Update / Stuff / Still Alive

It’s now full-on hot-as-hell season (mid-August) and my head is spinning at the quick passage of time. Where did it go?

I’ve been busy with a number of different things, one of those just happens to be photography. Although I can’t seem to find much time to update my blog or my website.

The honest truth is that I spend 9 – 10 hours every work day staring at a computer monitor doing engineering-type stuff (gotta pay the bills, you know), and the last thing I feel like doing when I’m at home is to stare at a computer monitor.

My phone has become my main communicator simply because it’s easily accessible and fast. I did have things set up where I could make blog posts from my phone, but it’s continually crapped out on me. It doesn’t seem to like it when there are a lot of apps installed and I actually try to use it like a computer.

So much for buying a top of the line phone. All that memory and processor speed works great at first, but over time and a few dozen apps later, it makes me want to dump it in a wood chipper. I wonder if my ancient Nokia, aka “the brick”, would still work?

If you really want to keep up with my current work, please check me out on Instagram. I’m also on Facebook, but that’s a personal account. I’ve thought about starting a photography page on Facebook, but then I really don’t want to have one more thing to update and keep track of.

I just bought a cheap 14mm lens for my Canon DSLR. It’s a Rokinon branded lens, which apparently is the same, or nearly the same, as many other brands (eg Rokinon/Samyang/Bower).

I debated long and hard, and then debated a lot more, and then debated until I was just sick and tired of thinking about it, but I finally decided to ditch my 16-35mm zoom and sold it.

At the end of it all, I hardly ever shoot wider than 24mm. When I want to lighten my camera kit (which is often because most of my outings involve hiking and I just don’t want to haul a lens that I may use for only one shot), the 16-35mm was always the first to be eliminated from the bag.

I almost got a Voightlander 20mm. It’s a nifty pancake-style lens. Very light and very small. I could easily stuff it away in my bag for the few times when I want to shoot wider than 24mm. But after all my debating and thinking, I’d much rather prefer a 18 or 19mm prime lens, and right now, there aren’t any out there that are relatively small. (and I’m looking at YOU, Samyang… please make a good 18 or 19mm!! :-) )

So, as sort of an “in the meantime” fix, I bought the 14mm. It’s not all that small. And it’s definitely heavy. But it’s fun to play with, and for $300 for a 14mm…. why not? But I still won’t be taking it on long hikes in the desert.

I took a series of test shots last night with the 14mm.

crops from test shots – click to see larger

The crops are 100% from different parts of the frame. I’m fairly impressed with the performance. At f/2.8 it’s noticeably soft and there is heavy vignetting. But stopping down to f/4 makes a huge difference. And by f/5.6 and f/8, I honestly can say that it’s just as sharp as the 16-35mm f/2.8L II Canon lens that I used to own.

Eat THAT Canon!

A Recent Backpacking Trip

Overnight backpacking and quality photography, or rather, strapping your necessities to your back and heading off into the wilds while carrying all your favorite image making gear: a quick story of my recent journey into the open desert of the Big Bend.

The plan was to take my 9-year old son on a series of one-night, overnight backpacking trips, and we completed this quest recently. Below are some notes for the main purpose of reminding myself of what I did so that hopefully I learn something when I decide to do this type of trek again :-)

We practiced at a local park just to make sure we were up for the challenge. We stuffed water and weights in our packs and spent a few hours on the trail.

Part 1 was packing and preparing for the actual trip. It was a frustrating affair. Even removing the grip from my Canon 5D3 and taking only two lenses, my camera bag, a large waistpack, weighed in at 10 pounds.

Combined with a 48 pound pack full of the necessities (including, most importantly, A LOT of water and a tripod), this became an issue. I had reduced, trimmed, and omitted as much as possible, but with the safety and well-being of my son paramount in my mind, I had to take what I had to take. 48 pounds was the default load and any further lightening had to be in the camera department.

At the last minute, I decided to leave the Canon gear behind and bring into service my mirrorless kit (which I own for this very reason). The Olympus E-M5 and two lenses packed in a small waistpack came to a package that was 4.5 pounds and about half the size.

This was a hard decision. But 5.5 pounds less load on my back was significant and welcome and, in my mind, worth the compromise.

Part 2 was hauling this stuff in the field. The Oly is frustrating sometimes, and the image quality doesn’t make me happy. But I don’t want to get into that now.

The camera gear, except the tripod, was put into a lightweight Lowepro waistpack. This pack was strapped around the top of my backpack. It was easy to access and provided a nice method of carrying when I wanted to go light and venture away from basecamp. (Plus I was insistent on carrying some form of padded enclosure to keep the body and lenses due to the inevitable hard knocks and rough handling that happen in this type of venture.)

click for larger view

The tricky bit was attaching the tripod securely while allowing easy access. The method used was easy and convenient provided that my pack was off my back.

click for larger view

The tripod (just below the head) was attached to the backpack by a clip. The clip was tied to the tripod with a bit of nylon rope. Then one of the legs, slightly extended, was slipped through a loop at the bottom of the backpack.

click for larger view

The next time I do this sort of thing I probably will insist on taking my Canon gear. This past trip was during a full moon, so I didn’t engage in my typical high-ISO shooting of static star shots. But the next time I will need use of the 5D3′s clean high ISO as well as my fast 24mm prime, i.e. the camera gear will be heavier and the other necessities must be lighter! I will spend more time optimizing the gear as well as swapping out some items for lighter versions.

Stay tuned for scenic photos from the recent trip!

Constant Companion

I’ve been meaning to post this for a long time now. About a year ago, I purchased a Sony RX100. I wanted a high quality camera that was truly pocketable. At the same time, I bought an EyeFi SD card.

This post isn’t intended to be a review of this equipment. You can find tons of reviews online. My quick summary is that both devices work as indended, and I’m  very pleased with them. The image quality of the RX100 is superb for what it is.

I want to focus on purpose and result and also the effect on my photography.

I got this set up because I was dissatisfied with the camera in my cell phone. I wanted to be able to take better quality photos and have them transferred to my phone immediately. The camera in my HTC Inspire phone is pretty horrible. It’s far worse than my first little point and shoot digital from 12 years ago.

Having the RX100 in my pocket (on most days) has allowed me to capture things when I feel the urge to and to produce a decent quality image file (especially in low light scenes).

It has also worked the other way around. Because I have it, I am more likely to shoot and engage in photography.

The other impact is that I share photos online (Instagram and Facebook) quite often.

I feel better connected to photography on a daily basis, and I feel that, simply because of the photographic “exercise”, my photography has gotten better. (well, at the very least, it hasn’t gotten much worse)

I’ll keep this short. But I just wanted to highlight what an impact this little bit of equipment has had on my photography.

Note: The last three photos in this post were shot with the RX100.

Equipment Loss

A few days ago, when I was shooting in Closed Canyon, I lost the batteries from my camera.

The battery grip on my camera holds two Li-Ion battery packs on a removable tray. The tray is captured and held in place by a latch mechanism. It is a single point of connection, ie there is no secondary latch or catch to hold the tray in place.

The camera had been functioning fine. I had not dropped it or jarred it. I had been gently working my way down the canyon with the camera and tripod.

Without warning, the tray and both batteries slid out. They clattered down the slickrock and into a deep pool of stagnant water. It was too far down and too deep for me to attempt to recover. It just wasn’t safe.

I cannot figure out how it happened. Fortunately I had the alternate battery tray (holds 6 AA’s) back at the hotel. It uses the same latch mechanism. I played around with it and could not recreate the accident.

I’ve contacted Canon. Their response is for me to simply buy a new one. Since the battery grip is out of warranty and the tray that failed is gone (ie cannot be inspected), they won’t take any responsibility.

I can see their side. But I think they should have at least offered to check out their design and look for latch failures in other circumstances.

Tripod Hack

I have an old Bogen-Manfrotto tripod that I use for short range (ie when I’m not hiking long distances), heavy duty purposes. Many years ago I gave up on the crappy center column design, stripped it off, and planted a big Kirk ballhead on it.

The problem with it is that sometimes it’s just too short.

I figured out that 5/8-inch diameter aluminum rod fits inside the smallest leg section.

This modification will give me a 14 inch boost. The new 4th section can be either fully out or fully retracted.

The end result is 72-inches max, just a couple of inches shorter than me. I’m not sure how it will hold up to the abuse it will see in the field, but I’m about to find out :-)

High ISO Noise Comparisons

I had an opportunity earlier this month to shoot along with a Nikon user (Dave Chudnov) that had a D800e. I also was able to put my new 5D mark III to use shooting high ISO scenes.

This is a quick comparison of three cameras at ISO 3200. Both the 5D cameras (mark II and mark III) are mine. All shots were taken at about the same settings using the same lens (A Canon 24mm f/1.4L II on the 5D’s, and a Nikon 24mm f/1.4 on the D800e). Dave sent me some of his RAW files so that I could process them along with my files and make a good comparison.

click to see larger

The samples are all 100% crops from about the same area on the photo. The overall photo for each of the samples is basically the Milky Way on a dark clear night in Big Bend National Park.

Each row has a different level of noise reduction. The top row has no noise reduction applied at all. The bottom row has a little noise reduction applied in RAW processing (ACR for the Nikon file and DPP for the Canon files), and then a final run of noise reduction using the Neat Image plugin in Photoshop.

Also, just for comparison, is a reduced, side-by-side comparison of the 5D mark 3 and Nikon D800e:

click to see larger

The Conclusion?

This test attempted to keep the variables the same per shot, but there are some slight differences. And there’s the obvious difference in resolution amongst the cameras: 21MP for the 5DII, 22MP for the 5DIII, and 36MP for the D800e.

My take on it is, after considering the final output and real world applications, there’s not much difference between any of them regarding high ISO noise performance.

This is a little disappointing considering the two Canon models. I’d hoped that the sensor in the 5D mark 3 would have had better noise performance than the 5D mark 2. What I’m seeing in files between the two cameras is that they’re essentially the same at ISO 3200 in a 25 second exposure (ignoring the obvious color balance differences between shots).

I had expected a significant improvement. Canon had about 4 years between models, and they did not increase the pixel count by much. Following the general trend in sensor technology, you could easily assume that the 5D mark 3 would have much better high ISO performance than the 5D mark 2. But this has turned out to be false.

The jump between the original 5D and the 5D mark 2 was a significant improvement. The mark 2 had nearly double the megapixels, and the high ISO noise performance was at least 2 stops better!

I don’t know what Canon has done (or NOT done) in sensor technology going from the mark 2 to the mark 3. Perhaps the advancement is mainly with the video side (something I don’t do).

I’ve also had a chance to inspect my other photos from the 5D mark 3- my daylight landscape photos shot mostly at ISO 100. What I expected here was an improvement in dynamic range. It’s not that the 5D mark 2 had poor DR. I was pretty happy with it. It’s just that the general trend in sensor technology lately has seen increases in the DR capability of sensors at their base ISO settings, and I expected that the mark 3 would have a bit more DR than the mark 2. This is not so. Both cameras seem about the same.

My conclusion is that I’m very disappointed, and if I’d known the mark 3 was going to perform at this level, then I wouldn’t have bought the camera. I’m, however, quite impressed with the upgrades to the body, AF system, menus, etc., but it’s not worth it to me considering the lack of improvement in sensor performance.

Considering the high megapixel count of the Nikon D800e, I’m very impressed with its performance. The noise is no worse than the 5D 2 or 3, yet it accomplishes this with 60% more pixels.

I flirted with the idea of switching to Nikon. However, I don’t think the improved performance of the D800 is enough to justify the switch, especially considering the substantial investment that I’ve made in Canon-mount lenses and the amount of money I’d lose in switching systems.

The Audio Learning Curve

Earlier this summer I bought an H2 Zoom digital audio recorder.

It’s somewhat small (pocketable, if you have big pockets and don’t mind a substantial bulge in the side of your pants). I bought a protective silicon jacket for it. It’s not smooth and that makes it easy to grip and hold, but it’s rubberiness makes it a pain to slide in and out of your pockets.

I’ve made several recordings of ambient sounds. Capturing sound with this device is fairly easy (i.e. it’s an intuitive and simple device) but as with anything, there’s a learning curve.

I’m far away from being a novice at sound recording, but here are some things I’ve learned so far:

- The H2 has sets of microphones, each set is suited for a particular application and the rear set captures a field at 120° – this is about right for what I’ve been recording.
- The Low/Med/High microphone gain switch is very important – “High” is necessary to get ambient noises such as birds and insects at a somewhat decent level. This switch is very easy to accidentally bump and change.
- The recording levels flash on-screen in real time. These need to be considered when attempting to get a recording at an acceptable sound level. It’s a lot like looking at the histogram on a digital camera.
- The recorder is very sensitive to handling noise. My cleanest recordings have come from setting the thing down somewhere and not touching it while it records.
- It picks up everything, especially when it’s in high sensitivity mode. Distant planes and vehicles plus any movement I make (footsteps, breathing, sniffling, etc.) get captured.

I’ve had fun with it and enjoy the results, and I’ll keep on going up the learning curve, hopefully. And maybe I’ll use it for recording my own thoughts on photography ;-)

(Hope that answers all Kent’s questions :-) )

Canon G11 Likes and Dislikes

My primary tool on my “photo walks” in the Addicks Reservoir is a Canon G11. It’s small, versatile, and relatively good amongst point-n-shoot type digital cameras.

But I’m about to throw the damn thing in a creek. I’m developing a dislike for it.

Dynamic Range

My primary complaint is dynamic range, or lack thereof. The camera does indeed have a good DR for a point-n-shoot, but it (like any other digital camera and also film) has limits to DR.

The resulting problem is that when shooting the G11 and highlights blow out, they’re toast. There’s little to no highlight recovery when processing the raw file. This is unlike a typical DSLR where you usually have SOME highlight recovery.

This problem is exacerbated by the camera’s exposure metering always wanting to over expose. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the meter, I just think it’s a trend among camera manufacturers now to default to a brighter exposure because folks, in general, dislike a dark, underexposed image.

More often than not, I’ve got -1 to -2 exposure compensation dialed in to keep the highlights from blowing out. Even if they’re just shy of being blown out, they still look bad. They’re rough looking and “digital” in appearance in the photo.


Another issue with the G11 is the autofocus. It’s “course” as compared to a typical DSLR, but the camera’s generally huge DOF makes up for this coarseness.

The issue really is that it won’t focus on small objects. This becomes problematic when shooting a small flower or insect or spider. A spider on a web, for example, is almost impossible to focus on using the autofocus. The AF only locks onto background objects (even with macro mode enabled).

The camera does have manual focus, but using it is very cumbersome and relies on the LCD screen, which isn’t always easily viewable especially in broad daylight. It’s fine for tripod use on a still subject, but using it hand-held on, for example, a spider sitting on its web and moving around in the breeze is really impossible.

Other Options

I have two other cameras (both DSLRs) that I’d consider taking with me on my walks, but they’re much larger and heavier. I’ve actually done one walk with my 5DII and it was awkward. I could get used to carrying it, I’m sure, much like I got used to carrying the G11 (which was awkward at first too whereas previously I carried nothing with me on my walks).

Looking at the sensor performance of my digital cameras (from DxOMark), you could conclude that the G11 isn’t all that bad particularly at base or low ISO settings.

This kind of goes off a tangent, but dynamic range test results like this are a load of bullshit. After my EXTENSIVE use of all three of these cameras in practical applications, I would never guess that the G11 rates like this as compared to the other two.

What I believe is going on with these tests is that they are a “laboratory test” of DR and do not represent “usable, practical” DR. I.e. these tests show what DR is theoretically possible when you squeeze every paltry, near-negligible data off the sensor. What they do NOT show is that data is crap, er… not photo-quality.

The G11′s performance at the low and high end of its dynamic range is impressive considering “data”, but it makes a poor looking photo.

The Good Stuff

I hate to complain and rant only, so here are the good points to the G11 and why I keep using it:

- relatively small considering the features
- relatively cheap considering the features
- the features: full manual control, IS, awesome LCD screen, big sensor (for a p-n-s), etc. (there’s a bunch)
- great battery life
- fast performance (for a point-n-shoot)

I will keep using it, albeit within it’s limitations. I just have to realize that it can’t shoot every scene that I want to photograph. It’s the same with any camera; every photo-imaging device has its limits.

Canon 50D and the Megapixel Race

Canon has just announced the new 50D. I suppose I’m a little bitter about this – I bought a 40D less than one year ago, not too long after its introduction. For once in my photo life, I wanted a new camera with fresh technology (as opposed to buying an older and/or used model like I usually do). Oh well, you can’t keep up with technology unless you want to constantly spend money :-)

The 50D’s 15 MP (megapixels) jumps the count up from the 40D’s 10 MP. I thought the megapixel race was over or at least slowing down because manufacturers were finally coming to their senses. I guess not.

Canon claims that the 50D’s microlenses occupy nearly 100% of each photosite (as opposed to microlenses of previous models which presumably didn’t fill up each photosite). Because of this, the 50D’s sensor should not suffer from increased noise levels at high ISOs (the typical result when you cram more MP’s into a given sensor area thus making each photosite smaller). In fact, Canon claims the noise levels to be approximately 1.5 stops better than the 40D. Their claim is reflected in the ISO settings of the 50D – the highest (in expanded mode) is 12,800. The highest on the 40D is ISO 3200.

As my grandfather was famous for saying, “We’ll see…”

Interestingly, if you take the 50D’s pixel density and apply it to a full frame sensor, you get a 39 MP chip. Whoa…