso style distortion in the faces. What I received is very unexpected.

The tripod was in the same spot and I took six photos from left to right. After merging, the photo looked like it had been taken with a fisheye lens with a severe curvature of field that I could not do anything with. As far as the human subjects are concerned, Photoshop did an exemplary job in the stitching.

Number 1 is the photo that I ended up having to use. In the narrow confines of the room, my rear end was jammed up against the wall and I a barely had enough room to peer into the viewfinder. The 17-40 lens set to 17mm was barely wide enough to cover the entire length of the bench and although I had levelled the tripod, the room's floor was not entirely even and there was a slight levelling issue to correct, which resulted in having to crop the outer legs of the two players bookending the bench. There is also the unfortunate by-products of using a very wide angle lens with those two same players being broadened laterally.

The rationale for trying 2 and 3 was to try and avoid the lateral distortion that a wide angle lens would impart at the edges. I also had some grand ambition to create a really high quality panorama photo instead of merely upsizing the photo, but really now, with 21 MP, I admit that I was being too grandiose for my own good.

At 17mm, the 17-40 lens exhibits pretty nasty barrel distortion. There's not only the usual straight lines being bowed inwards at the edges, there is also a curvature of field problem - I hope that I'm using this term correctly. When you look at the photo, you get a sense of some distortion at the edges, that you're not looking at a perfectly flat subject, but that the ends have been curved, just like with linear barrel distortion affecting straight lines but in the third dimension of depth instead of just the vertical and horizontal lines. Another way of describing it is to take a photo in your hands and curve the edges of the photo slightly away from you.

Lightroom 2 can straighten a tilted subject and it can do some correction of light fall off in the corners, but it does not have the ability to correct for this kind of lens distortion. Photoshop has a lens correction filter, which can correct for the obvious barrel and pin cushion distortion, but it's not effective for the curvature of field. Belatedly, I did find an application that can correct for this distortion during the RAW conversion (discussed in the next segment below).

What I should have done is use my Nikon 14-24mm lens on the Canon 5D2...that is if I had bothered to have learned to use my Nikon to Canon lens adapter in time for the project. Even if there's still some wide angle distortion, the wider view would have allowed for more cropping leeway and not force me to put the two end players so close to the edge of the frame, as with the 17-40 lens.

However, I'm reasonably happy with the photo I took and knowing that it would be a panorama look due to the heavy cropping of the top and bottom, I came up with the idea of creating a calendar poster. You can get a sense of the image I took in the next section below.

On a 17x22 inch sheet, I sized the photo to be almost 21 inches wide (to the maximum allowed by the Epson 4800's printing ability on this sheet size). The photo takes up about 1/3 of the width of the sheet with the bottom 2/3s taken up by two rows of six months for the 2010 year. It should make for a nice wall display to remember the team throughout 2010. And, yes, the coach is very happy with the results.

Bibble 5 and Lightroom 3 Beta
I briefly played around with the trial version of the new Bibble 5 and Lightroom 3 Beta. Bibble has undergone a dramatic revision and upgrade in looks and user interface. The black and grey color scheme definitely borrows from Lightroom and gives Bibble an elegant look. You can check out the Bibble website to see all that's new in this RAW converter.

The new Bibble 5 interface with the (heavily cropped) hockey team photo I took - the thumbnail segment is set to the largest size possible, something I would not normally set it to

After having used Lightroom for a few years, I've grown accustomed to its UI and having now taken on a policy of simplification for my workflow, I'm not really looking to switch RAW converters. However, I was curious to see how Bibble has evolved in the years since I used the previous version.

The familiar and largely unchanged interface of Lightroom 3 Beta

The previous version allowed for the tool windows to be moved around and onto a second monitor, although doing so seemed to make Bibble unstable, as I found that taking the tools apart and creating my own custom set led to too many crashes. Since I did not get very deeply into all that Bibble 5 can do, I did not see an option to utilize a second monitor as Lightroom allows. However, how Lightroom allows you to use the second monitor is still not as functional and customizable as I would like for moving tools off of the main screen. As with Lightroom, Bibble 5 allows for hiding the left and right tools sections.

Some of the best features of the previous generation have been carried over to generation 5, such as the Noise Ninja noise removal plug-in and a lens correction module. The previous lens correction module was based on PTL, but I'm not sure if the current module uses the same correction.

While you can expect older, popular lenses to have been profiled, newer lenses may still be missing profiles, such as the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 AF-S or the Panasonic 14-140mm f4-5.8. While disappointing that these lenses are not available for correction, the lenses that are profiled can lead to some great results.

I opened up the hockey team photo that I discuss in the section above and applied the lens correction and was very happy to see an immediate correction of the barrel distortion and field curvature. I also adjusted the vignetting caused by the light fall-off in the corners. It's too bad Bibble 5 was released after I had finished my hockey team photo project, because it would have made for a better photo than what I got via Lightroom2/Photoshop CS3.

Lightroom 3 is supposed to have a newly refined noise reduction feature, but unfortunately, the luminance noise reduction is disabled in the Beta version, so I could not see how good noise reduction is in LR3. Bibble, with Noise Ninja built-in, produced good looking TIFFs that do not need filtering in Photoshop. Applying Noise Ninja to the LR3 file in Photoshop still did not produce as nice a looking image as Bibble and its Noise Ninja plug-in.

One of the really irksome things about previous versions of Bibble had to do with the way highlights would be rendered when using the Highlight Recovery tool. In the older versions of Bibble, using the tool could result in blown highlights coming out pink or blue instead of remaining featureless white.

Only one of my test images had blown highlights useful for testing the highlight recovery tool, but I'm pleased to not see any noticeable pink or blue in the highlights. However, when doing pixel-peeping viewing, I can still see some color artefacts compared to the LR3 sample.

From my limited look at the two next generation converters, I see Bibble 5 being quite similar in conversion quality as LR3, with differences primarily coming down to how you seasoned the image in the RAW converter. When you include the Noise Ninja and lens correction, the results may be even better, but no final conclusion can be made until the production version of Lightroom 3 is released. Assuming LR3's noise reduction is up to snuff, it is still missing the more capable lens correction feature in Bibble 5. This omission is why I've been toying with the idea of buying DxO to use in conjunction with Lightroom 2, but as mentioned earlier about a desire to keep things simple, I have thus far not made the DxO purchase or looked at other RAW convertors, such as the latest Phase Capture One (which also appears to have a better lens correction module than Lightroom).

Runaway: Diary of a Street Kid
From the personal files: I finished off two books during the Christmas break, both of which were of interest to me and my Chinese identity and culture. One turned out to be a difficult book to finish while the other surprised me with how well it captures the experiences of Chinese Canadians. One book is autobiographical while the other is fiction, but both have been critically acclaimed.

Runaway: Diary of a Street Kid by Evelyn Lau has been much discussed in the 20 years since it was first published. It is a journal of Lau's experiences after running away from home at 15 years of age. For two years, Lau moved in and out of various homes and shelters and on occasion, she did spend some time on the actual streets of Vancouver. It's a tumultuous two-year journey that Lau takes us on; a journey marked by alcohol use, drug addiction and ultimately, prostitution, as ways to abuse herself physically and psychologically.

It's remarkable that Lau survived the physical and mental journey, as prostitution in Vancouver can be very dangerous. Some 60 women have disappeared over the years with many of them meeting a very grisly end at a notorious pig farm in a Vancouver suburb. Lau also had to work out much mental anguish towards her parents and her relationships during her two years under the care of the provincial social system.

I found the title to be a misnomer since, as mentioned, Lau did not actually spend all that much time actually living on the streets, although she certainly did spend a significant amount of time working them. What surprised me from Lau's journal is the amount of social services that were available to her, as a minor, by the provincial government. I wouldn't suggest that the services are perfect, but there was enough that if Lau had wanted to utilize them, she could have. She had access to social workers, foster homes and psychiatrists, all paid for by the taxpayers of British Columbia. As a minor, there are more services available than if she had been an adult. However, she spurned much of the efforts of those services by running away from the province three times.

As I kept reading, what initial pangs of sympathy I had for her at the beginning when I only knew a little bit about her history, began to whittle away, as she kept on rebelling and abusing herself.

Before reading the book, I knew of Lau from news stories and the occasional articles she had published in newspapers. I knew that she ran away from home because her parents were demanding and had metaphorically suffocated her. As she described, her parents are always criticizing, always demanding that she do homework, study and bring home straight A grades. And, when there was no more homework or studying to be done, to practice the piano or to do chores around the house. Friends were not encouraged and needless to say, there was no social life for a teenager yearning to just be a regular teen during a very critical time of development.

As an adult, Lau had a rather notorious relationship with another celebrated BC author, W.P. Kinsella. Kinsella wrote Shoeless Joe, which was adapted into the Hollywood movie, Field of Dreams. Kinsella is old enough to be Lau's father and it's been noted that Lau seems to seek out father-figure men for relationships to make up for her own weak and cuckolded father. After Lau's relationship with Kinsella ended, she wrote about it and I remember being surprised at her description of Kinsella being essentially, and I paraphrase here, a stinky old man, literally, smelling like shit (Lau actually used "fecal" in her article). Kinsella was not amused and sued Lau for bringing ridicule upon him and I cannot say that I disagree with the man.

In a lot of ways, I could relate to Lau and her suffocation under the influence of a domineering mother. If you're Chinese, you know exactly what I mean by that comment. There's some irony in knowing people that my parents would consider as model children. Always on the honor roll, working after school or otherwise being home bodies doing homework and mostly doing what their parents wanted or expected. Unfortunately, some of those kids grew up into adults that never married and still live at home with the parents. Behavior that my parents would once praise is now behavior that they would consider unfortunate. Oh look at so and so, in his thirties with no marriage prospects - completely oblivious that the parents led to such a result because they could not cut loose the apron springs and needed to control most aspects of the child's life. They wanted perfect kids and ended up with monks and nuns and this may have been Lau's fate if she had not run away.

My own parents were always fearful of me being badly influenced by the kids that smoked, drank and took drugs. After school socializing was considered a waste of time, time that should have been spent doing homework or working in the family's convenience store. My parents were indifferent to sports and playing high school sports was something I did almost entirely on my own by taking the bus to weekend practices and games or, when I had use of the car, driving myself. I was only allowed to play one year of football because my parents requested that I be available to work after school in the family restaurant during my senior year. It was stifling at times, but not suffocating and going away, out of town, to university led to a measure of independence and learning how to take care of myself while still having a parental safety net.

Over the years, I've come to understand that my parents did the best they could and that their values were instilled in them in the old country and that they lived through some of the most challenging times in modern history. They were children during the Great Depression, growing up in a country rife with civil wars, and external threats and occupation by Japan. They've complained any number of times that I had it too easy and that I would never know the poverty and hunger that they did when they were children. It's these experiences that shape their attitude towards frivolity and having fun; because they didn't have much of them when they were children growing up in war torn China. It's also these experiences that have shaped their attitude towards money and not wasting any of it or throwing things out when they might still serve a purpose later on.

One thing that I have no sense of from Lau's book is if her parents had similar experiences as my parents. There is no mention of their history and if they were born in Canada or are immigrants. There's no discussion of Lau trying to understand what it is that made her parents the way they are, they are merely mentioned as being the source of her problems (she's obsessive compulsive towards not returning to her parents) and the cause of her running away.

I cannot help feel that she brought on much of her suffering by her own hand and actions. She had choices, she had resources available to help her, but she chose poorly and/or disdained the help offered. As I neared the end of the book, I felt weary of her overwrought angst and inability to get a hold of herself and get her life back on track.

My thought was that a lot of us have demanding parents and lived lives not that much different than Lau's before she left home, and a lot of us wished for more understanding and patience. However, we didn't run away to live life in a drug-induced haze and sell our bodies on the streets of Vancouver; we got through the teenage years and grew up. Thus, I had to remind myself that I was reading the words of a 15 and 16 year old, a girl still developing in her adolescence and therefore prone to natural self-absorption as most teenagers are. Lau wanted to be a writer from a very early age and she is certainly a talented writer for the book is incredible to have been written by a teenager.

Tomorrow, a look at the second book I read over Christmas.

Correspondence & About this website     Copyright © 1998-2010 Edwin Leong