Birks Vancouver © Edwin Leong

Submit your image for posting on this page and the galleries

Send me a general comment about this website

What's New

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.

What's New Archives for 2010

What's New Archives for 2009 - July to December

What's New Archives for 2009 - January to June

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