Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in mawz's LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]

Saturday, November 28th, 2009
10:32 am	Cameras Part 3 – Nikon Film Bodies Pentax *istDS, SMC-P 55mm f2 I’ve owned quite a number of Nikon bodies over the years. Here’s my take on them, in order of their introduction. MF bodies Nikkormat FTn – Classic Pre-AI consumer body. Medium-sized brick, mediocre viewfinder, uses old 1.35V Mercury cells. Metering was a little wonky due to voltage issues (I was using 1.55V Alkaline batteries) and it was beat to crap and had clearly been used as a hammer at some point. Damned near indestructible. Got it as a rear cap on a Nikkor-S 35mm f2.8. I rather like the shutter speed ring around the lens which Olympus ripped off for the OM series. ISO setting was horrible, a little metal tab that had to be pushed with a pen. Still probably would have kept it if it had been an AI body (Hmm, maybe a FT3?…). Liked the external metering display. F2 – I’ve got the F2a (with DP-11 prism) in black, very late production. Big beast of a camera, wonderful finder, love the layout overall. The long shutter speeds (1-10 seconds) are a little weird as they use the self-timer. With a soft-release on it it’s one of my favourite cameras to use and the 35mm camera I’ve owned the longest at around 3 years. DP-11 has a nice external metering display as well, a touch that was forgotten on most later manual focus bodies. EM – Cheap little plastic Aperture-priority-only camera. Very smooth wind, surprisingly fun to work with. It was my first SLR back in 1993 and I recently owned a second example (which was stolen along with a Series E 100/2.8 I really miss). This is a personal favourite of mine as it’s small, light and unobtrusive. It’s fun with a winder too. F3 – Nikon’s last manual-focus pro SLR. Great build, very smooth wind, superb finder. I had the HP finder rather than the non-HP (which I would have preferred). The only weaknesses are the poor Exposure-compensation setting (excessively fiddly) and the horrid little LCD that masquerades as a metering readout with its never-working backlight and not-terribly useful +/- metering readout. Massive but solid motor drive. A great camera overall, I’ve shot more film with it than any other 35mm camera but it got sold after I got the F2a. FM2n – Hands-down my favourite Nikon. The highest-spec manual, mechanical 35mm SLR ever made with its 1/4000 max shutter and 1/250 flash sync. Reasonably compact, very well built, great finder, nice (and not too large) winder and LED-based metering. If I could only have one 35mm camera this would likely be my choice. FA – Nikon’s most advanced traditional manual SLR. Full multi-mode AE, matrix metering, reasonably compact, great finder (Same as FE2/FM2n), can use its own dedicated winder (which also powers the camera, like the F3’s) or the MD-11/MD-12 of the FE/FM bodies, and offers a bolt-on ergonomic grip. Only downsides are the somewhat weak stop-down mechanism and the same awful LCD display as the F3. As much as I like it overall, the LCD made it somewhat annoying to work with. Owned 2 copies, one died of stop-down mech jam the second got sold. FE2 – Third of the FM2n/FA/FE2 triplets. Pretty straightforward Aperture-Priority AE take on the FM2n. Most of the strengths of the FM2n except it uses match-needle metering. Has the same poor Exposure-compensation setup as the F3. Competent camera but I’ve never quite felt the love with it that I did with the FA or FM2n. F601m – Supposedly a manual-focus version of the F601 AF camera but in fact a separate but similar design with some advantages (including limited G lens support, which the F601 lacks). Has the same basic UI as the F601 and F801. 2fps winder built-in. Great camera overall but the battery-compartment latch is prone to failure from cracking and it takes expensive Lithium batteries. Viewfinder is good but not exceptional with a fixed split-prism screen (which I’m not hugely fond of, I prefer plain matte or grid screens). One oddity is that it requires CPU lenses to do P and S modes. Has external metering readout (standard AF-style status LCD) which is a nice feature to have and one that most 70’s/80’s SLR’s lack. AF Bodies F801(s) – I’ve owned 3 of these over the years, two of the F801s’s and one F801. Nikon’s first really competent AF body, dirt cheap these days. 3+ fps winder, AA batteries, nice UI, 1/8000 shutter, 1/250 sync, good finder (similar to FM2n’s). Probably the best deal in used film bodies out there as these can be had for ~$25. AF is usable but not great aside from the remarkable low-light performance. s version has slightly faster AF and spot metering. Limited G lens support, no AF-S or VR support. Uses electronic release (same 2-pin spec as the MD-11/MD-12 winders) F90X – Much improved upgrade of the F801, better built, better finder, better AF including a cross type sensor, higher framerate. Now supports AF-S lenses but not VR. Has a vertical grip, 1/3 stop adjustments for the shutter speed, limited weather sealing and a control layout that’s changed arbitrarily from the F801. Biggest weakness aside from increased size is the very slick grip, it’s a lot harder to keep a grip on than any other Nikon. Overall I prefer the smaller F801 though. Takes the 10-pin style remotes. Limited G support. Takes AA’s. F70 – The F601 update as the F90(X) was the F801 update. Greatly improved AF including a cross-type sensor, surprisingly fast framerate (3.7fps), good viewfinder, last consumer AF body with AI support. Experimental UI which works surprisingly well, but is a little slow. Poor exposure compensation controls. Actually usable canned mode (Hyperfocal). Very nice ergonomics. Got it cheap, will see how much I like it. Uses the same 2-pin electronic remotes as the F801. Limited G support. Takes Lithium batteries (1 CR223 or 2 CR123’s). No DoF preview. F100 – The baby F5. Superb finder, fast AF including 3 cross-type sensors and great build, has dual control wheels. Supports AF-S and VR. A little large, great ergonomics. Vertical grip available, but is poorly built and lacks the second control wheel. Great body overall if the size isn’t an issue. Full G support. Uses 10-pin remotes. Takes AA’s. After the F801, my favourite AF body from Nikon. F80 – The baby F100 and replacement for the F70. Slow (2.5fps), multi-point AF, but only one cross-type sensor, decent viewfinder with on-demand gridlines. Small, light, full AF-S and VR support. Dual control wheels. No canned modes. Good ergonomics. Available AA battery grip offsets requirement for 2xCR123 Lithiums. NO AI SUPPORT, which is inexcusable at its original pricepoint. It’s a great lightweight AF camera. F65 – Cut-down F80. Single-wheel UI, no manual ISO setting, hard to change AF points, poor (pentamirror) viewfinder. Full G, AF-S and VR support. No support for remote release. AA battery grip or 2xCR123’s. Crappy, no good reason to get one today but was nicely built for its pricepoint and era. Sole Nikon film camera I bought new. (Comment on this)
Sunday, October 25th, 2009
12:34 pm	On the E-30 So I’m coming up on two months with the E-30. It’s primarily the backup camera to my G1 (which I carry most days) but the E-30 has become my go-to camera for serious shooting, if only because I normally carry the E-30 on weekends and coincidentally I do most of my serious shooting on weekends due to time restrictions as school keeps me quite busy during the week. The G1’s ended up being used mostly for facebook shots of various school-related shenanigans (which it does very well). I’ve taken about 4500 shots with the E-30 so far, something of a record for me as I’ve generally averaged around 1000 images a month with each DSLR I’ve owned. The low points were the D40 (~250/month) and G1 (~500/month, with the average climbing quickly). Some of this can be chalked up to the fact that the first two things I shot with the E-30 being Frosh Week (around 1500 images) and the local Airshow (1300 images). But that really only accounts for half of the use, and the airshow in particular is responsible for a serious boost in my monthly averages anyways (the D300, which averaged 1000/month dead-on, did so only because I shot 2800 images at the airshow last year. 6fps adds up right quick and I was much more selective with my shooting this year). I’ve now had a chance to do most of the sorts of work I normally do with the E-30. It’s been used for my normal street/cityscape work, low-light bar candids, event work, an airshow and tripod-based cityscape work. About the only thing I haven’t done with it yet is pure landscape and that’s only because I haven’t had the time as of yet. I’ll probably fix that in the next couple days as I have some free time finally and a lot of fall foliage to shoot. Overall I’m surprisingly happy with the E-30. I traditionally have been less than a fan of the 4/3rds system. Until the E-3 and E-30 I’ve found the 4/3rds cameras to underperform at higher ISO’s (an issue for someone who regularly shoots at 1600 and 3200), the viewfinders have been atrocious (and still are on the consumer side), the cameras have not delivered the promised size reductions outside of super-tele’s and there’s a distinct lack of primes on the system. I looked at the E-3 when it came out and liked the viewfinder and build, but the ergonomics are not there for me, I found it quite awkward to use. The E-30 entered consideration as was looking for a body to partner with my G1, handling the sorts of shooting the G1 just didn’t do well at (mostly action, but also anything requiring long glass or fast glass with AF). I’d looked at the K-7, the A700, the E-30 and the A900 (Canon and Nikon were out for size and feature issues, I LIKE In-Body IS). Of the lot, the K-7 and A900 were my favourites. But the A900 was simply too expensive and large with the glass I’d need for it (I’d have been looking at about $7000 with 2 zooms, the ZA 24-70 and 70-400G) and still didn’t have enough reach for the airshow. And the A900 is quite large (but oh, that wondrous viewfinder). The K-7 was and is my favourite of the crop-factor bodies but the DA* 16-50 is plagued by QC issues and is expensive, and an airshow lens was an issue. Lens compatibility with the G1 was also an issue, with the Pentax’s and Sony’s I was looking at $300 adapters from Novoflex, and I’d still be losing AF. The E-30 offered me the inexpensive and excellent 14-54 f2.8-3.5, whose second version AF’s on the G1 with the MA1 adapter I already owned, a surprising amount of reach with an inexpensive and good 70-300 courtesy of the 2x crop factor, and quite good ergonomics. I wasn’t sold on the viewfinder which is small in comparison with the competition and I was concerned about high ISO performance. As it turned out, my concerns proved irrelevant. The viewfinder is quite usable despite the smaller size and high ISO performance is a lot better than certain detractors (including myself) have made out. The ergonomics of the E-30 are excellent and the controls are both well laid out and easily customized. I particularly like that all AF controls are on the rear where they belong, not on a fiddly switch at the front fo the body. It really is a pleasant camera to work with. The Info screen functions quite well as an interface for most controls, well enough that I tend to use it over the dedicated buttons for WB, ISO and AF point selection. Performance is excellent. The AF is responsive, especially on the centre point in low-light. It’s not even close to what Oly claims, but they claimed ‘World’s Fastest AF’ for the E-3/12-60 combo, which couldn’t even deliver best-in-class AF (the D300/17-55 AF-S beat it in most configurations except centre-point, the A700/Tamron 17-50 beat it in centre-point). Despite Oly’s ridiculous claims, the AF is pretty good at most things aside from AF-C tracking and approaches world-class in low-light on the centre point. FPS is only 4.5, not the claimed 5 fps, but 4.5 is plenty for me as I’m happy with anything over 4fps and really, I only want that much speed for the airshow and the responsiveness it requires from a camera. The flash system seems pretty good the one time I tried it, but I’m not much of a flash guy. Image quality is very good at low ISO, I’d say comparable to the D300. At higher ISO’s you lose some Dynamic Range compared to the D300 and shadow noise starts to become an issue, but it’s not really a huge difference as the noise character of the E-30 is less obtrusive than on the Nikons (it’s less of a ‘processed’ look to the noise, like the Pentax’s so more noise is less obtrusive. Canon and Nikon’s noise is more processed and looks odd, Sony’s gets really bad due to over-processing of NR). Metering is good, but can get confused in tough lighting more easily than the Nikons, using ESP+AF metering helps as it biases towards the active AF point. Metering patterns are the usual, Matrix (ESP) with optional AF-point bias, Centre-weighted, Spot (on active AF point when using AF) and two additional spot metering modes, one for highlights, the other for shadows. I haven’t played much with those, but I can see the uses. The Live View implementation is an interesting mixed bag. On one side, the level display and flip-twist LCD are major wins, on the other the low-resolution LCD and poor CDAF performance are losses as is the fact that the mirror resets before firing. Overall it’s a winner though, AF in Live View is not terribly useful for my work and since I’m usually on tripod when using Live View with the E-30, the mirror reset is no issue and I can just zoom in to get around the low-resolution LCD. Love to see a 922k LCD on the E-30 successor though. The leveling is a HUGE win for tripod use and a brilliant use of the IS system. That, combined with the flip-twist LCD makes the E-30 extremely nice to use on a tripod. I just wish it had the count-down feature for long exposures that the G1 has (and wish the G1 also counted down the dark-frame subtraction). Only real downside to tripod use is the remote release, which plugs into the USB/AV port. This is a nice way to make use of a normally useless port on the camera, but in the dark it’s a LOT harder to plug in correctly than a phonojack like the Canon/Pentax/Panny’s use. The release itself is also a little too sensitive, it releases well before it feels like you have reached a half-press. Can’t complain though, got my remote for $5 out of a junk bin. The E-30 is the first camera where I can honestly say that firmware updates are an issue. Unlike most cameras where you copy the firmware to a card, put the card in the camera and then run an update procedure on the camera (usually by turning the camera on while pressing a button, sometimes a menu option), with the E-30 you have to plug the camera into the computer and run the updater in Olympus Master while connected to the internet. This is a pain as it requires me to keep the (non-standard) USB cable around (I normally never take them out of the box) and also forces me to use the truly atrocious Master software. Lens updates work the same way, but at least I can do them on the G1 instead which works in the normal fashion. The E-30 features 6 art filters and a bunch of aspect ratio crop modes. All are useless as they aren’t applied to the RAW file, aspect ratios can’t be seen in the viewfinder and half the art filters cause the camera to freeze up for a couple of seconds. Call them all interesting ideas badly implemented and they shouldn’t be on a camera of the E-30’s level anyways. Some of the Art filters would be nice PS plugins though, particularly the Pinhole one, which does about the best pinhole effect I’ve seen. And on that note, I’d love to see makers start providing ACR & Lightroom presets for the default image options on their cameras. Most people use either ACR/PS or Lightroom to process and it would be nice to be able to match up the Image settings in-camera to presets in the RAW converter. It’s a feature I really miss from the D300 and CaptureNX where I could get RAW files which looked EXACTLY like my camera settings with no problem (And vice-versa). Even better would be a facility to export current Image Settings to ACR preset files from in-camera. The final verdict: A great camera, few real-world weaknesses for my sort of work and matched with the excellent lenses and my preferred 4:3 aspect ratio it becomes a keeper that I have little incentive to move away from anytime soon. (Comment on this)
Friday, October 16th, 2009
10:15 pm	Cameras, Part 2 Pentax Film Bodies Pentax K2, SMC-Pentax 55mm f2, HP5+ @EI 800 Now that I’ve covered my Digitals, I’m going to go through my various film cameras. I’m doing Pentax here, Nikon next time, then other SLR’s, non-SLR’s and MF. I’ve owned a bunch of Pentax and other K or M42 mount SLR’s, here’s my take on them. Pentax LX: Pentax’s sole true attempt at a pro system SLR in 35mm. Superb body, small but very good ergonomics, great viewfinder, loved the LED simulated match needle display. Shutter dial kinda sucks but the ISO/Exposure dial more than made up for it. Metering down to -6.5EV and out to 120 seconds in Aperture prioirty, shutter speeds over sync work mechanically (no battery needed). Needs the grip if you like bigger bodies. Downsides are a low ISO limit (1600 for early bodies, 3200 for late bodies) and a tendency to sticky mirror syndrome and magic needles on the takeup spool suck. Got rid of my copy because it had incipient sticky-mirror. Would love another. Pentax K2: One of my two current Pentax bodies. It’s essentially a high-end K1000, slightly better VF, centre-weighted metering, on/off switch, 1/125 sync, Aperture priority. Handles well, but isn’t as smooth as my FE2/FM2n, big solid camera, battery dependant. No magic needles. Easily my favourite Pentax after the LX and in some ways better than the LX (I prefer the larger body). Pentax MX: Small, huge viewfinder (0.97x magnification), mechanical. Reliable mechanically, VF has way too much magnification for a non-glasses wearer. Unreliable meter on/off which cause my copy to eat batteries in 2-3 days. Returned under the lemon clause of my extended warranty. I don’t really understand the love for the MX, I found the handling weak (too small) the viewfinder painful and reliability comprimised. Oh, and it has magic needles which I dislike. Pentax ME Super: I’ve somehow managed to end up with 2 of these at different points and always got rid of them. Small, decent VF, weird 2-button control of shutter speed in Manual, aperture priority as well. Never got along well with them, probably would like it more with a winder. Probably will end up with another at some point, and won’t use it much either. Damned magic needles. Pentax MZ-5n: Generally well-regarded AF SLR with classic UI. Like the basic UI, body is very compact, build is poor, VF is mediocre, AF is awful and the focusing screen isn’t great for MF. Don’t miss it much but at least it doesn’t have magic needles. Pentax ZX-M: Aka the MZ-M outside of the US. My other current Pentax body. Basically a MZ-5n with no AF, no metering mode selection, no TTL flash and an even worse finder, but a much better focusing screen. It sucks in a thoroughly competent fashion. I’m oddly fond of it. And no Magic needles. Pentax Spotmatic SP: Classic M42 camera. Built like a brick, basic UI, non-functional metering on my copy, typically poor VF for the era (Bigger than the ZX-M but dim). Interesting to shoot but I’d rather use M42 lenses on a more refined K mount body via an adapter. Non-Pentax bodies: Ricoh KR-5sv: Cosina SLR, love these things. Cheap, plastic and fragile. Handles well, good ergonomics but unrefined. Broke the aperture follower by mounting a M42 lens + adapter carelessly. My first K body, miss it somewhat. Chinon CP-6: Funky Chinon multi-mode body, does Program AE with any K lens. Kinda crappy otherwise. Bought it on a whim, never used it much and sold it quickly. Chinon CM-3: Basic M42 SLR, world’s worst shutter release as it was mechanically connected to the stop-down plate so a half-press would stop down the lens and meter. LED meter readout on the external side of the VF eyepiece. Oddly lovable, mildly regret selling it. Would be #2 on my list of M42 SLR’s if I decided to get into M42 again (after the Bessaflex TM). Overall I’m profoundly ambivalent about Pentax SLR’s. I’m quite pleased with the K2 and LX, like the other K bodies to varying degrees and am pretty much prfoundly unimpressed by the M and later bodies (aside from the LX of course). I really do like Pentax lenses though. If only my Pentax lenses and Nikon bodies shared a lensmount. I tend to prefer Pentax glass, but my favourite film SLR’s are mostly Nikon. (Comment on this)
Saturday, October 10th, 2009
1:29 pm	Oh, the Camera’s I’ve Owned G1, M.Zuiko 17 I’ve been thinking about some of the Digital’s I’ve owned over the years so I thought I might write up a brief synopsis of them. DSLR’s Pentax *istD – My first DSLR. Great finder, small and light. Good IQ up to 800, OK at 1600, garbage at 3200. good controls but the grip was rather undersized. Mediocre AF, not terribly responsive UI, horrible ISO setting method (ISO on the mode dial a la film cameras), really slow to write to the card. Nikon D50 – My second attempt at digital. Nice body, good but basic control layout, great IQ for 6MP right up to ISO 800, 1600 better than *istD. ISO 1600 limit a problem, small and not terribly bright viewfinder a problem. Limited SD support (no SDHC), AF decent on centre point, UI very responsive, no metering with non-CPU lenses. Pentax K100D – In-body IS, good ergonomics, much more responsive that the *istD. VF good for a low-end unit (much nicer than D50), buffer crippled, AF mediocre. Canon EOS 10D – Big, very quiet, mediocre finder for specs, SLOW, especially write speeds, 9 shot buffer almost makes up for it. Overpriced batteries, poor battery life, lowest IQ of the 6MP bodies I’ve owned, AF decent. Pentax *istDS – Small, great ergonomics, more responsive than the *istD, excellent VF, buffer deep enough. IQ great to 800, good to 1600, OK at 3200. My favourite 6MP camera. AF still mediocre. Pentax K10D – In-body IS, weather sealed, great VF, 10MP, good buffer. Noticeably bigger than other Pentax’s, ISO 1600 limit. IQ great to 800, good at 1600. AF still mediocre. Nikon D300 – Fast (6fps), great VF, 12MP, ISO 6400, deep buffer, built like a tank, sized like a tank(biggest DSLR I’ve owned), Live View, incredible LCD, AF speed is superb. Meters with non-cpu lenses. UI fast, responsive and somewhat disorganized. Crappy B&W filters, but at least it has them. Some control oddities (LV and MLU two settings on drive mode dial, can’t be used together). IQ superb to 1600, good at 3200, OK at 6400. ISO ratings somewhat optimistic especially at higher settings (6400 is more like 4000 or 5000 metered). Excellent battery life, battery life almost entirely controlled by card writes (about 14GB per charge irregardless of format/quality settings), 1/8000 max shutter. LV AF awful. Nikon D40 – Small, decent finder, only 6MP. Best IQ of the 6MP bodies at all ISO’s. Great UI, decent but very basic controls. AF average. No non-cpu lens metering. Can mount pre-AI lenses. Panasonic G1 – Very small, great, big EVF, flip-twist LCD, 12MP. IQ superb to 640, good to 1250, OK to 3200. mounts damned near anything. Discreet. ISO ratings pessimistic (ISO 125 is more like ISO 200). LV boost makes working in low-light really easy. LCD and LV make tripod work easy. Limited AF compatibility with 4/3rds lenses. Weird, expensive remote release. Battery life decent for pure LV camera, low compared to most DSLR’s. LV blackout makes panning to follow action difficult. EVF resolution makes manual focus easy. AF quite good, face detect actually works. Chiclet buttons, B&W modes allows composition in B&W, but no contrast filters. Selectable aspect ratios are displayed in LV, quite usable, but crop down for 3:2 and 16:9. Limited RAW converter support. Olympus E-30 – OK sized, decent finder despite smallish size, flip-twist LCD, 12MP, LV. Great control layout, AF quite good (AF performance claims total BS though), 1/8000 shutter, fast (4.5fps, not claimed 5fps),good UI, B&W filters actually work very well. too many selectable aspect ratios, only usable in LV (no way to compose with them using the finder) and not applied to RAW file. Body nice-sized, well built. No sealing. In-body IS. Remote release shares USB port, fiddly to plug in, cheap. Batteries cheap and easy to find. 2x crop great for reach, but adapted lenses lose all wide. P&S’s Fujifilm Finepix 30i – small, 2.1MP, cheap, plays 128kbps MP3’s. pocketable. Decent for what it was. Nikon Coolpix P3 – small, wifi, 10MP, absolute garbage. VR next to useless, slow, awful UI, worse to work with than the much older finepix. (11 Comments |Comment on this)
Tuesday, October 6th, 2009
9:12 am	The AGO at Night More from Nuit Blanche, this time the Art Gallery of Ontario. Olympus E-30, ZD 14-54 f2.8-3.5 II, ISO 200, 8 seconds, f5.6@14mm, +0.7EV Exposure Compensation. (Comment on this)
Monday, October 5th, 2009
9:32 am	McCaul St at Night Olympus E-30, ZD 14-54 f2.8-3.5 II, ISO 200, 5 seconds, f5.6@14mm, +0.7EV Exp Comp. Nuit Blanche, the all night art extravaganza on Saturday Night here in Toronto, was mostly a bust. But it did allow me to spend several hours wandering around the downtown core taking long-exposure cityscapes without being hassled by security. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Saturday, September 26th, 2009
10:29 am	E-30, ZD 14-54 II, f2.8@14mm, ISO 1600 With the arrival of fall and its shorter days, one of my most productive times has reappeared. I rather enjoy shooting on my way to work in the early morning. Since I only work an early dayshift on weekends, I get to see a nearly empty city at this time. During the summer the light is rather boring as it’s well after dawn. But come fall and winter with the dawn and then predawn light falling during my commute, the opportunities become far more interesting. (Comment on this)
Sunday, September 20th, 2009
11:09 am	New Announcements and My Take on the State of the Market Olympus E-30, ZD 14-54 There’s been the usual spate of new announcements for September. Here’s my take on what they mean for the market. Pentax: The K-X looks like a gem and is the clear value leader in the lower-end of the market. If the K-m/K-2000 sticks around, Pentax has a very strong position in the lower-end of the market with clear leaders in size and value. The K-7 holds a unique position, delivering upper-end performance and spec in a package far smaller than any similar-performing body. Pentax needs something between the K-7 and the K-X though. Think a 2-wheel K-X in a plastic version of the K-7 body, with the K10D/K20D finder. Sony: The A850 is a gamechanger. It’s also seriously overpriced in Canada (25% higher than US list and barely less than what some stores are discounting the A900 to). The low-end stuff is junk, the largest, least comfortable cameras in class with the worst LV implementation and viewfinders that rival the low-end Oly stuff in suckitude. The new A500/A550 look interesting, they return the old A200/300/350 body to the line and aside from the mediocre viewfinder (comparable or inferior to other lower-end bodies if still much better than the A230/330/380 finders) but with A700’s available for similar money, not a compelling choice. The introduction of main sensor LV as an option is promising. The lack of any Video capability is foolish. The Invalid Operation Button is just dumb. Nikon: The D5000 is a compelling choice, the D3000 is too damned big to be a good D40/D60 replacement. D300s looks great, D700 and D3 need s versions with HD video, D3x needs a serious pricedrop to reality. Overall the Nikon lineup is probably the strongest, with competitive choices in all segments. Canon: Finally an answer to the D300, it only took 2 years. The 7D looks excellent overall. Canon’s lineup is strong, but the 50D needs an update to a 60D, really just put the T1i’s processing chain into the 50D, that will solve both its problems (excessive detail loss at high ISO, no HD video). Canon should also bring in a baby FF body, bringing back the original 5D with updated processing (think 3fps, 12MP, 3″ LCD, HD video) at the same pricepoint as the A850. For consumer stuff the T1i is excellent, the XSi pretty darned good, the XS is a total dog and should be dropped from the line, a body that badly crippled should never have been released. The 5DmII needs a pricedrop as well, it’s the least focused and most expensive of the three ~$3k FF bodies. Olympus: E-3 needs an update, really just stick the E-P1 sensor and processing chain in, update the LCD and shift the controls to match the E-30 locations, a couple extra fps to better differentiate it from the E-30 and to match the D300s/7D would be good. E-30 needs a pricedrop, the E-P1 processing chain and AA filter and limited weathersealing would be nice additions, as would a 3″ LCD. E-620 is pretty good overall, but should have video. E-520 needs a replacement or dropping. E-450 is a killer entry-level model that stacks up nicely against the Pentax K-m. Lens lineup is good, but a few primes are needed. A 14/2, an available fast 20-25, a fast 35-40 portrait lens and the 50/2 needs an update with Imager AF and the newer, high-precision focus ring encoder. Love to see the 11-22 updated with Imager AF too, ideally all the HG lenses should get it. Oly needs to add video with the next round of updates, but the E-P1 shows that is likely to happen (Unlike Sony) (Comment on this)
10:31 am	A Few Thoughts Olympus E-30, ZD 14-54 f2.8-3.5 Mostly carrying the G1 with the M.Zuiko 17/2.8 these days. It’s compact, light and the results have been pretty damned good so far. I wouldn’t mind an extra stop though, the 17 should have been f2. May have to get the Panny 20/1.7 as a replacement. It looks to be better in both build and optics anyways and that extra 1.5 stops would help. The 45 OIS Macro looks interesting, but I’m mostly set for now with the Nikkor 5cm f1.4 and CV 40/2. Verdict on the 17 is its nice and small, optical quality is good at f4, great at f5.6 and usable for low-light candids at f2.8. Don’t shoot architecture or landscapes at wide apertures with this lens. Actually if you want to do that sort of thing on a G1, use the kit zoom or a 14-54 on a MA1 adapter (large, surprisingly not unwieldy, superb results). The 17 isn’t wide enough for reliable hipshooting, I do need to frame it most of the time. A 14 would be ideal. There will be a 14/2.8 pancake next year from Panasonic. Time to save some pennies. I’m still carrying the Bessa R on occasion and the Oly E-30 is getting weekend use. I really like the 14-54, it’s a stunner of a lens. The E-30 body is competent and gets out of my way well, but doesn’t stand out in any way. I’m happy with it so far and it’s now set a record for usage courtesy of Frosh Week and the airshow. I’m up to 3800 exposures in 3 weeks (that’s about 5 months of use for the average DSLR for me, the G1’s up around 4600 after 9 months but it didn’t get a lot of use over the summer as I was mostly shooting film). Right now it seems like there’s little point in my 35mm film SLR stuff. It’s just not getting used. I’m going to stick it in storage for now. (Comment on this)
Saturday, September 12th, 2009
9:42 am	A few thoughts on the M9 Bessa R, Canon 50/1.5 LTM, APX100 So Leica has released the M9, their latest rangefinder and a significant upgrade over the M8/M8.2. It looks very good, but I can’t help but think that they missed the boat on what a digital M should be. What’s the problem with the M9? In a nutshell, the sensor and processing optimizations. The M9 gets a 35mm format 18MP sensor with absolutely stunning low ISO performance. It may well outperform the Sony A900 at base ISO, which is quite a feat. Leica appears to have optimized the M9’s sensor for low ISO performance, especially colour separation and resolution due to the use of a strong colour filter array and no Anti-Aliasing filter. Sony is the only other maker in the small format arena to use strong CFA’s, which reduce high ISO performance but improve colour accuracy and separation (Sigma sortof does, but the Foveon sensors are quite different from Bayer sensors in how they handle colour). Sigma is the only other small format maker to skip the AA filter, but their sensors don’t provide anything approaching the resolution of the M8, let alone the M9. So it’s a great sensor. The problem comes to this: Why would I want a sensor optimized for base ISO resolution and colour accuracy in an RF body? The rangefinder to me is all about quick shooting, especially in poor light where it is easier to focus than an SLR. And that needs high ISO performance, IE excellent noise handling, not massive low ISO resolution and colour. No doubt you can do some good low-light work with the M9 if you have a bag full of Summiluxen and a Noctilux. Lens speed does wonders for that. But I can’t help but think Nikon’s 12MP FF sensor would do much better in the sort of use an RF is best suited for than the Kodak 18MP sensor Leica used. Much like the S2, the M9 seems optimized for lightweight landscape use, especially for backpackers. And while that was Oskar Barnack’s original intention for what became the Leica it’s simply not what the Leica has proven best suited for. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Saturday, September 5th, 2009
11:49 am	Fat Albert Olympus E-30, ZD ED 70-300, ISO 400, 1/2000, f5.6@300mm The Blue Angel’s C-130 ‘Fat Albert” flying low over Ryerson’s Quad in downtown Toronto during a practice session for the CIAS. (Comment on this)
Saturday, August 29th, 2009
11:20 am	More on the G1 No Eyes for the Photographers G1, Canon 50/1.5 LTM, I’m over 4000 shots on the G1 and have owned it now for 8.5 months. That’s a little less shooting than average and 3 more months of ownership than average for me. My current average has been 5 months and 4000 shots per digital with the Nikon D300 (11 months, 11,000 shots) and D40 (1000 shots but the average 5 months) being the previous outliers out of 8 DSLR’s and one EVIL body. Overall I remain quite happy with the G1. It really is well suited to the way I shoot. I still need a good wide-angle solution (Man I’d love the superb but way out of my budget Panasonic 7-14/4) and it doesn’t do action as well as I’d like. But it’s small, handles very well, is extremely easy to focus and for the most part produces excellent output which prints nicely to 12×16. What I’d like to see from the notional G2/GH2 is: 1. Less post-shot EVF lag. The LV feed needs to reset much quicker. Like 150ms or less instead of 0.3-0.5s. This would make the G1 a much better action camera. 2. More configuration options. The paucity of customizability of the G1 is very Canon-like. I want something closer to Nikon or Pentax’s level of configurability. Especially with regards to assignable buttons like the Fn button. 3. Better high ISO. At least as good as the E-P1 please. 4. AF with all 4/3rds lenses like the E-P1. Keep the ultra-fast Imager AF, but a lower-performance limp mode for lenses which don’t support Imager AF would be nice. 5. Must be available Body Only. I do not want to end up with a bag full of kit lenses when I eventually upgrade since I’ll likely keep the G1 or pass it on to Torfindra as she’s already called dibs on it. This has been one of Panasonic’s biggest weaknesses to date and one major reason why their 4/3rds offerings failed (aside from the fact the L10 was a cut-down E-510 for more money). (Comment on this)
Friday, August 28th, 2009
9:58 am	And Blue Sky Blue Sky and the Sheraton Hotel in downtown Toronto 645 Super, 80/1.9C, Portra 160VC (Comment on this)
Thursday, August 27th, 2009
10:56 am	On Medium Format Mamiya 645 Super, 55mm f2.8 N, Portra 160 VC. Wide open and minimum focus distance. The shot above shows one of the main reasons I love Medium Format, the ability to control DoF when needed even with wide angles. In general, Medium Format is my favourite format to work with. I like the aspect ratio’s better than 35mm’s too-wide 3:2, the large negs offer a lot of quality and are easy to work with where 35mm can be quite fiddly and large format is too floppy and also fiddly to work with. I like the control over DoF you can achieve at even moderate apertures as well as the fact you can still stop down and get deep DoF without having to use movements or go to somewhat ridiculous apertures (f64?). I’m also quite fond of the ‘lego camera’ type system cameras where you can swap winders, finders and backs as desired. It means you need less actual cameras to cover everything from all-manual to all automatic and multiple film types. You can do that with a single camera and the appropriate accessories. The only real disadvantages of MF for me are size/weight and loudness. The system SLR’s are larger and heavier than I really prefer (think D3/1D sizes and weights) and particularly with the winder in use, quite loud. I’d like a MF rangefinder to complement my 645 SLR as a carry camera but they’re on the expensive side and lenses are slow (f4 or slower typically). A folder would be nice as well, but once again the sole modern example is not cheap. If I was really comfortable with a larger camera I doubt I’d shoot with anything other than a 645 SLR (and if I did, it would probably be a 67 or 6×6) (8 Comments |Comment on this)
Tuesday, August 25th, 2009
10:51 am	The Rangefinder Experience – Encore Bessa R, Canon 50/1.5 LTM, Agfa APX100 I’ve now had the Bessa R for more than a month, put more than 15 rolls through it, have started to put some serious wear marks on the camera and am enjoying the experience immensely. The shot above is from a borrowed Canon 50/1.5 LTM. It’s a superb clone of Zeiss’s original 50mm f1.5 Sonnar with only one real weakness, a 3.5′ minimum focus distance. I shot a fair bit with this lens and quite enjoyed it. And I would have bought myself one if it hadn’t been for Nikon’s 5cm f1.4 LTM Sonnar-clone. A very similar design to the Canon, but it focused coupled to 1m and uncoupled to 0.45m making it a better combo for the G1 in addition to being a bit better for close focusing on the R. Rangefinders seem to work very well for me. They’re biased towards the normal/wide lenses I prefer, have nice big and bright viewfinders, are well oriented for low-light work due to the lack of mirror slap and generally come in the manual/mechanical guise I prefer. I really should have bought into the RF world a couple years ago when I first considered it. It probably would have saved me quite a bit of money. As it is, with my current setup (entirely funded by selling off other kit) I’m mostly satisfied. I do need to get a CV 15 at some point, I miss the borrowed one I had already. A 75 and maybe a 21 would be nice ways to round out the kit. I don’t really see a need to fill all the gaps though, I seem to be more comfortable carrying only 2 lenses with the Bessa R than I am with an SLR. The other oddity is that I’m much more comfortable with slow film than I am when shooting with an SLR. I always get a little concerned with film under ISO 400 with an SLR, but I’ve been happily shooting ISO 50-100 film in the Bessa. In fact I chewed through all of the Silvertone(APX) 100 I’ve had sitting in my fridge for over a year. I had 10 rolls I barely touched for a year, but over the last month and a half all the leftovers got shot. As to the Bessa R itself, I’m generally quite happy with it. The finish is a little fragile, I’ve actually put some quite noticeable wear marks on it around the strap lugs and rewind knob. The viewfinder is excellent, which was my main beef with the Canonets I had in the past. The frameline selection(35/50/75/90) is good, but I need a 28 finder, right now I’m using it with the 35 lines and assuming padding. The only things I’d really like are a handgrip (Can order from Cameraquest), shutter lock, ratcheted wind-lever and to ditch the self-timer. I do kinda wish that Voigtlander wasn’t abandoning the LTM market for M mount though. New LTM lenses are getting rare for the first time in a decade. (Comment on this)
Monday, August 24th, 2009
10:38 am	Takeoff Mamiya M645, 80/2.8 C, E100GX Air Ambulance taking of from St. Joseph’s Health Centre in Sudbury, ON. This shot is from a week I spent in Sudbury shooting with nothing but a old Mamiya M645 and two lenses, a 55mm f2.8 and an 80mm f2.8. It proved to be one of the most rewarding shooting experiences I’ve had, but also one of the most frustrating. Working with the unmetered M645 body, mostly on a tripod, slowed me down and allowed me to concentrate purely on composition. This lead me to bring back a much higher amount of keepers than my usual 10%. Ironically, the shot above was one of the few handheld shots I took all week. The frustrating part came from getting back to Toronto and discovering that light leaks in my M645 had lead to around 40% of my shots being unusable. It also reminds me that I should spend more time working with my medium format kit, especially my 645 Super (the body which replaced that M645). (Comment on this)
Wednesday, August 19th, 2009
11:42 am	Oh, the Difference RAW Software Choice Makes Sony A900, Sony 50/1.4, f1.7 and ISO 6400 The Sony A900 has a somewhat deserved reputation for being noisy, with shadow noise starting around ISO 400 and quite visible noise in the entire image by ISO 1600. Which is true, unless you’ve chosen CaptureOne as your processing software. CaptureOne does an excellent job of ridding the A900 RAW files of noise, making even ISO 6400 usable. This is why picking the right RAW Converter is so important if you want the best results from your digital camera. The RAW Converter is at least as important as the camera in the Image Quality equation. Most people simply stick to a known software package for all their cameras, often either ACR in Photoshop or Aperture or Lightroom. The Adobe products do good jobs, especially with Pentax files (In fact they are the best choice for Pentax shooters) but there are usually better options for users of other systems. Olympus and Sony shooters in particular should look elsewhere as the ACR engine robs their cameras of detail resolution and high ISO performance. I personally own 3 different aftermarket RAW converters. ACR/Photoshop, CaptureOne and Nikon’s CaptureNX. I’ve also got a copy of SilkyPix LE in a box somewhere as it came with the G1. As a general rule I process Nikon stuff in CaptureNX if possible (My copy doesn’t support the newest Nikon’s, should I happen to get to try them), Pentax, Panasonic and Canon stuff in ACR although I’m not 100% happy with ACR’s performance with the G1 files and Sony and Olympus stuff in CaptureOne. Right now I’m experimenting with CaptureOne’s DNG support and the G1 files but I’m running into some technical difficulties (COne doesn’t seem to want to properly apply the chosen sharpening). (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Sunday, August 16th, 2009
9:05 am	Hot & Fresh Pentax ZX-m, SMC-M 28/2.8, Provia 100F Fresh pizza and new condo construction on St Clair West. This was shot on one of my semi-epic photowalks, where I’ll walk 8-10km and shoot several rolls of film in the course of an afternoon. I get some of my best photographs this way, just wandering around the city with a camera. (Comment on this)
Friday, August 14th, 2009
11:01 am	Lettieri 645 Super, 80/2.8 C, Kodak 320TXP The corner of Queen and Spadina. And I really need to take the 645 Super out more. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Saturday, August 8th, 2009
11:11 am	On Considering a New Camera or the Importance of the System Bessa R, Canon 50mm f1.5 LTM, Ilford PanF+ I’ve decided that for various reasons I do need a DSLR in addition to the G1. Primarily due to the occasional need for something which handles action better than the G1 does (While I love it, it’s NOT an action camera). Thus I’ve settled on a basic spec needed. The camera must do at least 4fps, meter with manual lenses (Sorry D90), have a pentaprism finder, a buffer at least 10 RAW frames deep, have in-body IS (sorry to the rest of the Nikon’s and all Canon’s) and do at least ISO 3200. Live view is not necessary but would be a bonus, ditto weather sealing. Size and weight must be under the D300 (Which has already been established as ‘too much camera to carry’). Cost is preferably under $1000 for the body. And Lenses should preferably be usable on the G1. Based on these requirements, there’s really 3 options. The Sony A700, the Pentax K-7 and the Olympus E-30 (the E-3 is D300 sized). The A700 is a camera I’ve long loved. The ergonomics are about perfect. It’s the cheapest of the three. It is also the largest (a disadvantage), has very limited manual lens support (M42 or mount-converted lenses only) and the IS defaults to 50mm unless a chipped adapter is used. Also my flashes are unusable on it. The big problem here is lens lineup. There’s few small primes. Zooms are good but all the gems are both big & heavy and FF oriented. None are interesting for use on the G1. And it needs the ~$300 Novoflex adapter. And ACR, my default RAW converter of choice, does not play well with it. The Pentax K-7 is far and away the most expensive of the three. It’s also the smallest by a large margin (At about the same size as an Oly E-520) and the most capable (weather-sealed, HD video, Live View). The DA Limiteds are small, well chosen and interesting for use on the G1 (With another damned $300 Novoflex adapter). The Zeiss ZK line is also available in K mount (yummy f2 Makro-Planars’s) and Leitax mount conversions are also available a la Sony A mount. The Olympus E-30 is in many ways the least camera of the three. No ISO 6400, crappy 230k LCD (at least it’s flip-twist, the E-30’s sole spec advantage) worst VF, few interesting primes in the system, 2x crop factor removing the wide from adapted wides and the fact ACR also plays badly with it. But it’s advantages are also there in my preferred 4:3 aspect ratio, the ability to adapt most anything (including essentially every lens I own outside of the RF and m43 lenses) and the biggest kicker, essentially full compatibility between its lenses and the G1 via the DMW-MA1 adapter I already own. And of course it’s only marginally more expensive than the A700 and I can get used BLM1 batteries for ridiculously low cost. The availability of Olympus’s reasonably good 70-300 and the 2x crop factor making it a viable airshow lens is just gravy. And of course while I’m not a zoom guy, Zuiko Digital zooms are generally world-beating for IQ. Really, if I was just buying a DSLR, the K-7 would be king. The size, handling and lens lineup play right into my preferences. But for playing second fiddle to the G1 I can’t help but think the E-30, which I like the least of the three bodies, is the best choice overall from a system perspective. It helps that of the three lenses I’d want for it (70-300, 14-54 II, 9-18) one is one I distinctly want for the G1 (9-18) and both of the others could be considered interesting on the G1 (the 14-54 for the f2.8-3.5 max aperture, the 70-300 for the 1:2 max magnification). (4 Comments |Comment on this)