Lightmanship

Lightmanship is Moving and Expanding!

2010-01-26T10:03:00.000-08:00

To better support my expansion plans for Lightmanship, I have moved it to a new server! I will leave the existing posts here at Blogger, but all new posts will go to the new server at www.lightmanship.com. All posts here at Blogger will also exist in the blog archives at the new server.

If you are currently subscribing to the Lightmanship blog via email, your subscription will automatically be moved to the new blog.

In addition to continuing the Lightmanship blog, I will be adding photography tutorials, demonstrations, and software that can be downloaded from the website.

So, keep an eye out for all the new stuff!...:-)

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

Photo Sharing Websites and "Successful" Photos

2010-01-25T20:03:00.000-08:00

I've participated in photo sharing websites for the past 5-6 years and found them helpful in some ways but frustrating in others. I've tried to use them as places to put up my images to discover which are "objectively good" (if such a thing is even possible) and which aren't. I mean, maybe I really like a particular photo I've taken, but let's see what the rest of the photo sharing audience thinks!

Interestingly--and I've heard this from other photographers as well--many of my favorites (of photos that *I* have produced) are *not* the favorites of my photo sharing audience. Sometimes they go nuts over an image I post that I wasn't even sure I wanted to post because I thought it was marginal. Other times, I'll post an image that I think is one of the best photos I've ever taken, and it meets with dead "silence" from my photo sharing audience...heck, sometimes I can barely get them to even click the thumbnail and view the image larger!

So, what's going on here?

First, I don't think *subtlety* plays well at photo sharing websites. Probably the main reason for this is that image viewers are making a decision whether to click on and view your image larger based on a relatively small thumbnail image. If the compelling aspect/s of your image are relatively small within the image and/or not visually "loud", when it's thumbnail sized, it may not appear interesting at all! Related to this: your image may be one of those that needs to be seen large (800 pixels or more in the maximum dimension) to be appreciated. But many photo sharing websites display the enlarged image at a mere 400-500 pixels in the maximum dimension. These common constraints at photo sharing websites have therefore--unintentionally, I think--made certain types of photos more prevalent and popular (e.g., close-ups, bright colors, high contrast, and appearance of nudity) because that's what gets *noticed* when images are presented small, and this small presentation used as a basis for the viewer's decision to investigate and evaluate the image further.

It seems that the one exception to the non-subtlety bias is when a photographer has such a dedicated following that his/her "fans" will click on anything the photographer posts and closely look for anything that makes it compelling.

Second, if you tend to jump back and forth between various subjects (children, weddings, fine art nudes, etc) and/or styles of photography (B&W vs. Color, film vs digital, sharp focus vs blurry focus, etc), you tend to lose your audience's viewing "loyalty" because--good or bad--most people want to see photography regarding a certain subject matter or style and want to see it again and again. I think they want to see creativity (at least I'm pretty sure they want to), but they want to see it *within* a particular subject matter or style that they enjoy.

So, if you want to make it hard on yourself getting a dedicated following, just keep jumping all over the map in terms of subject matter and style and you'll find out how easy it is to drive viewers away. (A recommendation: if you really need to pursue different subjects or styles, consider creating multiple accounts and dedicate each one to a single style or subject matter.)

A third factor: activity at photo sharing sites can sometimes degrade into pure popularity contests. I don't want to infer that this is always the case, because it's not. But some photographers at these sites get so many views and comments because they have a large network of photo sharing friends--much like having lots of friends at a social networking site like Facebook--that are good about viewing and commenting on each others' photos. There's nothing necessarily wrong with this, but it can make it difficult for someone to evaluate how "successful" their images are if they're comparing their number of comments and/or views to the images of someone else when that someone else has a much more extensive photo sharing friend network!

A fourth factor: most photo sharing websites are set up to show one enlarged image at a time and are geared toward "one hit" photos that stand on their own. Sure, you can group a bunch of related photos into one folder; but visually, it's the thumbnails you see together, not a series of enlarged images next to each other, like in a book. Also, the order of the images is usually chronological rather than being chosen by the photographer to appear in a particular, meaningful sequence.

I've noticed that when fine art photographers put together a portfolio, the sequencing and the juxtaposition of photos on facing pages is crucial to the success of the photos' presentation. Often, I find that any one of these photos from a series isn't all that interesting by itself. Together, though, the photos tell a story and/or present a consistent perspective that can be very compelling. Photo sharing websites are geared more toward singular "hits" that shine individually and don't require a consistent supporting artistic vision.

Conclusion

Sometimes, I think the best thing about photo sharing websites is seeing the work of other photographers! For your own work, I think you have to be careful what you take away from the feedback you get from them. I would caution you against using them to decide which of your photos is the absolute best (e.g., for contests) or for putting together a portfolio of your best work. I have found that photo sharing websites are not very helpful for determining how to group or sequence photos for a book or portfolio because they're geared more toward the presentation and evaluation of one image at a time. Also, you have to keep in mind that photos do well at photo sharing websites for various reasons, and some of those reasons may have little to do with the critical or artistic quality of a photo.

Balancing Event Participation and Photo Taking

2010-01-14T07:29:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-12-28T11:42:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weddings, Existing Light, and Authenticity

2009-12-18T09:27:00.000-08:00

So, I fell *way* behind in my 2009 wedding blog postings! I photographed many great weddings in 2009, so I thought I should finally put up some of my favorites from the 2009 wedding season...:-).

Before I do that, however, I wanted to mention that I'm really looking forward to the 2010 wedding season. Why? Well, I sold off a bunch of my camera equipment in order to purchase two new pieces of equipment for 2010:

The new $5000 Canon 1D Mark IV digital SLR camera, which promises to be the best low-light professional digital camera Canon has *ever* made
A Canon 35mm f/1.4L lens...one of the best quality, low light lenses Canon has ever made

You may be noticing a theme here: Michael is really interested in camera equipment that takes great photos in low lighting. Yes!

I've gotten *much* better at using flash photography than when I started photographing weddings 4 years ago. I've also gotten quite good at using remote flashes in dark reception halls. This is all well and good and as it should be for a professional wedding photographer. The thing is, I still prefer making photos in existing light when possible.

"Existing light" is the lighting the wedding participants are actually experiencing at the ceremony and reception. When I go and trigger a flash--either one attached to the camera or a remote flash not attached to the camera--I am altering the lighting and changing the ambience or "atmosphere", or whatever you want to call it. Also, those bright lights going off in people's faces is quite likely altering their behavior.

Here, I think, we encounter a philosophical question: Is the goal of wedding photography to capture things as "authentically" as possible? Or is the goal to make things as easily seen as possible? I should note that the goal of making the event and the people involved look as good as possible isn't exclusive to either of these. This latter goal may, in fact, require a mixed bag of lighting techniques, including simply using existing light.

To be totally honest, I'm usually trying for either authenticity or beauty, and am quite happy when I accomplish both simultaneously. With the exception of a short portrait session I sometimes do with the wedding couple on their wedding day, I very seldom go that extra step toward beauty (or "eye candy") over authenticity and stage a bunch of shots where I'm dictating poses, actions, and lighting. This is not the way of wedding photojournalism and I am, in fact, primarily photojournalistic in my approach.

A camera like the Canon 1D Mark IV combined with a lens like the Canon 35mm f/1.4L gives the photographer the ability to capture images regardless of lighting conditions or movement in the image. This is Canon's fastest focusing camera (the 1D series has always been a top-choice of sports photographers) with the highest light sensitivity of any camera made. Sure, I will still have a flash attached to it; but *using* that flash will become much more of an option than with any previous camera.

The light at the church or reception hall--or the lack thereof--will cease to be the overriding determinant of the lighting techniques I must use to capture photos. This camera plus the large aperture of the 35mm f/1.4L lens will keep lighting options open and let my sense of authenticity and/or artistry lead the way instead...:-).

Now for those 2009 Wedding Photos...

Okay, so I ended up with a *bunch* of choices from the first wedding I looked at from early in the year! I'll have to follow-up this post with a few more in order to cover more of my 2009 weddings...:p. By the way, thanks Rachel and Stephen...:-).

My Favorite 35mm Film Cameras for 2009

2009-12-07T10:16:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

Physical Size (in order from largest to smallest)

Konica Hexar (largest)
Canonet QL17
Leica Mini II and Leica Mini III
Yashica T4
Ricoh GR1 & GR1s (smallest & most pocketable)

My Cost (most to least expensive)

Ricoh GR1s (most expensive: around $450)
Ricoh GR1
Konica Hexar
Yashica T4
Canonet QL17
Leica Mini II
Leica Mini III (least expensive: around $50)

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

Konica Hexar
Leica Mini II
Leica Mini III
Yashica T4
Ricoh GR1 and GR1s (note: there's a prefocused "snap focus" mode that is faster than any autofocus)
Canonet QL17 (slowest: doesn't have autofocus)

General Observations

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

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

Comparative Observations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Physical Fitness and Equipment Strategies for Wedding Photography

2009-12-01T19:33:00.000-08:00

Photography, especially photojournalistic wedding photography, requires a significant amount of physical stamina and prowess.

This past wedding season, I was somewhat plagued with back problems. It was fairly evident that carrying 2-3 cameras--as I had been the previous season--was taking its toll on my back.

Why hadn't I had these back problems the previous wedding season? Of course, I was one year older and I could have blamed it on age. One more year added to my 40+ year old body, though, shouldn't have made *that* huge a difference!

I think the more likely cause was that early in 2009, my home workout equipment broke down and I didn't replace it. I still exercised *some*, but definitely at a reduced level.

The physical strength and stamina that had easily carried me through 8-10+ hour long wedding days was waning toward the end of weddings. I was experiencing physical and emotional/mental lows during receptions. And halfway through the wedding season, my lower back went out and made weddings even more physically grueling.

Instead of going right out and replacing my exercise equipment at that point (partially because I didn't attribute my physical problems to reduced physical stamina and strength), I tried taking one of the cameras off my shoulders and sticking it into a "holster" on my belt (I have this padded belt to which I can fasten pouches and cases to hold lenses).

Getting this weight off of my shoulders helped significantly. It worked great for the two weddings I did right after my back went out. At the very next wedding, however, I had problems with the camera falling out of the holster; it happened 3 times...once on the concrete right in front of the hotel where the bride was getting ready! Luckily, the camera and lenses survived the three falls.

Well, that was near the end of the wedding season and I never did find a good solution to having the second camera on my belt. (I've since heard of fellow wedding photographer in my area coming up with a novel solution to this problem which I hope to learn more about and perhaps report on in a future blog post.)

Even if I do find a good solution, having too much equipment hanging at your waist--even while much easier on the back--makes you "wider" and less able to get around crowded reception rooms without banging your camera or lenses into the wedding guests seated and standing around the reception room!

So, why don't I just eschew the 2-3 cameras and carry only one?! For the very reason I worked up to carrying 2-3 around in the first place!--to cover wide, normal, and telephoto ranges simultaneously with high-quality constant f/2.8 zoom lenses and prime lenses.

Ever notice that no high-quality constant f/2.8 zoom lens--or even a constant f/4 zoom lens--covers the whole gamut?? Sure, there are consumer grade zoom lenses with variable, smaller than f/2.8 maximum apertures that can cover the equivalent of 28 or 24mm to 200 or 300mm (35mm full-frame equivalent). But the combination of their lower quality optics, slower autofocusing, and smaller maximum apertures makes them inadequate for non-flash indoor wedding photography in those all-too-common dark churches and reception halls...and I *like* to photograph as much as I can without flash, or at least without direct flash.

Even the Canon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS, although professional "L" grade, doesn't engage full operation of Canon's higher end DSLR autofocusing systems...*that* is reserved for lenses with f/2.8 maximum apertures and larger. So, this lens may be okay for outdoor weddings; but you need all the help you can get for lowly lit indoor affairs!

Ultimately, then, you've got three choices as a professional wedding photographer:

Photograph with more than one camera and put different lenses on them so you can simultaneously capture people and events happening from both a wide and close-up perspective as needed.
Photograph with one camera and multiple available lenses and try to *anticipate* which lens you'll need to capture the key moments. And whenever you've got the wrong lens for the moment, shake it off and try to anticipate the best lens for the next key moment.
Photograph with one camera and one lens--either per stage of the wedding or for the whole day--and totally commit to that one perspective and make the most of it.

I should note that, of course, it's easier to commit to a one camera and one lens strategy--or even a one camera + multiple lenses perspective--if you're working with a second photographer who is covering a different perspective with a different lens!

Regardless, let's look at the strengths and weaknesses of each of these strategies.

In the past, I have tended to go with the first strategy: photograph with multiple cameras and lenses simultaneously. This strategy is the "safest", but certainly comes with some potential problems:

the weight can take a physical toll that may affect the quality of the photography and the photographer's emotional and physical well-being
decreases photographer's mobility in a crowded space, which can lead to missed shots
can lead to missed shots while changing between cameras that occasionally get tangled or whose settings get bumped and altered while not in use

The second strategy (photographing with one camera + multiple lenses) helps to ameliorate some of the negative aspects of the first strategy: especially in terms of physical toll, mobility, and missed shots due to tangled or altered settings on the camera not currently being used. However, you're still carrying around extra equipment (multiple lenses), which is still having some impact on physical energy, mobility, and missed shots while changing between those lenses.

To me, the third strategy (one camera, one lens) is the "holy grail" of a seasoned wedding photographer. I've heard some wedding photographers discuss how they photographed a whole wedding with a 24-70 f/2.8 zoom lens. That's not bad. However, a more impressive move would be to photograph a whole wedding with a single prime lens and do an awesome job of it!

At a more realistic level, one could "cheat" a little on the third strategy to take away some of the riskiness of it. First, instead of committing to one lens for the entire wedding day, you could commit to one lens per stage of the event (e.g,. one for getting ready, one for the ceremony, one for group formals, and one for the reception). I'm often in my car between stages where I could swap out my lens for the next stage. Second, carrying one other lens in a small camera bag on your back can help to hedge your bets and/or give you an appropriate lens for the next stage if you can't get back to your car,,,without limiting your mobility significantly or adding a significant amount of additional weight.

I'm still working my way from Strategy One (multiple cameras, multiple lenses) to Strategy Three (one camera, one lens), but I've still decided to finally replace my home workout equipment anyway...

...because, well, it's always good to hedge your bets, right?...;-).

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

2009-11-20T12:13:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

Best Compact Digital Camera to Buy for Image Quality and Pocketability

2009-11-17T10:57:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Camera	Length	Width	Full Depth
Canon G11	4.4"	3"	1.9"
Canon S90	3.9"	2.3"	1.22"
Leica X1	4.9"	2.2"	2.0"
Olympus E-P1 w/ 14-42 zoom	4.8"	2.8"	3.1"
Olympus E-P1 w/ 17mm pancake	4.8"	2.8"	2.24"
Panasonic DMC-LX3 and Leica D-Lux 4	4.3"	2.4"	1.9"
Panasonic GF1 w/ 14-45 zoom	4.7"	2.8"	3.8"
Panasonic GF1 w/ 20mm pancake	4.7"	2.8"	2.4"
Ricoh GR Digital III	4.3"	2.3"	1.2"
Ricoh GXR	4.5"	2.8"	1.8"
Sigma DP1	4.3"	2.4"	2.0"
Sigma DP2	4.5"	2.5"	2.2"

Now, personally, I find that 1.5" is the maximum thickness that I'd still consider pocketable in a shirt or pant pocket, and even that is pushing it. I have a 1.25" thick Ricoh GR1 that actually fits quite nicely into a pocket, even a relatively tight-fitting front jean pocket.

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

By the 1.5" or less thickness criterion, only two of these cameras are shirt & pant "pocketable": the Ricoh GR Digital III and the Canon Powershot S90. They're both thin (actually even thinner than 1.25"), have relatively wide lenses (28 mm on the Ricoh, 28-105 on the Canon), and both have large maximum apertures (f/1.9 on the Ricoh and f/2 on the Canon).

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

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

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

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

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

To see more about the S90:

Canon's Powershot S90 Product Tour
Some more Canon Powershot S90 reviews
Another useful and enlightening review of the S90 and a comparison to the Panasonic DMC-LX3 and GF1

Instruction Manual for the Canon 1D Mark IV

2009-11-12T07:16:00.000-08:00

Canon has posted the instruction manual for the new Canon 1D Mark IV, even though the 1D Mark IV isn't shipping yet. I guess it's good to familiarize yourself with a piece of camera equipment before you buy it so you can be up and running as soon as you get it!...:-)

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography.His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

Interview with our Holga Giveaway Winner!

2009-11-05T07:58:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

Lightmanship: What is your favorite type of blog post here at Lightmanship?

Jennifer: I enjoy the pondering posts where you ask philosophical questions; What makes a good photograph, etc. The way you work through the answer is very apparent, and I like seeing which roads you take to get there. I usually agree with your findings as well.
I really liked the recent post about shooting 35mm. I'm a filmmaker and I love shooting Super8 and 16mm. Because of that, I understand the frugality of film and thinking before pulling the trigger. I also remember this when shooting video, because I don't want to fish through extra footage when editing. With photography I feel the same, although I do tend to snap of a lot more images when shooting digitally.

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

Jennifer: If the camera comes by the 27th, I plan to take it with me to Oaxaca for Dia de los Muertos. I haven't thought much father than that.

Because the Holga is so compact, I plan on carrying it around loaded and see what I come upon.

Lightmanship: Thanks Jennifer!

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography.His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

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

2009-10-28T20:02:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

Here are the test images:

Canon 5D, 1600 ISO, 100% magnification

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

Canon 5D, 3200 ISO, 100% magnification

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography.His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

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

2009-10-20T10:58:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polaroid to Re-launch One-Step Instant Film Camera

2009-10-15T11:10:00.000-07:00

Polaroid to Re-launch One-Step Instant Film Camera

Beyond Lens Envy

2009-10-11T12:48:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Film-Like Performance of the Canon 35-350 L Lens

2009-09-28T08:50:00.000-07:00

I like the look of film. When I've used a film camera, it strikes me how different the photos look compared to the ones I normally get from my digital SLR.Film often has a smoother, "analog" look to it.

Well, this past weekend, I did a high school senior portrait session. Often I bring two DSLRs with two lenses: one covering the wider end of the spectrum (e.g. 24-70mm), and one covering the telephoto end (e.g., 70-200mm). At the last moment, I decided to just take one camera and use one lens: my Canon 35-350 L.

Sometimes I hesitate to use my 35-350 lens because it's not particularly fast (max aperture is f/3.5 at the wide end and f/5.6 at the telephoto end), and it's relatively heavy without image stabilization. (My 70-200 lens is heavier, but it's faster--constant f/2.8 max--and has image stabilization.)

I've noticed, however, if I increase my ISO setting one stop over what I would use with a f/2.8 lens, the shutter speed is usually fast enough so that blur doesn't become an issue.

So, anyway, I photographed the whole portrait session with the 35-350 attached to my full-frame 5D. (I had my 24-105 f/4 IS along in case I was having issues with the 35-350; but it stayed in my camera bag.)

Well, having the 35-350mm range available in an instance is *really* handy. No matter where my portrait subject was and where I had to stand--which was sometimes not very close due to the terrain--I could zoom out for a full body or environmental portrait; and the next minute fill the frame with a tight headshot. I love that.

Canon 5D + Canon 35-350 L

The thing I forget about is the "analog" look of the images I get when I use the 35-350. They're smoother and more film-like than the images I get with my other lenses. If you like lots of sharp detail resolution, you probably won't like what this lens delivers; stick to prime lenses.

But lots of sharp detail is often not very flattering for portraiture. A smoother film-like rendering is.

I'm not sure if Canon's newer 28-300 IS L lens (which replaced the 35-350 L) gives a similar film-like performance. I suspect it doesn't, but I may try to borrow it one of these days to compare. If you've used the Canon's 28-300 IS L, please share your experiences with it in the comments area below...:-).

New Large Sensor, Digital Compact Cameras are Coming!

2009-09-23T11:34:00.000-07:00

If you follow this blog, you have probably read about my using compact 35mm film cameras in part because there haven't been any compact digital cameras with large, DSLR sensors...or at least not any that seem to work that well, especially in terms of autofocus performance (e.g., the Sigma DP1/DP2 and Olympus E-P1).

Well, both Panasonic and Leica (who often work together to produce digital cameras), are coming out with some new compact digital cameras sporting DSLR-size sensors that may finally lure me away from my compact 35mm film cameras...!

Panasonic announced the new GF1 which sports a 17.3 x 13.0mm four thirds sensor in a compact camera body that is similar in size to the Olympus E-P1 (note: a APS-C sensor--e.g., as used in Canon's Digital Rebels and 10D thru 50D DSLRs--is 23.6 x 15.8mm). The GF1 allows interchangeable lenses and initial reports indicate the autofocusing system is significantly improved over the Sigma DP1/DP2 and Olympus E-P1...more akin to the ones you find on DSLRs.

The GF1 will sell for $899.95 with a 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens (35mm equivalence: 28-90mm) and is reported to be shipping in October 2009.

Leica has announced three new digital cameras: one with a medium format camera sized sensor (the S2), one with a full 35mm sized sensor (the M9), and one with a APS-C sized sensor (the X1).

While all of these are interesting entries into the digital camera marketplace, it's the X1 that most interests me. It's a true compact digital camera with a true APS-C DSLR size sensor. The lens is a fixed 24/2.8 Leica ELMARIT ASPH lens (equivalent to a 36mm lens on a 35mm film camera), which may not appeal to people who have become accustomed to zoom lenses.

The compact 35mm film cameras I use are all fixed lenses as well--usually somewhere in the range of 28mm - 40mm--and I have found I like having the higher quality optics you can get in a fixed range lens for my more personal, fine art work anyway.

The Leica X1 will sell for $1995.00 and begin shipping in January 2010.

Of course, I've got some high-quality compact 35mm film cameras I've picked up used for under $100! The differences in price ($899.95 - $100 = $799.95 and $1995 - $100 = $1895) pay for a *lot* of film and film processing...:p.

Camera Giveaway! A Holga 120 GFN Medium Format Film Camera

2009-09-16T11:25:00.000-07:00

I recently--kind of mistakenly--bought two Holga cameras with glass lenses. The original Holga has a plastic lens; the glass lens is supposed to yield sharper image detail than the plastic lens. Even though it has a glass lens, it still has all the other quirks that make Holgas beloved: light leaks, vignetting, focussing and framing irregularities, only two aperture settings, etc.

I decided to keep the one without the built-in flash and sell the other (the one *with* the built-in flash). Well, it went unsold on eBay.

Instead of relisting it, I've decided to give it away right here on my blog!

There are two requirements to enter this giveaway:
1) You must have a shipping address in the United States.
2) You must subscribe to this blog by email (just click the link in the righthand column that says "Subscribe to Lightmanship by Email").

On October 15th, 2009, I will randomly select one email address from this blog's email subscribers and notify that person of their free gift. The person I notify will have 2 days to email me a valid shipping address in the US. If the person isn't interested in receiving the Holga or doesn't return my email message with an address, I'll randomly select another person from the list of email addresses and repeat the process.

If you decide to enter, good luck! Feel free to notify anyone else you know who might be interested in getting a free Holga too...:-).

Here's more about the Holga camera:

This is a genuine Holga camera with a glass lens (instead of the usual plastic lens) and a built-in flash: model 120 GFN. The glass lens is reputed to give sharper images than the plastic one. I bought this new and have never used it (except to put 2 AA batteries into it to see if the flash worked...it did!). It comes in the original box with the camera, strap, frame insert (that switches between 6x6 and 6x4.5), and instruction manual.

The new Holga 120 GFN is a medium format camera with integrated flash and a glass lens. This new model has a standard tripod mount, a bulb exposure selector for extra long exposures and comes with two frames to take pictures in 6x4.5 cm or 6x6 cm size. The format arrow has been revised and slides smoothly between 12 and 16 exposures.

Features
- Bulb exposure selector for extra long exposures
- Standard tripod mount
- Revised format arrow
- Includes now two frames for the 6x6 and 6x4.5 cm format!
- Multiple exposures
- Vignetting
- Soft focus
- Integrated flash can be switched on and off
- Film to be used: 120 mm colour/bw film, instant film (only with polaroid holder), 35 mm film (modification)
- Glass lens
- Leaf shutter

Specifications
- Lens: 60 mm
- Aperture: f/8, f11
- Shutter speed: 1/100 s, B
- Focus range: 0.9 m to infinity
- Dimensions: 140x102x76 mm
- Weight: 0.2 kg

Where is Photography Going?

2009-09-03T15:13:00.000-07:00

Whenever I photograph a wedding, there are usually several people among the guests taking pictures...and it's not uncommon for a few of them to have digital SLRs with flashes and even flash diffusers attached.

An increasing number of people perpetually have a digital camera with them, whether it's attached to a neck or shoulder strap, in their pocket or purse, or built into their cell phone. Digital cameras are virtually everywhere.

When Kodak came up with the Instamatic 35mm film camera in the 1960s, many more people started carrying around cameras. But that's nothing compared to the percentage of people walking around with cameras now in the digital camera age!

So, what does this omnipresence of digital cameras (usually with built-in video capabilities as well) mean for photographers trying to make a living from photography? This is an interesting question for me because I'm one of those people trying to make a living from photography.

It's a dual-edged sword. It means that:

More and more people are interested in photography because digital cameras are so readily present and available.
More and more people are making and trying to sell photographic images (often as fine art prints or to stock photo agencies) or parlaying their photograph-making into income-producing services (e.g., portrait and wedding photography).

Item #1 is a good thing. I have sold a non-trivial percentage of my fine art prints to photography enthusiasts. Also, photography enthusiasts are interested in paying successful and established photographers for some of their acquired photography knowledge and/or tools and shortcuts they've developed.

Item #2 tends to be a bad thing, especially if you are trying to sell photographic images and/or services to the same audiences. (More about this: a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle called "Photo hobbyists snapping up more business".)

Photographers of the "weekend warrior" type threaten to bring wedding, portrait, and other event photography prices down. However, from my experience, there will always be customers wanting to pay extra to know they're hiring an established full-time professional who has proven him/herself over and over and who they can depend on to deliver the "goods". I believe a very small percentage of weekend warrior photographers actually end up becoming professional photographers. (Once you turn it into a professional occupation, it's not that fun little hobby anymore...!)

My quandary is what if it's really from the fine art and stock photography markets that you want to make most of your income?? For some reason, this reminds me of something photographer Chuck Close said (next 3 paragraphs):

"The thing that interests me about photography, and why it's different from all the other media, is that it's the only medium in which there is even the possibility of an accidental masterpiece. You cannot make an accidental masterpiece if you're a painter or sculptor."

"This is simultaneously photography's great advantage and its Achilles heel: it is the easiest medium in which to be competent. Anybody can be a marginally capable photographer, but it takes a lot of work to learn to become even a competent painter. Now, having said that, I think that while photography is the easiest medium in which to be competent, it is probably the hardest one in which to develop an idiosyncratic personal vision. It is the hardest medium in which to separate yourself from all those other people who are doing reasonably good stuff."

"A recognized signature style of photography is an incredibly difficult thing to achieve."

What Chuck Close said about photography has not changed. And if--as it seems--many more people are doing photography now with the advent of digital photography and (another important factor) photo-sharing websites, it can only be *more* difficult now to distinguish oneself and one's photography from the mass of photos being produced and displayed on the web and elsewhere.

If fame is your goal, that's one thing. If making a living from photography is your primary concern, it would be good to remember an important marketing principle that hasn't changed: you must find a market for what you have to offer; this applies to photos and any other product. Photographers who are successful in fine art and stock photo markets will have found that market for their photos.

It's easier to find a market, then produce what that market wants. Doing it in the opposite order (producing, then finding the market for the product) can be much more difficult...and could, ultimately, exhaust one's resources (time, money) before success is achieved.

So, "where" do I think photography is going?

Having so many suppliers of photos/images--and even photography services, like portrait and wedding photography--does tend to push market prices for these products and services down (it's a basic economic principle!). However, I don't think this large supply is going to reduce people's interest in photographic images or services. Quite the contrary, I think it's expanding people's interest in photography!

As a result, those photographers able to distinguish themselves and rise about the heap of suppliers out there, will actually benefit from the increased interest in photography! Photography enthusiasts is a great market for photography-related goods and services, like fine art prints, books, training, consulting, portraiture & weddings (yes, photography enthusiasts want the best photography for their weddings!), and so on.

Related to what Chuck Close said, the tricky part is distinguishing your work from the work of the other thousands of photographers out there jamming the Internet with digital images! This is where such principles as "branding" come into the discussion. But branding is a topic I'm just coming to terms with and which I will likely expound upon further in future blog posts...:-).

Canon Announces New Canon 7D...So What?

2009-09-01T14:13:00.000-07:00

I heard the announcement regarding the new Canon 7D today. Apparently, the name is confusing people because many think it's the new 5D. Well, it turns out it's closer to the new 50D, because it's Canon's latest APS-C sensor (1.6x crop factor) DSLR, which is like the 10D, 20D,...and 50D that preceded it.

So, why did they leave the multiple of 10s naming convention? Probably just to indicate a significant "break" with that line in terms of technology and capabilities.

It seems that most people are excited about the HD video recording capabilities the 7D has (better than the 500D, comparable to the higher-priced 5D Mark II). But I'm still steeped in still photography and don't care that much about it's HD video functionality.

What I'm most interested in is that they *finally* updated the 9-point AF system (has a single cross-type point in the middle of the 9-point array) that has been on *all* their APS-C sensor DSLRs and on both the 5D and 5D Mark II. It's now a 19-point AF system where *all* the points are cross-type! (Cross-type points are able to use *both* vertical and horizontal edges to lock-in focus.)

In addition, not only are there more than twice as many focus-assist points with 18 additional cross-type points, but the autofocussing system will now have its own dedicated processor. That's right: they've put in dual processors....which previously, was only available in their high-end 1D and 1DS professional series!

One other professional-level upgrade: weather-sealing. Again, only their high-end 1D and 1DS professional series used to have weather-sealing.

There's no doubt in my mind that this new 19-point, dual-processor, AF system--as well as the weather-sealing--will be making its way to the 5Ds quite soon (the 5D Mark III?), and finally put the 5D series at a truly professional level...:-).

You can buy the 7D or get on the shipment received notification list for the 7D at B&H's website. You can read more about the Canon 7D at Canon's website.

Beware Point-and-Shoot Film Cameras with Post Pre-Focus Focussing

2009-08-27T14:27:00.000-07:00

This will be a short post, but I wanted to share some potentially informative experiences with high-quality, point-and-shoot film cameras I've accumulated recently, especially for street photography shooters and those trying to photograph fast and oft-moving children...

Apparently, the "pre-focus" (when you push the shutter button down halfway to "pre-focus" in order to minimize the delay before the shutter is actually tripped) on many point-and-shoot film cameras doesn't actually focus the lens; it'll only determine whether there's enough light to take the photo, and whether assistance from the built-in flash will be needed. Also, it allows you to fix the exposure level and recompose the shot. I guess this behavior is meant to minimize the battery drain caused by focussing the lens and then not taking a photograph.

For street and child photography, the extra amount of time needed to focus the lens upon pressing the shutter button the rest of the way down, can easily lead to missed shots...to which my experience can attest.

One of the highly-touted point-and-shoot cameras of the 1990s was and is the Yashica T4/T5. The lens quality is quite nice and it even works relatively well with the built-in flash. The only drawback I've experienced with it: it doesn't actually focus the lens until you press the shutter button all the way down. Luckily, it focusses pretty fast; but it can't compete with a camera that actually focusses the lens upon partial pressing of the shutter button.

I was surprised to find this out about the Yashica T4/T5 because the point-and-shoot cameras I had gathered before acquiring the Yashica T4 actually focussed the lens on pre-focus.

It turns out the Leica Minis (I have both the Mini II and Mini III) actually focus upon pre-focussing; I didn't realize how lucky I was to have selected them as my first compact film cameras for my street and child photography. (Note: I've noticed my Mini II with a 35 f/3.5 lens focuses slightly faster than my Mini III with a 32 f/3.2 lens.)

Two others I've collected that don't have the focussing delay after pre-focus:

The Ricoh GR1, GR1s, and GR1v. The Ricohs, in fact, have a "snap" focussing mode that even eliminates time to pre-focus.
The Konica Hexar AF. This isn't a very compact point-and-shoot camera; but it's the fastest auto-focussing film camera I own...as fast as my Canon SLR and DSLRs.

Anyway, if you're looking for compact and/or point-and-shoot film cameras for street and/or child photography, you should be aware that many of these types of cameras are like the Yashica T4/T5 in that true focussing doesn't occur until the shutter button is fully depressed.

As I gather and/or use other point-and-shoot film cameras, I will try to make sure to report my findings here at the blog.

Why 35mm Film Isn't Dead Yet

2009-08-26T08:54:00.000-07:00

I, like many others, thought it no longer made sense to make or use 35mm film.

It still made sense that photographers would buy medium and large format film because--unless you had $20,000-$40,000 for a medium format digital camera--shooting medium and large format film is still a cost effective way to get really rich and detailed images, whether you scan the film or just print it. (I know that some would argue that 35mm full-frame digital SLRs give you as good or better images than medium format film. Maybe. Maybe sometimes. Regardless, you can easily spend thousands of dollars on a good full-frame DSLR setup...).

But why would anyone shoot a 35mm film negative or slide when: 1) you have to keep buying more film, 2) pay to process (and probably ship) that film, 3) wait for it to be processed (and probably shipped back), 4) film scans often need to be "cleaned up" due to dust, scratches, and/or chemical residue, 5) film scans--especially if higher than 100 ISO--often show a lot of graininess..??

I've come to realize the reasons why 35mm film isn't dead yet:

Compact digital cameras with "full" (DSLR) sized sensors have not been perfected yet. Sure, you'll see some offerings from Sigma (DP-1 and DP-2) and Olympus (E-P1) out in the market; but these cameras haven't reached the level of performance (e.g., in terms of auto-focussing and lens quality) achieved by the compact 35mm film cameras of the 1990s--e.g., the Contax Ts, the Leica Minis and Miniluxes, the Ricoh GR1s, the Yashica T4/T5, the Olympus Stylus Epic, and so on.
Compact digital cameras with their typical small sensors have very little pleasing bokeh--which is the thing that provides the selective focus and 3-D "depth" that most people like in a good photo...especially when the subject matter is people.
With all its drawbacks, film can still provide a rich, classic, and artistic "look" that digital photography doesn't have (i.e., it's the difference between a digital and analog aesthetic).
Film cameras allow you to get different types of images by simply changing the film you're using (e.g., black & white versus color; grainier versus finer grain; different grain structures--Kodak Tri-X has a different look than Ilford or Fuji B&W films...or even other Kodak B&W films; smooth versus contrasty; etc...)
Most people now shoot digital due to convenience and price. Want to make your work stand out more as a photographer/photographer-artist? Shoot film...your work will automatically look different than 95% (or more) of the images being produced these days. (I think less than 95% of people own digital versus film cameras; however, it's clear a vast majority of the images produced and displayed on the web came from a digital camera.)

Even though the market for 35mm film has become smaller and smaller, I think it's here to stay a while. There's a certain level of 35mm film user die-hards I don't think are going to go away anytime soon. These die-hards are partially motivated by nostalgia; but it's not all nostalgia. The reasons I listed above are legitimate, "practical" reasons why 35mm film is still around and still fills an important niche.

As long as there are people/consumers out there wanting to use 35mm film, someone is going to make it for them...:-).

Terry Richardson Bought My Point-and-Shoot Film Camera

2009-08-18T19:51:00.000-07:00

I recently sold a point-and-shoot 35mm film camera on eBay to someone named Terry Richardson in New York City. I asked (via email) whether this was *the* Terry Richardson--the fashion photographer who famously uses compact "point-and-shoot" 35mm cameras to do his high-paying fashion photography...? Well, I didn't get an answer.

Of course, this leads me even more to believe it's probably him...(!)
(Update: He did eventually email me back. His message: "Hi,yes its me...love that camera its awesome for street shots..and fits in my pocket better then the yashica. keep on clicking...thanks Terry")

Terry Richardson is renowned for shooting with a compact 35mm film camera that is no longer manufactured: the Yashica T5/T4 Super. As a result, Yashica T5/T4 Supers now sell for more used than they did new in the 1990s!

It would make sense that he would have to buy more used Yashica T5s/T4s on eBay when they wear out because they're no longer made--or even, probably, serviced--by Yashica. (Does Yashica even still exist as a company?)

But that is not what he bought from me.

Terry Richardson--this one in New York City--bought a compact, point-and-shoot camera from me that was not made by Yashica. It was another relatively famous point-and-shoot 35mm film camera that was manufactured around the same time as the T5/T4 Super.

Now I'm inclined to keep it a secret so that the price on this gem doesn't get as inflated as it's become on the Yashica T5s/T4s. However, if someone guesses it, I'll come clean and tell you what it was.

Note: anyone who posts a "Who Cares!" comment has become too jaded for their own good...;-).

Do Zoom Lenses Make You Lazy?

2009-08-13T15:05:00.000-07:00

First, let me say when I photograph a wedding I rely heavily on zoom lenses. I find that too many things are happening too fast to rely on having to reposition myself for shots or on changing my lens to a different prime. Also, I don't want to have to do a bunch of post-wedding image cropping when the lens I was using was too wide for the shot.

When it comes to my wedding photography, I have made a conscious decision that it is more important to catch as much as is potentially interesting as possible than to:

use a prime lens for the ultimate in optical quality (a difference professional photographers might notice but many clients wouldn't and/or don't care about), or
cut my shots down to *only* the premium artistic and emotional shots and become *really* good at properly positioning myself for them knowing I have the limitations of a fixed focal length (prime) lens on my camera.

Now, I should mention that I reduce the impact of issue #1 by using Canon's very best and most expensive zoom lenses; it's not like I'm using consumer grade zoom lenses..!

Issue #2 is more interesting to me.

There is an award-winning wedding photographer in the UK (whom I've mentioned before: Jeff Ascough) who believes that "less is more" and takes an astoundingly small number of photos during a wedding, even though he's using a digital camera and could easily shoot more at no additional financial cost--it's not a financial consideration. I just checked his blog and it appears he shoots with two cameras plus four prime lenses. He seems to be a good example of someone doing #2 above.

I believe that successfully doing #2 would require some transition time...and I'm certainly not going to "experiment" on weddings for which my clients have paid me to produce the same type of work they've seen demonstrated on my wedding website using my usual wedding shooting practices!

The thing is, there are significant differences between doing fine art/street photography versus wedding photography:

a client *pays* you to photograph a wedding; no one (yet) has paid me to go out and do some street photography...though I'm certainly open to offers..:p
there are no "must have" shots when you're doing fine art/street photography; it's pretty casual and purely up to your artistic choices
fine art/street photography can be as slow-moving or fast-moving as the photographer desires; a wedding photographer--especially a photojournalistic-style wedding photographer like myself--has little control over the pace of events at a wedding
in street photography, "missed shots" can be a disappointment for a photographer, but there are always more shots to capture (it's all part of the fun); for a one-time (well, it's supposed to be...) dynamic event like a wedding, a missed shot is a "hole" in the wedding coverage that the paying client may be very disappointed about and can't get back
the higher optical quality of a prime lens actually makes a difference in fine art photography because the audience for fine art photography actually notices that sort of thing (they're usually very "into" photos and looking at them in terms of quality); better quality also can make a difference when making large prints, which would be more typical in fine art photography

Let me address one other issue that someone might bring up about using prime lenses for wedding photography: prime lenses typically come with larger maximum apertures making existing light photography more feasible in dark conditions versus zoom lenses. I often switch to using some primes during a wedding reception once it really gets dark. But this works well for me for two reasons:

I still keep one zoom lens on a camera with a flash because sometimes flash is the best choice and I might as well have a zoom lens that covers a good range starting somewhere wide, like 24mm or 16mm.
Even though there are "must have" shots at a reception, I usually have plenty of time to ready myself for them (the DJ or wedding planner usually lets me know they're about to happen); otherwise, shooting at receptions is quite casual and relatively easily covered by fixed/prime lenses on my second camera

I'd like to step out of the wedding versus fine art photography discussion for a moment and briefly discuss the use of a fixed/prime lens for my fine art/street photography versus using a zoom lens.

We went on a family vacation during which I decided to shoot some of my leftover film using my Canon film SLR (an Elan 7). I decided to use my Canon 24-105 f/4 L lens with it as a good general purpose zoom lens. I generally enjoyed shooting film as a change of pace from shooting my usual digital; it helped me practice "waiting on" good shots, which I think is becoming a lost art now with the prevalence of digital photography.

Anyway, I got the film processed and scanned to disk. I was pretty pleased with the results; though it was difficult to know whether the photos that didn't come out very well were more due to the camera or the out-of-date film I used!

Shortly after that vacation, I got a hold of some compact 35mm film cameras with high-quality, fixed focal length lenses (Leica Mini II, Yashica T4, Ricoh GR1s) because my Elan 7 with the 24-105 zoom lens wasn't very compact; plus I had to worry about it (due to the relatively high cost of the lens) when I set it down to swim in the pool or whatever...and my wife absolutely hates having to keep an eye on my camera equipment!

Well, I was pleasantly surprised by three things:

the quality of the photos was as good if not better than the quality of the photos I got with the expensive Canon "L" lens attached to the relatively large Canon SLR!
the fixed focal length lens forces me to be more strategic and move around more to get a shot....and because of this, I'm getting photos I like better!
I forget this sometimes, but one of the reasons I like photography is being outdoors and running around (I like this much better than spending hours at a computer)! I really like the fresh air and exercise...and bonus: this too usually improves the quality of my photography...:-).

Essentially, I'm using Jeff Ascough's "less is more" strategy in my fine art/street photography with some real success. I will have more on my experiences with the compact (point & shoot) film cameras in future blog posts.

So, what about the question in my blog post title: Do Zoom Lenses Make You Lazy? Here's my current answer: zoom lenses are a "crutch".

They help you make fewer decisions of a strategic nature when you are photographing; they cover more so you're giving up less when using them
They smooth over time/place "crunches" caused by dynamic events with simultaneous photo opportunities
They compensate for either the inability or unwillingness to move around more physically

I think the unfortunate thing that can happen is that you use zoom lenses even when you really don't need them. This *can* lead to a certain amount of photographic laziness that really can start to erode the quality of your photography.

If you feel like your photography is getting stale and you're relying a lot on zoom lenses, try changing things up by using some fixed focal length lenses and forcing yourself to see the world in an interesting way through that one focal length. You may be pleasantly surprised by what you find...:-).

Note: If you're interested in purchasing one of these high-quality lens, point-and-shoot film cameras I refer to, take a look in B&H's Used Store; there's nothing like them that you can buy new anymore...:-(.

Still a Place for Film?

2009-07-28T09:41:00.000-07:00

So, recently I decided to shoot some film because I realized I still had a bunch of it in a refrigerator, and also, I was curious how it might affect the way I took photos (compared to using a digital camera). My main question: Is there any reason to still shoot film...especially 35mm film?

Look of Film

First, I have to say, there are shots like these that only film can "pull off". This type of shot just looks crappy with digital cameras...DSLRs or otherwise. I think the dynamic range of print film and its "organic" grain structure make something like this work somehow. Sure, the digital camera makers try to emulate the looks of different films; but they're still just that: emulations, not the real thing.

Scarcity Breeds Scrutiny

Buying, developing, and scanning film isn't cheap in terms of money or time. When you're shooting film, you think twice before pressing that shutter release button. It's going to cost you something to take each shot; it better be worthwhile! I think there's something valuable about scrutinizing each shot carefully before taking it; the process engenders critical perception and evaluation, which seems to be an important part of growing as a accomplished photographer. Every once in a while I could kick myself for not triggering the shutter and thereby missing a possibly good shot! But more often than not, I'm glad for the discipline of framing and then resisting a pointless shot.

Creativity and Sensor Variety

Every time you put a different type of film into your camera, it's like putting a different sensor into your digital camera! How's that to stimulate creativity?! You get to decide on whether to have a color or black & white sensor, how it's going to handle highlights and shadows, color saturation, what sort of grain structure the image will have, and so on. If you don't like the "look" of the images you're getting, try a different film! What a great way to get a large variety of different types of images from one camera...:-).

Variable Sensor Resolution
I've recently been on a mission to get a compact camera with 35mm full-frame resolution. There have been some initial forays into this area by a couple of digital camera manufacturers (Sigma, Olympus), but there are issues with these preliminary offerings...and prices are at a premium.

There are some great compact film cameras (many of them no longer in production) from companies like Leica, Olympus, Yashica, Contax, Ricoh, Konica, etc that take 35mm SLR-quality photos with true 35mm full-frame resolution and beautiful bokeh on 35mm film. And that film can be scanned at various resolutions to yield almost any resolution digital file you need. I like to get my film developed and immediately scanned to digital files (I think most film processors now offer affordable scanning when you develop the film with them). And if you get a really great shot that you want to print large, you can always go back to the film frame and get it scanned at a different/higher resolution.

Light as Film
One thing that struck me about film cameras is how much lighter they are than their digital counterparts. Once you jam in an LCD and the rest of the electronics that go into a digital camera, it starts to get a little heavy and--often--bulky. Film cameras don't require much electronics (some have none); and if you make the camera body out of lightweight materials (e.g., various plastics), a compact film camera can weigh a matter of ounces. And since film consists of paper, thin plastic, resins, and a bit of thin metal, a "loaded" film camera weighs little more than an empty one.

Persistence of Analog
There are a few things I find unsettling about having most of my photos exist as digital entities only:

I'm sure that someday, my computer (or whatever it might end up being called) will no longer be able to read information off of today's CDs and DVDs. Today's CDs and DVDs will become yesterday's floppy disks. There will be a window in which I'll have to copy all of my images to some other storage medium, or I can just say goodbye to my archives of digital images.
I try to be good about backing up the images on my hard drive to other media. But this does not always happen. The spectre of losing images due to the failure of technological devices (which happens all too often) occasionally enters my consciousness...and is certainly a real danger.
I keep hearing about how the quality of digital images on storage media degrades over time. I suspect film degrades some over time as well. I'm not sure which degrades faster; maybe I don't want to know...(!)

In any case, having photos on both an analog medium like film and also as digital images provides the ultimate in flexibility, accessibility, and safekeeping. There's some comfort in knowing you'll always be able to view, enlarge, scan, and print from an analog format like film regardless of what happens with digital/computer technology.

Alternate Way to Get a Compact Camera with a Full 35mm Frame "Sensor"

2009-07-16T09:23:00.000-07:00

I've been wanting to have a compact camera with me sporting a high-quality lens that could take "publication" and "stock" quality photos. Most of the digital compacts have somewhat second-rate zoom lenses with puny & noisy sensors. The few exceptions (Sigma DP1/DP2 and the soon available Olympus E-P1) either have usability issues (Sigma) or aren't yet available and will be quite pricey (Olympus). The other issue with these cameras is that they don't come with optical viewfinders (though they're sometimes available as an expensive accessory)...which may not be an issue if you prefer using the rear LCD to frame shots anyway. I don't particularly like using the LCD because:

I prefer using a viewfinder for some reason
Having the LCD constantly on really drains the battery quickly
Even having an LCD adds quite a bit to the weight of the camera (any of you camera manufacturers considered a lightweight digital camera without an LCD? I think it would be interesting, because it would be more like shooting film where you don't see the results until you're done shooting...:-).

So, I've decided to try some highly-rated 35mm film compact cameras. I'll shoot the film and have it developed and scanned right to digital--like having a compact digital camera with a full 35mm frame sensor. My first acquisition: the Leica Mini II. It has a fixed 35mm f/3.5 lens. I will also be trying the highly rated Ricoh GR1s. Cost for the Mini: $90.

I'll publish results of my "experiment" in future blog posts.

The Mentality and Economics of Digital Photography

2009-07-14T10:21:00.000-07:00

I recently took a vacation with my family, during which I took photos using a 35mm film SLR camera. It's going to cost me $125 or so to get the film developed and scanned to digital. (The cost of film processing without the scanning would be about $70.)

The same lens/lenses I use on my 35mm film SLR camera also work on my full-frame, 13 megapixel digital SLR. And being a wedding photographer, I have enough memory cards to store thousands of images, even if shot in raw format. For another $55 (bringing my total cost to $180), I could have gotten the developed 35mm film scanned to yield 16 megapixel-equivalent image files. But the $125 I'm paying only gets me 6 megapixel-equivalent scans.

So, you may be asking: "Why the heck would you shoot 35mm film when shooting with the digital SLR would be FREE since you already own the digital SLR and memory cards??"

There were three main reasons for my 35mm film folly:

I have a bunch of leftover, out-of-date 35mm film (refrigerated) that I don't think I could sell for much anyway.
I thought this out-of-date film might end up giving me some interesting artistic effects.
I was curious how I might shoot differently knowing I was shooting film.

I haven't gotten the film back yet, so I don't know how the photos came out yet. (I'll speak to this in a follow-up blog post after I see the results.) But my shooting style was definitely affected and it got me thinking about how digital photography has changed photography.

One of the main things that stood out for me was how much more scrutiny I gave the image in my viewfinder before pressing the shutter button.

With digital, one tends to "shoot away" if anything even close to a possibly compelling image enters one viewfinder. I've seen some photographers take random shots without even looking into their viewfinders in hopes of luckily catching an interesting shot. (They check their LCDs and delete most of these...only keeping a few serendipitously interesting shots.) I've been "guilty" of such random shooting at wedding receptions when I'm holding the camera over my head to give it a view of the dance floor I don't have in hopes of catching something good.

From an economics point-of-view, "shooting away" with your digital camera makes sense: each additional shot gains another possible "winner" without any additional per unit cost (assuming you've got plenty of room left on your memory card/s). Sure, there was some additional cost involved in buying the digital camera and memory cards in the first place; but once this cost is absorbed, taking additional photos cost nothing financially.

Now, there is a "cost" involved in having to store and go through additional images *afterward* to find the good images and weed out the bad ones. But digital storage just keeps getting cheaper and cheaper and there are now services a photographer can employ to help him or her edit and adjust the thousands of images they've taken per photo session or event.

I considered making the argument that the money you would save by not having to keep updating your digital camera and computer equipment each year and not having to send your images out to one of these image editing/processing services would more than pay for all the film and film processing expenses (including having the film scanned to disks for proofs) you would incur. I'm not really sure how it would ultimately work out, and it would probably vary quite a bit from photographer to photographer, depending on the type of photography they specialize in, number of events per year, etcetera. However, I think this consideration is a good thing for all photographers to evaluate individually.

So, back to the issue of the added scrutiny I gave each image in my viewfinder before pressing the shutter button...does it matter?

There's a successful UK wedding photographer (Jeff Ascough, selected as one of the best wedding photographers in the world by various publications) who only shoots 200-300 images per wedding, even though he's shooting digital. In his blog post titled: "Less is More", he says: "For years I've worked on the principle of getting one exceptional image to tell the story of a particular moment, rather than lots of average pictures. If you cover a wedding with this mindset, not only does the photography improve, but so does the consistency of the coverage."

Here's my take: I think the added scrutiny you give a shot before pressing the shutter button *does* matter, in at least three ways:

It helps you keep your photography "eye" critically trained. If you're "machine gunning" away, you've at least partially absolved yourself from judgements of quality of the images you're shooting.
More scrutiny of the images you're capturing keeps you more "in the moment"...which should help keep you in closer touch with what you're photographing...which should, ultimately, lead to better images.
You're not swimming in hundreds of mediocre images afterward, which I really think *has* to erode your judgement of images. With so many images, I find--at some point--it's difficult to evaluate what's good anymore. (Interestingly, I find it much easier to make these quality judgements if I wait some number of weeks after a wedding before looking at these hundreds or thousands of images.)

Now, it's not necessary to shoot film in order to implement more scrutiny and judgement in your photography. However, it can be an effective means for bringing your mindset back into the mode of more intentional and mindful photography to see if you notice a difference in the quality of the images you get.

When I get my film back, I'll let you know if the noticeable change in the mental part of my photography led to any differences in the actualy images I captured!

Photos from a New York Wedding

2009-07-03T07:22:00.000-07:00

When I started this blog, I intended to post more images than I have been. So, for the July 4th weekend, I've decided to put up some photos I took at a wedding in Upstate New York.(You can see more photos from this wedding at my other blog.)

When I do my "high-end" Candid Artworks^TM wedding photography package, I do extensive image processing in Adobe Photoshop Lightroom, in which I apply various treatments to create images that stand out more than the sometimes "flat" images that come out of the camera. My wedding clients really seem to like this added processing...enough so that many are willing to pay the additional $1000+ to get it.

After doing the image processing for thousands of wedding photos, I've developed a number of presets (much like Photoshop Actions) that make the processing go faster. Also, having a library of presets makes it easier to find the best treatment for a particular image. If you haven't used Lightroom, you should know there's a "preview" feature wherein you can hover your mouse over your presets and see a preview of what the image will look like after applying the preset! This is both an incredible time-saver and helps to find the absolute best preset for the image.

Sometime soon, I plan to offer some of these presets for sale at my blog for a relatively nominal fee. So, keep a lookout for those...:-).

Brief Review of the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 (similar to the Leica D-LUX 4)

2009-06-22T21:20:00.000-07:00

This is a short follow-up review of the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3. In a previous blog post, I described my decision to purchase a Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 in great detail. Now that I own one--and have used it for more than a week--I thought I'd give my impressions of it so far...

As when I tested the Canon 5D Mark II, I had high hopes for the auto ISO. What photographer hasn't suddenly gone from a dark indoor setting to a bright outdoor setting (e.g., from inside a dark church to the bright sunny summer day just outside the front door of the church) and forgotten or not had time to switch the ISO down to a much more appropriate setting? I either shoot aperture priority or manual about 98% of the time, and it was a major disappointment to me that the 5D Mark II doesn't allow you to specify a minimum shutter speed. In fact, the shutter would go down as low as 1/20 sec for an indoor shot rather than bump up the ISO and take it at a more appropriate shutter speed. Other photographers have confirmed for me that there isn't a minimum shutter speed setting on the Canon 5D Mark II (as there wasn't on the Canon 5D before it).

So, when I put the Lumix DMC-LX3 on auto ISO, it too chose lower shutter speeds than I ever would have, especially to photograph moving people (I mostly use the Lumix DMC-LX3 to photograph my children and they hardly ever stand still!).

Well, it turns out that the Lumix DMC-LX3 has a lot of customizable and flexible options, especially for a compact camera. So, I dug down into the menu system, which took a while to get familiar with. However, it paid off. I found my perfect combination of ISO/exposure related settings: 1) set the ISO to Auto, 2) set a maximum acceptable ISO (I specified 1600 because I find 3200 pretty bleak), and 3) set a minimum shutter speed of 1/60 sec.

Even though there are situations where I might want a lower maximum ISO or a slower minimum shutter speed, the combination of the 1600 and 1/60 is ideal for me 80% or more of the time. So, I just put these settings into one of my customizable programmable settings (C1 and/or C2, which you can choose with a turn of the dial on top of the camera) and start there each time. If I need to change anything, I just get into the menu and change things for that photo session. The next day, when I start the camera up again, it's back to my saved custom settings. Works like a charm!

A nice feature of the Auto ISO setting is that it makes available finer ISO gradations than are available with setting the ISO manually. For instance, you can manually set the ISO to any of the following: 80, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200. However, in Auto ISO mode, additional ISO settings in between these become available (I've seen the camera select them): 125, 160, 250, 320, 500, 640, 1000, 1250, 2000, etc. It's really nice to have some ISO settings between 400 & 800 and 800 &1600 because 400 to 800 and 800 to 1600 are significant jumps in digital noise. So, it's beneficial to "ramp up" the ISO more gradually to keep that noise down as much as possible.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3, 80 ISO, f/2.5, 1/100 sec, 9.3mm (44mm)

The other ISO-related issue I should emphasize is that since the Lumix DMC-LX3 has such a large maximum aperture of f/2.0 (wide) - f/2.8 (telephoto), this too helps to keep the required ISO down.

I've been pleased with the auto-focus on this camera; I've even been able to get it to lock onto moving children. Having a choice of different metering modes--including spot!--has been a pleasure. The tiny flash has been a nice surprise; it's more powerful than I thought it would be.

Being able to choose whether the camera uses an AF assist light is great; when you're trying to take photos without your subject being aware of you doing so, you don't want that red light signaling your intentions! The auto-focus works quite well even without the AF assist light.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3, 640 ISO, f/2.0, 1/60 sec, 5.1mm (24mm)

It's not all peaches & cream with this camera.

Let me make it clear that the quality of the images from this camera cannot match my Canon DSLRs, not even the Digital Rebel 400D I have. Even though the Lumix DMC-LX3 and my Digital Rebel 400D are both 10.1 megapixels, the digital noise and image quality are hands down better with the Digital Rebel. And even with the large maximum aperture on the Lumix DMC-LX3 (f/2.0 - f/2.8), the bokeh or background blur is significantly better with a f/2 or f/2.8 lens on my Digital Rebel. Really, the main benefit of having the f/2.0 - f/2.8 aperture range with this camera is enabling low-light shooting and keeping the ISO/digital noise down as much as possible. The bokeh isn't going to knock anyone's socks off.

Also, the DMC-LX3 doesn't come with an optical viewfinder (this is a "not cheap" accessary you have to buy), so you have to compose everything on the rear LCD...which ends up wearing the battery down relatively quickly. It is a little easier to catch people unaware by composing things with the LCD (which you can hold down low and away from your face while composing), but it's nice to have the option of using an optical viewfinder sometimes.

Even though you can record fairly nice videos with this camera (Quicktime MOV), you can't zoom in or out once the recording begins.

Finally, this camera has a 35mm full-frame equivalent zoom range of 24-60mm. I really like having 24mm on the wide end...sometimes, I'd like to have more! The 60mm limit on the telephoto end can certainly be a little limiting sometimes; but I knew this before I bought the camera and still prefer the tradeoff of limiting the telephoto range in order to keep the maximum aperture up to a nice large f/2.8 at the telephoto end.

So, after using this camera for more than a week now, I would recommend it to anyone looking for a compact camera that:

fits into a large pocket or small pouch
can take photos in dimly-lit indoor settings
has a nice wide-angle reach of 24mm (35mm full-frame equivalent)
is able to keep ISO relatively low in most shooting situations because of the lens' large apertures
has to have good image quality, but not necessarily as good as a digital SLR
can be customized to fit the photographer's shooting style and/or subject matter
can take photos of active children
doesn't have to zoom out beyond a 60mm telephoto range
has enough megapixels (10 mp) to make relatively large prints when desired

If a camera with these features sounds pretty good to you, buy one! If you love Leica, buy the Leica version; it's more likely to be in stock. Either way, I don't think you'll be disappointed...:-).

Awesome Outdoor Coverage: 17mm-350mm (35mm full-frame) with Two Lenses

2009-06-10T06:42:00.000-07:00

If you follow this blog at all, you know I recently purchased a Canon 35-350 L zoom lens for use with my full-frame Canon 5D. The 35-350 L is no longer manufactured by Canon; it's been replaced by the 28-300 IS L. But you can still get a 35-350 L in great condition (around $1100), and they're only about half the cost of the 28-300 IS L (around $2200).

The 35-350 has turned out to be a great lens for me on a full-frame camera. I'm still blown away by the fact that this lens has the farthest reach of any of my lenses, yet includes a respectable wide angle focal length of 35mm. It would be nice if it had a constant maximum aperture of f/2.8 throughout the zoom range (rather than f/3.5 - f/5.6), but then it would be unbelievably heavy, I'm sure!

Anyway, 35mm on a full-frame DSLR meets, probably, 90% of my wide angle needs. But every once in a while, I want to be able to reach 28mm, 24mm, or even a little wider. Now, granted, my desire for 28mm or wider is usually an indoor phenomenon. However, there are situations outdoors (e.g., next to a tall waterfall) or semi-outdoors (e.g., on a open boat for a cocktail cruise) where I could use some "serious" wide angle capability.

Well, it turns out I own a Canon 17-40 f/4 L lens which gives me true wide angle coverage to 17mm on my 5D. I don't use this lens a lot; but when I need it, it *really* comes in handy. (New 17-40 f/4 L lenses can be purchased for around $700.)

I've got a *mostly* outdoor wedding coming up (some of the reception will take place inside an actual building; otherwise--weather permitting--everything else is going to be outdoors), and it occurred to me that with my 35-350 on one 5D and my 17-40 on the other 5D, I've got an awesome focal range of 17-350mm using professional Canon L zoom lenses! Total lens cost: $1800.

Now, matching the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L with the 35-350 would also work (and pick up another 1mm on the wide end), but a new 16-35 f/2.8 L is about twice the cost of the 17-40 (about $1400). The total lens cost of uniting the 35-350 with the 16-35 f/2.8 would be $2500.

Of course, you could buy just the 28-300 IS L for $2200 and only have to deal with one camera and lens. However, you would be cutting off some of your coverage range at *both* the wide and telephoto ends (you would lose 16-28mm or 17-28mm and 300-350mm). You'd also miss out on the nice added capabilities of having an ultra wide-angle zoom, which can really come in handy.

Because the 35-350 is a bit slow aperture-wise (f/3.5 - f/5.6) and reaches 350mm (total overkill for most indoor situations), I would never recommend it as a good indoor lens for weddings. However, combined with the 17-40 f/4 L, you've really got an amazing outdoor wedding lens combo for $1800 or less (if you can get some good used lens deals), that could capture practically any shot you could throw at it! (Note: For you bokeh lovers...even with the relatively small maximum apertures of the 35-350, you can get some really nice bokeh in a large portion of the telephoto range: 150-350mm.)

Having Problems with the Camera Strap getting in the way for Vertical Shots?

2009-05-29T08:58:00.000-07:00

Have you ever had this problem? You've got your DSLR camera hanging in front of you on the neck strap. You grab it and turn it on its side to take a vertical/portrait shot and this happens...

...the camera strap goes right in front of the viewfinder so that you have to shove it out of the way with either your hand or the side of your face?!

I'm not sure why, but this little annoyance only recently struck me...probably because I didn't have a vertical grip on my camera previously and so could easily use the thumb on my right hand to keep the strap out of the way of the viewfinder (since my hand was already on the horizontal shutter release button near the place where one end of the strap attaches).

I think the other reason I've noticed this problem is that I've been using a Black Rapid R-Strap for the past year.

The R-Strap attaches to the bottom of your camera (to the tripod screw hole) and keeps your camera hanging at your side. (Follow the link I provided to a Black Rapid R-Strap demonstration video in the previous paragraph to see it in action.) When you grab the camera and bring it up to your eye--in either horizontal or vertical orientation--the strap is nowhere near the viewfinder! It really works well.

Up till now, I've shot with one DSLR hanging from a neck strap (this is the camera I put the flash on) and the other hanging at my side on the R-Strap. However, I've noticed that having a hotshoe flash on the camera hanging upside down at my side doesn't appear to be a problem. If you have a big or flimsy flash diffuser attached to it, maybe you'd have a problem. But I'm not a big fan of exotic flash diffusers--like the LightSphere--anyway.

So, if you find yourself having a problem with the neck strap getting in the way of the viewfinder when you go to take vertically-oriented shots--especially if you have a vertical battery grip--take a look at the Black Rapid R-Strap. I've been quite happy with mine...:-).

Finding a Good Low-light, Wide-Angle Compact Digital Camera

2009-05-21T13:45:00.000-07:00

I've owned and used various digital DSLRs from Canon. I've also owned and used various lenses--both zooms and primes--in various photography situations, both professionally and recreationally.

One felt need that periodically but persistently emerges for me is having a smallish camera I can easily bring with me when I go on short excursions with my family--places like a playground, ice cream stand, the mall, etc--that doesn't hang out in front of me on a neck strap proclaiming me to be a "camera geek"...and hitting my kids in the head everytime I turn toward them (they're young and short)!

At the same time, this smallish camera has to take photos in all sorts of suboptimal lighting conditions and produce image files that I can enlarge to make good quality 10x15 and 12x18 prints--or even use as stock--if I happen to capture some great off-the-cuff images. (75% or more of the photos I take are candids.)

The common vision among photographers is imagining oneself being Henri Cartier-Bresson with a Leica, finding and taking impromptu shots that end up being works of art! Well, even a Leica M series camera--both film and digital--weighs over a pound. And even though they may be more compact than a SLR or DSLR, they're still larger than the digital "compacts" and "ultra-compacts" you see around these days.

The problem with these compact digital cameras is they usually have one or more of the following weaknesses:

Too much digital image noise at and/or above 200 ISO
Can't focus in low-light
Have small maximum apertures (you're lucky to get an aperture as large as f/3.5 at the wide end of the focal length range)
Can't save images in an unprocessed raw image format
Seldom go wider than about a 35mm (full-frame equivalent) focal length angle of view
Poor lens and/or image quality compared to DSLRs
Limited manual/creative controls

A couple of years ago, I bought a Canon PowerShot S60 to fill this gap. It's a 5 megapixel camera which, by today's standards, is pretty low-resolution. However, it has a lot of nice features that many digital compacts don't:

You can record images in raw format
It focusses pretty well in low light (with the help of an AF assist light)
Goes as wide as 28mm full-frame equivalent focal length
Has a relatively large maximum aperture at 28mm of f/2.8
Pretty good optics and image quality
Good manual/creative controls

While I got some images I probably wouldn't have gotten otherwise (i.e., situations when I wouldn't have taken a DSLR, so I wouldn't have had *any* camera available), the S60 comes up short in three areas:

Digital noise: even at 200 ISO it starts to get pretty horrendous
That maximum aperture reduces very quickly as you zoom...all the way down to f/5.3 at the other end of the zoom range
5 megapixels doesn't cut it anymore for anything other than web images or small prints

The combination of #1 and #2 made it necessary to take flash photos in most low light situations. This was my biggest disappointment with the camera.

Well, I started looking around again for a good compact camera. The three that currently seem to stand out in terms of low-light performance and image quality are the: 1) Sigma DP2, 2) Leica D-Lux 4, and 3) Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3.

The big selling point for the Sigma DP2 seems to be the size of its sensor; it's similar to putting the sensor from a 1.6 crop factor Canon DSLR into a compact camera. With this larger sensor comes better dynamic range, detail resolution, and low noise performance. The DP2 comes with a relatively large maximum aperture of f/2.8; but the lens is fixed at one focal length: 41mm (full-frame equivalent).

I was pretty impressed by the sample photos I've seen online from the DP2; they looked smoother and looked to have better detail than the images from the other two cameras. Also, this camera seems to have *very* nice bokeh (background blur).

I almost decided to get it. What stopped me?

Even though the larger sensor seems to yield better quality images in good light, the advantage goes away--or is greatly reduced--in low light
By all accounts I've seen, the focussing--especially in low light--is significantly better with the other two cameras
Focal length is fixed at 41mm. I actually think this a relatively good focal length to be fixed at if you have to pick one. But sometimes 28mm and 24mm can be so handy!
The maximum resolution of the images that come out of the DP2 are 2640 x 1760 pixels (about 4.6 megapixels). Even though it has been shown repeatedly that these images can be successfully up-sized to much larger than this, I don't like the idea of having to up-size most of the images I take to make them useful for my applications.
This review of the DP1, which has the same sensor as the DP2

So, then I focussed more carefully on the other two cameras: the Leica and the Panasonic. First, let's look at a few specifications, which are virtually identical between the two cameras:

10.1 megapixels
24-60mm (35mm film equivalent) Leica branded lens
max aperture: f/2.0 - f/2.8
ISO range: 80 - 6400
Focus modes (Normal,Macro,Quick AF,Continuous AF,Manual Focus,One Shot AF,AF Area Select,AF Tracking )
AF Assist Light
Metering (Intelligent Multiple,Center Weighted,Spot)
Output formats: JPEG, RAW
Image stabilization
More specs (Panasonic Lumix LX3, Leica D-Lux 4)

From these few specs, I think you can see these are not your average compact digital cameras. They've got DSLR-level features and are well set up for wide-angle, low-light photography.

I found that the Leica was retailing for around $700 (May 2009); the Sigma was going for about $650. What about the Panasonic? Around $500. I'll come back to the issue of price a little later.

Well, it turns out there's all sorts of speculation on the web regarding the differences between the Leica D-Lux 4 and Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3. Some say it's the exact same camera with slightly different "packaging". Some say the differences are quite evident.

I did searches at both Google and Yahoo to find people who had access to both cameras and were taking comparison test images. Here are a few links if you're interested:

Here's what I decided: they are very close. Sometimes I think I see an advantage for the Leica. But then I think they're *so* close, a small tweak in the processing of the images (e.g., color, contrast, clarity, sharpening) and I could make either one look better than the other. Also, some of the differences could be attributable to the person taking the photos or slightly different settings or manufacturing tolerances, etcetera.

Now I, like other photographers, am sometimes swayed by "image"; I'm talking about the status related type here. This may seem a shallow consideration; however, showing up with a camera with the name "Leica" on it may engender more confidence in my client than showing up with a camera with the name "BumSplag" on it. Also, if I ever go to sell the camera, other photographers would probably be willing to pay me more for a "Leica" than a "BumSplag".

Since I will still primarily be using my DSLRs for professional photo gigs, I'm not so concerned with the brand name displayed on this camera. This camera is my more casual travel camera. Besides...even the Panasonic says "Leica" along the front edge of the lens! And anyone concerned about resale value of a digital camera when the digital camera manufacturers are putting out newer and "better" digital cameras every month is--in my opinion--a little off-base!

So, I'm opting for the $200 cheaper Panasonic. But wait...there's more!

It turns out that the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 comes in both black and silver. The black version looks much more like the Leica D-Lux 4. I assume--I don't know this for a fact--that this similarity to the Leica is why the black version sells for more than the silver version?! I saw the black version of the LX3 selling for $30 more than the silver version at B&H. I guess the black version is more hip....and more Leica-like!

Anyway, as I write this blog post, it's actually difficult to find LX3s in stock right now. So, both the silver and black versions are going for a premium right now (more than $500).

Well, let me leave you with a tip: I found a silver version of the DMC-LX3 at Dell Computers for $429.99. It's unclear to me whether it's actually in stock (i.e., it doesn't say it's *out* of stock). But for that price, I can afford to wait a little for my uncool silver "Leica-like" compact to arrive...;-).

Addendum 1: it turns out they're actually back-ordered at Dell. I canceled my order and bought a lightly used one from eBay. At this time (6/8/09), eBay is probably your best bet for finding one of these right now...!)

Addendum 2: A new camera from Olympus will start shipping in July (2009) that is definitely competitive in this category of cameras: the Olympus E-P1.

Canon EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM versus Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM: A Visual

2009-05-14T15:23:00.000-07:00

I recently purchased a Canon 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM zoom lens. (This lens was replaced by the Canon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM and is no longer in production.) Due to some of the complaints I heard, I was a little worried the size and weight of it might be a problem...especially over the course of a long day of shooting.

Well, I haven't used it during a long day of shooting yet; but I have used the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM at some of my weddings and haven't noticed any major problems with weight. So, just out of curiosity, I thought I would compare the two purely in terms of size and weight.

First, I weighed both of them with their hoods and caps on. The 35-350 weighed in at a fairly substantial 3 pounds and 4.6 ounces. When handling them, it's a little difficult to tell which is heavier because the weight is distributed differently. The 70-200 IS has a larger diameter and looks more substantial. And, as it turns out, it *is* somewhat heavier: 3 pounds and 8.3 ounces.

So, the 70-200 is heavier even though it covers a smaller range of focal lengths. However the 70-200 has two attributes that make it especially heavy: 1) a relatively large and constant maximum aperture of f/2.8, and 2) an image stabilization system.

I took a few photos to further illustrate their differences in size. In the first photo, they're standing upright on a table (the 70-200 is on the left; the 35-350 on the right):

As you can see, when the two lenses are not extended, the 70-200 is longer/taller than the 35-350. How about when they're fully extended?

Actually, the 70-200 doesn't extend when you zoom it out; so its length is unaltered (I know, I know...the 70-200 shows it's at 70mm, not 200mm. Trust me: it's the same length at 200mm). The 35-350, on the other hand, has now surpassed the length of the 70-200 (it's a push-pull zoom like a couple of Canon's other L zooms: 28-300 and 100-400)...and there's a relatively large and heavy piece of lens glass inside that extended end.

How about a photograph of the two with their hoods on?...

To the casual observer, they look like they're almost the same length! I guess this is good as far as the 35-350 not making me "stand out" any more than the 70-200 does. However, much of the length on the far end of the 70-200 is lightweight plastic. The 35-350's hood is quite a bit shorter.

So, even though the 35-350 weighs less than the 70-200 IS, the weight distribution is quite different. I'm a little concerned that when the 35-350 is fully or nearly fully extended, it'll act as a substantial lever with my upper back acting as the counterweight....possibly making it ache after a few hours of shooting.

I guess the proof will be "in the pudding" once I actually shoot an event with it! More on that sometime soon...:-)

A Nice General Purpose Prime Lens for a Digital Rebel or other 1.6 Crop Factor Canon DSLR: Canon 35mm f/2

2009-05-11T08:32:00.000-07:00

I like large maximum aperture prime lenses. The variable maximum aperture consumer grade zoom lenses (usually something like f/3.5 - f/5.6) can be good for outdoor daytime photography; but for general purpose indoor/outdoor, daytime/nighttime photography, a f/2 or larger maximum aperture prime lens can get a lot of shots the consumer grade zoom lenses just can't get. In addition, you get better image quality with a prime lens and a really nice background blur that can be difficult to get with those smaller apertures.

Now, a standard entry-level prime lens that I and many other photographers start with is the plastic Canon 50mm f/1.8. For the price (under $100), the image quality and bokeh (background blur) can't be beat. And it gave me a normal focal length lens (between wide angle and telephoto) on my 35mm film SLR camera. 50mm can be (and is for me) a very good general purpose focal length.

When I bought my first 1.6 crop factor DLSR (the Canon EOS 20D), the 50mm f/1.8 lens went from having the angle of view of a normal lens to that of a 80mm telephoto lens. This isn't necessarily bad if you want a telephoto angle of view; but it *is* bad if you really want normal lens coverage.

The first lens I bought to accommodate the APS-C sensor of the 20D was a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 zoom lens. 28mm on the 1.6 crop factor DSLR is about 45mm...slightly wide angle compared to a normal 50mm view. Of course it also gave me the full-frame equivalence of a 120mm at the 75mm end. It was a good lens for me, until my daughter accidentally knocked it off of our kitchen counter and permanently crippled it (I was a little surprised how fragile it was).

I eventually went on to a full-frame Canon 5D DSLR and my 50mm lenses (the f/1.8, f/1.4, and f/1.2...I've owned all of them at some point) went back to being true normal angle of view lenses. However, I still have a 1.6 crop factor Digital Rebel that I like to travel with.

On our family vacation to a New York state park last summer, I brought the Digital Rebel and two lenses: a Canon 24-105mm f/4L and a Canon 35mm f/2. Even though the 24-105 gave me the better range of coverage (full-frame equivalent of about 38 - 168mm), I found myself preferring the 35mm f/2 for a few reasons:

1) It's much more compact (here's a photo of the larger 24-105mm next to the 35mm, both with their hoods on)

2) Significantly larger aperture that allowed shooting at lower ISOs indoors and made it possible to shoot in much less light (e.g., photos of my family next to a campfire lighted only by the fire light)

3) Less worry about losing or damaging the lens since it's much cheaper than the 24-105 zoom

A 35mm lens on a 1.6 crop factor DSLR is equivalent to a 56mm lens on a full-frame DSLR. It's slightly telephoto compared to a true normal lens angle of view, but it's not far off. Canon makes a 28mm f/1.8 that I think I would slightly prefer in terms of angle of view (approximately equivalent to 45mm on a full-frame), but compared to the 35mm f/2, it's: 1) bigger, 2) more expensive (around $420 new compare to $240 for the 35mm), 3) has poorer center sharpness wide open (i.e., at large apertures).

I have found the 35mm f/2 to give me great photos and to focus quickly and accurately, even without a USM autofocus drive motor (it makes a high-pitched whizzing sound when it's focussing because it's not USM; but this doesn't bother me).

I really think the Canon 35mm f/2 is a great lens for anyone who owns a 1.6 crop factor Canon DSLR (includes the Canon EOS 10D - 50D and all the Digital Rebels) and would recommend you try one out if you haven't already!

The One Canon Lens for Photojournalistic Coverage of Outdoor Events (Super Zoom Lenses)

2009-05-05T21:11:00.000-07:00

Over the past week, I photographed two events at my children's small private school...one as an observer and one as a participant. (It's much easier to photograph an event as a non-participant!)

In any case, during the event when I was an observer, I put the Canon EF 70-300 F4-5.6 IS USM on my Canon 5D with the assumption I'd mostly want close-ups of the children. On the other day (when I was an event participant) I brought the 5D again, but had two lenses: the Canon EF 24-105 F4L IS USM and the Canon EF 70-300 F4-5.6 IS USM again.

On the day I had just the 70-300, I did run into some circumstances where I wanted a wider perspective. But being outdoors and fairly mobile, I just retracted the zoom to 70mm, ran some distance away from the children, turned around, and took the shot. Of course, during a little run like that, you're liable to miss a few shots..! (I can just imagine telling the wedding couple at an outdoor wedding to go back and walk down the aisle again so I can run some distance and get a wider perspective...:p).

On the other day when I had two lenses, the 24-105 came in handy when I was taking shots of the people around me...especially, when I was right in there with them participating in some group activities. It was a little difficult, though, to get any decent shots of the people that were far away from me (we were quite spread out over a large grassy area).

Later--when I got a chance--I changed to the 70-300 lenses to get candids...mostly of children who, hopefully, wouldn't notice me focussing on them. This was fine until the children got into groups and lines for some games. Again--as I did on the previous day--I had to run back away from them to get them all into the 70mm view.

Two cameras

When people pay me to shoot an event--like a wedding--I normally bring and wear 2-3 cameras with 2-3 lenses to cover a wide-angle, normal, and telephoto perpective simultaneously. When I travel or go to an event that I'm covering with little concern for fiscal remumeration, I don't want to walk around with two or three cameras hanging from me! Not only is it nicer to have only one camera to tote around, but having multiple cameras hanging from me puts me in "work" mode...and tells all the people around you that you're truly a camera geek!

No, I'd rather have one camera and one lens (maybe one additional small lens that fits conveniently in a pocket) when I'm traveling or photographing my kids. Yet, I want that camera and lens to yield "professional" images that could be sold as prints or stock images should I happen upon shots with such promise.

One Good Camera + Lens Combo

I've toyed with the one perfect camera + lens scenario a number of times over the past couple of years. I have seen the Canon EF 28-300 F3.5-F5.6 L IS USM out there on the market and thought that 28-300 on a full-frame sensor would do a pretty good job of covering most shots I would want when traveling or when photographing my kids' school events.

So, what's stopping me from buying it? A $2300 price tag and mediocre image quality reviews. And if I'm going to pay that amount of money, I would want to replace a bunch of my lenses. The 28-300 can't replace my Canon F2.8L zooms (24-70 F2.8L and 70-200 F2.8L IS) or my F2.8 - F1.4 primes, which are critical in indoor low-light situations. And although I don't use my 17-40 F4L zoom that often, when I need it I *need* it. I suppose the 28-300 could almost replace my 24-105 F4L IS, but I'd have to be convinced the image quality is close enough before I could get rid of a dependably good performer like the 24-105; same with my 70-300 F4-5.6 IS.

Canon has recently come out with a EF-S 18-200/3.5-5.6 IS that covers the equivalent of 29-320mm on a full frame DSLR; but it's gotten even more mediocre reviews than the 28-300, and I don't have a good APS-C format DSLR (1.6X crop factor) to put it on...and don't really want to buy one this year.

I started looking around at third-party lenses, but the only one that came close to what I wanted while achieving acceptable image quality was the Sigma 50-500mm (nicknamed the "Bigma"). But I'd be giving up any wide-angle coverage. I guess I could carry around something like a 24mm F2.8 in my pocket for wide-angle shots; but I hesitate to give up on my quest for that single affordable, good quality lens that I can just leave on the camera the whole time. Also, even though I've owned a good third-party lens or two in the past, I'm most comfortable sticking with the original manufacturer's lenses to keep compatibility issues--especially with future DSLRs I might buy--at bay.

Since I'm not afraid of older Canon lenses (I've had a great Canon 80-200 F2.8L zoom that went out of production in 1996), I started to look for a blast from the past. Well, I found the Canon EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM zoom, which apparently went out of production in 2004. It doesn't go as wide as the 28-300, but it's got more telephoto reach (350mm vs 300mm). From my past use of a 24-70mm on a 1.6 crop factor DSLR (24mm becomes effectively 38.4mm on the APS-C sensor), 35mm on a full-frame DSLR should work quite well for me, especially outdoors. The 35-350 doesn't have the image stabilization (IS) of the newer lens, but it's about 10oz lighter than the latter.

What about image quality? I haven't been able to find a side-by-side comparison on the web, but I've been led to believe there isn't a huge difference in image quality: both are "L" lenses with the superior build and image quality that the "L" designates; but the image quality ratings are dragged down for both by their trying to perform well at such a huge range of focal lengths.

It seems that the image stabilization is pretty important for some commentators and the wider wide-end is a big factor for people with 1.3X or 1.6X crop factor sensors. People complain about the heaviness of both, but--as I said--the newer lens is the heaviest (those IS systems add significant weight).

Well, I discovered you can get a used 35-350 in immaculate shape for about half the price of the 28-300. I saw a "bargain" quality 35-350 selling for around $800 without a hood; but I fear getting a well-used lens that is no longer in production because getting it fixed could turn out to be difficult. No, give me a lightly-used out-of-production lens every time!

So, I went and bought the 35-350 L and haven't even received it yet. You can be sure I'll post some sample shots and some observations in coming weeks. I should also get a chance to compare it head-to-head against the newer 28-300 L in about a month because I plan to borrow that for an outdoor wedding. Keep an eye out for that if you're interested!

A Polaroid Camera for the Digital Age: the Polaroid Pogo

2009-04-28T18:43:00.000-07:00

The first Polaroid Land camera came out in 1948. For the first time in photography, the photographer could see his/her photos only a minute after taking them. Color Polaroid film was introduced in the 1960s. The general public bought up Polaroid cameras like hot cakes and professional photographers used Polaroid film and film backs to take test shots before using their regular negative or slide film to capture the final image/s.

By the the late 1990s, digital photography was beginning to take off and started to cut into the Polaroid market. After Polaroid's recent announcement that they will stop making Polaroid film at the end of this year (2009), it seemed that Polaroid's run as a special player in the photography market was finally over.

But digital photography only replicated one feature of the "Polaroid experience": the instant viewing of a photo just taken. What about the instant *print* feature? Sure, you can connect a digital camera to a printer and get a print reasonably easy; but you still need another piece of equipment to make the print possible.

Apparently Polaroid finally realized the initial inspiration for the Polaroid Land Camera still had some mileage to give them. So they've come up with the new Polaroid Pogo which is a digital camera with a mini printer build into it! You can print a nifty 2"x3" print right in the camera and hand it to your friends and family to "ooh and ah" over. The camera has a 3.0" LCD on the back; so unlike the original Polaroid film camera, you can sort through the images and only print the ones you like. It'll be available this June (2009).

I don't how much it's going to cost or how good the images or prints will be, but I have to say they've done it again! They come up with a product that rekindles the original Polaroid magic and I, for one, would like to take a look at one once they become available...:-).

Canon 5D Mark II Redux - Report from a Wedding (Wedding Photography)

2009-04-20T17:20:00.000-07:00

I shot my first wedding using a Canon 5D Mark II. I've got it on loan and have nothing invested in having to like it (if I'd bought it, I'd have to rationalize the purchase!). I'm a long-time 5D user and I have also owned and/or used various 1-series Canon DSLRs. I photographed approximately 40 weddings over the past three years.

Canon 5D Mark II, Canon 15mm Fisheye lens, 100 ISO,
f/2.8, 1/200 sec, aperture priority

I was interested to see how well the new auto ISO feature worked because it covers almost the entire range I've ever used with the 5D (all except for an ISO of 50). I also wanted to see how well the new auto 1/60 - 1/200 flash sync setting worked for flash photography. But before I report on those, I have a note of warning for Canon 5D users...

New Placement of AF-On Button
If you're a heavy user of the AE-lock button like me (it's the "*" button at the top right rear of the 5D that you use to lock in an exposure settting), beware the new AF-on button on the 5D Mark II that is now located just to the left of the AE-lock button...(!) I couldn't figure out why the AE-lock button wasn't working very well for much of the day, until I realized my thumb was used to reaching for "the far left" button whenever attempting to press the AE-lock button. But on the Mark II, Instead of pressing the AE-lock button, I was pressing the AF-on button, which seemed to be doing absolutely nothing!

So, if you're a heavy user of the AE-lock (*) button on the 5D, be sure to retrain your thumb before shooting an event with the 5D Mark II. Note: I just discovered you can actually swap the functioning of the AF-on and AE-lock buttons in the custom function settings; so you may want to look into that.

Canon 5D Mark II, Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L lens, 1600 ISO,
f/2.8, 1/10 sec, aperture priority; processed in Lightroom

RAW Image File Sizes
I shoot weddings in Camera Raw (i.e., with the camera set for camera raw image file format) to make image adjustments easier afterward. There was no way I was going to shoot 21 megapixel raw images with the Mark II; image files that large would fill up my 8 GB memory cards too fast! So, I chose the Mark II's new sRAW1 format, which yields 10 megapixel images. According to Canon's EOS 5D Mark II instruction manual, these 10 megapixel images are about 14.8 MB in size. This brings me to two issues...

1) The 5D Mark II is giving you 10 megapixel raw images that each take up 14.8 MB of space on your memory card. Well, it turns out that a full 12.8 megapixel RAW image on the 5D takes up less space on your memory card...about 13 MB! Now, I'm guessing this is because the images have gone from 12-bit to 14-bit. What will make a bigger impact on your client...the color depth in the images or the number of pixels? I guess you'll have to be the judge. In any case, the 12.8 mp RAW 5D images take up less space on a memory card than the 10.0 mp RAW 5D Mark II images.

2) I took a look at the image file sizes for the images I shot at this last wedding. (I was shooting with both a 5D and the 5D Mark II.) The file sizes from the 5D ranged from about 12 MB to 16 MB. The file sizes from the 5D Mark II (sRAW1) ranged from about 10 MB to about 23 MB. So the file size is much more variable on the Mark II and really depends on what you're shooting.

Auto ISO
I was really looking forward to the new 100-3200 Auto ISO feature when I first heard it was going to be included on the 5D Mark II months ago. How many times have you suddenly gone from a low-light situation to a bright-light situation while photographing (e.g., a bridal couple coming out from inside a dark church to the bright sunshine outdoors) and forgot or didn't have a chance to change the ISO from 1600 or 3200 ISO to 200 or 100 ISO??

In a nutshell, this new feature isn't the "silver bullet" I hoped it would be. I didn't have any problems with it outdoors, though I have heard some say it selected a higher ISO than they would have wanted in such situations. My main issue with the auto ISO is when it selects a too-low ISO (especially indoors) and allows the shutter speed to go down to 1/20 second! I've got a number of blurry indoor shots for which I wish the camera would have selected a higher ISO and shutter speed when I was shooting with the lens wide open in aperture priority mode. Maybe auto ISO works better indoors in shutter priority mode?

If you could set a minimum shutter speed in the custom functions, that would be a possible solution; that doesn't seem to be available with the 5D Mark II. Also, be aware that the upper end of the auto ISO changes to 400 instead of 3200 when you have a flash attached and turned on.

One other thing: I was wondering what would happen if you had the camera in manual exposure mode and had the ISO set at auto; would the ISO fluctuate so that your exposure would suddenly be off? Or maybe the ISO would change to accommodate changing lighting conditions, effectively giving you a semi-auto-exposure manual exposure mode! Well, it turns out the ISO simply fixes at 400 ISO regardless of the lighting conditions.

New 1/60 - 1/200 sec Auto Flash Sync
In addition to the 1/200 fixed flash sync speed on the 5D which works in aperture priority mode (I use this a lot because it works much better than Auto when you're shooting in a dark room with a flash in aperture priority mode), the new Mark II also has a variable 1/60 - 1/200 sec auto flash sync for flash photography that works in aperture priority mode. Well, I have to say I didn't notice much of a difference. In fact, when you're trying to catch people moving and dancing around in dark reception halls, you almost always need 1/200 anyway. I still like the idea of it, but it didn't make as much of an impact as I had hoped.

920,000 Deceiving LCD Pixels
The new 3", 920,000 pixel LCD is quite nice; it's certainly much less "pixelly" than the 3" 230,000 pixel LCD I witnessed on the 40D! However, the definition is *so* nice, I think it can actually deceive you into thinking the captured image is actually sharper and better focused than it really was! It misled me more than once. Probably once you get used to the higher definition LCD, you're better able to discriminate between the sharp/in-focus images and the blurry/out-of-focus ones.

Odds and Ends
The auto white balance (AWB) on the 5D was never that good, but my initial experience with the Mark II indicates it's no better. In fact, it seemed ever so slightly worse to me. The autofocusing system on the 5D Mark II is the same as it was on the 5D; this indeed seems to be the case (i.e., it works fine in most cases, but tends not to be very good in low light...especially without a flash attached and the AF Assist turned on).

For some reason, it really stood out to me how well the Mark II performed when I was taking photos of the people in the receiving line just outside the church. It was a bright mostly cloudy afternoon and almost every photo seemed to a have close-to-ideal exposure with the camera set to aperture priority + auto ISO. However, in other cases, with strong backlighting, I was having a heck of time getting the proper exposure...even when I switched to spot metering.

I liked being able to switch the ISO to 6400 on the Mark II to get some important shots in the dark church where the ceremony took place. However, I'd swear there were shots I could get with the 5D at 3200 ISO that required me to switch to 6400 on the Mark II to get. And even though I was using two different lenses on the two camera bodies (70-200 f/2.8 on the 5D and 24-70 f/2.8 on the 5D Mark II), I had them at or near the same maximum f/2.8 aperture on both lenses when I really needed to, and the 5D seemed to need less light for a proper exposure. Not a completely controlled experiment, but...

Conclusion
So, the 5D Mark II was really my "main" camera for this wedding and it did a pretty decent job. However, I really don't feel like it was a significant "step up" from using my good old 5D as my main wedding camera. I said this in a previous blog post and I'll say it again here: I sincerely think a lightly used 5D for around $1300 at eBay may be a better purchase right now than a 5D Mark II for around $2700....*unless* you really want or need the capability of: the extra 8 megapixels per image, high definition video recording, or shooting at 12800 - 25600 ISO even though the camera may not be able to autofocus in such low light conditions.

No Difference between Canon 5D and Canon 5D Mark II at 1600 & 3200 ISO

2009-04-15T15:55:00.000-07:00

I just got a Canon 5D Mark II in my hands from an official Canon source that I shall not mention here. Here's the question I had: is there any difference between the Canon 5D and the new Canon 5D Mark II at 1600 ISO and 3200 ISO? The 5D Mark II can also shoot at 6400, 12800 and 25600 ISO. But I wanted to know if any improvement had been made at the two highest ISOs they share: 1600 ISO and 3200 ISO.

I shot photos of one of my kids' rain boots laying on the basement floor in very dim natural light. I used a Canon 24-70 f/2.8L lens on both the 5D and the 5D Mark II. I shot all photos at 51mm and f/2.8. All photos were shot in RAW format and then prepared for this report with Lightroom 2 and Photoshop CS2. Now, I know the 5D Mark II comes with some new fancy algorithms for reducing image noise. But if you shoot almost everything RAW, like I do, those don't really matter much.

The one thing I did that some people might object to was crop the same amount of the scene for both cameras, even though a true 100% magnification section would take in less of the scene with the 5D Mark II compared to the 5D because it has 65% more pixels per image. (At the end of this test I'll include one of those comparisons in case you're interested.) My reasoning was that if I were looking at a specific object in a 5x7 print from each camera (for example, the bride's face when she's with the groom on the dance floor at the reception), I would be interested in the amount of noise I saw in her face in the 5x7 image, which would be the same size for each camera (more pixels doesn't change the relative size of objects in the same 5x7 photo!).

Note: I didn't use a tripod for these tests; so you can't tell much about the resolution of details from these photos; but some camera movement will not affect the amount of digital noise in the image. I did no sharpening when preparing these images for this report.

At 1600 ISO

Canon 5D Mark II at 1600 ISO (a higher quality version of the above image)

Canon 5D at 1600 ISO (a higher quality version of the above image)

The details are a bit clearer in the Canon 5D Mark II shot; but it's not clear whether that is due to the greater number of pixels in the 5D Mark II image, or whether there was more camera shake when I took the 5D shot. Regardless, the point of this test is to compare the amount of noise in the two images. Look at both the shadow and highlight areas. Do you see any significant difference? I don't.

At 3200 ISO

Canon 5D Mark II at 3200 ISO (a higher quality version of the above image)

Canon 5D at 3200 ISO (a higher quality version of the above image)

Somewhat ironically, the image from the 5D has the better detail in this comparison, probably due to camera shake. But again, this would not affect image noise. So, if you look at the noise in the highlight and shadow areas, which camera is best? Is there really any difference?! I think it's truly a dead heat.

Now, the 5D doesn't offer the higher ISOs of the 5D Mark II....6400, 12800, and 25600 ISO. So, let's look at a similar image taken at 6400 ISO with the 5D MarkII:

Canon 5D Mark II at 6400 ISO (a higher quality version of the above image)

Pretty noisey. Makes me wonder if I underexposed a shot at 3200 ISO with a 5D by one stop if I'd do any worse once the exposure level was raised in Lightroom?

Anyway, let me show you the 100% magnification crops for the 5D and 5D Mark II at 3200 ISO so you can see if it makes a difference--i.e., if it makes the difference between the 5D and 5D Mark II any clearer:

Canon 5D Mark II at 3200 ISO 100% magnification

(higher quality version of above image)

Canon 5D at 3200 ISO 100% magnification
(higher quality version of above image)

The 100% magnification view doesn't make much of a difference to my eye. Let me know if you see something I'm not.

Conclusion

I think there's the assumption out there in the Canon user community that the 5D Mark II probably has less image noise than the 5D at 1600 and 3200 ISO because it can take relatively "acceptable" photos at 6400 ISO, and can also take photos at 12800 and 25600 ISO. The results of this test have convinced me that this difference doesn't actually exist. And unless I want to take a bunch of photos at 6400-25600 ISO, have an extra 8 megapixels per image, and shoot HD video, then a lightly used 5D selling for $1300 versus the 5D Mark II selling price of $2700, might just make a lot of sense!

-mgm

Addendum: I made the statement that the noise reduction in the 5D Mark II doesn't affect RAW images. While I believe this is true, I can't find mention of this in the 5D Mark II manual. So, in the interest of full disclosure, I will include the fact that the 5D Mark II's high ISO noise reduction setting was at "standard" for these tests, which is second only to the highest setting: "strong" noise reduction.

Note: you may also be interested in my follow-up blog post describing my experience using the 5D Mark II to photograph a wedding.

Note 2: I finally got a hold of the 5D Mark II again and did a follow-up comparison of images at 1600 and 3200 ISO with those from my 5D. My results were a bit different this time...

Canon 1DS Mark II, Canon 1D Mark II & Mark III, Canon 5D Mark II, Canon 5D, and Wedding Photography

2009-04-14T08:07:00.000-07:00

On the brink of the majority of my 2009 wedding photography season (I had one wedding in January), I have been looking around for another camera to accompany my trusty old Canon 5D. I've used this 5D for over two years as my main camera for weddings and portrait sessions; it's got some mileage on it and I'm worried I might get to the end of its shutter lifespan any day now. (Having to get a new shutter isn't the end of the world; but it *is* expensive and puts the camera out of commission for a week or so.) So I really think it's time for a new "main" camera to shoot weddings with. Perhaps the trusty old 5D can take over the role of "second" camera...(?)

I've always shot weddings--and will continue to do so--with two cameras for at least two reasons:

It makes two different lenses (e.g., wide angle and telephoto) immediately available at all times
I have a backup immediately available if something goes wrong with one of the cameras or lenses

Last year I used a Canon 1D Mark II as my second camera. It was an ideal camera to put a 70-200mm lens on and take photos outdoors or indoors. The camera is relatively big and heavy, but this helps to steady your shots when you're using a big and heavy telephoto zoom lens (like a 70-200 f/2.8) that tends to tip everything forward. It also worked well with my 15mm fisheye lens because the 1.3 crop factor of the 1D series cropped some of the most distorted part of the image (for which fisheye lenses are famous), but left lots of nice wide angle coverage.

I considered moving the 1D over to being my main camera with the flash for weddings (my "main" wedding camera always has a flash attached for when I need some flash lighting), but I found that it never performed as well with my 580EX II or my 550EX flashes compared to my 5D. Also, I've gotten used to having the 12.8 megapixels of the 5D--especially for large group shots, because I like to leave extra space around the groups in the image so my clients can crop them to different sizes and aspect ratios--and feel that 8 megapixels is on the edge of acceptability. One other factor playing into this decision was my new involvement in stock photography where they really prefer as many megapixels as you can give them. I decided to sell the 1D Mark II.

What about the new 21 megapixel 5D Mark II? Isn't that what 90% of wedding shooters using Canon equipment are doing?! Well, the main thing I like about the 5D Mark II is the ability to shoot at even higher ISOs than the 5D or 1D Mark II (6400 ISO and even 12800 ISO look usable on the 5D Mark II). But the camera I'm looking for here is my main camera with the flash attached; I usually shoot the low-light, non-flash photos at weddings using my second camera with the "specialty" lenses attached (e.g., my f/1.2 and f/2 primes). The 5D Mark II is an expensive "second" camera! Especially because I would want the vertical grip on it to make work better with the 70-200 f/2.8 telephoto zoom. With the grip, the 5D Mark II is pushing the $3000 barrier. I also have an issue with the autofocusing system on the 5D Mark II being the same as the 5D; both of which aren't that good in low light compared to the 1-series. Plus 21 megapixels is overkill for my needs; and the HD video capabilities aren't something I care to get involved with at this point.

What about the 1D Mark III? It's got the great low-light focusing capabilities of the 1-series cameras! I borrowed and used the 1D Mark III for four weddings last year. I like the focusing system and used the max ISO of 6400 quite regularly. But in addition to many of the reasons I've ruled out the 5D Mark II (including it working better as a second camera than my main camera), the 1D Mark III is more expensive (about $4000) and has only 10 megapixels...which is fine for wedding photography, but which makes it less attractive for stock photography than even the 5D. (Note: high ISO capabilities are of little value for stock photography because they [the stock photo companies] seldom accept images with an ISO of higher than 800 from *any* camera.)

Well, let me tell you, I convinced myself that the Canon 1DS Mark II was the camera I was looking for! It's got 16.7 megapixels (plenty of resolution for stock and weddings), the 1-series focusing system that works well in low light, and it's a workhorse tested to 200,000 shutter actuations! Sure, it doesn't have a self-cleaning sensor and the LCD is only 2". But I've only had one camera with a self-cleaning sensor and many of my LCDs have been 2" or smaller (e.g., the 1.8" LCD on the 20D), and none of this scared me off.

So, I found a $2100 1DS Mark II in really nice shape and bought it. It had fewer than 50,000 shutter actuations and should last, I felt, at least a couple of wedding seasons. I did some preliminary testing and found it to worked well. I compared images to my 5D and saw that the noise at 1600 and 3200 ISO was even slightly lower on the 1DS. I was pretty happy!

Before the end of my 7-day testing period, I put a 580EX II flash on the 1DS and took it to a fashion show. I generally stay away from flash photography as much as possible. But there are times at weddings--especially during night-time wedding receptions--when I simply can't avoid using my flash or flashes to provide some needed light.

The fashion show was taking place in a somewhat dark gymnasium in the late afternoon on a dark, dreary, and cold early Spring day. I was taking some photos at 3200 ISO with my 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens on my 5D and the shutter speed was still quite low: 1/40 and 1/30 sec. I tried a few flash photos with the 1DS; but since the ceiling was so high and there were no walls around, I didn't like the absence of reflected light (I usually "bounce" the light from my flash as much as possible) and didn't take many flash photos.

Well, I had promised to take photos of a certain group of models because I knew one of the models in the group. It was getting time for me to leave, so I gathered the group for photos. It was evening at this point and quite dark; so I was going to have to use the flash. Well, I discovered that the 1DS was having quite a lot of trouble focusing to take the flash photos! This was true when the models were standing still and even worse when I tried to take of photo of them walking toward me.

I believe part of the problem stemmed from sporatic functioning of the AF Assist light; when the AF Assist wasn't coming on, it was having lots of trouble focusing and allowing me to take the photo. It was pretty embarrassing when I couldn't get it to work in a timely fashion standing in front of these models!

The next day, I decided I needed to get to the heart of the problem. I have the Canon 580EX II Speedlight and the older 550EX Speedlight. So I did a bunch of side-by-side tests. I put the 580EX II on the 5D and tried some shots without the lights on in my basement; then I put it on the 1DS and tried the same shots. I did the same thing with the 550EX on the two cameras.

The AF Assist was working on both cameras with both flashes; so I'm not sure why I had *that* problem the night before; maybe it was one of those weird temporary problems that goes away if you turn the camera or flash off and back on.

In any case, here's what I found: compared to using a flash on my 5D, there was a slight but significant delay in the flash firing and the shutter opening on the 1DS MkII, even when the AF Assist light was working. The delay was long enough that if you were photographing someone walking in a low light situation (e.g., a wedding couple coming toward you down the aisle in a dark church), the focus would never lock in, the flash would never fire, and the shutter would never trigger. *This* was exactly the problem I was having at the fashion show!

I tried all sorts of different settings to get rid of this delay on the 1DS MkII. The only solution that came close was putting the camera focusing system in AI Servo mode, regardless of whether the subject was moving. This got rid of the delay, but most of the flash pictures taken were out-of-focus; i.e., it no longer stopped me from triggering the shutter and flash until it was in focus, but then most of the time it was out-of-focus!

Now I don't know if this is an issue with this particular copy of the 1DS or if I'm missing some other setting I could tweak (I swear I tried them all); but I decided this flash delay killed any chance this camera had for being my "main" wedding camera. I sent it back.

So, where does that leave me?

It occurred to me that I have no problem with the 5D being my "main" wedding camera with the flash attached. The only problem I have is using my current 5D because it's been through so many weddings! But if I could find another one that hasn't been used so much, it should make a fine main wedding camera.

Even though I have some reservations about buying used camera equipment from a place like eBay which, obviously, features camera equipment used by non-professionals; it's the perfect kind of place to find camera equipment that hasn't gotten much use. Even though professionals may be better about taking care of their equipment (this isn't always so), they actually *use* the equipment because that's what they use for their work! Amateur photographers, on the other hand, may go through phases of taking photos and ultimately give the equipment light overall use. Also, amateurs may treat their equipment better because it's part of an enjoyable hobby.

In any case, I decided to buy a relatively lightly used 5D on eBay to be my "main" camera with flash attached for weddings. I also bought two other things to set up my trusty old 5D as a good second camera: 1) I bought a vertical grip to make it easier to handle with the big 70-200 f/2.8L IS attached, and 2) I bought a Canon ST-E2 Speedlight Transmitter to give it an AF Assist light in particularly low-light situations (and also to do some creative lighting during wedding receptions in conjunction with my two flashes...more on this in a later post).

So, we will see where these decisions take me. I'll have more to say later in the wedding season!

-mgm

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

Photographing Fashion Shows - Lessons Learned

2009-04-09T11:41:00.000-07:00

Canon 1DS Mark II, 24-70 f/2.8L, f/5.6, 1/60 sec,
manual exposure, 200 ISO

Over the past four years, I've been photographing the fashion show put on by the Cornell Design League (CDL) at Cornell University early each Spring. This is always a "dead" time of the year for photography up here in the Northeast, so I do it as a warmup and chance to test new equipment for my weddings and portrait sessions that begin in earnest in May.

Neither the CDL nor Cornell University pays me anything up front to photograph the event, but I often make *some* money from print sales to designers, models, and their relatives, and digital sales to media organizations, like the Cornell Chronicle.

After photographing four years of shows, I've learned a bit about what works and doesn't work when it comes to fashion show photography.

Backstage
Before the show even begins, I like to go backstage and take "getting ready" photos. Much like the "getting ready" photos I often take during the weddings I photograph, these are candid photos of the emotional and
sometimes quirky things that go on before the "big event". I find them to be more interesting than photographing the event itself, because it's all unstaged. However, there are commonly special challenges presented during this phase.

Canon 5D, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, f/2.8, 1/80 sec,
aperture priority, 1250 ISO

Canon 5D, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, f/2.8, 1/100 sec,
aperture priority, 1250 ISO

Canon 5D, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, f/2.8, 1/60 sec,

aperture priority, 1600 ISO

The Cornell fashion show takes place in a large gymnasium-type building with lights 25 feet up near the high ceiling. Even when these are on--they turn them off 45 minutes or so before the show--it's pretty dark back behind the main stage where everyone is getting ready. Some of the designers bring their own lights because it's so dark. Needless to say, the lighting is usually insufficient and uneven. And I resist using my flash because it destroys the ambience and candidness of the moment.

Canon 5D, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, f/2.8, 1/50 sec,
aperture priority, 1600 ISO

Canon 5D, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, f/2.8, 1/250 sec,
aperture priority, 1600 ISO

So, commonly, I'm pushing the limits of my equipment. It's not uncommon for me to have to open my aperture to its maximum setting of f/2.8 and dial the ISO up to 3200. Even then, the shutter speed for proper exposure can be 1/30, which is pretty slow, even with Image Stabilization (IS). So, the biggest challenge is getting them sharp! A monopod wouldn't be a bad idea; I usually just steady and brace myself and take 2-3 shots in a row and keep the best one.

Canon 5D, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, f/2.8, 1/100 sec,
aperture priority, 1600 ISO

Canon 5D, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, f/2.8, 1/400 sec,

aperture priority, 3200 ISO

Canon 5D, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, f/2.8, 1/25 sec,
aperture priority, 3200 ISO

Show Time - Finding and Securing a Position
Though I haven't been good about this myself, it's really a good idea to get to the runway/cat walk early to check out different positions to take before the show starts...and then *reserve* the best spot you can find. I haven't tried this, but I bet I could put an official-looking sign that says something like: "Reserved for Show Photographer" on the best seat near the stage to keep anyone from sitting there. If that's not possible, you could bring someone and have them sit there until the show starts and then move to let you in. All this assumes "open seating" and will vary from fashion show to fashion show. It also wouldn't hurt to talk to the show organizers and see if they might reserve a spot for you.

In any case, you'll want a relatively central spot near the end of the runway. Personally, I like being slightly off-center because I find a slight angle to be more interesting than straight-on shots. Also, you probably don't want to be right *at* the stage, if that's even possible. If you're right at the stage/runway, you'll have to use a small aperture and wide angle focus length, which is a bad combination in terms of perspective/distortion, shutter speed, and depth of focus. It's best to be 4 feet or more back and use a normal or telephoto lens. More on lenses next...

Canon 5D, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, f/3.5, 1/60 sec,
manual exposure, 250 ISO

Canon 1DS Mark II, 24-70 f/2.8L, f/5.6, 1/80 sec,

manual exposure, 250 ISO

Cameras and Lenses
The last two years, I've brought two cameras with me and put a standard zoom (24-70mm or 24-105mm) on one camera and a telephoto zoom (70-200mm or 80-200mm) on the other. I then catch some shots as they first start down the runway with the telephoto lens, and then switch to the standard zoom for the posed shots at the end of the runway. (Tip: be sure to time synch the cameras just before the show so that all the images from both cameras are easily time sequenced afterward.) In the two previous years I shot with one camera connected to a 80-200 f/2.8L lens, a 1.6 crop factor DSLR, and positioned myself well back from the end of the runway. I think the ideal one camera + lens combo would be a 70-200mm lens on a full-frame DSLR and then position yourself within 10 feet of the runway. 70mm on a full-frame camera isn't so far from a normal (50mm) perspective, and you still have the 200mm to catch them at the beginning of their stroll. If I photograph the show again next year, I think I'll try this latter one camera configuration. Even though it's nice to get some of the wide angle shots afforded by the 24-70 on a full-frame camera, I'd be able to get at least 85% of the shots I'd want with only one camera and lens.

Canon 1DS Mark II, 24-70 f/2.8L, f/6.3, 1/80 sec,
manual exposure, 250 ISO

Lighting
The lighting at fashion shows is reasonably good because, presumedly, the designers want the audience to be able to clearly see the clothes they designed! Due to this fact and my fear of annoying everyone around me with my flash, I seldom use flash at a fashion show. Sometimes, however, there are dark areas near the end of the runway that the lighting setup people have missed. If you experience this situation at a fashion show and you have brought two cameras, you can attach the flash to the camera with the standard zoom (e.g., 24-70) and use it only when the models step into the dark area/s when they get near you at the end of the runway.

Canon 1DS Mark II, 24-70 f/2.8L, f/4.0, 1/80 sec,
manual exposure, 200 ISO

Uneven Lighting
Even if the lighting is sufficient to keep your camera's ISO settings below 800, it can vary along the runway. Also, occasionally they will allow different designers to incorporate different lighting effects into their presentations. This can wreak havoc with your exposures if you're using a manual exposure setting! So, let's talk about camera settings...

Camera Settings
Even though I was using shutter speeds of 1/60 and 1/80 sec this last show (I wasn't thinking straight because I was coming down with a cold), I advise using shutter speeds of 1/200 sec or faster....especially when catching them during their long walk down the runway. They'll be moving--sometimes running and dancing!--and you want some nice sharp detail. Your aperture for the distant shots when they first start down the runway can be quite large--e.g., f/4.0 or even f/2.8 is not usually problematic. But once they get close to you (like within 10 feet), you'll want f/6.3 or f/5.6. If you're using two cameras, the one with the telephoto lens can have the larger aperture and the other one should have the relatively small aperture. If you're shooting with only one camera, you would be well advised to go with the smaller aperture (f/6.3 or f/5.6) and leave it there.

Canon 1DS Mark II, 24-70 f/2.8L, f/6.3, 1/80 sec,
manual exposure, 250 ISO

Canon 5D, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, f/3.5, 1/60 sec,

manual exposure, 250 ISO

The biggest question to me in terms of camera setting is which camera mode to use..? The last two years, I've photographed the show in manual exposure mode. The goal was to reduce the amount of image processing needed after the show. However, I've run into two problems that have undermined this goal: 1) the uneven lighting along the runway means I get darker and lighter photos depending on the variation in light, and 2) I occasionally bump either the shutter or aperture setting and end up with bad exposures.

The main reason for #2 is, I believe, because I'm using two cameras and all those camera switches end up in accidental alterations of settings (due to jostling). I could solve this problem by using only one camera, or putting tape over the controls that keep getting bumped to help keep them in place. The only solution for problem #1 (short of changing the manual settings *as* they walk down the runway!) is to switch to either aperture-priority or shutter-priority mode. So, why don't I just do that?

Canon 1DS Mark II, 24-70 f/2.8L, f/5.6, 1/50 sec,
manual exposure, 200 ISO

Canon 5D, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, f/3.2, 1/60 sec,

manual exposure, 160 ISO

I photographed the first two years of fashion shows in aperture priority. But when a model walks out in a pure white or dark black outfit, the exposure the camera calculates automatically can be seriously off! Using shutter-priority makes a lot of sense in some ways--because you know you want to maintain a relatively high shutter speed--but the camera is still calculating the exposure and can be as far off as aperture priority mode. Of course you can also play around with the type of metering the camera is doing (spot, partial, average, etc), but I've found that all of them are off in *some* situations.

Unless the lighting varies a *lot*, I think I still prefer manual exposure for the best overall results. But shoot in raw format to best allow for exposure adjustments in post-processing. Also, if you are shooting with two cameras, you can optimize the one with the telephoto lens for the lighting at the beginning and/or middle of the runway, and the other camera with the standard/normal lens for the lighting at the end of the runway.

Canon 1DS Mark II, 24-70 f/2.8L, f/3.5, 1/40 sec,
manual exposure, 3200 ISO

So those are my tips and "lessons learned". I hope they help you should you too come across the opportunity to shoot a fashion show. Fashion shows can definitely be interesting and a lot of fun!..:-).

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography.

New Blog About Photography Premieres

2009-04-02T23:30:00.000-07:00

Welcome + Background
Welcome to my new blog! My name is Michael Grace-Martin and I am a professional wedding, portrait, fine art, and stock photographer based in upstate New York near the Finger Lakes. I am an active member of the Wedding Photojournalist Association (WPJA), the Artistic Guild of the Wedding Photojournalist Association (AGWPJA), and Canon Professional Services. I have successfully sold fine art and stock photos over the last 3 years and have gone from charging $800 to photograph a wedding to $4000 and beyond.

Most of my camera equipment is made by Canon, and the vast majority of my photography is done with Canon digital SLR cameras. I also dabble in medium format film photography. I scan the film negatives, slides, or polaroids to produce digital image files. All of my photo prints are produced from digital files regardless of whether the original photo was acquired with a digital or film camera.

95% or more of all my digital image processing is done in either Adobe Lightroom or Adobe Photoshop. I have processed tens of thousands of images in Lightroom and have many techniques and presets (presets are to Lightroom what actions are to Photoshop) to share.

The Mission
The purpose of this blog is at least five-fold:

In addition to plenty of free information, imagery, and instruction (the 3 "i"s), I will also be offering information products (e.g., How-tos) and helpful computer software (e.g., Lightroom presets and helpful image file related utilities) for sale right from this blog.
In the past, my images have been spread out at various places--like Flickr, Smugmug, and Facebook--with no organization or centralized access to them. Lightmanship is going to take over the role of centralized portal and showcase for these images.
When I post an image to Lightmanship, I'm going to give details about how the image was produced. The goal is to make the posting of my images instructional for budding photographers, and more informative and interesting for photo aficionados.
As a member of Canon Professional Services, I am able to borrow almost any professional grade camera equipment Canon makes. So, I'll be including some equipment reviews done by yours truly.
This blog will replace the bi-weekly e-letter I was sending out.

Even though this blog will primarily cover digital photography, from the blog's name--Lightmanship--you can see we put considerations of light and lighting in a paramount position! Regardless of what type of photography you practice or prefer, knowing how to see and use light is essential to the making of *any* great or even good photograph.

Publishing Schedule
We will be publishing one main article each week, plus 1-3 shorter posts each week. You can sign up to our email notification list if you would like to get an email notification each time a post goes up. The email notification will contain an excerpt of the content of the post so you can decide whether to follow the link to the full posting.

Going Forward
So, come back each week to see interesting and beautiful photos, learn about how to make them, get inspiration for your own photography, learn about techniques and new equipment, and/or just keep abreast of what's going on in digital photography and Michael Grace-Martin Photography!

In short, if you like Michael Grace-Martin's photography, then come back each week to get a good "dose" of his imagery, plus his knowledge and enthusiasm for the art & practice of photography...:-).

-Michael Grace-Martin
www.mgm-photography.com

All images and text (c) Michael Grace-Martin