Category Archives: All

Balancing Event Participation and Photo Taking

14 Thursday Jan 2010

Posted by in All, Commentary

≈ Comments Off on Balancing Event Participation and Photo Taking

Share

When I think of it, I often bring my camera when I take the kids out to a park, swimming, hiking, a birthday party, picking strawberries, etc. Commonly in these instances, I am both a participant in the activities and an observer of them; taking photos necessarily puts me in the role of an observer while I’m photographing. While I’m “observing”, I tend not to be much of a participant. Is there a way to balance the two roles?

After trying to play both roles simultaneously for so many years (my son just turned 9 and I’ve been photographing him since he was a baby), I think I’ve finally got it down.

I think the key is to be a participant *first*. If you’re being an observer/photographer *first*, the people around you will sense that and either get frustrated with you (e.g., your spouse gets angry that you’re not helping with the children) or not interact with you because you’re being aloof.

Now, while being a participant, you should be watching for photo opportunities with your camera readily available (e.g., around your neck, at your side, in your hand) and turned on. It can be tricky to have this split attention while interacting with others, because they (especially adults) may sense you’re not giving them your full attention. You have to gauge the situation and may have to give up on watching for photo opps during certain stretches of conversation when you can’t realistically be paying attention to both things at once.

I generally find there’s an ebb and flow to these events and situations such that you can easily be more of an observer at certain times because there’s a lull in the action; but then need to jump back in as a participant when warranted.

One key to making this work is learning to recognize optimal “photographic moments” and quickly snapping them and putting the camera back down. The less time you spend with the camera in front of your face (or looking down at the LCD if you’re using the LCD instead of an optical viewfinder), the less you’ll give others the impression you’re not really participating.

I think that being an active participant can sometimes actually lead to more interesting photos; it gives you a different and somewhat “dynamic” viewpoint of the situation. Watching and interacting at the same time can create its own sort of synergy that can get into the photos and make them uniquely compelling.

I’m not sure what comes first–the elevated state of perception or trying to play the combined observer/participant role–but I’ve found that when it’s going well, I do have this creative and energetic state of mind that not only leads to better photos but also to being more present and having more fun at the event or situation itself!…:-).



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

The Endless (and Futile?) Search for the Ideal Compact Digital Camera

28 Monday Dec 2009

Posted by in All, Commentary

≈ 1 Comment

Share

I’ve bought and tried out a number of compact digital “point-and-shoot” cameras for taking photos of my children. Many of these photos take place indoors (especially during the winter) and many of them require fast auto-focusing in order to take the photo *before* my kids move or alternatively *while* they are moving; they seldom stay in one place for long!

I recently acquired the Canon S90, which has made vast improvements in low light performance. I had the Canon S60 whose images were unusably noisy at 400 ISO. With the S90, even the 3200 ISO images (if properly exposed) can be used to make small prints or reasonable web images! Another improvement: the S90 is much more pocketable than the S60; you really can get the S90 into a shirt or pant pocket, whereas the S60 needs a coat or jacket pocket. One last improvement: the largest maximum aperture of the S90 at the wide end (28mm) of the zoom range is f/2; the S60 only opened up to f/2.8 at 28mm.

However, that’s where the improvements end, at least in terms of what’s important to me. The lens quality and auto-focusing speed of the S90 seem no better than the S60.

I miss a *lot* of shots with these cameras that I routinely get with any of my digital SLR cameras because the former don’t focus fast enough and can’t focus on a moving target. Also, the lens quality and sensor size yield images that I would see if I were using the cheapest, crappiest third party lenses on my digital SLRs–really uninspiring.

I owned the Panasonic Lumix LX3 for a few months this past summer. Compared to the S90, the autofocus speed and lens quality on the LX3 were better, but the low light images on the S90 are much cleaner (i.e., less digital noise). One of the reasons I sold the LX3 was that it wasn’t very compact…significantly less so than the S90.

Again, however, the auto-focus speed and image quality on the LX3 were nowhere near those of my digital SLRs…even my old 20D.

In a word, I’m disappointed in the S90’s performance as I was in the LX3’s. I’m inclined, instead, to either carry my old Canon 20D around more, even though it’s obviously not as compact. Or get a cell phone with a better camera.

I currently have a Blackberry, and the camera on it is terrible…much worse than even the S60, for sure! I’ve heard all the buzz about the great camera on the iPhone (even though it’s only 3 megapixels) and, I’ll just say, I’m tempted! But I just bought the Blackberry and feel like I can’t switch to a new cell phone just yet.

In any case, it’s quite clear to me that I’m a SLR guy. To me, much of the magic in photography comes from capturing moments that exist for a split second in dynamic, changing situations.

The only exception to the “SLR rule” for me is using compact 35mm film cameras with high-quality fixed focal length lenses. They’re not great for dark indoor shots (unless you don’t mind flash photos) and not as flexible as digital (e.g., digital allows changing the ISO setting from shot to shot), but I find the results I get from using film and a high-quality lens makes it a worthwhile endeavor; many of my favorite shots of my family last summer were taken with film cameras! And a much higher percentage of my film shots were “keepers” compared to my digital captures. At the very least, the different look and feel of film photos compared to digital photos makes it worthwhile addition to my collection of family photos each year just because of the aesthetic variety it provides.

What’s the purpose of this post? Mostly, I think, it’s to tell photographers (including myself) who are endlessly searching for a pocketable, digital, point-and-shoot camera that can rival the performance and image quality of a digital SLR that it’s a time-wasting “holy grail” that you’d/I’d be better off side-stepping in favor of either: 1) making peace with carrying around a digital SLR more often and making it as convenient as possible, or 2) going back to some 35mm film photography because the payoff can be so gratifying.

Sure, I’m aware of the in-between offerings of interchangeable lens, four-thirds sensor, digital cameras from Olympus and Panasonic; but they’re just a compromise; their sensors are bigger than the digital point-and-shoot compacts, but smaller than even the APS-C size digital SLR sensors; and though their “form factor” is smaller than a digital SLR, they’re still not as pocketable as a point-and-shoot compact. And none of them–including the upcoming Leica X1 (which actually has a APS-C size sensor)–can autofocus as fast as a digital SLR, period.

So, stop searching and get out there with your SLRs and 35mm film cameras and take some pictures!…:-)



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

My Favorite 35mm Film Cameras for 2009

07 Monday Dec 2009

Posted by in All, Commentary

≈ Comments Off on My Favorite 35mm Film Cameras for 2009

Share

During the Summer of 2009, I went through a 35mm film camera buying frenzy. After testing/using them, I’m keeping the “winners” and selling the “less than winners” (I don’t want to call them “losers”, because they were quite nice too!).

So, which ones did I pick as the “winners”? And, what made them the winners? First, let me list the 35mm film cameras I bought:

  • Canon Canonet QL17 (lens: 40mm f/1.7)
  • Konica Hexar (lens: 35mm f/2)
  • Leica Mini II (lens: 35mm f/3.5)
  • Leica Mini III (lens: 32 mm f/3.2)
  • Ricoh GR1 (lens: 28mm f/2.8)
  • Ricoh GR1s (lens: 28mm f/2.8)
  • Yashica T4 with the 35mm f/3.5 lens

You may notice that all of these have fixed focal length (versus zoom) lenses. The best way to get a high quality lens in a “point-and-shoot” 35mm film camera is to get one with a fixed focal length lens.

Let me rank/order these cameras on a few different scales….

Physical Size (in order from largest to smallest)

  1. Konica Hexar (largest)
  2. Canonet QL17
  3. Leica Mini II and Leica Mini III
  4. Yashica T4
  5. Ricoh GR1 & GR1s (smallest & most pocketable)

My Cost (most to least expensive)

  1. Ricoh GR1s (most expensive: around $450)
  2. Ricoh GR1
  3. Konica Hexar
  4. Yashica T4
  5. Canonet QL17
  6. Leica Mini II
  7. Leica Mini III (least expensive: around $50)

Autofocus Performance (from fastest to slowest: *very* approximate!)

  1. Konica Hexar
  2. Leica Mini II
  3. Leica Mini III
  4. Yashica T4
  5. Ricoh GR1 and GR1s (note: there’s a prefocused “snap focus” mode that is faster than any autofocus)
  6. Canonet QL17 (slowest: doesn’t have autofocus)

General Observations

Even though I’m used to using zoom lenses on digital SLR cameras, I found I was able to become accustomed to having a fixed focal length quite quickly and could get awesome photos. Also, I found (more like “reminded myself”) I really like the look of film.

I tended to like my results using B&W film better than using color film. However, I was quite pleased with the grain structure of some of the color negative photos. Color slide film was clearly best for capturing bright colors, but the cost of processing slide film versus negative film is significantly more.

Comparative Observations

The photos I got from the Ricoh GR1s, the Leica Mini II, and the Canonet QL17 stood out the most in my “experiments”. They simply had some extra special “quality” that endeared me to the results. I should caution that this wasn’t a well-controlled comparison (I was shooting with various types of film I had available in different settings); regardless, these three stood out for me.

I was disappointed in the Yashica T4 (I actually had two different copies of it), primarily because I missed a lot of shots with it. It turns out that pressing the shutter button halfway doesn’t actually physically focus the lens; exposure readings are made and locked in, and maybe even the focus distance is locked in, but the lens doesn’t actually move into focused position. When you finally press the shutter button the rest of the way down, it physically focuses the lens and takes the picture. It’s amazing how easily you can miss shots of children and people due to their moving during this short delay! And even though the optical quality of the T4’s 35 f/3.5 lens is quite nice (you’ll hear many photographers touting it in Internet forums), I found it no better than the Leica Mini II–which also has a 35 f/3.5 lens–and the Mini II doesn’t have the T4’s pre-focus lag (i.e., it actually moves the lens into focused position when you press the shutter button down halfway).

I shot one roll with the GR1s, was blown away by the results, but then sold it because I had spent $450 on a used point-and-shoot film camera that I wasn’t going to be using for photography income! Also, I found the autofocus somewhat slow and unpredictable. I’ve since discovered I could have make the autofocus a little more predictable by changing one of the camera’s settings; but I think I would have still sold it because of the cost.

I ended up finding a cheaper GR1 which is *very* similar to the GR1s. Both are the most pocketable of all the film cameras I bought; so I’m holding onto the GR1 for now. I need to experiment with the snap focus mode to get past the reservations I have about its slow autofocusing.

Because I liked the Leica Mini II, I had high hopes for the Leica Mini III, which had a slightly wider and faster fixed lens…and which I also picked up for a *great* price. However, it focusses a little more slowly than the Mini II (it’s not a *huge* difference, but there’s definitely a difference), and the subjective quality of the photos isn’t quite as nice as those I got with the Mini II. There’s nothing wrong with the photos I got with the Mini III, they just weren’t quite as rich or deep or…something like that!

Even though the Konica Hexar is kind of large for a point-and-shoot, it’s solid and focuses faster than any of the rest of these cameras! I only ran one roll of film through it and got mixed results (the film didn’t work well in the high constrast lighting conditions) . However, some of the photos were quite awesome, so I’m sticking with it for another few rolls…:-).

The last of the group I’m keeping is the manual focus Canonet QL17. It’s not particularly small or light–and it doesn’t autofocus–but:

  • it feels good/solid in your hands
  • having to manually focus it really keeps you “in the moment”
  • it’s got the fastest lens of all of these cameras (f/1.7)
  • the images I shot on the one roll of B&W film I ran through it definitely had a special “quality” to them

So–for now–I’m keeping the Ricoh GR1, Leica Mini II, Canonet QL17, and the Konica Hexar. The rest have either been sold or are currently being sold by me at eBay.

If you’ve had experiences with any of these “point-and-shoot” 35mm film cameras–or some I haven’t mentioned–please feel free to share your experiences in the comment section below…:-).



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Dimensions (Size) of the Canon Powershot S90 versus Canon S60 and Ricoh GR1

20 Friday Nov 2009

Posted by in All, Reviews

≈ Comments Off on Dimensions (Size) of the Canon Powershot S90 versus Canon S60 and Ricoh GR1

Share

Just a quick post showing the size of the Canon S90 compared to my previous smallest (most pocketable) camera, the 35mm film Ricoh GR1:

Now, how about a quick comparison with the 5 megapixel Canon Powershot S60, which I also own:

The S90 is clearly thinner and more pocketable than its predecessor, the S60.

The S90 turns out to be *very* similar in thickness/depth to the Ricoh GR1 (35mm film camera…which fits nicely into a front jean pocket, for example); but it’s quite a bit smaller in the width and (especially) length dimension versus the GR1.

All in all, I’d say the S90 is clearly the most pocketable. Now, how “usable” is such a small digital camera? More on that later…



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Best Compact Digital Camera to Buy for Image Quality and Pocketability

17 Tuesday Nov 2009

Posted by in All, Commentary, Reviews

≈ 1 Comment

Share

I was at a friend’s house the other night for a party. They live in the city (it’s a small city, but it’s a city) and there were lots of young children in attendance. The children needed running space and so were in the backyard on a dark and chilly evening, along with a few of us adults to monitor their activities. Someone decided it would be nice to have the light and heat of a bonfire back there; so they lit a nice big fire in a metal fire pit. The kindling was especially effective because the fire quickly flamed way up and threw lots of welcome heat into the backyard.

Well, it wasn’t long before two fire trucks show up in response to a phone call by a “concerned” neighbor. It turns out you can only have small contained cooking fires (e.g., a Weber grill) in the city and the firemen and accompanying policeman informed us we had to put out the fire.

The firemen and policeman could have easily been jerks about all of this. However, they clearly felt bad about this seemingly overblown response to our reasonably contained bonfire. So, seeing all the young children around, they invited the children to come aboard the fire truck and see the inside firsthand. Of course, the children *loved* this and the adults were thrilled with this free entertainment for their kids. (I think some of the adults were themselves entertained by the spectacle of these trucks and their flashing lights in the darkness of the night as well!)

Why am I telling this story in a blog post titled “Best Compact Digital Camera to Buy for Image Quality and Pocketability”? Because I had failed to bring a camera to this party. All I had was my Blackberry, and I couldn’t get a decent picture with it to save my life! This very photographable nighttime spectacle was clearly beyond the reach of my cell phone camera.

The next day, this thought entered my brain: “I must get a good compact digital camera that I can always have with me.” And so started a rekindled effort to find a quality compact camera.

If you’ve followed my postings at Lightmanship, you’ve probably seen me talk about using compact film cameras more than once. The great thing about a compact 35mm film camera is you get the equivalent of a “full size” sensor in a compact form factor.

I have a Ricoh GR1 that fits into a front jean pocket, has a great lens (28mm f/2.8), and gives me great pics. I’m quite enamored with it. But there’s a catch.

When you’re loading a roll of film into a camera, you’re making a prediction about the types of photos you’ll be taking that day and/or in the near future. If you’ll be photographing in the middle of the day with plenty of light, you may select some 125 ISO or slower film. If you’ll be photographing late in the day or at night–or indoors with low lighting–you might select 800 ISO or faster film. If you’ve loaded slow film and find yourself in relatively dark conditions, you can use the camera’s flash to still get the photo…though, with the “flash aesthetic”…which may be good or bad.

One of the great things about a digital camera is that the ISO is adjustable from shot to shot. This provides an important degree of flexibility for a camera you want to have with you at all times in a wide range of shooting conditions.

So, I’ve decided that if the digital camera on my cell phone can’t hack it (it’s also painfully slow at saving images and being ready for another shot), then I need to find a quality compact digital camera to carry around in addition to my Blackberry–perhaps I can fit them both into a slim and compact pouch–that I won’t find burdensome.

It turns out that this compactness + high image quality combination is quite tricky! Most compact digital cameras have *very small* sensors and mediocre lenses that yield pretty awful image quality…especially for someone used to the images coming out of a full-frame DSLR camera.

Camera companies like Olympus, Panasonic, Ricoh, Sigma, and Canon (to name a few) are starting to come out with small cameras with relatively large sensors. (Large sensors improve things like image quality, low-light shooting, and image depth-of-field characteristics.) However, many of their offerings are not truly SPS (“Shirt Pocket Size”).

For example, I bought and owned a Panasonic DMC-LX3 for a while. I published a short review of it some months back. Once I customized my settings, I was pretty happy with the images I was getting. I ended up selling my LX3. Why?

Despite what DPReview has published at their website, the Panasonic DMC-LX3 is not a mere 1.1 inches thick. It’s actually closer to 2 inches thick where the lens barrel sticks out. In fact, it’s “thicker” than a Canon G10 which is definitely not a Shirt Pocket Size (SPS) camera! (here’s a photo showing the G10 next to the LX3)

There’s been a lot of press around the Olympus E-P1 and Panasonic GF1 which are like small DSLRs, in terms of having relatively large sensors and interchangeable lenses. (They’re actually not SLRs because they don’t have the flip-up mirrors of a single lens reflex camera, etcetera..but the sensors are almost as big as the APS-C size sensors you find in 1.6 crop DSLRs and you can change lenses like you can with a DSLR.)

If you look at the specs for these cameras, you’ll find that they too are not Shirt Pocket Size, *especially* with the standard 14-4Xmm zoom lens they usually come with attached. If you opt for the more expensive “pancake” lenses instead of the zoom lenses, you can definitely reduce the thickness of the camera plus lens. But by how much?

I’m going to present a table comparing the lengths, widths, and thicknesses of the compact digital cameras I’ve been considering as true competitors when it comes to the Image Quality + Pocketability market. But before I do that, I’d like to discuss some criteria for the cameras I’ve included…

Most compact digital cameras have very small sensors that yield poor image quality and lots of digital noise at all but their lowest ISO setting, regardless of how many megapixels they might have. (Actually, jamming more megapixels into these tiny sensors exacerbates these image quality problems!) It turns out that there is substantial variation in sensor size, quality, and number of megapixels; so all compact digital camera sensors are not equal.

I mentioned the Panasonic DMC-LX3 whose image quality I found to be relatively decent. It turns out its sensor is (approx) 8.8 x 6.6mm and the megapixel density is 24mp/cm2. Now compare that to a typical pocketable digital camera, a Canon PowerShot SD980 IS: the sensor is 6.16 x 4.62 mm with a megapixel density of 43mp/cm2. So, the LX3’s sensor is a bit bigger and the megapixel density is lower. Both of these tend to contribute to higher image quality all other factors being equal.

I have found other recent compact digital cameras with similarly slightly larger sensors and relatively low megapixel densities: the Ricoh GRD III, the Canon G11, and the Canon S90.

Of course, there are other factors to take into consideration when comparing compact digital cameras: 1) lens quality, 2) lens focal length, 3) fixed focal length vs. zoom, and what the zoom range is, 4) auto-focussing speed, 5) lens aperture range, 6) whether there’s a built-in flash and/or a hot shoe, 7) whether it has an optical viewfinder, and so on. Each person has to decide which of these factors is most important to them and how they should play out in their decision.

For me, I’d prefer a reasonably good quality lens (of course) that can go at least as wide as 28mm, has good auto-focussing speed, and a maximum aperture at least as large as f/2.8. I want a built-in flash and would prefer an optical viewfinder, but will live without the latter if necessary.

Okay, so let’s get to the table of sizes. One caveat though: it’s *really* difficult to get a depth or thickness dimension that includes the protruding lens and/or grip parts. I’ve had to estimate some of these based on various inexact indicators. But it’ll be better than going by the depth/thickness specs the camera manufacturers are providing!

The “Full Depth” below is an estimate of how deep or thick your pocket needs to be in order to contain the camera–lens and all–when the camera is turned off.

Camera Length Width Full Depth
Canon G11 4.4″ 3″ 1.9″
Canon S90 3.9″ 2.3″ 1.22″
Leica X1 4.9″ 2.2″ 2.0″
Olympus E-P1 w/ 14-42 zoom 4.8″ 2.8″ 3.1″
Olympus E-P1 w/ 17mm pancake 4.8″ 2.8″ 2.24″
Panasonic DMC-LX3 and
Leica D-Lux 4		 4.3″ 2.4″ 1.9″
Panasonic GF1 w/ 14-45 zoom 4.7″ 2.8″ 3.8″
Panasonic GF1 w/ 20mm pancake 4.7″ 2.8″ 2.4″
Ricoh GR Digital III 4.3″ 2.3″ 1.2″
Ricoh GXR 4.5″ 2.8″ 1.8″
Sigma DP1 4.3″ 2.4″ 2.0″
Sigma DP2 4.5″ 2.5″ 2.2″
Now, personally, I find that 1.5″ is the maximum thickness that I’d still consider pocketable in a shirt or pant pocket, and even that is pushing it. I have a 1.25″ thick Ricoh GR1 that actually fits quite nicely into a pocket, even a relatively tight-fitting front jean pocket.


Many of the cameras above will fit into coat or jacket pockets. However, much of my photography is outdoors when the weather is nice and I *really* don’t like wearing coats or jackets when I don’t have to. (If I were willing to go up 0.5″ in thickness, the 2″ deep Leica X1 with a 36 f/2.8 [36mm in full 35mm frame terms] Leica lens and an APS-C size sensor–the biggest sensor in this group–would really be tempting. Of course, being a Leica, it’s pretty pricey!)

By the 1.5″ or less thickness criterion, only two of these cameras are shirt & pant “pocketable”: the Ricoh GR Digital III and the Canon Powershot S90. They’re both thin (actually even thinner than 1.25″),

have relatively wide lenses (28 mm on the Ricoh, 28-105 on the Canon), and both have large maximum apertures (f/1.9 on the Ricoh and f/2 on the Canon).

I suspect the quality of the lens on the Ricoh is better, mostly because of the well-known rule of thumb in photography that prime (fixed focal length) lenses tend to have better optical quality than zoom lenses. Of course, the strength of zoom lenses is that they cover more focal lengths.

What about price? The Ricoh GR Digital III retails for about $700; the Canon Powershot S90 for about $430. So the Ricoh sells for about 63% more than the Canon; that’s pretty significant.

I think I’d be pretty happy with either of these for my pocketable, relatively high image quality camera needs. But it’s a relatively clear choice for me: the Canon S90. Why?

  1. I’d rather spend $430 than $700 on a walk-around camera that is not meant primarily to make money for me; my professional DSLRs and lenses are my primary camera tools for generating photography-related income. The image quality on the S90 is sufficient, though, when I get a lucky shot that I want to publish at my website for marketing purposes or to make small prints.
  2. The zoom is more flexible than the fixed 28mm lens…and I think the quality of the lens on the S90 is good enough for my purposes. Canon usually puts good lenses on their compacts, and the Powershot S-series (I owned the 5 megapixel S60, which I was quite happy with; but it’s performance above 100 ISO was really poor) is at the high-end of their compacts.
  3. I own a 35mm film Ricoh GR1 with a 28mm f/2.8 lens that helps to satisfy my appetite for a compact Ricoh point-and-shoot camera when I need it…;-).

So, I’m going with the Canon Powershot S90! I’ll publish some of my photos and experiences with the S90 in future posts…:-).

To see more about the S90:



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Interview with our Holga Giveaway Winner!

05 Thursday Nov 2009

Posted by in All

≈ Comments Off on Interview with our Holga Giveaway Winner!

Share

One of our readers, Jennifer in California, was the winner of our Holga Giveaway last month! I took the opportunity to ask her a few questions about her background and interest in photography, what she likes about Lightmanship, and how she plans to use the Holga…

MGM: How would you characterize your interest in photography? Are you actively photographing? If so, what is your favorite type of photography to do and what equipment do you use?

Jennifer: Photography was my first passion and I naturally gravitated to film, where I’ve been for many, many years. In the last couple of years, I re-discovered my love for photography. Professionally I take shots of artwork for 2D & 3D artists, and have done some weddings, although, that is not really my thing. Mostly, my photography is personal and/or fine art. I’ve never really classified it. The most important thing is that it brings me joy. I realize that sounds cheesy, but it’s true.

My camera is like an extension of my arm and brain. I carry either my point and shoot or DSLR with me at all times.

If I had to classify my photography I’d say documentary, with experimental and fine art mixed in. I shoot with a 50D and have a two lenses, 50mm and 28-135mm. It’s a pretty basic set up, but it does what I need. I also have a Canon D10. I bought this fantastic little point and shoot a few months ago. I love being in the water, so this camera is a perfect blend of Surf and Turf. I have other cameras, but I’m not doing much with them these days.

MGM: What is your favorite type of blog post here?

Jennifer: I enjoy the pondering posts where you ask philosophical questions; What makes a good photograph, etc. The way you work through the answer is very apparent, and I like seeing which roads you take to get there. I usually agree with your findings as well.

I really liked the recent post about shooting 35mm. I’m a filmmaker and I love shooting Super8 and 16mm. Because of that, I understand the frugality of film and thinking before pulling the trigger. I also remember this when shooting video, because I don’t want to fish through extra footage when editing. With photography I feel the same, although I do tend to snap of a lot more images when shooting digitally.

MGM: What subject matter do you plan to photograph with the new Holga?

Jennifer: If the camera comes by the 27th, I plan to take it with me to Oaxaca for Dia de los Muertos. I haven’t thought much father than that. Because the Holga is so compact, I plan on carrying it around loaded and see what I come upon.

MGM: Thanks Jennifer!



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Canon 5D versus Canon 5D Mark II Noise Comparison at 1600 and 3200 ISO

28 Wednesday Oct 2009

Posted by in All, Reviews

≈ 2 Comments

Share

4-5 months ago, I did a comparison of the noise in the images from my Canon 5D at 1600 and 3200 ISO against those from a Canon 5D Mark II, also at 1600 and 3200 ISO. I found the differences to be negligible.

As you can imagine, this annoyed some photographers (especially, I assume, those who had purchased a 5D Mark II) and they said my tests were flawed…especially, since my test images had some blur from camera shake. I actually thought that the camera shake might help to force people to look purely at image noise instead of image detail.

I’ve come to agree that loss of image detail is in fact related to image noise, because image noise can obliterate image detail.

So, I finally got a hold of the Canon 5D Mark II again and re-did the tests. I braced the camera on the back of a chair and used a Canon 50 f/1.4 lens at an aperture setting of f/2.8 (because I did the test in relatively low light–which is normally when one uses ISOs of 1600 and 3200). I did 100% magnification crops from both cameras at their highest resolutions in RAW image format. I used Canon Digital Photo Professional software to create the jpegs directly from the RAW files. (Note: the point of focus was right between the 3 strawberries at the top of the image for all images.)

Here are the test images:

Canon 5D, 1600 ISO, 100% magnification

Canon 5D Mark II, 1600 ISO, 100% magnification

Canon 5D, 3200 ISO, 100% magnification

Canon 5D Mark II, 3200 ISO, 100% magnification

Am I seeing any huge differences now? I wouldn’t call them “huge”, but I *am* seeing some noise improvements in the 5D Mark II images versus the 5D images. Are they enough to justify paying twice as much for a 5D Mark II versus a lightly used 5D? In my opinion, these differences alone would *not* justify paying so much more for the Mark II.

That said, if you really need to be able to shoot at 6400 ISO and maybe (occasionally) at 12,800 ISO, need the higher megapixel count of the Mark II (21 mp versus 12.8 mp for the 5D), and could really use the video recording capabilities of the Mark II, then the 5D Mark II may indeed be a worthwhile purchase.

I decided not to purchase the 5D Mark II in 2009 and I don’t regret my decision. The 5D Mark II still has the antiquated 9-point AF system that the 5D and Canon’s 1.6 crop factor DSLRs have and it’s not really very usable above 6400 ISO.

Recently, however, Canon came out with the 7D, which finally goes beyond that 9-point AF system. And the announcement of the 1D Mark IV (due to start shipping in December) has created a *huge* temptation for me. ISOs up to 102,400 (seemingly quite usable up to 51,200 ISO) with the best auto-focusing system on any DSLR Canon builds.

Now, if I can just dig up the $5000 I need to purchase it…:p.



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

The New Canon 1D Mark IV: the end of flash photography (for those who hate it)?

20 Tuesday Oct 2009

Posted by in All, Reviews

≈ Comments Off on The New Canon 1D Mark IV: the end of flash photography (for those who hate it)?

Share

I was just photographing a wedding over the weekend and, again, I was spending too much time “fighting” with proper exposures when using my on-camera and off-camera flashes (a 580EX II on the hotshoe and two 550EXs as slaves). The more time I spend trying to fix suboptimal flash performance, the less time I spend focusing on the actual wedding activities going on in front of me!

When I heard Canon’s official announcement about the new 1D Mark IV coming this December today, I was intrigued. When I read that the high end of the ISO range was expanding past the upper limit of 6400 that was present on the Mark III to a whopping 102400, I was more than intrigued!

Now, it has been my experience that the highest ISO available on a Canon DSLR is seldom that usable–i.e., you only want to use it when you have no other option. Now this fluctuates a little, depending on the camera. I have generally found the maximum of 3200 ISO on the 5D to be pretty usable and the maximum of 6400 ISO on the 1D Mark III too…as long as the image was properly exposed; if you underexposed it, forget it.

My experience with Canon’s 1.6 crop factor DSLRs (i.e., the Digital Rebels and the 10-50D series) was that you really wanted to stay away from the top ISO if possible, *even if* properly exposed. And the 5D Mark II is very noisy at the top ISO (25600), and I’m not even sure I could call the second highest ISO on it (12800) all that usable either.

The other thing that pains me about the 5D Mark II is that it can’t possibly focus without a flash or wireless transmitter attached to it in darkness requiring 12800 or 25600 ISO. Its 9 AF point autofocusing with one cross-hair point is very primitive and not good in low light; so, what’s the use?

Well, if Canon has ever made a camera that can focus in low light without AF assist, it’s been the 1D series; and according to the specs for the 1D Mark IV, that autofocusing has been improved. But the thing that gets me most excited is combining Canon’s most advanced autofocusing camera with an upper ISO that is 4 stops higher than the 1D Mark III! This means those shots I could barely get of the wedding couple dancing on the dark dance floor at f/1.4 with the ISO cranked to 6400 and the shutter speed down to 1/30 sec, I would now (theoretically) be able to capture with a shutter speed of 1/500 sec instead!

Now, I don’t want to be Pollyanna-ish. Until I see some image samples from the 1D Mark IV, I’m going to figure that the top ISO of 102400 and maybe the second highest ISO of 51200 aren’t going to be very usable generally. That would leave me with the next highest ISO of 25600. 25600 is two stops faster than 6400. So, in my example, instead of using a quite low shutter speed of 1/30, I’d be able to increase it to 1/125 sec…*much* more reasonable for catching a wedding couple slow dancing on a dark dance floor.

Being able to crank the ISO up two stops will also make it easier to catch those wedding processions down the center aisle in dark churches (with high ceilings and walls that are too far away to bounce your flash off of) without creating “deer in the headlight” photos with your flash.

Another feature that I’m quite interested in is the Auto ISO setting that enables automatic 100-12800 ISO coverage. Now, I’ve been a bit frustrated with the Auto ISO on the 5D Mark II because you can’t set a minimum shutter speed and in Auto ISO, the 5D Mark II will sometimes choose really low shutter speeds, like 1/15 or 1/20 sec if you’re shooting in P or Av (aperture priority) mode. The 1D Mark IV, however, lets you set an acceptable shutter speed range in the custom settings, which should eliminate those unacceptably low shutter speeds.

Here are some sample high ISO images shot with a pre-production 1D Mark IV.

You can read more about the Canon 1D Mark IV at Canon’s website. And you can pre-order it at B&H’s website!



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Beyond Lens Envy

11 Sunday Oct 2009

Posted by in All, Commentary

≈ 2 Comments

Share

I’ve seen this pattern over and over…people get into photography as a new hobby, experience some initial successes, then start yearning for better and more expensive equipment in order to continue on a trajectory of better and better images.

I followed this route for a while myself. After borrowing and/or owning the best digital SLR equipment Canon makes, I experienced just how far the equipment could take me. I’ll admit the equipment helps, but there’s still a gap toward success that can only be filled by the photographer’s skill and vision…and ultimately it’s the skill and vision that yields the success.

If an equipment-related problem is blocking the ability to achieve a particular vision, then it may be quite appropriate and necessary to buy (or make) some equipment.

I get the impression, however, that photographers tend to resort to equipment purchases/upgrades as a default, rather than really thinking the problem through and coming up with a free solution that uses their existing equipment–for example, a change in technique.

Of course the photography equipment manufacturers and retailers–and top photographers enlisted by the photography equipment manufacturers–encourage this type of thinking! But if you’re just a little clever and resourceful, you can loosen their grip on your photography-related purchasing.

You don’t need the best or most expensive equipment to make great or successful photos. It’s much more important that you really get to know the equipment you have and learn how to get the results you want using that equipment. *That* is what you need to know to become a truly successful photographer.



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!