 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  |
|---|
The
view
from one of my favorite camping spots
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS zoom
I finally “bit” and ordered the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS, and it arrived today. Amazon.com
was offering a $75 instant rebate, and with free shipping it was a great deal at
$921.75
Why did I order one when I already have a one-stop-faster 70-200 f/2.8L IS? (see my May 4 entry on Canon 70-200 zooms). Because the f/2.8L is uncomfortably heavy to carry and shoot and so whenever there was a doubt, I would just not take it. The f/4 lens balances really well when mounted on the 5D or 1D Mark III, and with the camera strap around one’s neck it doesn’t feel so unwieldy.
It really is a shame that Canon wants another $150 or so for the Tripod Mount Ring A-2. On the other hand, it’s light enough that one can get by mounting the camera on the tripod instead of the lens (presumably...I’ll be checking).
Dandelions are unfairly maligned by midwesterners
EOS 1D Mark III + Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS [color]
Follow-up on Epson 3800 printer driver crashes
(Please see today’s earlier entry below for the problem statement). Apparently I’m not the only person who emits a bug-inducing personal force field.
A reader emailed me today, having experienced the same problem. The quote below is excerpted verbatim:
It is amazing that the same thing can always happen to both you and me, the Canon rebate scam, and now the Epson 3800 driver described in your blog today!
Mine stopped working exactly as you described, after my Adobe CS3 suite installation and the most recent security upgrade to 10.4.9 OS. I am not sure they are indeed related though, but I have enjoyed two months printing free of any kind of driver problems before the upgrades, and explored the Roy's $50 QTR RIP calibration subjects with the QTR 3800 driver.
Eventually, as you suffered, I had to remove all my printer drivers and therefore lost all my printing
settings. However, I did some search and found a discussion (could not find again as I just tried) that
led me to download the $25 "Printer Setup Repair" shareware, which eventually solved all my problems apparently
by setting the permissions straight after the (automatic) driver reinstallation.
(The reference to the “same” things are to my blog entries on the Canon rebate scam, system crashes after installing Adobe CS3 and today’s entry on the Epson 3800 driver).
The reader suggests the Printer Setup Repair utility described in a MacFixIt article. For now, I tried Apple’s to repair disk permissions (remaining skeptical). It’s not amusing that Epson’s installed printer driver files generate a huge number of complaints from Disk Utility about invalid permissions. Perhaps this will resolve the problem; I’ll report back in a few days.
Just a small sampling of all the Epson printer driver permissions errors
Epson 3800 printer driver crashes—stopped queue
The print queue for my Epson 3800 keeps stopping itself. Or I print from Photoshop and nothing happens. I finally took the time to figure out the reason—the Epson printer driver is crashing 8 times out of 10.
I contacted Epson and they told me the usual thing—unplug my toaster and microwave, turn off my water heater, defrost my refrigerator, and then delete and reinstall all printer drivers. The directions instructed me to delete all drivers, which meant that I had to reinstall drivers for the 3800, 2400 and 1280 printers, downloading and installing each. All of which changed absolutely nothing (as I expected, since it’s obviously a software bug in the Epson driver).
The fault lies in the Epson driver as I determined by viewing the crash log, which indicates that the Epson driver is trying to release a bad memory pointer. Of course, Epson support is clueless about such things, and I got no indication that they’d forward the report to engineering. If you’re a software engineer, the following “stack crawl” will make the problem obvious.
Thread 0 Crashed:
0 com.apple.CoreFoundation 0x9080d04a CFRelease + 56
1 com.apple.CoreFoundation 0x9082401c __CFDictionaryDeallocate + 460
2 com.apple.CoreFoundation 0x9080d169 _CFRelease + 188
3 com.apple.CoreFoundation 0x908108b0 __CFArrayReleaseValues + 323
4 com.apple.CoreFoundation 0x9080d169 _CFRelease + 188
5 CTools 0x000ce7af _MyCFRelease + 24
6 CTools 0x000d0b88 CT_CloseMediaPlugIn + 88
7 ...son.ijprinter.SPro3800_Core 0x00489521 XEngine::OpenPage(long, OpaquePMTicketRef*) + 785
8 ...son.ijprinter.SPro3800_Core 0x00491c10 pmPrintPageBands + 96
9 ...son.ijprinter.SPro3800_Core 0x00491de8 PrintPage + 232
10 com.epson.ijprinter.SPro3800 0x000a6b7e FilterPrintControl + 314
11 com.epson.ijprinter.SPro3800 0x000a6d7b EPPMPrintPage + 97
12 ....printingmanager.jobmanager 0x00005bbe 0x1000 + 19390
13 ....printingmanager.jobmanager 0x00005d0a 0x1000 + 197221
Could it be provoked by having 16GB of memory in my Mac Pro? Possibly; I’ll have to try on the 3GB MacBook Pro for comparison. But it‘s sure infuriating that Epson support can’t just have their engineers LOOK at the problem, that they can’t forward my very specific bug report to them, etc. But it’s hardly unique to Epson. That’s the way it works these days—users have to debug the beta-quality software shipped hastily by vendors, whereas vendors only fix bugs they can’t blame on someone/something else.
Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II and 16-35mm f/2.8L
I shot a careful resolution chart test last night, using the “Live View” feature of the Canon EOS 1D Mark III to ensure perfect focus for both lenses, which excludes autofocus as a source of error.
While I haven’t completed my analysis, there is no question that the “II” version offers a stunning improvement to the clarity of the corners at the wide end (16, 20, 24mm) and a modest improvement at the long end (35mm). See for yourself:
16-35mm f/2.8L (left) and 16-35mm f/2.8L II (right)
extreme corner, 16mm @ f/2.8 (wide open)
It’s not just one corner that looks like this, it’s all four corners. The “Live View” feature guaranteed spot-on focus, so it’s not focus error.
Performance in the center is close, but at least at the wide end the new “II” lens seems to
offer slightly higher contrast. This is on the 1.3X-sensor in the Canon
EOS 1D Mark III; I haven’t yet tested on full frame (EOS 5D). Of course, it could be curvature of field
causing the reduced corner performance with the 16-35mm f/2.8L (v1); I haven’t definitely ruled that out yet. But that
seems unlikely, given the consistent performance at different focal lengths.
Absolutely hilarious (thanks to The Online Photographer for passing this along).
A few older shots I thought were interesting.
Game wanted
The end is not near
Gargoyle
Photoshop’s “Photomerge” command
I own RealViz Stitcher, having paid an inordinate sum initially, and over the years to upgrade it. But in tandem with built-in Camera Raw, Photoshop CS3’s command works quite well. The 30-megapixel image below was created in seconds using it.
Author’s preferred route to the White Mountains
Photomerge apparently uses a fairly sophisticated means of merging the photos. The result is a layered and masked file. The uneven (and therefore likely better) “join” can be seen below:
One of the merged layers, hidden, to reveal the “join” pattern
Low Sierra Nevada snowfall and bristlecone pines
I read recently that snowfall this last winter in California’s Sierra Nevada was 30% of normal (Sierra Nevadita?). That’s a bummer in many ways, but a boon to those of us who like to get up into the high country early, albeit without skis. Alas for the ball and chain known as children.
If you’ve never visited the eastern Sierra Nevada, or the not so well-known White Mountains just to the east, this is a great year to see them both in mid to late June, several weeks ahead of “schedule”. I particularly like the ancient Bristlecone Pines, with Patriarch Grove being my favorite. At over 11,000 feet in elevation, it’s 10 miles or so on a gravel road beyond the grove at 10,000 feet, Schulman Grove.
With that in mind, please see my new photo article California’s White Mountains.
Ancient (likely > 4000 years) Bristlecone Pine
Patriarch Grove, White Mountains, California
Perhaps in response to consumer
complaints about the handling of rebates (and perhaps not), Canon is offering instant
savings on lenses. I ordered a Canon
70-200 f/4L IS
Canon instant savings through July 16, 2007
See my Lens Reference, which will be steadily updated/improved. Below are my brief thoughts on the lenses which have “instant savings”. Please help support this site, by clicking on a link to buy one at amazon.com, at no cost to yourself (and no rebate hassle!).
| Lens | Comments |
|---|---|
| Canon
70-200 f/2.8L IS |
Big and heavy, performs especially well at the long end (200mm). Wide open, performance is excellent, but by f/5.6 (on full-frame), imaging quality becomes hard to criticize. |
| EF
70-200 f/4L IS |
Mine is on order. Much nicer handling than the f/2.8 model (more compact, lighter weight), making it a far better choice for any kind of walk-around shooting, backpacking, hiking, etc. The difference is much more than one might expect (I’ve handled both). |
| EF
70-300mm /f4.5-5.6L DO IS |
I shot this lens briefly, but on full frame (Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II), I was not impressed at the edges and corners. On a camera with less than a full-frame sensor (like the Digital Rebel or Canon 1D Mark II/III), this might make a fine lens. |
| EF
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS |
Can be quite a good performer optically, but it’s a fairly large and awkward lens. I really dislike its push/pull zoom design. Still, image quality can be very high over most of the frame, even more than that of the prime lens 400mm f/4.6L (see Feb 11 blog entry). |
| EF
24-70mm f/2.8L |
An outstanding mid-range zoom. Mine offers biting sharpness even wide open. |
| EF
17-40mm f/4L |
I tried this lens along with a 16-35mm f/2.8L. At a stop slower, many people like it for its smaller size and weight. I’m not a big fan of it, since the loss of a whole stop is a problem for wide-angle interior shooting. Image quality of the 16-35 f/2.8L is slightly better and slightly worse, depending on the focal length. |
| EF
28mm f/1.8 |
I’m considering whether to try this lens. It is a nice focal length, and far more compact than the 24-70 f/2.8L zoom, while offer 4/3 stop more “speed”. A friend whose judgment I trust claims that copies manufactured more recently are optically excellent. |
| EF
50mm f/1.4 |
I’ve owned two copies of this lens, and it has many fine qualities, but disappoints side
open. My cheap plastic $76 EF
50mm f/1.8 II is
just as good optically, at 1/4 the price. |
| EF
85mm f/1.2L II |
A must-have lens for the full-frame shooter who does any portrait work. Extremely sharp, with lovely background rendering, it’s optical quality matches anything from Leica or Zeiss. |
| EF
400mm f/5.6L |
Disappointing, at least on the EOS 5D. See Feb 11 blog entry. |
| EF
180mm f/3.5L Macro |
While it has an unbelievably good MTF chart, I’ve tried two samples of this lens on the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II, and both were disappointing at anything approaching infinity. Perhaps the lens really is optimized for close-up work only. |
Canon 1D Mark III high ISO noise
There seems to be much interest in high ISO noise with the new Canon EOS 1D Mark III. Below is another entry.
Canon EOS 1D Mark III, ISO 6400
actual pixels, -2 stops exp comp, 1/4 sec, no noise reduction
My Canon EOS 1D Mark III is now in hand (see initial thoughts from May 2 entry). Impressions to follow. My first and very subjective impression is that my right biceps will get a lot stronger over time. And that colors are greatly improved over the EOS 5D, though I’ve made no direct comparisons as yet, so that is just an educated guess.
Canon EOS 1D Mark III, 24-70mm f/2.8L, ISO 100 [larger]
Canon EOS 1D Mark III, 24-70mm f/2.8L, ISO 100 [larger]
Images seem to have a “presence”, a 3-dimensional feel to them. Somewhat like the Leica M8 (which I don’t own), but without the color hassles.
Noise seems outstanding. See actual-pixels crop below, from this frame:
Canon EOS 1D Mark III, 24-70mm f/2.8L, ISO 6400
This is a 2 second exposure at ISO 6400, actual pixels! Whaddya want at ISO 6400? Unprecedented cleanliness? Sure, there is some speckling, but it is ISO 6400, and it ain’t the awful “fairy dust” problem observed with the Canon EOS 5D with ISOs as low as 400.
Canon EOS 1D Mark III, 135mm f/2L, ISO 6400, actual pixels
I’ll figure this camera out as quickly as possible. This guy needs a Q-tip.
Canon EOS 1D Mark III, 135mm f/2L, ISO 100
Dynamic range seems to be...impressive.
Canon EOS 1D Mark III, 135mm f/2L, ISO 100, 3.2 seconds
Still hesitant on the noise front? At ISO 6400, the image is cleaner than just about any Point and Shit digicam:
Canon EOS 1D Mark III, 135mm f/2L, ISO 6400, actual pixels, no noise reduction
Adobe CS3 suite—disables Mac OS X firewall
What was the jackass engineer who wrote that code thinking?! I know when I’ve worked with security-sensitive code (the Mac driver for Mac OS 9 PGP Disk for example), I used extreme care. Aren’t you tired of a steady stream of Adobe security flaws? It’s not that hard Adobe. It starts with thinking of customers as something more than sheep to be fleeced. It requires the auditing of security-sensitive code by an expert. That expert costs money, but it also first takes the sincerity to give a damn, and therein lies the problem.
Adobe characterizes the problem as a “potential security vulnerability”. Baloney. It *is* a security vulnerability. Otherwise, why is it a “critical issue”? Adobe states:
The identified vulnerability, if exploited, would compromise the security of the user’s computer, potentially without the user being aware of it. Issues that could occur range from compromised data security, including access to confidential data, to execution of malicious native code.
How is that a “potential” vulnerability? It’s like saying that failed brakes on your car are a “potential” safety
issue while driving. I suppose that’s true—at least up to the point that your car and a cement truck attempt to occupy
the same place at the same time
Another “experiment” photo—contrast adjustment
I’ve added another entry to my Experiments page.
Infrared photo with contrast adjustments
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II back from Canon service
My brand-new Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II is back from Canon service and I’m disappointed to report that the color fringing I had previously remarked upon is indeed inherent to the optical design. Or at least that’s the case if one assumes that the lens is performing to specification, which is only reasonable given that I had sent it into Canon Service with a complaint of strong color fringing on one side.
Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II chromatic aberration
Backfocus (focusing behind the intended plane of focus) can lead to the invalid conclusion that infrared images are inherently “soft”. In fact, infrared images can be just as sharp as visible light images. Backfocus occurs not just when shooting in infrared, but also in visible light when a lens and/or camera is not performing to specifications.
Photographers whose work demands precision focus often vent their grievances in online message boards. With today’s high resolution digital sensors, a 10mm focus error at close range is a gross error (especially when photographing nose hair), blurring a 12-megapixel camera into a 1-megapixel equivalent. An impartial observer might reasonably conclude that backfocus is also the source of many unfounded claims of lenses being unsharp.
I’ve been hard at work on diglloyd GDI (Diglloyd Guide to Digital Infrared), spending an entire day today researching the backfocus issue with numerous lenses, with more work planned for tomorrow. The insights that I’ve painstakingly gleaned (and not just from today) will all be incorporated into DGDI, along with a wealth of other material which is more extensive and useful than anything I’ve yet come across (including all the books on infrared I’ve seen).
Backfocus in infrared (top) and near-optimal focus (bottom)
Canon 135m f/2L @ f/2, focus point on “Black” at left
In my February 4 Wrong Paper blog entry, I remarked on the results when printing a photo by mistake on the protective cardboard stock in a pack of Epson Premium Glossy paper. Well, I did it (by mistake) again, and again I like the results. The result is a pleasing watercolor effect which doesn’t demand attention; the elimination of sharp detail distills the scene to its most fundamental elements: red flowers, green desert foliage, brown rock outcrop, blue sky. I think it captures the feeling of the place better than a sharply detailed rendition does.
Ocatillos in bloom, Big Bend National Park, mid April 2007
Printing a photo on all sorts of “wrong” papers could be a fruitful area for investigation.
Request for information—Visian Implantable Contact Lens
We photographers rely on our eyes to make decisions when making images as well as assessing them later.
With my contact lenses at -9.0 diopters and glasses at -11 diopters, and too many late nights spend preparing this blog and various articles, I’ve grown weary of contact lenses, and so I’m considering modification of my eyes with Visian ICL (Implantable Contact Lens).
If any of you readers out there have firsthand experience with Visian ICL, I’d very much like to hear from you (info at diglloyd.com). Side effects, acuity, color perception, nighttime vision, etc are all of interest. I’ve read the marketing materials which of course have nothing but glowing recommendations. One can discuss the procedure with an ophthalmologist, but nothing beats hearing from real people who can describe their actual results.
For anybody interested in visual issues, you might find ophthalmologist Blake Shaw’s Eye Didn’t Know blog a good read.
Why “all shit” isn’t so all the time, shoot!
To clarify that yesterday’s comments were both accurate and yet to show that image quality is sufficient so long as the subject matter is up to the task, I present three examples that I consider worthwhile, taken with an “all shit” Fuji F30 , converted for infrared use.
 |
 |
 |
|
With infrared, the “live view” of a point and shoot can be very helpful because focus is (usually) accurate
in infrared, and the scene can reveal itself with aspects not visible to the naked eye.
To make one point very clear: it’s the human behind the camera that accounts for 99% of the
result. But when camera shortcomings preclude certain subjects, the camera is the problem—just try shooting
sports or kids with a point-and-shit digicam! In short, you’re screwed if you pound nails with a screwdriver!
Why digital point and shoot cameras are “all shit”
The May 12 entry How To Choose a Digital Point-and-Shoot at The Online Photographer is excellent, and a must-read for anyone considering a digital point and shoot camera.
My only regret is that I didn’t write the article, because it’s oh-so-true—I’ve owned about 8 digital point and shoot cameras now, after researching carefully, and guess what? They all suck. The only reason I have them is to be able to fit one in a cycling jersey pocket or pants pocket. Perhaps when the self-defeating race to cram ever more more megapixels into ever-tinier sensors is over (shortly after hell freezes over), camera manufacturers will realize that all we need to make beautiful 13X19 prints is 3 to 5 high quality megapixels, not 7, 8 or 10 noisy and blurry ones. Oh, and one must be able to actually take the picture—so that 1/2 second shutter delay has got to be engineered out. And the focusing hunting, etc.
The reason to waste $250 - $400 on a point-and-shoot Crap Camera boils down to convenience.
For me, this means a pleasing high resolution screen (since that’s what I must shoot with), and a form factor
that won’t dissuade me from carrying the dang thing. The $540 Nikon
D40
After trying many models over the past several years, I’ve settled on the Panasonic
Lumix DMC-FX30 (about $280
Note that Panasonic’s model lineup display is designed by morons; it appears that there are dozens of choices when in fact most are just variants of the camera body color. A letter such as “K”, “A”, “S”, etc is appended to the model (eg FX50K) to indicate the body color.
Sometimes an infrared image lends itself to an artistic filter in Photoshop. I’ve added a new image to the Experiments page.
Taken at midday in awful light, this image shows how infrared can be worthwhile when visible light photography suffers from harsh lighting. If you’re interested in how it was produced, you’ll want to read my Guide to Digital Infrared.
Yuccas in bloom—Dagger Flat, Big Bend National Park
What do you do when constrained to other obligations, like monitoring monkeys on speed***? Grab the camera and make some random shots of everyday things. Maybe some good ideas will result from the exercise, but in the meantime, can interesting photos be made with only a few seconds to act that record things that we view every day, but don’t see?
After a delay of several months, I’ve resumed work on my Guide to Digital Infrared, a resource for learning all about digital infrared photography. It will cover everything in last fall’s class and more, and in more detail. I am aiming for the beginning of June, but it’s my largest review yet, and it might not emerge until late June.
One of the many topics covered will be how to work with infrared to achieve interesting color effects, such as those seen below.
Channel variations from infrared original
I’ve posted the first few entries into my Experiments article.
SanDisk 16GB Extreme III for $160
If you’re willing to endure the rebate hassle (see May 1 entry on
this page), the SanDisk
16GB Extreme III Compact Flash card
Looking for a ballhead for your tripod legs? A ballhead uses some kind of ball to allow free rotation in any direction. Most photographers prefer them over pan/tilt heads.
My favorite is the Burzynski head, but it is best suited for a medium to large tripod. A reader emailed me a link to his ballhead page, and it’s worth a look if you’re in the market, offering a nice summary of many of the better choices. You might also want to purchase my research article The Sharpest Image, to understand the various issues that affect image sharpness.
Burzynski ballhead with Really Right Stuff PCL-1
Blogs I like — The Online Photographer
Several web sites have emailed and asked me to link to their site and/or blog. I don’t do that as a matter of course—I see no value in linking for linking’s sake. I consider it a service to my readers to recommend only those sites, products, etc that I would read/buy/use myself. Linking arbitrarily simply dilutes the value I can offer.
In keeping with that spirit, I recommend the blog at The Online Photographer as well worth reading and bookmarking, though I do confess that I’m often hard pressed to keep up with the steady flow of material. Check it out today; it’s not a technically-oriented site, instead offering a steady commentary on the state of photography and its applications, with a good variety of material.
Ten (10) FREE scans from Calypso Imaging
I’ve used the services at Calypso Imaging many times, and they have always done a first-rate job for me. While film scanning is not my thing any more, many people have at least a few older film images they’d like to see as digital file. I’ll let Calypso’s May 6 email speak for itself:
Click
image to see more details
Feedback on diglloyd reviews
I provide as accurate and specific a description of what my paid reviews include as possible, because I want customers who are 100% satisfied who will buy again. Indeed, it is common for buyers of one of my paid reviews to order additional reviews, and quite a number have ordered all of them.
Today I received an email today from a customer who had ordered The Sharpest Image. He writes:
I downloaded the article expecting to see some reviews of Nikons & Canons newest DSLRs, Nikon-Canon
comparisons, etc. The one comparison of DOF between Nikon & Canon was an eye-opener. Should one choose Nikon over
Canon for 'Landscapes'?
...
You mentioned in your 'promo' that there would be facts forthcoming about each of the Nikon & Canon systems that
add or detract from the respective systems...
I'm sorry, but here are 'too many' missing parts in this 'comprehensive' article to make it worth the $30+
fee
The Sharpest Image costs $26.95 (it’s worth it!), not “$30+” , so that’s a clue. And if one reads the description page and searches that page for the word “Canon”, it doesn’t even exist. The equipment list is specific and detailed. There are page previews and a detailed description of the questions addressed. The review itself has no comparisons of Nikon vs Canon at all! There is no “DOF” comparison in the article.
So feedback like this is baffling. Perhaps this customer read a description of D2x vs EOS, then ordered The Sharpest Image by mistake. Or read something on another web site authored by some 3rd-party.
My approach with such things is to stand behind my product, which means:
- Responding with the facts;
- Providing clarifications and/or answers to questions;
- Refunding the purchase price for a legitimate gripe (never happened so far).
- If I’ve sent the wrong review by mistake, I supply the correct one, and the buyer gets to keep both.
I’ve responded in detail to this particular customer, and I’ll do my best to satisfy him. And I’ve checked my records; he did indeed order The Sharpest Image.
I’ve begun to collect the blog entries and articles I’ve made over time into my Lens Reference article. More and more material (including photos of the lenses) will be added over time, so check back periodically.
Canon users have four (4) choices for
a 70-200 zoom, all of them Canon’s best “L” glass (see prices
at amazon.com
- 70-200 f/2.8L, about $1170, 1310g
- 70-200 f/2.8L IS, about $1450, 1470g
- 70-200 f/4L, about $590, 705g
- 70-200 f/4L IS, about $1050, 760g
How does one choose? First, decide if you will be using the lens handheld. If so, choose an “IS” (image stabilized) version, as that greatly increases the usability under low-light conditions. If you don’t need image stabilization, the non-IS versions are cheaper, and in theory could offer slightly better image quality (higher contrast) , because they have fewer lens elements (4 for the f/4, and 5 for the f/2.8). But a look at the MTF charts for the f/2.8 versions suggest that the "IS" version is a better lens, in spite of having more elements.
Next, consider weight. I was shooting with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS today, and it’s an obnoxiously heavy lens, no fun at all to shoot with for very long. If you don’t need f/2.8, consider the f/4 version. It’s much friendlier to one’s arms and neck, and its smaller diameter feels much nicer.
Finally, price is always a concern. At first glance, the 70-200 f/4L IS sounds good, but adding in the optional $150 tripod collar (included with the f/2.8L IS), the price jumps to about $1200, not much less than the f/2.8L IS version. For $250 (20% more), one gains an entire stop, making the f/2.8 version significantly more flexible, and with a brighter viewfinder image.
In short, it’s not an easy decision. But for a carry-around lens for handheld shooting, the f/4L IS is the only game in town. I don’t have one, but I might get one at some point, because the bulk and weight of the f/2.8L IS dissuades me from taking it on a regular basis. If a lens goes unused, it’s a poor investment!
A friend of mine inquired about getting a basic DSLR. What are the costs? More than one might realize at first:
- Nikon D40 with 18-55 zoom: $549
- Gitzo GT-0530 Mountaineer 6X Carbon Fiber Tripod legs: $349
- Really Right Stuff BH-25 ballhead: $149
- Camera plate for the D40x: $50
- 4GB SanDisk SD card: $100 (or 2GB at $40).
- card reader: $20
- computer: $?
This stuff adds up! That's $1220 for a basic setup, lacking a longer zoom and a fast prime. Yes, one can buy a cheaper tripod (which will be left at home because it’s a hassle). So...skip the tripod and become friends with rocks, walls, branches and the ISO setting.
Skipping the tripod, how does the D40 stack up? Very well indeed.
With the Nikon D40 at just $549, point-and-shoot digicams look like a very poor investment at $300-$700, considering their marginal image quality, sluggish response, slow focus, etc. But people love an LCD screen. How about a morphing a Nikon D40 into a point and shoot digicam with a fixed 18-135 zoom, while retaining the large sensor, fast focus, etc? All the offerings out there have miserably small sensors (“it’s the sensor size, stupid”). High image quality in a point-and-shoot. What a radical idea.
Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L back from repair
I received my Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L (original version) back from Canon service (see April 5 blog entry).
The notes state “REPL ELECTRICAL PARTS, ADJUST HELICOID, AUTO FOCUS, M FOCUS, CLN”. Given that this lens saw minimal use and is in mint condition, I can only conclude that all these problems were out-of-the-box issues. Poor quality control remains a common occurrence even with expensive “pro” lenses from Nikon and Canon.
Given the unexpected and excessive chromatic aberration with my new EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II zoom, I decided to also sent it into Canon service. When it returns, I’ll retry the comparison between the original and “II”, with my fingers crossed that my sample is/was out of whack.
I’m still waiting for the Canon EOS 1D Mark III that I have on order. While it’s leaps and bounds ahead of the Canon EOS 5D in many ways, image quality will be the first thing on the mind of many people.
When corner and edge performance are taken into account, especially with lenses like the EF 24-105mm f/4L and the EF 16-35 f/2.8L, the 1D Mark III might look very appealing, keeping in mind that the latter two lenses will have the field of view of a 31-136mm and 21-45mm lens respectively (as compared with a full-frame sensor). The 21-45mm range is particularly appealing, so I expect the 16-35mm will see much more use than it formerly has.
What do I mean by “edge and corner performance”? On full-frame (36 X 24mm sensor), high corner sharpness requires stopping down to f/8 or f/11 with most lenses, and indeed with some lenses the corners remain less than sharp even when stopped down. On the EOS 1D Mark III, the sensor is 28.1 X 18.7mm (“APS-H”), which yields an image circle of 33.7mm, as compared with an image circle of 43.2mm for a 36 X 24mm (full frame) sensor. That cropped view lops off the poorest-performing portions of the imaging circle, meaning that one can obtain very crisp images even wide open.
For example, examining the Canon-supplied MTF charts for the tele end and the wide end of the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II show that an image circle of 33.7mm (distance from center of 16.8mm) matches almost exactly the distance at which MTF (contrast) of fine details begins to plummet at the wide end. The situation is very similar for the EF 24-105 f/4L, the EF 17-40 f/4L, the EF 70-200 f/4L, the 24mm f/1.4L, the 85mm f/1.8, etc.
The tradeoff between sensor size and lens performance in the corners has been explored in great detail in D2x vs EOS. The 1D Mark III has a larger sensor and larger pixels than the D2x, so I expect it might well offer the ideal compromise between full frame and cropped frame (1.3X field-of-view crop).
Headlamps and flashlights article updated
I’ve updated my Headlamps and Flashlights article, with considerable material added to the Lupine Lighting Systems Wilma review since I first published it, including some new and improved photos.
The Wilma is without a doubt the best headlamp I’ve ever used, and if you’re in the market for a lighting system for nighttime photography and/or cycling/hiking/etc, then you’ll want to read it ASAP.
Lupine
Lighting Systems Wilma
I disgust [!] the SanDisk rebate card I received in my April 22nd entry (the rebate equivalent of the bouncer at the clubhouse door) . After calling the rebate center twice (two different days, two days apart) and being told that the necessary systems were “unavailable”, I called back a 3rd time on a 3rd day. Does every professional have that kind of patience for a lousy $75 rebate?
I explained that I had taken a photo of everything submitted, and that I had not omitted either the receipt or UPC code. After providing the purchase date and vendor, the representative asked for the UPC code, which she promptly told me was invalid. I gave her another UPC code (I had purchased multiple items), which was “invalid” also.
My “amusement” rapidly building, I started being assertive, and she said she’d double check the rebate offers. Guess what? Magically the first UPC code was indeed valid! I’m sure it was just an honest mistake! The rebate check will be in the mail someday, allegedly.
That‘s the way the scam works. If you want your money, be patient, but be insistent.
© Copyright 2007 digLloyd, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in any form requires explicit, written permission. No part of this document may be copied, distributed, disseminated in any form, electronic or tangible, whether in whole or in part, without the prior written authorization of digLloyd, Inc or its authorized representative.