Stock Photos

Street © Ingo Petzny

Submit your image for posting on this page and the galleries Submit a public comment about anything I've written on this site - these messages will be posted as Reader's Comments on this page Send me a general comment about this website

What's New

September 2, 2010 - Well, I'm back to using the MacBook to update the websites again. Let me tell ya why:

I saw that Windows 7 now has the ability to create a mirror of the system drive, as well as other drives in the PC. I thought, well, perfect and quite nice that mirroring is built into the OS, in addition to the usual Windows backup utility. I'm not sure if Vista has this mirroring ability and obviously, I never used it if Vista does offer it.

When I was setting up the mirroring, I noticed that Windows 7 highlighted two of my four internal hard drives, the usual OS drive and a data drive. For some reason, Windows 7 tagged a data drive as a system drive and system drives are mandatory selections for mirroring. I couldn't understand why a data-only drive would be tagged as a system drive and doing so meant having to use a large capacity external drive for mirroring both drives.

With the data drive tagged as a system drive, there are not many options for me to deal with it using Windows 7's admin tools - or at least none that I'm that knowledgeable about. I had the bright idea of disconnecting the data drive inside my PC to see if that would allow me to just mirror the OS drive. Bad mistake.

The reason why the data drive got tagged as system drive is that Windows 7 copied the boot manager files and instructions onto that drive. Why it did so is beyond me, because logically, the boot manager files belong on the OS drive. Researching the matter, it seems that missing boot managers is most common when users are trying to setup multi-boot systems. In these situations, even though Windows 7 may be installed on its own drive, it will find older OS installs, such as Vista or XP, and overwrite those boot manager files instead of keeping its boot manager files with itself on its own drive or partition. Seems pretty stupid to me and is another one of those cursed illogical things by Microsoft.

However, in my install, I have no older OSs kicking around and no partitions either, just four discrete hard drives used for different purposes of OS, scratch and data. When I disconnected the data/system drive, I got a missing boot manager message. Trying to do a repair via the Windows 7 install disk got me nowhere, because no OS install was recognized.

No, it couldn't be a standard, run-of-the-mill, missing boot manager problem for me; I mean, why make life so boring. It appears that not only is the boot manager missing from my C drive, so is any information about the drives and partitions. Somewhere along the way of trying to figure what was wrong and trying to fix it, I got it to such a state that even reconnecting the data/system drive leaves me with still a virtually dead computer that cannot boot up, because the hard drives are no longer recognized properly. But, honestly, my attempted repairs dealt only with the boot manager repair and none of those repairs took, so I don't think my actions are the cause.

The only solution now is to re-install the OS and rebuild the system. Inconvenient and time consuming, but not all that big of a deal since all my data is secure on separate drives and backed up.

The moral, if you haven't figured it out, is backup, backup and backup and don't go trying to fix something that didn't need fixing in the first place. If I had just pulled out a spare large capacity drive and done the mirroring first, I could have rebuilt the system with the mirror instead of having to reinstall everything again.

As it is, I'm thinking of using this opportunity to install a couple of SSDs in the PC to extract some more performance from the old box. I know that I wrote previously that I didn't think it worthwhile to do this, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that the desired Mac Pro is a long ways off, so I may as well throw some lipstick on that old PC hog.

The SSDs that I'm considering are from OCZ's Agility 2 line, which seem reasonably priced, as far as SSDs go and come in 3.5 inch flavours, so that you can install directly inside the PC instead of having to use a 2.5 to 3.5 inch mounting adapter. The 3.5 inch versions are also a bit cheaper than the 2.5 inch versions - go figure.

The OCZs use the highly regarded Sandforce controller and support TRIM, which is needed to ensure that SSDs do not eventually degrade in performance due to the way SSDs read and write data compared to traditional HDDs.

As of this writing Intel and OCZ SSDs are considered the best performing, so I'm looking at a 120 or 180 GB unit for the OS and apps and a smaller capacity drive for the scratch disk. More to come when this all comes to past and I'll be sure to only have the one drive connected when I do the install so that there is not a repeat of the boot manager fiasco - my previous install, I left all four drives connected.

August 31, 2010 - Canon has developed the largest CMOS sensor in the world, measuring in at an almost square 8x8 inches (7.95x8.07). Wow! That's large format size and, if he were alive today, I could imagine Ansel Adams (or any other large format photographer) drooling over the prospects of what such a sensor could capture.

The low light capabilities of the Nikon D3S have finally been surpassed by Canon with this 8x8 inch sensor, however, no word yet on the cost. I wouldn't be holding my breath on this one, but I'd imagine the US military will be very, very interested. Actually, the US military and intelligence community probably have had such a sensor for over a decade now. The way I understand it, military and intelligence secrets are about one to two decades ahead of the civilian community.

This mega sensor follows on the heels of Canon's earlier announcement of a 120 MP DX sized sensor capable of 9.5 fps! Yowsa! Nice speed, but of the computing horsepower needed to process those files, or for that matter, of the 8x8 inch files - yes, that's my Apple SuperMacPro that's essentially a portable Cray supercomputer.

Olympus has come out with a new 75-300mm lens, which is now the most compact way to obtain 600mm equivalent coverage for any format. I'd be very interested for my Panasonic M4/3 cameras except for one little problem, there does not appear to be any lens stabilization. This makes sense because Olympus has traditionally favoured in-camera stablization, whereas Panasonic favours in-lens OIS. Then again, with such a long reach, tripod uses seems mandatory especially with a f6.7 aperture at 600mm.

Reader's comment about Telus service:

I did the Telus TV thing a few years back and was fighting the exact same thing you are now seeing for well over two and a half *years* before I finally got pissed off enough to move to Shaw.

In my case the issue was bandwidth related and the fix they wanted me to use was to turn off one of the TV's when I wanted to use the web. The other option that came up with was to hang a second modem on a line dedicated to the internet service. That was something they wanted to have me sign a two year contract before they would put that in place to resolve the issue.

Obviously I have a problem with signing on for an additional two years when they where not able to provide the services for the two and a half years prior.

In the end though it was not the technical issues that really made me mad, it was the way that thier customer service people handled the issue, quite frankly their employees where so rude about things that I not only cancled the TV and internet service, but four cell phones, internet service at my parents home, as well as two home phones as soon as I possibly could.

Good luck with getting out of the contact, I would give them grief every time that the services so much as burp. Who knows, they might kill the contract because it's costing them more than it's worth to handle your calls.

I think I will have to create a log or diary of service disruptions and the number of times a hard reset is needed to restore any service. Ultimately, I may just calculate out what the cancellation fee is and cut my losses and switch over to Shaw sooner, but I'm not quite there yet that I can stomach paying out hundreds of dollars to the f'ing company for nothing.

As I type this out now, I can see by the network indicator that the wireless network is down again. This followed by the lack of access to a channel that I subscribe to for my parents - this one is service related instead of hardware related and is just another stupid, "inside" joke for my parents who are equally as disgusted by the Telus service.

I'm a bit surprised that there have not been more complaints found online, as my search for any fixes to my issues didn't find much.

August 30, 2010 - Last week, Intel announced a warning that it would not meet its quarterly earnings forecast. It appears that Intel dropped the ball on mobile usage and is being hammered for being too dependent on desktop sales. Intel recently bought McAfee, the anti virus company, but this is apparently a push by Intel to get into the mobile market, which requires some specialized security features.

It's an interesting story to me, because while I certainly appreciate the qualities of my MacBook Pro and iPad (and wouldn't want to give up either), I would really hate to have to only use them for my photo-related productivity. While mobile devices are getting more powerful every year, desktop computers aren't remaining static and their performance continues to provide a noticeable improvement over even very powerful notebook computers.

At a consumer level, I think the mobile devices are at the point where a photographer with the typical 12 MP camera (FX, DX, M4/3, etc.) will do quite fine. If we're talking the best of the notebooks, maybe even more than fine for processing and editing RAW files. However, I, and I'm sure many of you reading this, like to use cameras offering well above 12 MP. We're using cameras offering from 18 to 24 MP and for some of you lucky enough to use medium format backs, you've got resolution from 39 to 60 MP. That's a significant amount of data to push through a computer's processor and really, do you think the megapixel wars are over? No, I didn't think so. We'll soon see where Canon's going to lead the industry with its next version of the flagship 1Ds, which in turn should drive the prosumer 5D series (28 to 32 MP, as rumoured).

My desktop PC was built in the heyday of the 12 MP era and it ran very nicely when rendering those RAW files, but ever since I got my hands on the Canon 5D2, it ain't had as easy of a time with those 21 MP files.

For those of us (rightly or wrongly) chasing MPs, each generation of SLRs pushes the need to upgrade our computers. Plus, as you'll find out below, there's another reason why I desire/need a powerful desktop computer...

If you’ve followed my musings and goings on for a while, you likely know that I have long coveted the medium format sized film scanners made by Nikon (the Super CoolScan 8000 and 9000). Unfortunately, these highly regarded scanners don’t come cheap with the current 9000 costing around CAD $2700 – that’s if you can find one. Add to that princely sum is a near-mandatory need for the glass film holder to keep the 120 size film flat, which will set you back another $300 or so. Throw in the taxes and you’re talking about a scanner that will weigh in around $3400.

Over the years, I’ve had this kind of money available now and again, but when it came time to make the decision, I always chose to spend the money on something else instead. Something else of a higher priority or a greater need or desire than what would be a limited use film scanner.

Nikon is also a factor in me not wanting spend that kind of money on a 9000. When the 9000 was very popular and sought after, Nikon could not keep up with demand, so availability has always been an issue and I don’t think Nikon has done anything to update the NikonScan software or drivers to work with new operating systems. Users have had to come up with their workarounds to use the scanners with 64-bit operating systems, which is simply inexcusable and seems to point to Nikon being unable to keep current.

With Nikon’s lacklustre support and with high resolution D-SLRs available for less than the CoolScan 9000 (Canon 5D2 and Sony A850 are both in the CAD $2500 range), there’s been a lot less incentive to try and save up for a 9000. However, every so often, I look at my cabinet packed with all the Bronica medium format gear and just shake my head at the waste of so much good gear going unused.

What ultimately turned it around for me to dust off the old Bronisaurs, is the discovery that Lens and Shutter, a local photo store chain, has opened up a store in downtown Vancouver, very close by to where I work. Lens and Shutter is owned by the same people who operate Customcolor, a local pro lab.

I can drop off rolls of film at Lens and Shutter, which will be delivered to Customcolor for processing and then delivered back to the Lens and Shutter store for pickup. Very convenient for the lazy photographer in me who has little desire in driving into Vancouver from the burbs to get film processed at one of the pro labs. I’m not sure what that says about my dedication as a photographer…

With the film processing side taken care of, I could finally start thinking about the post processing aspect of how to digitize the film without robbing the bank. With the Nikon 9000 just too expensive to warrant serious consideration, there was only one real choice left, an Epson flatbed scanner. Two models cater to the higher end of film scanning and in another fit of budget-conscious decision-making, I opted for the V700 model at around CAD $600 instead of the CAD $950 V750 model.

The V700 is getting on in years and now that I’ve bought one, I expect Mr. Murphy to show up soon advising me that Epson has replaced it with a superior model. But, then again, maybe not. It’s not 2006 anymore and the market for film scanners is dwindling year by year. This is likely why Nikon seems in no hurry to provide modern day support for the 9000 and why the smaller 35mm scanners are no longer available. Minolta used to make some nice film scanners too and at least provided Nikon with some competition, but we all know what’s happened to Minolta. Minolta’s last medium format film scanner was a sweet unit, but it seems like a folly to buy something used (at a premium price) and no longer supported. Epson has kept up with all the changes to PC and Mac operating systems and I can download drivers for the V700 to run with Windows 7 or Snow Leopard on the Mac.

This will be another of these on again, off again reviews, where I post comments about using the V700 as they happen rather than bang out a large review all at once. To tie this post with the computer-related one above it, the V700 offers an optical scanning resolution of 4800 ppi, which means that even with a sloppy crop factor of 2-inches for 2 1/4 inch medium format film, file sizes could be north of 250 MB each at an 8-bit depth. Expand the bit depth to 16 and we're talking about some huge, honking files to edit. 8 GB of RAM is starting to sound limiting...

Telus Sucks!

This post will only be of interest to local readers. You may recall a post I made a week ago about switching internet service providers from Shaw to Telus recently. My switch also included switching my telephone and television service from Shaw to Telus too.

Telus has rebranded its television service to Optik TV and is making a very aggressive splash with lots of discounts and promotions to snag users away from Shaw cable and Bell Satellite TV (ironically, Telus offers satellite TV also, but it's simply rebranded Bell satellite service - same equipment and same channels).

The big discounts available the first year is what lured me away from Shaw to Telus, as I could save around 50% of the cost on the monthly charges. With Telus offering ten HD channels with the basic cable package, it also seemed like a convenient and cost effective way to get HD without having to spend big bucks buying Shaw set top boxes and ordering higher cost HD service.

It seemed like I couldn't lose, so why wouldn't I switch to Telus and support a local company to boot? Well, if I could I'd give Telus the big boot and switch back to Shaw, because my experience thus far indicates that Telus' Optik TV and internet service is not quite ready for primetime.

Over the years I've used Shaw, there has been the occasional freeze and disruption of service, but in five years, I think the number of disruptions can be counted on one hand. In one week, the number of disruptions with Telus surpasses what I can count on one hand.

The TV service will freeze up regularly, which requires a hard reset of the Telus combo modem/router box in order to get the service back again, because the TV is piped via the internet line. The combo box (made by D-Link) is also a wireless router, so every time the box is reset, internet access is disrupted for everyone on the network. The wireless network also drops out regularly, independent of the TV service, requiring a hard reset in order to get the wireless network up again, which of course interrupts the TV service. Wireless signal strength is weak and computers that had no problems connecting to my old Linksys router, have problems connecting to the Telus router, even though the Telus router is positioned closer than where the Linksys was.

It's been a pain in the ass living with this so-called "improved" Telus service. I'm not knowledgeable enough to point the finger at the service itself or the hardware (the D-Link router), but whatever is the root cause, it's unmitigated shit.

Also, because the TV is piped in via the internet, when someone is watching TV, my internet connection slows to a crawl. Shaw often gets a bad rap and rep for using its cable pipe to feed in TV and internet access - the rap being that because Shaw's feed is shared on a neighbourhood-wide basis, the more people watching TV in the area, the slower the internet connection is for everyone, requiring Shaw to amp up the signal or some such technical voodoo.

Telus used to (still does?) trumpet that with its ADSL internet service, each user has his/her own dedicated line and thus could enjoy potentially faster access than Shaw users during peak access times...except if you use Telus TV service. The Telus internet speed goes down the toilet when the TV is on, probably even worse if an HD channel is on. It's pathetic and a misrepresentation to suggest that Telus ADSL internet service is better than Shaw's cable internet access. Even during peak times, Shaw has been superior in speed than Telus at non-peak times. The only way to get any decent speed from Telus is to be hardwired to the router, which doesn't work for us since the Telus box is located in a service closet on the main floor and our computers are either upstairs or in the basement.

As I said, if I could dump Telus, I would, but I'm stuck on a 2-year contract for the TV service and I can't dump the telephone and/or internet service either, because of the bundle discount. If I drop the service before the 2-year period, I'll get dinged with substantial cancellation fees from Telus. In order words, they got me by the short and curlies (Shaw does not stipulate contracts of any sort for any service). My only hope is that within the 2-year period, Telus will improve its service and get better hardware for its users.

Thus, for any local readers thinking about switching over to Telus, because of the aggressive pricing and marketing, don't until there is clear indication that Telus has really improved its service. Right now, the service is such that I'm not even bothering to get a Telus-based email account, because the way things are going, I'm looking forward to July 2012, when my 2-year contract will be up.

August 27, 2010 - Reader's comments:

According to Rob Galbraith's site, the two Canon EF superteles that are in development (the 500mm II and 600mm II) are actually due during the 2011 calendar year (as opposed to Photokina). Mr. Galbraith's site appears to be on top of the info, while some other sites weren't as specific regarding the timeframe during which the two lenses are due to go into production. He states that prototypes will be shown at Photokina, and that the lenses will go into production and be put on sale during 2011.

Not only has Canon seemed to shave considerable weight from the 300mm and 400mm (both of which are due to go on sale soon); the minimum focusing distances have also been shortened appreciably; the lenses focus much closer than the older versions, and even Nikon's fairly new lenses. This is one design feature Canon seems to be pushing heavily lately, and if optical quality over the entire focusing range can be maintained at a high level on these lenses, it will be a great advantage for photographers using them if action strays very close to the camera lens.

Finally, the prices seem quite high. So much for Canon's price advantage on lenses...it's out the window now.

Regarding the electronic viewfinder and pellicle mirror combo in the new Sony "SLT" cameras: I too found this fascinating, and I had many of the same comments, questions, and wow-moments as you. Neither did I know the tidbit about predictive AF (which Sony seems to be playing up on).

After reading Michael Reichmann's preliminary field preview of one of the two Sony models, a question popped into my head. Reichmann, being an astute observer with long-time experience with photography, still cameras, and video cameras, asked a Sony engineer a great question: will they make a version of the SLT camera with an optical viewfinder later on?

Immediately, I thought of a daydream I had about four years ago: an SLR with a hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder. Imagine being able to utilize a future pro SLR (Nikon D6 or Canon EOS-1 series) camera at 20 fps or 1/1000th second in EVF mode with the mirror locked up, or in traditional optical finder mode for traditional shooting and viewing! I remember seeing a patent by one of the camera companies on photorumors.com several months ago for one early rendition of this very technology.

While implementing such a technology will likely take a long time to perfect due to the requisite advances in nano-scale opto-electronic overlays, I think we have already started down that very path with the black liquid polymer overlays in current cameras. I very much would welcome a hybrid system like this. Imagine being able to use the optical finder, but with a rangefinder spot superimposed for focusing at night...this is only one of the many renditions possible if said technology becomes a reality one day.

One thing is for certain: there are going to be many different optical/EVF/mirror/liveview system renditions popping up in the near future. So far, what we've seen is only a hint of several early renditions. Just like with SLRs, TLRs, bridge camera finders, real-image finders, rangefinders, etc in the past...there could be a ton of variations of the electronic/optical hybrid finder if it pans out. There are clearly are enough benefits of the electronic method (shooting speed, video, flash sync), but still enough benefits of the optical method (less eyestrain and better dark adaption being a prime consideration form an anatomical point of view...not to mention many sensors simply give better imaging results when a mechanical shutter is used.

Yes, I was being a bit lazy in writing about the new Canon lenses and that only prototypes would be shown at Photokina. It's one of those things where you know what the situation is, but you end up being lazy about the details.

Those big super telephotos are Canon's bread and butter in the pro ranks. We all know that Canon gets tons of free marketing whenever you see a gaggle of pros on the sidelines using those distinctive white lenses.

Preannouncing the development of new versions also gets the FUD factor into the minds of some pros that may have contemplated switching over to Nikon to get the quality of the D3S. At this point, I'm not sure who has leapfrogged who, but I think Canon had to do the updates to catch up to Nikon, which introduced Mk II versions of its AFS/VR super telephoto lenses in the last couple of years.

The way things are going with EVFs, frame rates and the now standard ability to record HD video, one has to wonder if convergence might still be the way things are going to trend towards. I thought that convergence had been pummelled and left to bleed in the gutter when Panasonic and Sony announced video cameras with M4/3 and DX sized sensors.

The SLR form factor is a kludge for recording video and for serious production work, you need a serious amount of accessories to put lipstick on the SLR pigs. With dedicated, large sensor video cameras that won't break the bank, it seemed that serious film makers wouldn't have to compromise with SLRs. However, I'm still imagining a hybrid camera that can do ultra high def video recording from which you can extract very high quality still frames from the stream.

Such a camera would be another nail in the coffin of developing skills and vision for still photography, because all one has to do is pluck the "right" shot from the video as opposed to developing a sense of timing and anticipation needed by the best pros.

Interesting times indeed, but I think we're at least 5 years away from a truly revolutionary breakthrough in the way we capture images. Even the much heralded products from RED, when going beyond the glitz and looked at the basics of what it offers, is not that much beyond what we already have, as it is just a different way of presentation.

Nikon F4s comments continued

If this F4 post seems to be about the negatives, it's on purpose to get it out of the way before I move onto other aspects of the camera. Not that these will be the only negative aspects to discuss, as I learn more about the F4 after actual usage.

The F4 is often described as being built like a brick outhouse. With such a reputation, I expected the F4 to be crafted out of a solid block of unobtanium, so is it me and my poor eyesight or does the F4 really have a lot of plastic used for its outer shell? While I did own and use a similarly constructed F90x for a couple of years before moving on up, I tend to think of the F100 as my coming of age camera. It's the 35mm SLR that I owned the longest and used most often and it spoiled me for what I expect for camera construction, e.g. metal build.

It's not to say that the F4 is not a durable SLR, because certainly, others much more rougher than I have used the F4 in very challenging environments. And, There has to be a reason why the F4 has the reputation that it has regardless of the amount of plastic used and surely, that plastic must be cosmetic with an appropriate amount of metal for the under-chassis. I'm not disappointed so much as I'm surprised that the F4 is not more like the F5/F100 for build.

Handling the F4 with the MB-21 offers another nitpick in that I find the grip to be a bit cramped for my right hand. Looking at how big the F4 is and how the MB21 fits, I can see that the F4 sans MB21 would be plenty large enough for my right hand to grip the camera comfortably. However, with the MB21 attached, the contour of the MB21's vertical grip is what causes the bit of cramping for my right hand's pinkie finger. No such cramping noted from my recollection of how the F5 felt in my hand, or the F100 with the MB15 grip, or from the F5-inspired D2X (or any of the D-SLRs and grips I've owned and/or used over the years).

I recall reading an F5 review that complained about this groundbreaking SLR having too many locks, which can interfere with quick mode changes. Never thought much about it since I used the F100, which did not have as many locks to change dial settings. Even with the D2X, I can only see two obvious locks for the shooting mode dial on the top left of the camera (to select S, CL, CH or self-timer) and to release the memory card door. However, handling the F4s was a discovery in just how many functions Nikon's engineers to could lock down.

The rationale must have been that pros are so focused on taking photos that they don't want their settings to change by accident, but I can see how all those locks would have frustrated me back in my wedding photography days when the F100 was my key camera.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that a camera like the F4 (and F5 for that matter) would not have been the best choice for the way I photographed weddings. There's the obvious pressure to be ready to take key photos, so much so that if nearing an end of a roll of film, best to rewind it and load in a fresh roll if you know you're getting near a critical part of the ceremony. Last thing you want happening is to be stuck having to rewind a roll of film when the groom is kissing the bride, which is why using two cameras simultaneously was key in the film days (as is having a second photographer with his or her own dual camera kit).

The manual film rewind feature is intriguing from a theoretical fail-safe perspective, but it's another one of those locked way functions that would have killed me in a real wedding situation where rewinding film is an eternity. The more I think about how I photographed weddings with the film, the more I wonder how I ever did it without the digital conveniences of being able to photograph hundreds of images on a single card, or being able to immediately verify that you got the shot. But, I also have to remember how easy postproduction was with proof prints than it is with editing hundreds or thousands of digital images. Give and take.

Based on the serial number of my camera, I estimate that it's a very late model, circa 1995. A reader tipped me off for some clues to tell if it is a late model version; the flash hotshoe mount has the locking pin hole and the right hand grip has a slight contour for the middle finger to rest on. So, my F4s should be no more than 15 years old and thus I don't have as much concern if the camera was from an earlier age, e.g. circa 1988. If it was, I'd probably hightail it to a camera repair shop for a CLA.

There are some dirt/dust specs inside the viewfinder, which Jimmy Koh disclosed to me prior to the sale. Jimmy suggested that a cleaning might cost about $60 and if he could have, he would have cleaned it himself, but he advised me that he didn't dare due to the intricacy of the viewfinder's design. When I received it, I checked out the viewfinder and I think I can live with the small bits of dirt.

The viewfinder came with a rubber eyecup, which is a nice little bonus and means I don't have to spend the extra $20 or whatever it costs, to buy one. I love rubber eyecups and have used one on the F100 and D2X. I also used an accessory eyecup with the D100 and D200, but this eyecup is easily lost because it does not screw on like the SLRs with the round viewfinder (I think I've lost two of them over the years).

My F4s also came with a Domke shoulder strap, which is another nice bonus and maybe indicates that the previous owner was a PJ, since Domke was very popular with the older generation of pros.

August 26, 2010 - Fun times: Canon announces the 60D (a bit later than I expected given so many negative reviews of the 50D, especially compared to the much-praised 40D) along with six new lenses (two in development for formal introduction at Photokina).

The super telephoto primes are merely updates or refreshes of current designs, but there is a very intriguing 8-15mm fisheye zoom lens, reminiscent of Tokina's 10-17mm fisheye zoom lens.

There is also a L version of the 70-300 variable aperture zoom lens, a design that is usually considered consumer grade, so it will be interesting to see what Canon can offer to justify the L designation.

Now, let the angst-filled Nikon community natter and chatter away and threaten to switch because there's no D90/D300/D700 replacement - everyone seems to expect a D90 replacement announced next month.

Interestingly, no sooner than did I praise Canon for keeping the x0D series consistent as a system, did Canon change the 60D so that it is now a different camera than its numerical predecessors. The body is slightly smaller than the 50D and the construction is now much more plastic. A different body design means a new battery grip, so Canon breaks with design tradition. Also gone is the CF card in favour of the smaller and consumer SD card.

I can see why Canon "degraded" the 60D in light of the 7D, but it's too bad to see a good prosumer line become decidedly more consumer.

The new Sony A55 SLR is getting a lot of press. I don't usually pay too much attention to Sony's DX format SLRs, but it was too coincidental that every major review site had reviews immediately available after the embargo lifted. So, I checked out what the fuss is about and came away intrigued.

The A55 points the way towards where I think SLR development is headed. Optical viewfinders, while still desirable, will increasingly become a burden for designers wanting to move camera design forward. As EVFs get better and better, we are going to see them eventually be used in prosumer and pro models; someone just had to make the bold move forward and that someone is Sony with the A55. You could say that Panasonic was actually first with the G1, but it's M4/3 format and not a true SLR design, whereas the A55 is the first of the traditional SLRs to use an EVF.

The pellicle mirror is also an interesting choice, but I like what it has to offer the action photographer, or even for trying to chase and keep up with your kids in the playground. I never knew before that the mirror flapping up and down is the reason why we have to have "predictive auto focus" and that there really is no such thing as "continuous auto focus" from a traditional SLR. There's no time with the mirror moving up and down at 6-9 fps for the camera to be able to continuosly track a moving subject. However, with a pellicle mirror design with no moving mirror, the camera can now do real continuous tracking of a moving subject. Fascinating stuff if you're into geekiness.

Put the EVF together with the pellicle mirror and you have a consumer-priced SLR capable of shooting at 10 fps - seriously! Man, let's put these features into an FX SLR with state of the art focusing modules and see what kind of action we can capture.

The A55 is what I would have expected from Canon, but it's Sony making the big splash with a newer way of thinking about the venerable SLR design.

Reader's comment:

Glad to see that you've picked up an F4.  I've owned eight (seven functional, the eigth was a junker that I got for parts in 2005) since September 2005.  My latest body was purchased sometime last month. Happens to be the nicest one I've owned, and has the MF-23 back on it, but is equipped with a MB-20 grip from an earlier F4 that I'd owned. Decided that if I needed six batteries, I could easily get a MB-23 from KEH.

Anyway, pop a roll of Ektar 100 (or, if you can find it, Fuji Pro 160C) and go have some fun with yours.

Wow, seven functioning F4 cameras?! And, my wife thinks I've gone off the deep end ;^)

Seriously though, the F4s purchase seems to have struck a cord with many of you readers and I'm happy to hear that it's just not me that has a thing for this camera. Which roll of film to run through the camera is still under some thought, although I may not have all that many choices after I dig through the fridge and see what I have kicking around. Probably all those rolls have long expired anyway - shoulda put them in the freezer instead.

At the beginning of August, I reached a crossroads for where to travel for my in-house, digital printing needs. I was down to my last two 110 ml cartridges for the big Epson 4800 printer and I could see in the Epson Status Monitor for the printer that a few of the colors were getting low. I would need to buy six ink cartridges to get back up to having a full set available in the storage cabinet, along with a maintenance cartridge, since that too would eventually need replacing.

Since certain colors run out faster than others do, realistically, I would need to buy ten cartridges. That’s a fair chunk of coin to outlay all at once and it got me thinking, which is always a dangerous thing to my wallet.

The 4800 is still a very fine printer qualitatively, but the honeymoon is long over and printing with it requires a mandatory nozzle check and head cleaning routine before I dare risk running an expensive sheet of 17x22 inch paper through it.

Cleaning the printing head is the same as flushing away money due to the number of cleaning cycles needed to get all the colors running. When the head is being cleaned, ink is used and then dumped into the maintenance tank, which is why the maintenance tank eventually needs to be replaced.

The print head clogging up and needing repeated cleaning cycles to clear up is probably the biggest criticism of Epson printers that use the pigment inks. There have been various DIY fixes offered from frustrated users, from wetting the print head with a Windex-soaked paper towel to leaving bowls of water beside the printer to promote some humidity.

Newer versions of Epson’s pigment ink printers have a coated print head, which is suppose to minimize the clogging. The very large, plotter style printers such as the 7000 and 9000 series use pressurized ink lines, which help in eliminating air bubbles that can form in the ink tubes of printers with non-pressurized heads, such as my 4800.

With about a $700 bill looming to continue to operate the 4800, I wondered if it was really worth it. For another $400 more (after sale price and rebate is applied), I could buy the Epson 3880, which has the coated print head and comes with a full set of 80 ml cartridges. The 3880 also uses the improved Vibrant Magenta colors to improve the color quality.

The 3880 is much smaller than the 4800, which is due to the 3880 using traditional rollers to feed the paper through the printing path, whereas the 4800 uses vacuum suction to feed the paper. The advantage of the 4800’s vacuum means no contact on the paper with any rollers during the printing phase, but the downside is that the 4800 needs about a 0.54-inch space along the bottom edge of sheet paper to accommodate the vacuum feed.

This means that the minimum sheet size to print with the 4800 is letter size. If you want to print an 8x10, it has to be off-centre due to the vacuum feed needing that 0.54-inch space. Otherwise, a centred 8x10 on letter size sheets will actually be a few mm short along both dimensions if you crop to scale in order to fit.

The 3880 can print on sheets as small as 4x6 thanks to the roller feed – same as the R2400. The 3880 also allows simultaneous installation of Matte and Photo Black inks and while there is still a bit of ink wastage when switching, it’s nothing compared to what is required with the 4800 if you want to switch black inks.

Switching black inks on the 4800 requires about 30 minutes of time to monitor the printer for the prompts to move locking levers up and down. There is also a significant amount of ink that has to be flushed out and dumped into the maintenance cartridge - $50 to $75 worth. This is such a stupid expense that from day one, I decided that I would dedicate the 4800 to using Photo Black and printing only on glossy type papers instead of matte papers - I mostly use the R2400 for matte paper printing.

The more I thought about it, the more it made sense to initiate a divorce with the 4800 and get myself a newer, trophy printer. But, what to do with the 4800? Sell it for a pittance or perhaps donate it to a school (for a tax receipt) that has a photography program and can make use of its quality? However, before things came to a head and require a decision, I was made an offer I couldn't refuse that will keep the 4800 running in my digital darkroom for a long while to come. I took delivery of 20 110 ml cartridges for the 4800, but let's just say that the price is not even close to retail - don't worry, I haven't been bought by any third-party or corporation, which would warrant a USA style disclosure.

Besides, if I had actually gone ahead with disposing of the 4800 and buying a 3880 to replace it, my wife would ensure that I'd be sleeping with the fishes, which is a whole lot worse than sleeping in the doghouse 8^)

August 25, 2010 - Okay, I'm finally back in business with my wireless network. After a few days of frustrating work trying to diagnose the issue, I finally found a forum posting that resolved the issue. Not a driver issue and not, as I was cursing Microsoft, a Windows 7 issue either. It was actually my AV software, Kaspersky, that installed and activated something in the wireless USB device's properties. Once I clicked it off, my wireless adapter finally became enabled and then resetting it finally allowed it to see the wireless network for connection.

Through this process, I also discovered that there can be a number of other issues involving wireless adapters not being functional. Some are simple, but not obvious to resolve, like with my issue. The most common problem seems to be with notebook users allowing the OS to turn the adapter off under the performance properties. Once you uncheck this option many non-connection issues resolved themselves.

Reader's comment:

Film is Alive and Well - Your purchase of the Nikon F4 is not unique.  Many photographers, me included still use film along with digital. I love my Nikon D80 cameras (have 2 of them) and still use the D70 and D50 at times. But for certain work a small film camera may be best.

I do a lot of 'street photography" and for this I prefer black and white film and Leica rangefinders. The cameras are small, light and quiet. They are less likely to scare people off then unlike when I whip out the D80 with the battery pack and zoom lens.

Developing the film is not a problem.  For black and white I have standardized on Ilford XP 2 Super. Its ISO 200 to 400.  It is a chromogenic film that is developed in C41 color chemistry. It produces a black and white negative that I than scan with a Konica Minolta film scanner.  The quality is very good.

Link to my Leica cameras is here. The rapidwinders, rapidgrips and shutter button soft releases are made by Tom Abrahamson from Vancouver. I am also considering getting the Nikon F5 that are available used at very good prices in New York City.

If I recall correctly, according to Stephen Gandy of CameraQuest, Tom Abrahamson has had a hand in developing some of the latest Voigtlander rangefinder cameras - the ones with the ultra wide angle frame lines.

I haven't yet had time to use the F4s due to some chores I need to tend to around the house. My own fault actually, as I was powerwashing various things and ended up peeling the paint off my backdoor frame and some columns at the front of the house. Now, I have to sand down and repaint the affected areas.

I don't know if the powerwashing accident is a blessing in disguise, because I discovered that one of the columns is starting to rot at its base. The columns are made of plywood and the wood got wet, which eventually caused it to rot from the inside out. This isn't a simple wood surface gets wet type of thing, which is no big deal, because the wood's surface will dry out quickly. This is the inside of the wood itself saturated with moisture and not being allowed to dry out naturally. A couple of years ago, my brother-in-law rebuilt a set of stairs for his deck and his uncle helping him out advised him to not paint the stairs for at least a year to ensure that any inside moisture could dry out properly. If you paint it before it dries, you seal that moisture in, leading to wood rot. This problem and how to resolve it, along with the sanding and painting is what has kept me away from using the F4s and posting new comments.

Speaking of sanding...I had to go to the local Home Depot a few times to buy supplies and I ended up buying an eight-tool combo kit from Ryobi - women, never let your men go to a hardware store unsupervised.

The eight-tool kit was already on sale for $250, but when I got to the cashier, it rang in at $200. I looked at my receipt to ensure that the proper combo kit was listed for that low price and it was. Bonus!

The power tools are part of Ryobi's One+ system, where almost 40 different cordless tools all use the same 18-volt battery. You can now buy cordless Ryobi lawn mowers, weed-wackers, blowers to the traditional drills, saws and sanders. It's brilliant and going cordless is the way to work with a freedom and mobility that a corded tool cannot provide.

It's also a good marketing strategy, because now that I bought into the Ryobi One+ system, you can be sure that I'll be buying that brand and that particular system for my future tools. It's something the camera makers could take a lesson from.

Certainly, system compatibility has improved over the years and the higher end equipment have had better system integration than the lower end products, but it kills me that everytime a new Nikon camera comes out, it needs its own battery grip, or even battery type.

Canon's been fairly good with its prosumer line with the same battery grip being compatible from at least the 30D up to the 50D. Nikon, on the other hand, has introduced different battery grips for each of its prosumer models from the D100 to the D300. Along the way, Nikon changed the battery itself so that the D100's battery cannot be used in the newer models even though they are physically identical.

I'm hoping the madness stops with the D300, which uses the same grip as the D700 and that the successor cameras can still use the MB-D10 grip I have kicking around - I kept it with the hope that Nikon would produce a D700S a wee bit quicker.

Speaking of new cameras, have you read Hogan's recent comments about Nikon using its own sensor design in the D3100? First the D2H then the D3/D700 and now the D3100. Is this a sign that Nikon is moving away from Sony as a supplier of sensors? If so, is Nikon producing its own sensors too, or more likely, as with the D3/D700, is Nikon outsourcing the production?

Interesting times, especially in conjunction with the rumour that Sony is moving away from production of FX SLRs, which may or may not also indicate a move away from fabricating FX sensors for Nikon.

I'm all for Nikon taking control of sensor development, as it allows Nikon greater flexability to design new cameras. As Hogan also noted, this changeover in sensor procurement may be a factor in why Nikon is laggard in coming out with more SLRs.

August 23, 2010 - Still having a mysterious wireless network issue with my PC. I think it's a Windows 7 and hardware compatibility issue, because thus far, no amount of tinkering with drivers and device manager changes will compel my D-Link wireless USB adapter to see mine or any other network around. Very weird to one day have it working and then another day, have it stop. Frustrating as well, since I'm not keen on using a Mac to update the websites - as mentioned by me several times in the past, there are various little things that a Mac just can't do right or well enough for me to transition this part of my computer workflow completely over.

Right now, I'm typing this update with my PC hardwired to my router, but this is not workable long-term since the router is by necessity, on the main floor of the house and my PC is usually located in the basement.

Everyone that guessed at the mystery camera in silhouette guessed correctly; it's the Nikon F4s film camera...

Earlier this summer, while doing my daily surfing for NikonLinks updates, I came across a review for the F4, a film SLR that has not been current since 1996 when the F5 supplanted it as the top dog in Nikon’s hierarchy.

I’ve always liked the F4 and it’s probably the one F series SLR that I covet in a purely subjective way. Of all the six variants of the F series, you would think that the latest, F6, would, if I really wanted another film camera, be the one I would want. It certainly looks like a sweet camera worthy of the F designation, but for some reason, I’ve always regarded the F4 as the ideal F SLR.

Modern enough to work with AFS lenses, but old enough to offer Matrix metering with the manual focus lenses. The F4 was a transition camera between the old school, manual focus era and the new fangled auto focus, auto everything era.

Like other F cameras (except for the F6), the F4 is modular with the ability to change prisms, add different film back doors and swap up different size battery packs. Those battery packs allow the F4 to be lean and mean with the MB20, or full sized with the vertical grip MB21 (F4s), or maxxed out with the MB23, which turns the F4 to an F4e.

The design is very much of the late 1980s and early 1990s with the grip being somewhat squarish and clearly, my former F90X received its design genetics from the flagship of the era.

The UI is unique and can be regarded as another transition type of design that bridges the manual era with the full on, command dial era driven by the F5. Like all F series SLRs, the F4 offers manual or motorized film rewind, which is useful for quiet situations or when working out in very cold environments where static charge from the motorized rewinding can damage the film.

The F4 also offers a manual dial for setting the shutter speed, just like a manual SLR and not unlike some of the Contax SLRs of the 1990s. I remember a conversation with a Canon using wedding photographer some years ago. As is typical of photographers, the conversation eventually turns to gear and while we ribbed each other about our brand choices, he did acknowledge that my F100 of the time, is a nice camera. He did throw in though that the worst camera he ever picked up was the F4, because the UI seemed so cluttered and full of dials. That’s amusing, because from my perspective, the Canon EOS 1v and EOS 3 cameras have dreadful UI, because it seems like each button has multiple functions depending on which dial you turn. I seem to recall that for some functions, you have to push down two buttons simultaneously and then turn a dial to make an adjustment. It made the F5’s control locks seem trivial. To this day, I still find the Canon UI less than ideal, although, after a few years, I think I’m okay with it now.

As a milestone birthday loomed near, my mind kept on thinking about finally giving in to a long-held desire to own one of Nikon’s legendary F cameras. I gave into desire in 2006 and bought a D2X, so my digital side has been fulfilled, but it’s never been quenched on the analog side.

Out of a lark, I cruised by the website of Koh’s Camera, an advertiser at NikonLinks, and found an F4s for USD $295. It took about a week of humming and hawing to mull it over, but I finally sent Jimmy Koh an email to arrange the purchase. Jimmy’s been a very long time supporter of NikonLinks, so buying the F4s from him is the least I could do. For those of you with Bronica gear, Jimmy is also qualified to service the line. Jimmy knocked off a few bucks so that the total I paid was USD $300 including the S&H to Canada. When delivered, I was very surprised that I did not have to pay a few more bucks for the hated harmonized sales tax that goes to the provincial and federal governments.

Buying an F4 in 2010 makes no sense. It could be a camera as old as 22 years since the F4 came out in 1988. There’s no need for me to shoot 35mm film and honestly, I cannot remember the last time I shot with 35mm film. It would have been with my former F100 camera that was sold a few years ago.

There’s another curiosity, the F100 is a fine camera, one of Nikon’s best. So much so that many Nikon users have long desired and demanded that Nikon make a digital equivalent, which finally surfaced with the D300 and D700 – you just merely pick whether you want the DX or FX variant.

The F100 is ten years newer in design and technology than the F4, yet I had no remorse selling it for a fraction of its new price. Now, here I am buying something older, albeit cheaper than what I sold the F100 for. Just doesn’t make sense does it?

I suppose in the same way that some people like Leica’s M series heritage and superb build quality and don’t mind using “ancient” gear, I’m having some of the same thoughts with the F4. Of course, there’s a lot less to go wrong in a classic Leica M than a still very electronic F4.

For those that may fear some sort of midlife crisis and funk that caused this nostalgia-inspired trip, fear not. I’m not about to go renovating my basement and convert it into a chemical darkroom. How much I will actually use the F4, I don’t know. Truthfully, it may just end up sitting unused for long stretches inside my cabinet, but I promise not to bubble wrap it and vacuum seal it away like some Leica collectors do J

The tricky part of this whole F4s thing though is having to get myself back into film lingo. There’s DX – no, not the digital sensor size, but the encoding on the film cartridge that allows DX-capable cameras to read and automatically set the ISO. There’s the Fuji Velvia, is it ISO 50 or is it really ISO 40, decision to make if I use that film. There’s the bracketing dance required with slide film to ensure that you get a frame with the optimum exposure, because you just don’t quite trust the camera’s meter. Should make for some interesting times.

These are just some intro thoughts with more to come on the F4s in the coming days. There's also another film related product to discuss too ;^)

August 20, 2010 - Just read Brooks Jensen's latest comments about the iPad and sounds like he's totally sold on the iPad, which I thought he would be once he experienced it for real. Up to now, he had been less than enthused and wondered about what the iPad would be good for. Now he realizes just how great it is to view photos and magazines, including a certain one that Brooks knows much about. About time he sipped the iPad Koolaid 8^)

I've been experiencing a wierd and frustrating wireless network issue with my big PC, hence another reason why updates have not been as often as I'd like. For some reason my D-Link wireless USB adapter won't see any wireless networks around even though there are half a dozen in my part of the neighborhood.

Thankfully, I have the MacBook available as a backup to allow me to continue some online activity, which points back to a previous post about having multiple computers so that if one goes down, one can continue working.

Qu'est-ce que c'est?

August 19, 2010 - It's feeling a bit like Christmas in August, as a few expected items were delivered yesterday. Sorry to tease, but all will be discussed shortly after setup - I may be on my summer vacation break, but I've been kept busy with rearing the kids and some household chores, so there has not been all that much time for me to tend to the new gear.

August 16, 2010 - Are you a Nikon user? No, I mean, are you really a Nikon user? The kind that first thing in the morning, you pour a cup of hot java and think about what you’re going to photograph with one of your beautiful Nikon cameras.

The kind that as you sip that piping, steaming hot coffee, you ponder the Nikon-related dreams from the night before. Or, maybe that nightmare of all those Canon SLRs beckoning you with their come hither looks, before turning into crazed devils, attacking and flailing away at you…speaking of coffee…

You’re not a Nikon user until you have one of these babies in your paws: a coffee mug that is a replica of the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 AFS lens. I swear that my coffee has never tasted so good until I sipped it from this Nikon-inspired mug J

Of course, it’s made in China, so who can speak of the quality of the metal and plastic, never mind what kind of toxic paint has been used...I’d hate to have this mug pried from my cold, dead hands…literally!

Seriously though, given the heatwave we're experiencing in Vancouver, hot coffee is actually about the last thing on my mind for a refreshing drink to beat the heat.

I paid USD $29 to order and ship mine from Hong Kong. It took about two weeks to arrive and I'm sure that there's an extra day or two of delay due to Canada Customs opening up the package to inspect it. Whenever Canada Customs opens a package, it has to re-seal it using a yellow tape that states that the package has been opened and inspected.

I guess Canada Customs must of thought they caught someone trying to import in a $2,000 lens without paying the 12% duty, only to find that they busted a guy importing in a $23 coffee mug.

When compared to the real 24-70mm lens, the coffee mug is about a half-inch taller due to the screw-on lid. From a moderate distance, the replica is good enough to fool people, but up close, you can see that it's very much a fake; however, it's still a pretty decent copy job. The rear lens cap comes off and if mixed up with real caps, it will probably fool you.

The metal innards is seamless metal, which is good, because a lot of cheap coffee mugs have seams running down the inside of the cup. But, when my wife looked at it, she dismissed it as a cheapie mug that she wouldn't bother buying.

PS For regular readers, this is not the purchase I referred to a couple of weeks ago that is going to surprise you. That item is still in shipment and should arrive this week 8^)

I wonder how long before Canon introduces the 1Ds Mk IV, so that it can once again claim the highest resolution in the 35mm format? Canon is used to being the king of the hill for offering the highest resolution, but Nikon and Sony have trumped Canon, albeit modestly, by offering 24 MP SLRs to Canon's two 21 MP SLRs.

Will it be 27/28 MP or will it be the rumoured 32 MP? While we can expect the 1Ds model to be packed with all of Canon's latest technology and features, it's in the 5D series where the real interest will be and where the real money will be made.

While a modest price is welcome, it would be really nice if Canon were to, as some wish, use the 7D as the new body template for the 5D2's successor. A better, weather sealed body with finally, a better than entry-level AF engine.

The more I think about it and use it, the more I realize that the 5D2 has more or less the same kind of AF engine as the long gone Nikon D200, which had a pretty lacklustre AF module too and was not that much better than the 2002 era D100. So, in other words, a current Canon prosumer camera is using an AF module that is about a decade old in capability and quality.

Over at the LensWork Technology blog by Brooks Jensen, the latest post questions the usability of an iPad beyond mere entertainment. Brooks finds the iPad very wanting and very high priced to his USD $250 netbook, which comes with a host of additional features and capabilities, such as running Lightroom (that kinda blows me away that a netbook can run Lightroom). I love Brooks' comment about using Pages to do Word documents, but his netbook, he run Word itself and be able to view, type and edit on the real thing instead of a facsmille (I'm extrapolating Brooks' sentiment, because he doesn't actually say this).

It's all very valid criticism of an iPad compared to a laptop or even a netbook if your purpose is for production and creation of work. This is something I figured out early on, the iPad is nearly useless on its own to produce work. You have to get yourself a real keypad (the Bluetooth variety or the docking version) in order to actually be able to input data into the iPad. Getting that data out is another pain in the ass, because everything has to go through iTunes as the interface instead of merely being able to drag and drop files.

However, as I also realize and have stated before, the iPad really should not be compared to a traditional laptop or a netbook. It has a different purpose and while it is indeed very expensive for what it does, the things it does do well, it does very well and I love it for those purposes.

For example, I've been downloading and viewing the latest Luminous Landscape video tutorial for Lightroom 3, as they've become available. At first, the video files could not be uploaded to the iPad and I initially thought it had to do with the video format, but in fact, it was the audio that was not compatible. Luminous Landscape quickly realized that mistake and replaced the first set of video files to make the sound compatible with the iPad and now, everything is the way it should be. Watching the video tutorials on the iPad is just a fantastic way to learn about the new features in Lightroom 3.

On the same note, watching videos for entertainment is also great. Plug in some good headphones and kick back and watch some Xvid AVI files...oh yes, the iPad can now do AVI files through a free app. This is brilliant and no longer means that you gotta go through a slow conversion process to get existing AVI files converted to an iPad friendly format.

While Brooks pointed out that the iPad can't do media-rich PDFs like those produced by LensWork magazine, it can do straightforward PDFs and I'm looking forward to reading adventure photographer, Michael Clark's re-written ebook, on the iPad, about his digital workflow using Lightroom 3.

I regard the iPad as another digital tool and as an extension to the digital darkroom. Not for actual production work, but as an educational tool that I can use to learn about new techniques. It's also a helluva lot easier to hold an iPad for a couple of hours to watch or read than it is to hold a 17-inch MacBook Pro and seriously, how many of us really want to be chained to our desktop computers for any longer than we need to?

What's New Archive for 2010 - July to December

What's New Archives for 2010 - January to June

Older archives to 2007 available at the Site Map page

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