|
|
|
info@grayfoximages.com |
|
Wherein we opine on more or less anything that strikes our fancy.
Colonial Williamsburg The Guide list with photos18 April 2024 ▲
Colonial Williamsburg's resored area visitor reference book, The Guide, has maps of the restored area showing sites of 153 restored structures with a short description of the background of each, many of which are open for tours. We've just posted a Photo Guide list providing amplifying information concering the location of each, along with a clickable thumbnail for larger images personally collected on many visits over the years.
Canon is doomed -- and other memes13 April 2024 ▲
A summary of the state of the camera industry as it moves on rapidly from DSLRs to mirrorless (MILC) technology. All is opinion except for my own personal preferences -- which are all mine and shall remain such:
Finally, yes, I get frustrated by Canon’s sometimes slow to market pace vis-à-vis the competition. I’m looking with great envy at Nikon’s expanding stable of hand-holdable long lens offerings and (relatively) affordable high resolution stacked sensor bodies. But, I have no desire to “switch brands”. I like the R5, the TS-Es and the many pro quality zoom choice below the supertelephoto level. I will say, though, that I am considering running two systems in order to grab one of those hand-holdable high-end Nikon telephotos. The only barrier is that I really don’t like Nikon body ergonomics. Parenthetically, having been exposed to Sony's compact RX100VII I absolutely detest Sony designs.
More on value, lens style10 April 2024 ▲
Previously, we took a look at the relative value proposition (cost vs performance/features) for Canon, Nikon and Sony mirrorless cameras -- concluding that Canon lags the other two on features. Lenses tell the same story when it comes to distance-limited wildlife-oriented use cases. There, focal length, maximum aperture, optical quality with teleconverters and weight/handholdability are all considerations. While all three makers offer very good budget zooms, those tend to lag behind optically when a 2X teleconverter is added. Hence, I have a preference for high quality (and expensive!) primes. The table below lists current choices. For me personally, my older non-mirrorless EF400 f4 DO II, at 4.63 lb (plus EF-RF adapter and EF2X extender), is just about at the limit. And, a maximum focal length of 800mm is often too short. My preference would be a 500mm or 600mm lens, maxing out at 1000mm with TCs and preferably 1200mm.
Leaving aside price, and with a preference for high quality primes, it is clear from the table above that Canon has nothing to offer in the mirrorless RF lens lineup that matches my preferred parameters. While patents exist for better choices, such products do not exist at present. Sony is no better; the new 300mm f2.8 is light enough but the focal length is too short for distant subjects. Nikon, on the other hand, knocks it out of the park for wildlife photogs -- as they did with the Z8 and Z9 high end mirrorless cameras. Even their Z600mm f4 leads the pack, including an internal 1.4X teleconverter for a very small weight penalty. Given my preferences, running a dual system would appear to be the only way forward at present.
Still the best: EF600mm f4L IS II14 March 2024 ▲
Several versions of Canon's popular-with-birders 600mm f4 lens have come and gone, usually accompanied by significant optical and/or mechanical improvements. The first EF version, without image stabilization, appeared in 1988, weighing in at a whooping 13.2 lb. This was followed in 1999 by the first IS version (2 stops),at 11.8 lb., still quite a load to horse around. 2012 brought a big improvement with the EF version II. Tipping the scales at a much lighter 8.6 lb and yielding four stops IS, some robust photographers began to hand hold this lens. Better, optical quality proved excellent. So much so that Canon has failed to best the image quality of this gem in succeeding generations. Image quality aside, weight reduction did not stop with version II. In 2018, version III arrived with a redesigned optical path that put a single large element at the front and everything else relocated to the back. Balance was improved and weight dropped to a remarkable 6.7 lb, hand holdable by even more photogs. IS was upped to five stops as well. When Canon went to mirrorless, the same optical path was used, but with an EF-to-RF adapter integrated into the rear of the lens. Sadly, optical quality improvements were not included in either the EF III or the RF version. The bare lens was very nearly the equal of version II, but once teleconverters were added, image quality started to separate. Adding an EF2X III extender resulted in a perceptible difference in the MTF curves. While the EF III and RF versions showed a slightly flatter performance curve across the frame, the EF II was distinctly superior near the center, where subjects are most likely to be found, especially with birds. The-Digital-Picture's lens comparison reflects the same performance difference. (The RF version with RF2X extender does best the EF III, making it the better choice optically.) Many photographers who have tried both affirm that the difference can be detected when viewed at high magnification. It's a tradeoff, but my guess is that many who rely on teleconverters would prefer the center sharpness of the EF II if weight does not sway them to version III or the optically identical RF optic. (Images linked under fair use)
A casual backyard photo of a dark-eyed junco shows just how sharp this lens is. Bored with a lack of suitable subjects, I clicked a single image of the junco, perched high up on a branch in a distant oak tree -- later measured by rangefinder at ~70 feet, camera to limb. The original image plus two 100% crops are shown below. Click on images for web jpeg of original and 100% crops of the isolated junco. Processed with Capture One. A pass through Topaz Photo produced an excess of sharpening artifacts. (Camera & lens tripod mounted)
Perhaps a better version will come along if the lens is ever fully redesigned for the RF mount, but for now the EF600mm f4 II remains the image quality champ, especially with the EF2X III extender. Better quality combined with reduced weight remains a mirage for the moment.
Reading between the lines6 March 2024 ▲
Latest Internet spec guesstimate for the anticipated R5 II, likely to be announced perhaps as early as April:
What do we make of this rather skimpy offering? Well, compared to the original R5, introduced in July 2020, it's a bit underwhelming. Not being a videographer, the only interesting tidbit in the list personally is the upgrade from 20fps (electronic shutter) to electronic shutter only at 60fps. Better autofocus would certainly be appreciated, but that entry says nothing of substance about what those improvemens are or how they might benefit photographers. But, what is unsaid does leave room for speculation. Why only migrate from a FSI to a BSI sensor without also going to a stacked design, as Nikon has done with the Z8 and Z9? The high maximum frame rate, 60fps at 45MP, even if only at 12-bits RAW, tends to suggest a stacked design. After all, that's a lot of data to push through the pipeline. Based on specs, R5 maximum throughput is 10,800 Mbits/sec (frames/sec x megapixels x bit depth). By the same calculation, an R5 II at 60fps would yield 32,400 Mbits/sec (12-bit). That's an enormous increase for a single generation -- once again suggesting a stacked sensor. However, the list does include the caveat that 60 fps is "max burst mode." It remains to be seen what limitations that entails and how usable it really is. In either case, what will the sensor readout speed be? The R5 is a pokey 15.5ms, which results in a bad case of rolling shutter distortion for fast action -- leaning verticals and banana shaped baseball bats, for instance -- making it totally unsuitable for certain fast action genres. If the new release is built around a stacked sensor as the previous paragraph seems to suggest, the R5 II would minimize rolling shutter, making it a full-featured all-arounder and a genuine competitor to Nikon's Z8 -- and maybe even Sony's $6500 USD a1. So, we wait for April, as we awaited the now past February CP+ nothing burger. Will the smoke be black or white? Only Canon knows. (* Updated sensor info in the online spec list : "We believe it'll be a stacked design" -- which would tend to validate the above stacked sensor speculation.)
Flagpole follies20 February 2024 ▲
Displaying flags is simple. All you need is a flag, a pole and something to attach the former to the latter. Well, not so fast -- the devil is in the details. Starting from basics, years ago we purchased two eight foot poles for flag display at a 45 degree angle on our front porch columns. The toppers were wood, the flag suspension mechanism was an eye screw near the top of the pole, and a pair of plastic flag clips slipped through the flag grommets carried a doubled string through the eye screw, allowing the thus suspended flag to be raised and lowered. This was our first setup. But, over time the wooden topper began to rot from exposure to the elements. Those plastic clips became brittle and shattered. The eye screws at the top of the pole tended to rust, making flag raising and lowering more difficult. The cotton string frayed and broke. Finally, because the flag was displayed at a 45 degree angle, wind always caused the flag to wrap around the pole. A six foot tomato stake served as a frequently used flag unwrapping lever.
Note: images linked under fair use.
Value at the high end10 February 2024 ▲
With the pending and presumptive announcement of Canon's (finally at last) pro body R1 and the rumored delay of an R5 II update, it's time to take stock of how Canon's value delivered (features for price) at the high end stacks up against the competition. Nothing is known regarding specs for either so anything from this point on is speculative. But, one possible leaked spec claims that the R1 will have a 30MP sensor. If that is true it will likely render the 24MP R3 a one-and-done orphan -- perhaps analagous to the initial R vs the R5, the former apparently an early release intended to gain development time for something better. Assuming that the R1 30MP value is correct let us compare Canon's top tier to Sony and Nikon.
Each of these bodies is considered well suited for professional applications, although some are more rugged and better weather sealed than others, accounted here as "flagship" -- with the caveat that flagship is a marketing term, implying not only top features and performance but also more robust build quality and better weather sealing. Price is current but does not reflect temporary sales or discounts. Models are of different release dates, with longer running cameras often having been priced higher at introduction. Both Sony's A9II and A9III are included as the former is still in the lineup and sits at a quite different price point. All frame rates 3 are for RAW files with electronic shutter. Sony and Nikon lead the pack with feature laden bodies. All three of Sony's top cameras come with low rolling shutter stacked sensors, the A9III also being the first full frame global sensor. Nikon's top two have the same stacked 45.7MP sensor, which gives the $3800 Z8 a uniquely high value for capability. And, Nikon's offerings are consistently priced lower. This shows up in the resolution and action value rankings, where Nikon's Z8 and Z9 and Sony's A1 score high in both categories, marking them as the best all around cameras on the market today. At its current steeply discounted, possibly end of production price point the Canon R5 edges the three previous out for resolution value, but it opened higher than the Z8 despite having the only non-stacked sensor in the group, The R5 still holds up well to the competition for most applications, but not for high speed action photography -- think sports and birds in flight. A very visible rolling shutter effect, the byproduct of its slow 15.5ms sensor read-out time, can at times be intoleable. In the Canon line, only the seemingly orphaned R3 has a stacked sensor -- although any successor likely will also. But, the R3 trails Nikon and Sony's all arounders badly with only half the megagpixels. Its integrated grip body and pre-R1 $1000 price discount combined with 30 fps at a full 14-bits gives it the value lead over Sony's A9II. The inference from the table seems inexcapable: Based on specs vs price, and with R1 and R5II as yet undefined, Canon offers the least value for its high end cameras. The perception is that Canon's high end bodies are sometimes introduced later and with less features than their competitors. The R5 is a notable exception -- at introduction its 45MP sensor and 20 fps (electronic shutter) set a new benchmark by conbining high resolution and high frames per second in one body. We'll update this once the R1 announced and when more is know about an R5II update. Perhaps we'll also add a lens section.
Blue Griffon & Pinegrow no go5 February 2024 ▲
We previously related our failed attempt to buy Blue Griffon, thwarted by failure of the merchant to provide an activation license after taking our money. We subsequently lodged a dispute with our credit card company, and after a month of investigation our purchase price was refunded. End of that story and on to the next, which was a trial evaluation of Pinegrow -- resulting in a second failure to launch, albeit in this case more a matter of mismatch between a seemingly excellent product and personal needs. After Blue Griffon, we spent a lot of time looking for alternatives. Baseds on features, Pinegrow seemed to offer the most value. Fortunately they provide a one week trial period before purchase. As it turns out, this saved another failed purchase. Upon attempting to use Pinegrow, it became obvious that the intended market for this high end designer suite is commercial collaborative web development teams. Right off the bat, the product requires local area network changes to permit use of an "internal server." One can't proceed without this feature. Next, activity must take place under the umbrella of a "project", which imposes its own organization on development. This also is a no go as I have a very robust existing file structure, upon which the entire site is based. Parenthetically, the same logic applied when I began to catalog my image collection. Capture One provides two approaches, managed and referenced. In the former, the catalog manager decides where to put images, leading, we feared, to data corruption or loss vulnerabilities. The referenced approach leaves the existing file structure completely intact and untouched -- far safer to my way of thinking. There is more, but the intrusive nature of these constraints was enought to convince me that for a small solo operation with an existing file structure and an approach that requires no network revisions this wasn't a good direction. In the end, there seemed to be no easy path for migration into the Pinegrow envelope. Therefore, we passed on Pinegrow, although we suspect that it is a very good match for commercial collaborative developer teams. So for now, we continue with the long discontinued MS Expression Web editor augmented by an ancient version of Photoshop for web galleries. The search for a modern editor will continue, but two of the most promising candidates have fallen by the wayside. Postscript: Just took a look at an editor called Sublime Text. Looked promising until it emerged that it is incapable of displaying HTML code and formatted output side by side. Another no go.
Forum futility1 February 2024 ▲
Oserved on an Internet forum -- ". . . Since they're already hovering at just below 50% market share, it means they [Canon] probably didn't break that threshold but also means their dominance of the market is unchanged." Said before, but Canon has publicly stated that their corporate goal is to hold a 50% share of the camera market -- successfully accomplished according to the above stat. To that end, it appears that their strategy is to emphasize two segments: the low end market, where volume can be had, and the high end professional market, where performance drives sales that in turn deliver high profile visibility at prestigious events. Parenthetically, that low end success has another benefit besides pumping up market share. It provides an affordable gateway for entry into the ILC world for new photographers wanting more than a smartphone. Maybe a few will progress to something more. That's certainly helpful if the ILC market is to sustain itself over the long haul. On the lens front, the segment that's largely missing, that provides perhaps best value for performance and that many hobbyists would be most interested in, is the middle range -- reasonably priced optically excellent lenses a notch below the ultra expensive, sometimes exotic pro offerings. Where manufacturers don't offer them third party makers have in the past provided alternatives. But, Canon hasn't allowed companies like Sigma to offer full-function RF mount lenses. One example will suffice, the lowly 50mm prime. Canon offers two choices, a $200 RF50mm f1.8 lens that is, charitiably, worth what it costs, and an optically excellent but heavy RF50mm f1.2L beast, one that is sharp all the way into the corners wide open -- and is spectacularly expensive, way north of $2K. Missing is an affordable 50mm f1.4 that provides both wide aperture and excellent performance. In the EF mount, Canon had such a lens, albeit an optically compromised one. Sigma offers a sharp and affordable f1.4 optic for less than half the price of Canon's RF mount f1.2 offering -- albeit sadly not in the EF or RF mount. The lack of such choices, either from Canon or other makers, has been the subject of much dissatisfaction among Canon R-mount owners. Canon's 50% market share doesn't mean that there aren't segments where other makers can compete and excel -- witness Nikon's plethora of Z-mount telephoto choices and excellent for value Z8 and Z9 bodies, all of which, on specs, should appeal to wildlife photographers. (As a bird photographer, I would already own a Z800mm f6.3 PF or Z600mm f6.3 PF if either would mount on my R5. And, may yet run a dual system to get one or the other.) Further, Sony's rise in recent years, largely at the expense of Nikon, demonstrates that their lineup has sufficient performance and value to attract sales. Bottom line for me: Buy what meets one's needs, or preferences, and tamp down expectations from posturing on Internet forums. If one must complain, or boast, try the one place that might, might make a microscopic difference -- i.e. the makers themselves. Goodness knows, the dear departed Chuck Westfall must have dreaded opening my emails in days long past. And I'm not bashful about letting CPS know what I think -- not that it has made one iota of visible difference in subsequent products. But, at least I know who butters the bread.
Speculation on a speculation30 December 2023 ▲
The recently published R1 spec list may or may not be real. But, assuming it is, and given that the 30MP resolution is too low to be of interest, one can start to speculate on how the next generation of silicon technology might effect a hoped-for R5 upgrade. In effect, a speculation on top of a seculation. The starting point is a rather interesting value for sensor readout time -- 0.8 milliseconds. If true, this is a significant improvement over previous cameras, including mechanical shutters. The benefit of short readout times is greatly reduced rolling shutter effects -- banana shaped baseball bats, for instance. It is difficult to obtain accurate information from all manufacturers, but a readout speed comparison chart available on Internet, if valid, helps give scale to various cameras. The Canon R5 value is listed at 15.5 ms and the R3 at 5.5. The Sony a1 and Nikon Z9 best the latter at 4.2 and 4.0 respectively. Mechanical shutters are listed at 3.0 ms. The R1 will undoubtedly have a stacked sensor but, if form follows true, Canon will eschew this technology in an R5 II, likely opting instead for an updated reprise of the current R5 front side illuminated single layer sensor. If this becomes fact then an R5 II will also display visible rolling shutter effects, the extent of which will depend on readout time. However this may turn out, it is still possible to estimate the total throughput of each sensor in megabits/second. Throughput is the product of sensor megapixels, bit depth and frames per second. Maximum frame rate is achieved with electronic shutter. Throughput (Mbits/sec) = Mpixels * bit depth * fps (electronic shutter) Bit depth is difficult to find for the R6 II so 12-bits is assumed, same as the R5. Of course, the R1 numbers are just a possible leaked (or fabricated) list at this point, but it is likely that it will be of a different generation of silicon than the first three, all of which are in the same ballpark for throughput. Since the R1 is an unknown both cases are shown, albeit it will likely be 14-bit if it follows the R3 example.
The above formula can be run in reverse to estimate possible frame rates for the rumored R6 II, likely to be announced long after the R1. This, of course, assumes that the downstream processing pipeline throughput of the (presumptive) R1 can be shoehorned into an R5 II. The values are based on 12-bit image files, same as the original R5, and on two possible resolutions, 45MP and 60MP. These values are sometimes mentioned as possibilities on rumor sites.
Preference vs need20 January 2024 ▲
Posting absolutes on an Internet forum is a sure-fire guarantee for a woodshed hiding. Such is the case when someone says everyone in a certain category needs a particular type of camera. Post that, and you'd better duck -- the antibodys will be swarming in three. . .two. . .one. . . The best one can say is that such pronouncements represent preferences, not needs. I suspect we all see "need" (i.e. preference) through the filter of personal use. In one such case, a particularly viriulent antibody asked the rhetorical, and sarcastic question, how did we ever capture worthwhile images with the 18MP 1DX? Well, for that individual (and for me in some uses) the 18MP 1DX did the job. But for others, again speaking personally, when one is already at 1200mm and can't get any closer more megapixels becomes a "need" (for the cropping ability) in the only terms that really matter to me: will I spend my own personal cash for something less in that one metric, no matter how spectacular those other specs may be -- particularly when the gaudy features may cost 50% more than a camera that may be lesser in many ways but that meets my "need" in the one metric that's most critical for my use? Hint: when the pre-release specs for the R5 solidified I sold both my 20MP 1DX Mk IIs in anticipation of a pair of gripped 45MP R5s -- a decision I have not regretted for even one instant. While I would much prefer the 1-series form factor (and while I look with envy on Nikon's big glass lineup), the MILC experience has relegated DSLRs to the past and 45MP has sent significantly lesser models to the back of the line.
PS: more megapixels also resolves more fine detail in mountain overlook images. Individual leaves at a distance become individual leaves in the photograph rather than blurred blobs. The R5 reveals both, i.e. detail in birds and detail in landscapes -- at 20 fps electronic if you need it. That doesn't mean I would ever denigrate anyone who makes a different choice, and I would hope that sentiment would be reciprocated -- sadly perhaps an unrealistic expectation given human nature.
A glimmer of the possible18 January 2024 ▲
We've been waiting a long time for something more than idle speculation regarding the near-mythical Canon R1. Up to now, guesses about specs have been all over the place. But, Digital Camera World just published a list (since picked up by Canon Rumors) that appears a lot more concrete than anything before. The list could be a legitimate leak or it could be a complete fabrication (especially considering it is from a single source with a poor track record), but it has certainly sparked discussion. The anticipation is that all will finally be revealed with an announcement at Japan's CP+ toward the end of February. Until then, prudence suggests reserving judgment. With that caveat, these specs, if true, say a couple of important things about Canon. First, Canon is remaining true to it's tradition of not following other manufacturers -- at a reported 30MP there's no attempt to match Sony's 50MP a1 or Nikon's 45MP Z9 and Z8. Rather, a camera built to these specs would advance the state of the practice in a number of areas other than resolution, including frame rate, dynamic range and sensor readout speed (with accompanying flash sync speed) -- the readout speed being the most difficult to believe. Second, the list (once again if true) suggests that the long time market leader is staking a lot on succeeding in its chosen market -- professional genres where sensor resolution is perceived to be less important than class leading performance and ruggedness. A camera positioned according to the list has in the past competed well in the sports and photojournalism market -- and should do so against Sony's just announced global-shuttered A9 III. And, if higher DR proves to be a fact wedding and event photographers may find it appealing as well. That would be quite the scoop in pro photographer market positioning. And yet, the spec list does not appear to be sitting well with everyone. The main sticking point is the 30MP sensor -- underwhelming to many given Sony and Nikon offering -- a sentiment I share given a strong interest in bird photography. There, distance considerations as well as the need to capture fine feather detail puts a premium on high resolution and the ability to crop to a suitable composition. If the 30MP spec is true I'll wait until later in the year to see what an expected R5 update brings to the table -- hopefully at least the 45MP of the original R5, and perhaps more. (While we're wishing, a stacked sensor like the Nikon Z8 would be nice. . .) There is also an unenviable implication for the R3, which at 24MP could well become a one-and-done product. Or, perhaps, morph into something completely different, moving to another niche in the Canon ecosphere. Worse for Canon, heavily discounted sales of the thus marooned R3 could well depress early R1 sales numbers. Is the above really what the future holds? Nothing for it but to wait and see. The presumed February R1 announcement can't come too soon for us long-suffering Canonicals.
What do we think of the RF200-800mm zoom?. . .17 January 2024 ▲
Good question. Followed by another, which answers the first: what exactly am I looking for in a long lens? The answer to that is a high optical quality hand-holdable telephoto that gets to at least 1000mm and preferably beyond with extenders and comes in at 5 lb or less. With that in mind, how does the new zoom stack up? First off, at $1900 the RF200-800 is certainly affordable. And, at four and a half pounds it is definitely hand holdable. For a non-L lens image quality is tolerable. But, leaving aside issues such as the extreme extending design and reported long throw and stiffness of the zoom ring, there are more fundamental concerns. Given that our supertelephoto goal is to get to 1000mm or more, does the lens plus 1.4X extender measure up optically? Canon has yet to publish an MTF chart showing the lens with an RF1.4X extender, so without actually trying one out it's impossible to know image quality for sure. But the indications aren't good. From The-Digital-Picture's lens tests the bare lens at 800mm doesn't best my EF400mm f4 DO II with EF2X extender. Add an RF1.4X extender and one has an f13 slow and dim lens that must inevitably lose fine detail. The 400 DO with 2X is right at the bottom edge of what works for small or distant birds. Given the TDP test, we simply can't see buying this one. Another consideration is the slow maximum aperture combined with the added weight that a zoom design entails. The lens produces a maxiumum focal length of 800mm at aperture f9. That results from a front element diameter of 89mm, rather small as supertelephotos go -- hence the dim f9 aperture at the long end. Even so, the weight with hood is still 4.7 lb, same ballpark as the EF400mm f4 DO II. The latter's front element based on focal length and aperture is 100mm. Further, the EF400mm is an older design and could surely profit from recent weight reduction techniques. The implication of all of this is that my particular interests would best be served by a prime lens rather than a zoom -- used with extenders when necessary. It all comes down to optical quality, front element diameter and overall length, the latter two implying weight. The Nikon Z800mm f6.3 PF, with a front element of 126mm, nevertheless weighs only 5.2 lb. Still, that's a big front element and a long barrel at 15+ inches. While the weight might be tolerable, the poundage combined with overall length and large front element implies a very tiring arm-extended hand holding posture. Nikon also makes a Z600mm f6.3 lens with conventional optics, 11 inches long and weighing in at 3 and a quarter pounds. While better, a 2X teleconverter still puts it at f13, a consequence of its 95mm front element. My guess is that something with a front element in the range of 110mm would be the best compromise between weight, focal length and aperture. An RF 600mm f5.6, possibly in a DO design, might fit the bill. The front element would be 107mm, and a 2X exentder would produce 1200mm of focal length at a not so dim f11 while maintaining a shorter and more hand-holdable package compared to the Nikon Z800mm PF. Canon, can you hear me? [listening, listening for a response. . . Sadly, only silence. . .]
RF zoom lens resolution30 December 2023 ▲
This posting was originally a detailed description of resolution tests on five recently acquired RF zoom lenses. However, it got so long that it was moved out as a separate article. Click here to read.
R1 megapixels and shutters24 December 2023 ▲
With the advent of Sony's first to the scene full frame global shutter MILC, the 24MP a9 III, speculation in Canon land naturally turns to the long awaited presumptive flagship R1. Recently, we took a look at megapixel count, where some hold that Canon would not match Sony's 50MP a1 or Nikon's 45MP Z9. Now comes a PetaPixel video panel speculating on future products, including the R1, with a similar suggestion from panelist Jaron Schneider. The gist of the speculation (beginning at about 31:50) is that Canon has also developed a global shutter but that they are having difficulty getting the throughput from their DIGIC processing engine needed to handle a sensor producing a 45MP all-at-once burst of image data. Hence, goes the speculation, the R1 will more likely come in closer to Sony's 24MP -- or perhaps a little more. If true, this has significant personal implications. Having used the 45MP R5 since its introduction, I won't personally settle for less -- the cropping ability for wildlife, and birds in particular, at the places I visit is a must have. That leaves an expected R5 II update as the most likely successor to the R5. But, although Nikon's Z8, in the same price range as the R5, has a stacked sensor, thus reducing rolling shutter, a malady that significantly afflicts the R5, there is no guarantee that Canon will follow suit. If, in turn, the worst of the above transpires, one must question Canon's competitiveness going forward in the high end MILC realm. Both Sony and Nikon will have a superior stable of offerings for the genres I favor -- high resolution and action oriented use cases such as birds in flight and sports. One cannot help but speculate that this will impact Canon's market position as smart phones continue to eat away at the sale of the lower end products that prop up Canon's near 50% market share.
Blue Griffon missing in action. . .20 December 2023 ▲
. . .or, yet another way to grab cash from unsuspecting customers while not providing the advertised product. I've been looking for an alternative to Microsoft's long discontinued Expression Web HTML editor. After many searches over the years, an editor called Blue Griffon came up as a likely candidate. There is a free download, offering limited functionality, with two more robust versions available for a licensing fee. The listed features of the less expensive for-pay version appearing useful (the higher end one is for electronic publication, not needed here), I placed an order. Much to my disappointment, the three emails confirming the sale (and credit card charge) all neglected to provide a license key to activate the software. Several emails brought no response, so I've turned the charge over to the credit card company's dispute department. But, I'm not optimistic; a post purchase perusal of the Blue Griffon community forum uncovered several years of frustrated users complaining of no response from the developer -- with several users speculating that the developer has abandoned the project while leaving the purchase gateway open. And, the purchase intermediary provides no dispute mechanism. We won't make accusations in public, but experience and the available evidence appears to speak for itself. Will update if and when there are further developments. Canon market strategy5 December 2023 ▲
Photography gear forums are of two minds when it comes to Canon's RF mount mirrorless lens releases. On the one hand, many are disappointed that Canon, they claim, is releasing only prohibitively heavy and super expensive exotic lenses or cheap, exceptionally slow optics. Perhaps Canon is even DOOMNED because they aren't responding to what people want -- and what other makers provide. (Speculation: this sometimes means that Canon isn't offering what the critics themselves want. . .) Examples of the former include the RF28-70mm f2L and the RF50mm and RF85mm f1.2L primes, great costly lumps of glass, metal and plastic. The latter include the RF600mm and RF800mm f11 (!) DO primes and the RF100-400mm f5.6-8 zoom. Missing are such standards as a 50mm f1.4 and other more affordable primes as well as zooms that take teleconverters, unlike the RF70-200mm f2.8L. The other side of the aisle responds (rather dismissively at times we think) that Canon has been the market leader for two decades and therefore knows more about what the market wants than some anonymous forum dweller. There appears to be no common ground between the two camps. But, it seems to me that both sides have a point. There are indisputably some super exotic lenses, some miserably slow and cheap lenses and a big gap in the affordable but high quality middle range. There is also the fact that Canon has held an almost 50% market share for many years. How does it all make sense? The missing ingredient, I believe, is Canon's corporate goal and their market strategy for achieving same. Executives have stated publically that their goal is to maintain a 50% market share (which I take to mean in terms of units delivered). This, they have clearly done. Market strategy explains the how. First, in order to achieve volume Canon offers all those cheap, slow lenses -- and some low cost APS-C bodies. This they've done better than anyone else, hence market share leadership in volume. Also, it doesn't hurt that their introduction of image stabilized lenses in the late 1990s and CMOS full frame DSLR sensors in the early 2000s allowed them to zoom past Nikon into first place. Perhaps bird-in-hand inertia helps them hold on to a substantial user base despite Sony's early move to mirrorless and initially higher quality sensors. Note that none of that makes them market leaders in quality though. Perhaps the latter is, in part, their reasoning behind those exotic high quality optical offerings. But, exotics aside, there's more. In the bread-and-butter professional marketplace of wedding, sports and photojournalism photography, their stable of fast high quality RF primes and trinity zooms (f2.8L and f4L) is almost universally both better and lighter than the EF generations that preceded them. Many of them also focus closer than their predecessors, a benefit that often is overlooked. And, to top it off their technical support, especially Canon Professional Services, a vital part of the livelihood of professionals, is second to none. Does this mean that Canon never makes mistakes? I hardly think so. Nor do I want any of those slow, cheap middling quality lenses. But, clearly many low budget or casual photographers do -- there's than volume thing again -- with thd added benefit of providing a gateway into higher end products. Are there gaps in the Canon lineup that I would like filled? Certainly. A better quality RF24-105+mm f4L zoom would be nice. Even more, a light weight high quality hand holdable supertelephoto that can reach 1000mm or more with teleconverters is at the top of the list. Hint: the new low cost RF200-800mm f6.3-9 zoom isn't it. But, will the latter sell? You bet, and in droves -- just like those repulsive slow and cheap lenses. All of which adds up to 50% market share. Goal achieved.
R1 megapixel count?29 November 2023 ▲
We've awaited a pro quality R1 full frame camera ever since Canon went mirrorless -- as have many others. The most important advantage over my 45MP R5 would be incorporation of a stacked sensor, a multi-layer design that reduces pixel readout time and thus rolling shutter. The R5's 20 frames per second electronic shutter mode is sadly unsuitable for certain sports. Swinging baseball bats, for instance, become absurdly curved bananas. Regarding the all-important pixel count spec, opinion has been divided between something in the 24-30MP range and a count more in keeping with the R5's 45MP or more. Between the two, the ability to crop 45MP R5 files deeply has been invaluable for subjects I chase. For that reason I won't settle for less -- especially since both Nikon and Sony have such offerings. But, there may be a cloud on the horizon. Lately there's chatter that an R1, supposedly to be announced in early 2024, will have quad-pixel autofocus. Since dual pixel AF sensors have double the actual photo sites (e.g. 90 million for the R5), this begs the question, what effect will quad pixel AF have on the R1's pixel count? By dual pixel analogy, if four photo sites are required per reported pixel a 45MP R1 would need 180 million photo sites, an unheard of pixel density. Sadly, Robert A. Heinlein, who might have shown them how (". . .And He Built a Crooked House"), is no longer with us. Of course, we won't know for sure until next year, but if this speculation turns out to be true I will likely develop a much stronger interest in the presumed R5 II, stacked sensor or no. Since I do little if any sports these days the higher resolution is by far more useful.
Rethinking macro21 November 2023 ▲
Recently I began the transition to mirrorless with a Canon R5 and a starter set of three RF mount lenses: RF14-35mm f4L, RF70-200mm f4L and RF100-500mm f4.5-7.1L. While much of my choice of subjects and lenses for photographing them has remained unchanged, only with better results, a few flower photos using the close focusing ability of the RF70-200mm f4L has me thinking about moving in a different direction with macro. Macro (close-up) photography isn't my favorite imaging genre, but I do enjoy it occasionally, especially when my wife's flower garden is in bloom. Conventionally, macro is done with specialized close focusing lenses as well as extension tubes. For quite a long time I've used a Canon EF180mm 1-to-1 magnification telephoto, a DSLR mount lens. Also, on occasion I've used a Canon TS-E 90mm tilt-shift lens, often with teleconverter, to photograph flower blooms from off-axis. Although I've dabbled with focus stacking, it isn't my primary mode of close-up imaging. That RF telephoto zoom not only focuses very close, but it also creates some quite dreamy out of focus backgrounds. Therefore I decided to try out RF extension tubes as an adjunct to macro imaging with the zoom. Having bought and tested a pair, the magnification appears more than adequate for the things I do. It helps that I don't do super close-ups of insect eyes and such like. It's mostly flower blooms and the occasional larger bug. The down side is, of course, loss of distance focusing ability. An 11mm tube limits separation to about two feet. Probably a no-go for many people, but for what I do it works. Which means that the very old EF180mm macro can be traded in to help defray the expense of the ongoing move to mirrorless. Another down side is that the RF70-200 lens does not have a tripod foot. But, the lens is so light that it isn't really necessary, particularly since I can mount it on a (now discontinued) Wimberley P-8 right angle plate/rail/clamp or a longer, more robust (and expensive!) Acratech nodal rail. Then, there's the tilt-shift alternative. Careful testing with a TS-E 90mm and extension tube revealed that the benefit of tilt for off-axis close-ups isn't what I would prefer. That led to experimentation with a newer TS-E 50mm lens. The results were surprisingly good, allowing close focusing with an off-axis angle of roughly 45 degrees. Since the 90mm tilt-shift was not being used for anything else, it became another trade-in asset. Maximum magnification for various Canon lens alternatives can be found in Weights and Measures (part 2) below. This direction won't be final until we have a flower season's experience with the new approach. Should it not work out we'll take a look at Canon's macro offering(s) in the RF line.
Color checking bit depth21 November 2023 ▲
The Canon R5 mirrorless camera, my first foray into the mirrorless world, remains a strong contender against the field even three years after introduction. Its capabilities were a revelation, and my 1D series DSLRs, unbroken all the way back to the original 1Ds, are now a thing of the past. But, there's always something to be concerned about. For me, one such item is the fact that in electronic shutter mode image files drop from 14-bit to 12-bit. Also, as with other brands Canon now offers a compressed RAW format (cRAW) that reduces file size, in the R5 case from a disk-choking 50MB-ish range to half that size or less. Each of these (along with burst rate bit depth dependencies) has an effect on dynamic range. Plus, dynamic range drops as ISO rises. According to photonstophotos, by ISO 800 all R5 shutter modes have equal DR. What effect on image quality do each of these compromises have? -- a very relevant question since for bird photography I would like to be able to use both at the same time. Other users have reported little impact other than a slight increase in shadow noise when pulling up dark areas. Not content with second hand reports, I decided to photograph a Macbeth Color Checker chart to see if the difference was visible. However, the goal in using a Macbeth chart was to look for color shifts and possible dynamic range impacts rather than noise variations. A set of 12 test exposures was made, using mechanical shutter, electronic first curtain (EFCS) and electronic; RAW vs compressed RAW; and ISO 100 vs ISO 800. (Three shutter types, two versions of RAW and two ISOs yields 12 exposures.) The test was done with tripod mounted R5 in manual exposure mode and in full sun, the latter being ideal for bird photography. While the light was filtered through bare tree limbs, all exposures were captured within a span of 2 minutes 49 seconds, hardly likely, one would think, to result in measurably different exposures. The images were imported into Capture One with no adjustments applied other than CO's default capture sharpening, likely irrelevant to the objective of the test. And, all images were cropped to exclude everything outside the Macbeth chart. With the chosen exposure settings, all images fit within the histogram range with room to spare at each end. In other words, no whites were blown out and no blacks were blocked up. While these tests were not rigorously scientific, some interesting, if subtle differences did emerge. Comparing RGB histograms, the following summary points could be observed.
The bottom line is that while there are slight differences in saturation and brightness across the 12 test images, none was outside the range of adjustment in a RAW processor such as Capture One. The conclusion is that, at least in full sun, electronic shutter and cRAW can both be used with some assurance of achieving reasonable color fidelity.
HDR smartphone app12 November 2023 ▲
In HDR Metering and Bracketing, we referenced a web page calculator provided by HDRSoft, the company that makes Photomatix, one of the best HDR blending programs available. The calculator recommends HDR bracket step size and number of exposures to capture the full dynamic range of a scene. Since then, we've discovered that HDRSoft also has a smartphone app calculator that performs the same service. While the same bracketing parameters can be derived by any photographer, this app gives a quick and accurate answer, reducing opportunities for mistakes. Recommended.
Two lenses announced, expectations balloon deflated2 November 2023 ▲
Canon announced two new (full frame) RF lenses today, each having been previously mentioned favorably as potential purchases prior to announcement and reveal of details: an RF200-800mm f6.3-9 supertelephoto zoom and an RF24-105mm f2.8L zoom. Having seen the reality, the balloon of expectations lies deflated on the floor of disappointment. First, the telephoto zoom. While the weight (4.5 lb) and price ($1899) are nice, this is not an L series lens, which the MTF shows. However, the news isn't all bad. It is slightly sharper at 800mm than the RF100-500mm zoom with RF1.4X extender (700mm). More to the point, it is a bit better in frame center at 800mm than our currrent choice, a 400mm f4 DO with EF2XIII extender -- although worse at the edges. The DO combination is at the limit of minimum image quality, my benchmark for judging any new product. Given that the target for a long lens purchase is 1000mm or more, image quality with an RF1.4X extender is, while as yet unpublished, likely to be less than that metric. Also, the f9 aperture yields f13 at 1120mm with an RF1.4X extender. It's difficult to view this favorably when Nikon has a Z800mm f6.3 PF lens weighing in at a very hand-holdable 5.2 lb and that is f9 at 1120mm with 1.4X teleconverter. Sadly, had this RF zoom lens had L quality optics it could have been a spectacular success, especially when compared to other makers' 180/200-600mm offerings. No doubt, it will sell well to those whose needs stop at 800mm. For better quality in a hand-holdable RF package beyond that, there is only the patent for an RF500mm f4.5 DO lens, a hopefully high quality optic that might do the job if ever produced. Performance wise, the RF24-105mm f2.8L is a different story. For some, it will be a dream come true, combining a wide zoom with the bright f2.8 aperture of the long time standard pro 24-70mm range. But, the lens is a beast, in size, weight and price. It comes in at 7.8 inches long, weighs 2.9 lb and costs $2999.00 USD. And, it is slanted toward video, albeit completely suitable for stills; for example, there is a power zoom acccessory. For my particular uses, a light weight walkaround f4 trumps a bright but beastly f2.8. So, sadly, this one gets a firm pass. Since there are two extant patents of interest in this range, for the just announced RF24-105mm f2.8 and a very desirable RF24-120mm f4, all hope is not lost -- yet. Thus, we sit and wait once more. . .
Dubious calculations21 October 2023 ▲
Anyone with a technical background can attest to the value of quality data and sound analytical methods. Many an analysis has come to grief over the lack of rigor in the data and methodology used. However, sometimes one has to generate an approximation with what's on hand. Such is the case with guessing the weight of Canon's presumed next RF supertelephoto. Especially when all we have to go on are patent applications, rumors and wish lists -- leavened by manufacturer data on existing products. Having decided that our first mirrorless supertelephoto must be handholdable (i.e. weigh no more than about five pounds, give or take) and be able to get to 1000mm or more with teleconverters, the RF mount candidates based on known patent applications are a 500mm f4.5 DO and two 200-800mm zooms at f8 or f9. For comparison we used manufacturer weight, diameter and length specs for the EF400mm f4 DO II, Nikon's Z800mm f6.3PF and the EF600mm f4L II and RF600mm f4L lenses. The latter specs were used to calculate a "density" for existing lenses assuming a long and skinny truncated cone profile. These rather dubious density values were then used to project a weight for each candidate. By this wildly contrived method, a presumptive RF500mm f4.5 DO would come in somewhat under five pounds and the 200-800mm f9 zoom in the same range. And, if you believe those highly dubious guesses I have a bridge to sell you. . .
The price is right -- or not. . .16 October 2023 ▲
Now that Canon's long-anticipated R1 is rumored to in the hands of trusted pros for feedback, it would not be amiss to speculate on price. Not knowing features, all is guesswork at this point. But, there are a few comparison data points.
The recent heavy R3 discount, if permanent, is consistent with an R1 initial price between the Z9 and a gripped A1. The final price undoubtedly depends on a number of presently unknown factors, including whether or not a mechanical shutter is included. Canon pricing has at times seemed extravagent, so guessing in the absence of an announcement an opening price on the high side of the above range wouldn't be a surprise.
Skyline Drive Fall Photography4 October 2023 ▲
We began visiting Skyline drive in 2005, mostly in the fall for the leaf colors and the deer. These trips have tended to be overnighters, with a stay at Big Meadows Lodge for traditional dining, restful silence and rustic surroundings -- and a likely early morning deer visitation. This is a popular time of year, and the Lodge is a great reminder of history and heritage, so reservations must be made well in advance. Which, in turn, means guessing at the peak leaf color window as well as weather conditions. What one gets is unavoidably hit or miss. That much is a given, and one takes one's chances -- but there is another complication to an already iffy situation. That is, the obvious (in retrospect) fact that time of peak leaf color also varies with elevation. Skyline Drive runs along the crest of the Shenandoah Mountains, and trees on the Drive turn before those at the lower elevations visible from the many overlooks. Furthermore, there's the danger of missing out on deer if one waits too long. According to park staff, they head down the mountain, where food is more plentiful, once the weather turns cold. We've had a long running goal of photographing all 67 overlooks -- plus a few other scenic spots -- but that has reached a successful endpoint. Not that additional opportunities aren't always welcome, but the next "project" is to pay more attention to the Drive itself. Last year, by late October overlooks were wrapped in beautiful colors, but the trees lining the Drive had long since browned and dropped their leaves. So, having made reservations for two weeks earlier this time we await this October's offerings. Update 13 Oct: Well, two weeks earlier is a bridge too far. Even the Drive was mostly green. Next year, we'll split the difference.
Teletopia29 September 2023 ▲
Since we began migration to Canon's mirrorless EOS R cameras and RF lenses we have grumbled frequently about Canon's dearth of top quality long lens choices. Those suitable for hand-held bird photography, that is -- admittedly a narrow market segment, albeit a popular one if bird photography forums are to be believed. Herein we summarize our gripes yet again -- and in the process list the plethora of relevant Canon patents for such optics, patents for which the likelihood of realization in the form of actual products remains shrouded in mystery. Given the locations we frequent, we could use to advantage a maximum focal length (even if teleconverter aided) in the range of 1000-1200mm and weighing in at no more than about 5 lb. Our current alternative, an EF400mm f4DO II, at 800mm with 2X extender, is sometimes a bit short. Nikon, on the other hand, has certainy delivered the goods, a veritable telephoto utopia that includes the following: AF-S 500mm PF, Z400mm f4.5, Z400mm f2.8 TC, Z600mm f4 TC, Z800mm f6.3 PF, Z180-600mm f5.6-6.3), most of them in Nikon's mirrorless Z mount. The Z800 f6.3 PF, paired with a 1.4X teleconveter, would be just about ideal for my walkaround uses. What does Canon offer instead? A non-L pair of fixed aperture f11 budget DO optics at 600mm and 800mm, the optical quality of which is, while surprising good in a budget lens, commensurate with purchase price. At the center of the field, its MTF matches the bright and rugged EF400mm f4DO II plaired with an EF2X III extender, from whence it diverges significantly toward the edges. Of course, it is much lighter and far less expensive. . . And then there's the RF600 f4L, which is optically identical to the EF600mm f4L, with an EF-RF adapter bolted onto the mount end. Neither quite matches the older EF600mm f4L II when used with extenders. Finally, to add insult to injury, Canon now sells an RF1200mm f8L, which is no more than an RF600mm f4 with customized extender added at the rear. Sadly, this $20K boat anchor's MTF falls just short of that of the EF600mm f4L II with EF2X III extender. Which brings us to might have beens. To wit, Canon patents that have not as yet become products: Here's a partial list, grouped by patent:
Are any of these directly competitive with Nikon's 800mm f6.3? Sadly, no. Can any serve the same purpose? Well, the two that are most interesting are the RF500mm f4.5DO and the IS zoom, RF200-1000mm f5.6-f9. Weight, focal length and optical quality are the determiners. Weight is strongly dependent on front element diameter, see comparison below. Optical quality for the patents is an unknown. Bottom line: we could make do with either choice if optical quality is satisfactory. So, Canon, get busy!
Washington Heritage Museums13 September 2023 ▲
Herein we acknowledge Washington Heritage Museums for kindly making available access to the interiors of several historically significant Fredericksburg properties for photography. These include Hugh Mercer Apothecary, Rising Sun Tavern, Mary Washington House and St. James House. WHM also manages the Mary Washington Monument and Caretaker Lodge. While the first three stuctures are normally open to the public for guided tours photographic access is available only by special permission. St. James House is only open on a limited basis. We greatly enjoy photographing historical architecture and artifacts, particularly those of the Colonial era. Virginia is particularly rich in such locations. Colonial Williamsburg has long been a favorite, along with Monticello, Stratford Hall and others. And, it turns out that there are a number of historical sites of interest in Fredericksburg, including Ferry Farms, Kenmore and Chatham Manor. In light of this interest, it was especially rewarding to be able to visit and photograph the interiors of WHM's well preserved and curated reminders of our historical heritage.
Incandescent light color cast4 August 2023 ▲
A recent indoor photo outing to a historical site surfaced the need to deal with the obnoxious yellow/orange color cast that accompanies incandescent lighting. White is particularly prone to show a shift, as was the case this time with white plaster walls. Most similar places prohibit the use of flash, which would mitigate the impact at image capture. Since captures were in CR3 RAW format no in-camera white balance was used. Unfortunately, simply adjusting white balance in post processing didn’t work since it induced other color shifts. In this case, teal green painted wood trim turned aqua blue, not what the scene presented. The recommended Capture One procedure is to adjust the Hue slider. Unfortunately, this may or may not work. Adding Color Balance and White Balance adjustments may help although it is a trial and error affair. The alternative I settled on was to mask off the yellow-shifted walls and rebalance them to white. Although it is a tedious affair, this left the rest of the image unchanged, an outcome that seemed to best match my perception of other colors present.
Acronis vs SyncBack 4 August 2023 ▲
Backups being a vital part of any working computer operation, I’ve settled on two commecially available backup and recovery tools. SyncBack was the first, and it is more than adequate for many backup tasks. However, it doesn’t help with operating system recovery, nor does it allow one to go back in time to a previous system state. At the recommendation of our computer tech, we added Acronis, which is something of a gold standard in the computer world. For now, we are running both schemes in parallel, for reasons we’ll discuss below. Meanwhile, the table below compares and contrasts the two backup approaches.
Although running two parallel approaches may seem more than is needed, there are sufficient advantages to each to merit continuing with a dual scheme. Acronis is a robust and powerful tool, with features such as history rollback and operating system recovery, all of which makes it worth the continuing annual subscription cost. But, it is missing some useful features. Among them are the ability to directly insert files or folders into the backup struture, a log of activities, the ability to simulate a backup run and, for photographers, the inability to see thumbnails of image files. Thus, the convenience of SyncBack for quick inserts and retrievals as well as the ability to see image thumbnails means that it will continue in operation.
4K Panorama Display 27 July 2023 Top
Goal: display web JPEG panorama images at full screen height on a 4K UHD display (2160x3840) upon pressing the F11 keyboard button. At first, the task appears overly complicated -- after all, there's quite a few moving parts to be considered.
The solution is much simpler than that (spoiler: it's called Responsive Web Design, RWD, i.e. techniques for decoupling HTML code from device specifics), but first a description of the around-the-barn search for an answer. For a long time, our naive solution was to code the HTML for specific image values. 4K is 2160 pixels high, and my monitor pixel pitch is ~163 pixels/inch. Ergo, panoramas were exported (from Capture One) at those values. But, image size was always too large when toggled to full screen. Trials with different image heights produced a workable but unexpected value, 1200 pixels image height. A relook at operating system display properties found that the "Scale and Layout" value was set to 175%. This was done at initial display setup to render text and other displayed details large enough to actually see on the 4K display -- and then, of course, promptly forgotten. Calculation yielded a scaled picture height of 1234 pixels (2160/1.75), very near the trial-and-error 1200 pixel value. Message: hard coding for a specific display setup is unworkable. Fortunately, W3Schools has a page devoted to RWD for images. This led to a first simplistic web page template. In the example linked above, specific image dimensions are no longer needed. Each image is wrapped as a soft-coded web page rather than displayed directly. Whatever the initial web browser window size, pressing F11 will toggle the page to and from full screen view. Unfortunately, this means that automated display of many images, such as produced by a web gallery generator, is not feasible. Every image wrapper must be hand coding -- suitable for one-of-a-kind panoramas but not for many other appplications. This compact code segement, however, introduced another problem. When loaded each panorama starts at full resolution, meaning that the viewer never sees the full panorama in its entirety. Another search located a much better example. From this, we now have a zoomable image display template. This one initially displays the complete panorama (or any other JPEG image) in the browser window, but it has controls for resizing the image via mouse buttons or the scroll wheel. It also scales the image as browser window dimensions change. And, F11 will render the image at full screen, although additional scaling may be required to get an exact vertical fit. Goal achieved.
Not previously noticed: CR3 RAW files sent by Capture One to Topaz Photo AI for editing as DNGs are enormous after being resaved back to Capture One. Typical examples grow from 50MB to 250MB, a five-fold increase. There are three programs involved, so who is padding the result? Further investigation reveals that it's not the DNG converter. CR3 files run directly through the Adobe DNG converter produce files that are actually smaller than the original. The table below shows the result of pushing a sample CR3 file through several conversion paths.
In this example, either path through Topaz Photo AI creates a file that is 4.32 times larger than the input CR3, irrespective of whether Capture One is involved or not and regardless of whether the result is reported as a DNG file or a TIFF file. Clearly there is a rather hefty penalty for using Topaz Photo AI. (The conversion to DNG by Capture One is larger then the original, but this case is for reference only since there's little advantage if any to this approach.) This outcome rather calls into question just how many files one might want to push through Topaz Photo AI.
Testing new RF lenses 2 July 2023 ?
Newly acquired RF70-200mm f4L IS and RF100-500mm f4.5-7.1L IS zooms passed their resolution checks with flying colors. Our test procedure, using the USAF 1951 Resolution Test Chart, is explained elsewhere. For this test, each lens was mounted on a Canon 45MP R5 body (pixel pitch 4.38 µm), and electronic shutter was used. Image stabilization was off and auto ISO was selected, but shutter speed was varied in order to keep both exposure and ISO-related noise at similar levels. Three images were exposed at each setting, with refocus between each. The best of each set was chosen as the datum of record, although none differed significantly from the others in the set. All readings were of the last resolved small target line set (three horizontal & three vertical) from the +1 or +2 section of the test chart central block. Only data from the center of frame target was recorded but a quick inspection of all four corners suggested qualitatively that the results are consistent with the data reported in the table below, allowing for a resolution dropoff in the corners and increased diffraction blur overall at f16. Resolution results for each lens is consistent with the MTF chart for the lens, tests of other lenses of comparable quality using the same camera and the extinction resolution of the R5 sensor. The latter reference suggests that "the real world resolution limit of a Bayer array is typically around 1.5X as large as the individual pixels." This limit would imply real world test chart measurements in the range of 80-100 LPPM, which is consistent with what we actually observed. In other words -- they are keepers.
Walkaround revisited, part 1 25 JUne 2023 ▲
Camera bag archeology introduced the Black Rapid Double Breath as my current walkaround support of choice. It holds two cameras/lenses on adjustable straps suspended from a wearable harness, a design that has stood the test of multiple outings. Although not without its down side, it is the lightest and most convenient product I have found to carry gear for travel and walkaround excursions. Hitherto the walkaround kit has consisted of two R5 bodies with an EF24-105mm f4L lens on one and either a 24mm TS-E or the 2.6 lb EF11-24mm f4L behemoth on the other. But, the EF11-24 got to be too much, so I looked around for an alternative. The lightweight but optically very good RF14-35mm f4L happened to go on rebate sale for $400 off, so it replaced the wider zoom. The EF11-24mm remained in inventory for awhile, but after seeing that it wasn't getting much use it became fair game as trade-in on something else. On top of that swap out, I had been wanting a walkaround lens with a longer focal length than that aging EF24-105mm f4L. Like the 11-24mm f4, the EF70-200mm f2.8L II is much too heavy to carry around all day. The optically excellent RF70-200mm f4 turned up on dual rebates for a combined total of $300 off, and the weight and dimensions are in the same ballpark as the EF24-105mm f4L. It was a perfect fit to the need. But that wasn't all. Previously I discussed the pros and cons of moving on to more RF mirrorless lenses (here and here). Another attractive option was the rather remarkable RF100-500mm f4.5-7.1L optic. This lens has garnered a positive reputation among both pro and amateur photographers. Loosely speaking, it is roughly comparable to the EF100-400mm lens with 1.4X teleconverter attached -- except that it is better in almost every regard. The EF100-400mm lens is a 140-560mm f6.3-8 lens with the 1.4X extender, and the extender has to be attached and removed as circumstances necessitate. The RF100-500mm lens is half a pound lighter. And, to top it all off, the RF100-500 is better optically -- not by much throughout most of the range, but enough to matter at the long end. On the down side, the RF100-500 goes for a hefty price, but it also had it's own dual rebate, this time for $400 off. The EF11-24mm and the EF100-400mm, along with a now surplus EF1.4X III extender, helped further defray the cost. In the Weights and Measures section below, we look at our findings so far.
Weights and measures, part 2 26 JUne 2023 ▲
Many of the RF mount lenses seem to optimize light weight in their design. Perhaps the designers in Japan are aging, or perhaps they just like lighter gear. In any case less weight is always welcome from a carrying perspective -- although size doesn't necessarily follow the same rule. There is such a thing as too small or too big. With that in mind, here are the weights and dimensions of a selection of walkaround and general purpose lenses. Weight is given in both pounds and ounces and dimensions are in inches. Length for extending zoom lenses are the collapsed length since that is the relevant measurement for packing.
Happily, all the walkaround choices are close in weight and length. The RF14-35mm f4 is a bit lighter and the EF24-105mm f4 is a bit longer when adapted to an R-mount body, which puts it in the same weight range as the TS-E 24mm II. Thus, they can be viewed as interchangable when transporting or carrying. Any three will fit in a Think Tank Turnstyle 10 sling bag, a convenient transport option. The only remaining change would be to retire the old EF24-105mm f4L in favor of an RF24-105mm f4L. However, there isn't much benefit optically, so the advantage of the RF version is marginally lighter weight and shorter length. Given that Canon has patents for a longer version (and here) and a faster version, we await developments.
Dramatic Skies 24 May 2023 ▲
I've often wondered how HDR software can create such dramatic skies. HDR processing on bland, low contrast partly cloudy skies can produce a high contrast complement to an otherwise drab scene. Likewise, if there is any structure in a fully overcast sky the HDR result can render a dramatic sky that looks like a storm is about to hit. So, how do they do that? And, why can't everyone do the same without HDR software? The first step is to select the sky to a new layer, using either the color selection tool or the luma range tool. The Magic brush works as well. Next, using the curve histogram as a guide, pull down the shadow side (left) and raise the the highlights (right) back to its original level. the result is a steep, high contrast "S" curve. After this, lower the exposure contrast slider by a quarter or so of its range. This sounds contradictory, but it works! Also, lower highlight recovery by a similar amount. Then, adjust the white recovery for effect. Depending on image, this may involve either raising or lowering white recovery. Since skies tend toward high brightness, the overall effect will be to dim the less bright parts of the sky while retaining whites in the brightest areas. Clarity can be increased as well. Ajust each slider as needed for the individual image. In summary, the tools used are:
The above adjustments act together to increase sky contrast dramatically. Nominal values for these adjustments can be saved as a custom style, where they may serve as a starting point for new images.
Nikon Z8 vs Canon R5 ▲
With an engineering background that sometimes involved adversarial situations, I tend to evaluate gear based on my own personal trade-offs between pros and cons rather than going all in one way or the other. RE the Z8 vs R5 (as an R5 owner), I see no reason to give up the user interface and customizability of the R5 -- admittedly never having used a Nikon. In that regard, I suspect that one can get familiar with anything with practice, but it’s still valid to have preferences. (I speak from personal experience. Having purchased a Sony RX100 VII, I detest that camera’s interface, although I have been able to tweak it to a degree of usability.) On the plus side, the big advantage of the Z8 is its stacked sensor and reduced rolling (electronic) shutter compared to the R5, specifically for certain sports and other action genres. Having tried the R5 on baseball, banana shaped bats and oblong balls convinced me to use mechanical shutter, with its attendant drop in frame rate and reduced opportunity to catch good moments in time. I suspect the same would apply to tennis, although I haven’t been to a tournament in years. On the negative side, the Z8 weights significantly more than the R5, and the battery grip accessory makes it taller than the Z9. From a personal perspective, the most I would go is to run a dual system, with the single lens attached being the Z800mm f6.3 PF. If that lens could be adapted to the R5 without loss of functionality I’d own one already – if one could be found! The key there is the Z800’s long focal length at a hand holdable weight. I suppose one could add, the R5’s capabilities hold up remarkably well to be closing in on three years old.
Modular packing ▲
In Camera bag archeology we traced our never-ending search for the ideal camera bag -- a search that led to larger and larger bags until it collapsed in on itself due inevitably to excessive weight and bulk. Here, we explore a different direction, one that has proven to be far more convenient as well as easier on the back and knees -- modular packing. As is often the situation, this new approach is driven by use cases. In the past, we took a gear centric appoach, looking for containers that could hold as near to everything we owned as possible. This led to massive bags as well as the need to extract just what was needed for a particular trip or outing -- or worse, try to portage the entire assemblage for every trip. This grew to the point where only a team of sherpas could have handled the resulting conglomeration -- but certainly not yours truly. Modular packing turns this on its head. Gear to be packed is sorted by use case into bite-sized chunks and packed in appropriate cases, bags, pouches or other dedicated containers. The appropriate smaller containers can then be selected for the specific use case. Color-coded luggage tags attached to each modular gear container make selection quick and mistake-free. (A good written packing list helps.) Generically, the use cases are:
With this in mind, the gear assorment breaks down into a few categories, i.e. lenses, flashes, accessories, and miscellaneous other stuff. The result is an allotment that looks something like this:
For multi-day trips, the requisite modules are secured in canvas carrying bags, which also serve as clothing bags. Since adopting this approach, packing for both extended travel and day trips has gotten much easier and less mistake prone. No less important, lifting and carrying is now tolerable.
The 24-105mm dilema ▲
The "normal zoom" is a staple lens for many photographers, pro and enthusiast alike. Manufacturers typically offer two variants of this popular optic, a professional grade 24-70mm f2.8 lens and a prosumer 24-105mm f4 -- with Nikon's version of the latter topping out at 120mm. The first is intended for professional wedding, event and portrait photographers, and they are made to a manufacturer's most exacting standards -- with price and performance to match. The f4 designs usually meet pro build quality standards but aren't in the 24-70 f2.8 league optically. Often they are lighter and smaller as well -- and at roughly half the price of the pro version. Having owned a 28-70mm lens back in the 1980s, I find that a top end of 70mm is just too limiting for my interests. And for my use cases, primarily walkaround, landscape and architecture, the f4 maxumum aperture is not a limiting factor. I'm often shooting at f8 or f11 to maximize depth of field. Admittedly, an f2.8 optic would be preferred for indoors and low light -- if one were available in the 24-105mm zoom range. But then, so would a longer focal length on the telephoto end. But, there's a problem. Canon eventually replaced their original EF version with a Mark II, and now there's an RF version as well. Sigma also makes a 24-105mm f4 in the Canon EF mount. However, MTFs, publically available test results and a borrowed RF loaner all combine to convince me that none of these lenses shines brighter than the others. One reason suggested for the less than stellar optical quality of f4 versions is that this particular model is intended as a kit lens for prosumer customers, a market segment that would be more cost conscious. Given the lack of optical quality improvement one has to ask, what would entice a photographer to make a change absent a broken and unrepairable lens. The factors below come to mind. Reduced weight is also a consideration, but these lenses aren't in the same weight class as, for example, a telephoto lens.
When one looks at patents and rumors, two possibilities appear: a 24-120mm f4 lens and a 24-105 f2.8 optic. Depending on weight of the latter, either would attract interest. If both were available it's difficult to say which would be preferred. But, it would be nice to have the choice. Are you listening Canon?
MTF comparisons ▲
Lens evaluation takes many forms: functional and in-the-field reviews, structured tests against a standard test target or scene and even personal experience or tests with a loaner. My favorite review site is The-Digital-Picture, followed by DxO Mark by DxO Labs. Several others, listed on the Links page, receive visits at times. Manufacturer's MTF charts are yet another form of information, albeit only within a maker's product line. With a few exceptions, they are theoretical but nevertheless portray a performance ceiling. With that in mind, I recently developed a Photoshop process for comparing MTFs between Canon lenses. Canon Japan has web pages for each current lens and many recently discontinued versions. The process begins with a screen capture of a particular MTF chart. That is imported into Photoshop as a layer within a group and scaled to a common size so that the outer frame of each MTF chart can be overlaid precisely onto others. If the lens is extender compatible then screen captures of the MTFs of the lens with extenders are imported as additional layers within the group for that lens. The same process is followed for other lenses of interest, each within its respective group. The next step is to compare two lens MTFs. First, both of the layers for the chosen lenses are made visible. Then, the MTF of the upper lens in the stack of Photoshop MTF groups is inverted and the transparancy is reduced to 50% or so. This overlays that layer onto the second lens layer below. At that point, both MTFs are visible and can easily be compared. I created a Photoshop action to automate the process, including a STOP after the inversion and transparency change so the result can be examined. The action then continues in order to reverse the inversion and transparency reduction so that the overall image stack is returned to default condition. Lens layer visibility must be activated and deactivated manually.
A few years ago, Canon began taking diffraction effects into account in their MTFs. To date, neither Nikon or Sony has followed suit. For this reason, Canon MTFs should be more representative of real world performance compared to other brands. Some photographers object to MTFs because they are not the measured values for the specific lens they own and are therefore of limited value. In our opinion, this is short sighted. MTFs represent an ideal or maximum potential level of performance, useful information even if a particular lens falls short of the mark. Finally, no purchase decision is made based on a single evaluation. Many are examined in order to eliminate the possibility of a particular reviewer/tester obtaining an unrepresentative sample -- not an impossibility given manufacturing variations.
To upgrade or not. . .? ▲
Lens upgrading has always been a cause for reflection. What benefit is there to offset the financial loss attendent with trading in a perfectly functional lens? The migration from DSLRs to mirrorless exaggerates this thought process -- especially with Canon, where their adapters match EF lenses to the RF mount virtually seamlessly. The answer to that question has multiple facets. First and foremost, there must be a gain in capability somewhere, e.g. lighter weight, more robust build quality, brighter maximum aperture, longer (or shorter) focal length, wider zoom range with a zoom lens -- or better optical, mechanical or functional performance. There's also the matter of remaining lifetime with OEM corporate support for repairs. In our case, the overall upgrade question was dealt with in detail in New Gear Decisions. For lenses, a few stand out.
Canon R5 II? ▲
The rumorsphere recently tossed up a few tidbits about a possible first half 2023 Canon R5 Mark II release. That rumor has since been superceded by a suggested extensive update to the existing R5, possibly delaying any near term Mark II version. Nevertheless, since an R5 II would possibly be an alternative to a presumably much more expensive R1, it seems worthwhile to take a closer look at the proposed R5 II specs, mythical though they may be. Since video is a vanishingly small part of my interest I'll just look at specs relevant to stills.
An R5 II 30 FPS electronic shutter spec is difficult to see. The recently introduced R6 II does 40 FPS at 24.2 MP. The table below compares this spec with the 45 MP R5 at 20 FPS. Note that total MP/sec is in the same ball park, making 30 MP at 45 MP + problematic unless the sensor can output data at a significantly higher rate than at present. In that context, dual DIGIC Xs might make sense.
In summary, if Canon is to maintain a similar price point and form factor, I would expect an R5 II to be a refinement of the highly innovative and successful original. Some of the rumored specs read more like a wish list than realistic speculation. More to the point, given how good the original R5 has been, an R5 MkII could displace an R1 purchase if it:
The useful M.Fn button ▲
Quote from a forum denizen: “Cycling through just four modes at the press a button is much faster for me than thumb-clicking through 11 options on a mode dial.?? Agree. The M.Fn button was a revelation. Mine (non-custom plus C1 C2 C3) are set up for specific use cases. For example, C3 is set for tilt-shifts, HDRs and panos -- full manual exposure, top panel LCD light button toggles focus peaking, exposure bracketing enabled by default, high speed drive (for 14-bit files), and spot/point AF only. Dials and the three back buttons control various other camera functions. Likewise, non-custom invokes manual exposure with Auto-ISO for general purpose cases. C1 adds Servo follow focus and high speed drive for birding and other action applications. C2 is the same but with full manual exposure, geared specifically for scenes with constant illumination. After using M.Fn on 1DX series and now R5, I find the mode dial on the 5DIV to be painfully slow, clunky and annoying. But, having said that it’s all user preference, and there will be others who think differently.
Expose to the Right? ▲
I've long been puzzled by a couple of technical aspects of digital photography. (Actually, many things, but two in particular here!) The first is the oft repeated mantra, "expose to the right." That is, run the histogram snug up to the right (bright) end to maximize dynamic range while avoiding blown out whites. I've noticed that when I follow this advice strictly the whites that result, despite not being totally saturated, nevertheless still contain little to no detail. One has to back off from the right of the histogram to reveal tonal gradiations in the resulting image. Why is this? The second question relates to "ISO invariance," namely the fact that dark areas can seemingly be pushed several stops EV while still retaining color information. In my naive thoughts, there shouldn't be much information down there in those low order bits so why doesn't the push process cause severe posterization? It clearly does not, so what is the technical explanation. Well, in looking for references for the HDR Metering & Bracketing post, I came across a Cambridge in Color HDR tutorial and an article in DPReview on bit depth and dynamic range that helped fit the pieces of this exposure puzzle together. The first diagram below is linked from the DPReview article under fair use, and it shows the information density (spread) of individual bits within the numerical description of a photo site (pixel) for a normal or non-HDR photograph.
The diagram shows that fully half of the available bits are devoted to the brightest one stop of the exposure. Per Richard Butler, author of the DPReview article, this ". . .ends up translating to a series of near-indistinguishably bright tones in the final image. " This in turn suggests that a strong shadow push will still retain considerable tonal and color information in the adjusted image. It also implies that the RAW image output from the camera will be quite dark overall. Yet that clearly isn't the case when one opens a camera RAW file in RAW converter software. What's going on there? Clearly the above diagram doesn't tell the full story. The answer lies in adjustment of the out-of-the-camera RAW image by application of a gamma curve. Cambridge in Color has a useful tutorial on gamma encoding that helps explain other factors at work. The crux of the problem is that the human eye does not perceive color in the same way as a digital camera sensor. As a result, a "gamma" curve is applied to the camera's output in order to bring the color and tonal range into line with human perception. "With a digital camera, when twice the number of photons hit the sensor, it receives twice the signal (a "linear" relationship). Pretty logical, right? That's not how our eyes work. Instead, we perceive twice the light as being only a fraction brighter — and increasingly so for higher light intensities (a "nonlinear" relationship)."
From the diagram above, gamma encoding brightens low luminance tones quite a bit, less so with lighter tones. This means that applying gamma correction has less effect on the upper or right end of the figure in the first chart. Gamma reduces the net effect on detail in whites shown in the first diagram but does not eliminate it. Perhaps the bottom line is that it is better to keep the histogram "toward the right" rather than "at the right" if one wants detail in the whites.
A balanced look at Topaz Photo ▲
Having gotten on the Topaz train with Denoise AI and Sharpen AI (does anyone else besides me have AI fatigue? It's just a machine learning algorithm -- fancy name, neural network. . .), but also foreseeing the synergism possibile with a combination of the two, I was pleased to buy into Topaz's do everything Photo AI combo, a trifecta that also includes the upscaling Gigapixel AI program. While Photo AI likely hasn't yet fully achieved a full synthesis -- early releases more resembled a sequential call to Raw Noise Removal, Sharpen and Enhance (Gigapixel rebadged) -- nevertheless having an all-in-one program is worth the convenience if nothing more. And, now that that approach has kicked off it can only get better. But, as with any algorithm applied to an application space as large as imaging, there are bumps along the way. Thus, a balanced look at what works well and what could be improved. Pahrenthetically, we point out that DeNoise AI includes controls for sharpening and Sharpen AI has controls for noise reduction. I was never quite sure how to fit all that together so hopefully an evolved Photo AI will do a better job of integrating the two. First up in the processing stack, Raw Noise Removal. As with DeNoise AI, this algorithm does well on most images. I have a few Canon R5 ISO 100 images where the algorithm even decides that no noise removal is necessary. The only down side I've found in my limited experience is that it usually fails miserably on scanned slides. The results are sometimes worse than the original scan, hardly a hoped for outcome. Since I have over a decade of bird photos taken on Kodachrome and pushed Velvia and Provia -- as well as many family photos on various negative films -- this shortfall is quite constraining. One would guess that Topaz never saw fit to "train" DeNoise on film scans. Sharpen is less easy to assess. While the results can be spectacular, sometimes the improvement, if any, can be quite subtle, visible only at the 100% pixel level. This is particularly true of well exposed R5 photos taken in good light and hence at low ISO values. On the other hand, many missed focus or motion blurred images can be upgraded to perfectly useable files with Sharpen. But, occasionally an image that otherwise sharpens well will exhibit a few ugly artifacts in parts of the scene. One such defect is the tendency to double up fine lines such as bird feathers or the small branches in dense vegetation. And occasionally, what can only be described as chaotic blobs appear. Also, the Strength slider has to be used with caution. Even the automatic setting can turn light colored bird feather detail into fine pure white lines -- losing the subtle color that the original image contained. Oddly enough, the standalone Sharpen AI program exhibits this last defect to a lesser degree. Furthermore, a bit of experimentation reveals that with Photo AI, setting the Raw Noise Removal Detail slider to 1, its minimum value, eliminates the white line artifact in many cases. This might be construed as evidence that full integration and syntheis has not yet been achieved. Perhaps these limitations will be ameliorated in the future, but for now Shapen is largely trial and error. Which brings us to Enhance. Here, there is quite a bit of positive to like. Even precisely focused low ISO photos that Sharpen did little to help can be upgraded with Enhance. In fact, the 2X and 4X upscales on such photos are little short of miraculous. Even small web JPEGs can be upscaled to useable large files. While I rarely have need of upscaling since I don't make large prints, nevertheless Enhance is perhaps the most impressive of the three applications. Having laid out a few shortfalls along with the positives, there is reason for optimism. Combining all three capabilities into one program makes a lot of sense as a long term strategy. One suspects that Topaz will keep improving an already impressive product to the point where it yields excellent results on all fronts.
HDR metering and bracketing ▲
What started as a post on the Daily Musings page grew and grew until it became a full scale article, read here.
Nikon's new Z800mm f6.3 PF supertelephoto ▲
There has been a bit of vocal angst in the Canon community regarding the lack of affordable supertelephotos for the RF mount. The latest bone of contention is Nikon’s spectacular Nikon Z800mm f6.3 PF. I completely agree with the desirability of the Z800mm for certain applications. In my case, it would be hand-held bird photography. Being able to get to 1120mm, or even 1600mm (!) in a hand holdable package would be scrumptious. If I could mount it on a Canon R series camera, it would be on order instantly. So why doesn’t Canon have anything to compete in this space? The obvious answer is that, given their corporate goals and resulting product development plan, such an optic isn’t as high a priority as it self-evidently was for Nikon. Now, while I disagree with that outcome -- but at the same time given that I don’t know internal sales numbers and projections -- it’s possible that their priorities are in fact financially consistent with their chosen goals. Besides which, one doesn’t know what is on the roadmap for the future. So, one is left with the usual choice: wait (and maybe complain to all who will listen!) or jump ship.
Thoughts on rereading Jane Austen’s unfinished Sanditon ▲
The intended destination of Jane Austen’s final effort, the novel fragment Sanditon, is forever unknowable due to the author’s untimely passing at age 41. So, all is speculation and opinion. Having said that, it would appear from the 12 chapters she finished that she might have been embarking on a new authorial direction. Observations that tend to support that supposition include:
Most conspicuous by its absence is a potential suitor who is initially disliked by the heroine but who subsequently proves to be the leading lady's eventual choice. We are left with only the briefest mention of wealthy gadabout Sidney Parker, whom everyone seems to assume is Charlotte’s intended. Did Austen plan to change course, with Charlotte taming the roving Parker? Or rather, join him in his ramblings? Or, simply remain a detached observer throughout? Elizabeth Bennet did in fact reform Austen's best known hero, Fitzwilliam Darcy, so Austen has taken that path before. As for the last two possibilities? Unthinkable! Which leaves Parker as the only viable candidate in the plot after 12 chapters. Even so, some think otherwise -- although the only hint of an alternative is an offhand mention that Sidney Parker would soon visit Sanditon with "a friend or two." Was Austen going to introduce one of Parker's friends as Charlotte Heywood's eventual paramour? The Pride and Prejudice example of Darcy and Bingley, while not perfect, is perhaps not totally amiss. Sadly, we’ll never know. While there are hints that Austen may have embarked on a new phase of her writing career there are also constants. In "The Jane Austen Good Woman" we speculated that Austen's enduring popularity rests in part on the moral integrity and constancy of her leading ladies. These traits continue in the case of Charlotte Heywood. She is quick to note and disapprove of the moral failings, the pettiness, the self-absorbed character of those she enounters. From that we may infer that Austen's own inner guiding light had not wavered. That, in turn, leaves the lingering question, was Sidney Parker to be Charlotte's Darcy? -- or was it to be one of those "friends."
Next camera? ▲
Based on very positive experiences with Canon's R5 mirrorless camera (MILC), it has become obvious that the long term end state will be an all mirrorless camera bag. Assuming some validity to rumors of Canon's possible release within a year of an R5 refresh and an eventual pro R1, it's worth considering which one and why. The choice will depend on a few critical specs that will determine the direction of any decision. The table below summarizes those attributes.
This list isn't a long one, but it has a few no-go criteria. Only time and release information will clarify the choice. The surplused body will be the EF mount 5D IV.
Longer lenses or get closer? ▲
For frame filling images of distant subjects, widely-read commentator on all things Nikon, Thom Hogan, recently had this to say: "[Y]ou get this in one of two ways: (1) using a longer focal length, or (2) getting closer to the subject. . . Amateurs tend toward #1 because they can't do #2" Whether intended or not, Mr. Hogan's vaguely perjorative statement exudes a whiff of the elitest. As an amateur nature photographer who is always trying to get as close as possible but who wants an appropriately long lens for situations when that is difficult or impossible, Mr. Hogan would undoubtedly suggest yours truly resides in category #1. But, is it that simple? I would contend that it rarely is. I have noticed that at every location I've ever been where there were working pros, their gear was indistintuishable from mine -- i.e. telephotos every bit as long as my kit. Hmm, what's up with that? There are, of course, techniques and accessories for getting close: hides, camo gear, stealthly approach techniques, extensive knowledge of the subject's behavior gained from research and field experience, safari vehicles, etc. Or just plain patience, waiting at a spot for something to get close on its own. That's all well and good for a full-time pro whose livelihood depends on getting an exceptional image. And then, there's the matter of the old press photographer's motto, "f8 and be there." Pros tend to be in the field dozens, perhaps a hundred or more days per year -- especially pros who make a living conducting photo tours for us poor, benighted amateurs. In order to sell, these tours must visit destinations that are consistently productive. Pros tend to go where the action is, consistently and frequently -- because that's their job -- while the rest of us have full-time employment not related to photography. An example from personal experiece might illustrate. Years ago, I scheduled a tour with a well-known teaching pro. The first morning, we visited a beach location for the purpose of photographing gulls, terns and shorebirds while lying in the prone position. Because the location was so popular, the birds were incredibly tame and tolerant of close approach, not always the situation at many locations. But then the pro, who was there ostensibly to provide us with an opportunity to get some great photos, immediately crawled out in front of everyone else. I'm sure he got some great images, but the only thing the rest of us saw was his backside. Getting close is a desired goal that cannot always be attained. If one is not willing to or cannot go the hide route then there are some subjects that one can only get so close to. And, at wildlife refuges there are often fixed barriers, i.e. impoundment pools, drain channels, dense vegetation, etc. Not to mention rules that determine where one can legally go. In many such situations, one must have a long lens to get "frame filling" shots. On the ethical side, getting the image without alarming the subject should be part of the equation. For many birds and mammals, there is a personal comfort distance, inside of which the subject will not permit intrusion. With patience and a low and slow approach, this distance can be reduced but not eliminated. I think I've achieved that goal, at least partially. Sometimes my greatest difficulty is that I can't keep the bird from falling asleep! Thus, while we appreciate the advice Mr. Hogan offers free of charge, we'll gladly continue to seek the longest lens we can afford and deploy it in the locations we visit.
Exposure triangle shape shifts into pentagon! ▲
After decades of shooting aperture priority, I've finally settled on manual with auto-ISO -- or straight manual at times. This leads to reconsideration of the traditional exposure triangle: aperture, shutter speed and ISO. While ISO is an important parameter, one often wishes to prioritize both aperture and shutter speed, the former for depth of field and the latter to reduce the effect of camera shake or to stop action. This leaves ISO as the remaining variable to establish proper exposure. But, aperture priority usually results in shutter speed floating for proper exposure. Then, there's the matter of scene-based exposure compensation. At this point, manual with auto-ISO and exposure compensation becomes an attractive alternative. As an added complication, when flash is used there is the matter of flash setting or, if auto is used, then flash exposure compensation. So, our exposure triangle morphs into an exposure pentagon. In manual with Auto-ISO, the three dials on the Canon R5 plus the lens control ring on RF lenses can be set to control all four remaining variables. My settings are:
It's an easy step to full manual -- the top mode dial controls ISO, which is set manually with an eye on the viewfinder histogram, the latter to insure that whites are not overexposed. Full manual is helpful when ambient light is constant and one wants to insure that the meter isn't fooled by changing subjects, for example when moving from a glossy ibis to a snowy egret. Landscape HDRs and panoramas also benefit from full manual.
Test lenses for equal field of view or equal subject distance? ▲
One of the benefits of Internet for the photographer is user lens tests. When one is contemplating purchase of a new lens, one is well advised to access the various available review and test sites. But as good as these resources are, there are often tests published by other photographers who have the optic one is contemplating. Most test sites provide results for an equal field of view. That is, the camera/lens setup is situated at a distance from the chosen test chart or subject so that, no matter the focal length of the lens, the field of view (FOV) of all test images is identical. This is true for both primes of different focal lengths and for zooms at various settings within the zoom range. Often user published tests follow the same model. However, a few photographers, particularly those who use (and therefore test) long telephotos, choose to mimic a distance constrained field setting. In this case, the camera/lens is tested at the same distance from the subject regardless of focal length. One may then enlarge the resulting images to the same FOV to compare results. This is particularly useful for evaluating telephoto lens performance when combined with teleconverters. There are, of course, those who, no matter which approach is chosen, will opine that the tester should have chosen the opposite approach. This is a false view. In fact, both approaches are valid when used to evaluate lens performance for the situations for which they are intended. In fact, personally I employ both approaches when appropriate. For routine testing, the equal FOV approach is the choice. But, the equal distance setup is preferred for lens vs lens & teleconverter performance. The reason is because the teleconverters most often come out of the bag when a closer approach to the subject is impossible. This is frequently the case at wildlife refuges and similar settings, where obstacles such as impoundment pools, drain channels and other impediments impose hard limits on setup distance. It is also helpful with skittish subjects. In other words, horses for courses. Thus it was ever so.
Super-telephoto primes ▲
Now that all three big players, Canon, Nikon and Sony, have a selection of super-telephotos on offer it might be informative to compare their optics for what could be called the desirability factor – a combination of price, image quality, weight, utility and features. Such a comparison is inherently not only subjective but also dependent on intended use, so with that in mind this is my own personal take. We’ll limit the discussion to prime lenses only, in the 400mm to 800mm range, with 1200mm included as a footnote. Where mirrorless mount alternatives exist they are preferred over DSLR lenses. The table below lists possibilities. My picks are in bold text.
As is clearly evident, for the telephoto prime shooter Nikon offers a winner in every category. Canon’s 400mm DO II is the only Canon offering to qualify, albeit with a desirable Nikon product in the same focal length. The reason for picking both will be explained below. 400mm f2.8 At 400mm and f2.8, the Nikon product offers the distinct advantage of including a switchable 1.4X teleconverter integral to the design. Worse, while the Nikon is a new optical design, under the hood the Canon RF lens is in reality an EF400mm III optic with an EF-to-RF adapter stuck on the back. Remarkably, the Nikon is only a tiny bit heavier than the Canon and the Sony. 400mm f4/f4.5 Here, both Canon and Nikon have features to recommend them. The Canon DO is brighter at f4 and the Nikon is incredibly light, compact and inexpensive. Which is more important? That comes down to a personal choice. There is no Sony prime comparable to either. 500mm f4 The Nikon 500mm is a clear winner for price and weight. Canon’s design is old and heavy but tack sharp nonetheless. However, it is available only on the used lens market. Sony does not have a prime lens at this focal length. 600mm f4 Nikon again scores an advantage with its new optical design and integrated 1.4X teleconverter. In this case, the Nikon is slightly heavier than Canon and Sony offerings, but the difference, about 0.3 lb. is hardly disqualifying. As with the RF400 f2.8, the Canon RF600mm f4 is simply the EF600mm III with an EF-to-RF adapter bolted onto the rear of the lens. Adding insult to injury, the older EF600 f4 II yields marginally better image quality than the EF Mark III version, especially when used with the EF2X III extender. Note that Canon also has a 600mm fixed f11 DO lens as a bargain basement budget offering. Image quality is commensurate with price – you get what you pay for, and there's not much of either. 800mm The Nikon 800mm f6.3 PF is a remarkable lens for photographers looking for a hand holdable choice at this focal length. And, at $6500 USD it is half the cost of more conventional f5.6 optics. In fact, the new Canon RF800mm f5.6 lens is listed at $17,000 USD. And, it is simply an EF400mm f4 III lens with a modified 2X extender group and an EF-to-RF adapter at the back of the lens. And then there is the Canon 800mm f11 DO. . . Once again, Sony is absent from the fray. 1200mm All of the 600mm f4 lenses get to 1200mm at f8 with 2X teleconverters – with diminished image quality, of course. Some, myself included, judge the result to be useable. Others will disagree. Still, for about $14,000 one can have 1200mm. Astonishingly, Canon offers the much-traveled EF600mm III lens with glued-on modified 2X extender and RF-to-EF adapter for the princely sum of $20,000. No thanks. All of which leaves Nikon in a very strong
position for telephoto primes vis-à-vis Canon and Sony.
More R1 rumors ▲
The latest rumors now push the supposed Canon "flagship" camera, notionally called an R1, into 2024. Meanwhile spec speculation continues to run rampant, and price fears scale as high as $10K. But, these are just rumors. What do I personally know? Not being a Canon employee or in possession of an NDA, not a bean. On the other hand, what would be my guess (take note of that word)? -- a more discussion-worthy question for sure.
Final thoughts from a personal persepctive. Canon seems to be waiting for the development of the requisite magic technology to spring the ultimate 35mm MILC camera on the world. Unfortunately, their competitors already own the high end, high MP "flagship" space, with the A1 and Z9. (The overpriced (compared to Z9) R3 is a magnificant sports camera, and if I did that genra I would own one.) But, their competitors are not standing still. When Canon arrives at their leapfrog R1, the competition will be more than ready with an answer. This strategy, if that's what it is, relies an awfully lot on brand loyalty to keep customers from jumping ship. Further, Canon's long lens strategy woefully lags Nikon. There is simply nothing to compete with Nikon's Z400mm f2.8 TC, Z400mm f4.5, Z600mm f4 TC and the remarkable Z800mm f6.3, the latter being the ultimate (and affordable) birder hand-held walkaround lens.
Another corporate casualty ▲
For three years now, owners of Skylum's Aurora HDR 2019 have waited for an update that would add more recent RAW formats, including, for example, Canon's newest CR3 image files. Perhaps predictably in retrospect, Skylum just announced that rather than updating Aurora HDR, a "new" program called HDR Merge would soon be available as a paid addition to their RAW processor, Luminar Neo, the latest in a series of Luminar roll-outs with fancy PR names -- for example Neo's predecessor, Luminar AI. (Is anyone else experiencing AI fatigue as companies slap the AI moniker on the end of every new software program as a way of dressing up what is likely an example-trained neural network algorithm?) As a Capture One user virtually since its inception, Luminar is of no interest – under any pretentious add-on suffix name. And then there is this from Skylum: "Important note: HDR Merge works ONLY as a part of Luminar NEO." All of which means that HDR Merge is a no-go, even if it turns out to be better than Aurora HDR -- which at the time was the best HDR specialty program out there. To perhaps explain why, it should be pointed out that Luminar provides support useful to graphics artists as much as to photographers. There are features to replace skies, blur backgrounds, isolate subjects without masking, composite multiple images and more -- capabilities I am not interested in. Also annoying is the fact that the Skylum web site is largely devoid of in depth detail concerning capabilities. Capture One on the other hand, is a straight high end RAW converter and image processor, without the ability to create artificialities. In addition to having a reputation for excellent color processing, the CO ecosystem is overflowing with documentation and tutorials. Now that CO delivers HDR merging (and panorama stitching) built in, as well as the ability to call external programs such as Aurora HDR from within using the TIFF format as intermediary, it’s time to accept that Aurora HDR is a regrettable casualty of yet another corporate policy decision that many customers will disagree with.
Cataract surgery endpoint ▲
We've scribbled endlessly and voluminously about our cataract surgery odessey, much of it out of frustration over the problems encountered, far beyond those most people experience. But, over 13 months after the initial lens implant in the first eye, the journey is basically finished. Rather than endulge in another writing exercise, this will summarize in list form the steps and problems encountered along the way. As such, it it constitutes the final chapter in documenting what happened.
Disclaimer: This tale of woe does not even remotely suggest medical advice for others. Not everyone has anywhere approaching this level of complication and difficulty. But, someone has to be out there at the five sigma point!
Canon R1 speculations ▲
Canon's announcement of its sports oriented EOS R3 included an emphatic statement that the otherwise full featured 24MP body was not their mirrorless "flagship", hence there will almost certainly be an even higher featured (and more expensive) camera above it, nominally a presumed R1. The latest projection is that it will not be out before late 2023. The possible feature set of an R1 has inevitably been the subject of much speculation and wish list angst. Given that Sony's 50MP A1 and Nikon's 45MP Z9 have long since hit the market, the latter at a market disrupting $5.5K, another year and a half is a long time to wait -- Sony will likely have launched an A1 II by then. One wonders if and when Canon will start to lose market share in the high end segment. Be that as it may, we can't resist tossing a few hats in the ring regarding features. This is not a wish list but rather speculation based on what the R1 might be given the competition and in light of Canon's known development direction.
Dipping a toe in the other pool ▲
Shortages seem to have become a way of life these days, and camera gear is not immune. Case in point: eight months ago, I decided to upgrade my small but useful (because pocketable) point-and-shoot camera , with its meager 1/1.7" sensor to something with a bit larger capture area -- i.e. a 1" sensor. There are a few of these on the market, and they sit at the top of the point-and-shoot food chain. Many may question the wisdom of such a choice given that smart phones are rapidly eroding the low end traditional camera market. However, smartphone cameras, now typically three cameras in one, do not, indeed cannot, provide a telephoto capability, generally topping out at the "normal" range -- i.e. 50mm equivalent. Further, they do not create RAW files, and given the tiny nature of the embedded imaging sensors low light levels can be problematic. So, I keep a compact on hand as a lightweight walkaround alternative. My first upgrade choice was a Canon G5 X MkII, a pricey but well-featured point-and-shoot with a 24-120mm (equivalent) zoom lens. Since they were out of stock, I placed one on order in October of 2021. Come end of May 2022 and still no stock, not at my favorite brick-and-mortar and not anywhere else, even Canon's national brand store. So in frustration I finally decided to dip a toe into the competitor's product line, settling on the incredibly expensive Sony RX100 VII. This jewel is top rated by just about everyone who rates such things, and it possesses a big boy feature set: 24-200mm lens (equivalent), both PDAF and contrast AF and excellent eye tracking. We'll report back once it has been put through its paces. First reaction Upon unboxing and initial inspection, the frequent critiques of Sony user interface design are well and truly deserved. The tiny back left over after the display screen gobbles up most of the area houses six buttons and a multifunction control wheel. The top includes two buttons, a switch and a wheel. Thankfully, there's also a ring around the lens. The buttons are incredibly tiny, identically shaped and set flush with the camera body making them unnecessarily difficult to operate. The wheel is also small and not at all confidence inspiring in use. The front lever, which operates the lens power zoom, feels as if it would break off if pushed too hard. All in all, Canon is light years ahead in the physical user interface department. As bad as the buttons, dials, rings and levers are, the menu system is much, much worse. Admittedly, there are roughly a gazillion menu settings, a spec sheet plus -- but sadly I'll never use about 99% of them, rendering their utility moot. The real rub is that Sony seems to subscribe to the multi-level cascaded function philosophy. This thing controls that function, but only if some other thing is set a certain way. Otherwise, it controls something else. Getting it right involves several deep dives into the menu system and making sure multiple settings are chosen just so. All in all, it's a frustrating and convoluted process compared to the straightforward and largely direct access Canon menu system. Will we keep this thing? It all depends on whether the beastly beast can be set up for my particular uses. I'm sure the control mechanisms are buried in there somewhere. But where? Initial setup After much wailing and gnashing of teeth we've managed to get the beast minimally set up for our intended use. Most of the video tutorials are of the "push this button to turn on the camera" variety; there aren't any that go into the more complex aspects of setup -- something that Canon users benefit from in great measure. But ineffective guidance aside, we now have the buttons, dials, rings, functions, and menus configured in a workable manner. In the end, most of this was done by experimentation and user manual searches. Some of it was discovered simply by accident. We'll update this description once a bit of field use is in hand. At this point, we suspect that for our uses the G5XII would have been the better choice -- but that this one will at least be satisfactory. And, there's no denying the utility of actually being available. First Use The first outing with the RX100 VII was an extended vacation at a wildlife refuge. Subjects included scenics and tours of local attractions, the highlight being a historic log cabin and garden. The camera performed admirably, although it should for the price paid. In good light, image quality is excellent right out of the box upon opening in Capture One. Greens especially pop -- vivid and saturated without objectionable color shifts. In camera white balance was occasionally puzzling, but not uncorrectable. In dim light it was an entirely different story. The subject matter was a set of diarama style nature displays inside the refuge visitor center. Noise and loss of dynamic range became a serious issue at these very low light levels. This was a bit of a surprise initially because Sony's sensors have been reported to be ISO invariant. I guess the 1" sensor in the RX100 VII didn't get the message. Or, perhaps I was expecting too much. In any case, I'll take a big boy camera indoors next time. The bottom line is that despite the excellent performance in good light, I'd still perfer the Canon G5 X Mk II, if for no other reason than the very bright f1.8 maximum aperture compared to the Sony's f2.8. Sadly, there are still no such cameras to be had.
Camera bag archeology ▲
Or, how to spend money and end up with a closet full of abandoned camera carrying detritus. This could be related as a long-winded exposition, but I'm feeling lazy -- so here it is in list form. From memory, and we know how imperfect that is.
Well, that's the current story. Summed up in one phrase, it might be "horses for courses." No more one size fits all. Gear is packed and stored in small groups, each devoted to a specific use. These units can be transported and used in the lightest and most convenient manner yet. Now, if I could just find someone who wants all those discarded camera bag artifacts my closet would have room for actual clothes!
Garden project complete ▲
Mid May saw the completion of a multi-year project -- photographing every formal garden in Colonial Williamsburg. Fortunately, the CW web site contains an Arboretum & Garden page devoted to the trees and gardens of the historic area. This project is analagous to the many year effort to photograph all the Skyline Drive overlooks in Shenandoah National Park. The next CW project will be to visit each of the museum and historic interpretation sites open to the public. The May visit included stops at the Geddy Foundry, Gunsmith Shop, Courthouse, Guardhouse, Public Gaol, Playhouse (site of First Theater) and Engraving Shop. Prior trips covered the Colonial Capitol, the Governor's Palace and the George Wythe house and dependencies.
Socks. . .*&@%$+#%$. . .?!! ▲
AKA Revenge of the Bean Counters. In olden times manufacturers produced products that people found useful and wanted to buy. Those that didn't lost out to those that did, and everyone was happy. Then, along came a class of idle and useless bureaucrats known as bean counters and everything changed. Squeezing blood from a turnip doesn't begin to describe the futility of trying to find satisfactory products after the bean counters conducted their scorched earth policy on formerly useful products. The example du jour is socks. A decade or more ago, one could walk into any low budget department store (you know the ones) and buy perfectly functional socks of either the dress variety or the all-purpose work socks type, the latter available everywhere so long as you were willing to settle for white. But, somewhere along the line the bean counters got the notion that customers were catching a break -- to the detriment of the profits that could be made by "hollowing out" those perfectly functional socks. It turns out that one of the bean counters was an odd fellow, possessed of two distinguishing features -- a loud voice and incredibly long and narrow feet. This fellow's feet were three feet long, three inches wide and allergic to fabric. Having the loudest voice in the room, he browbeat all the other bean counters into changing sock manufacturing across the entire world to suit his own feet. Thinking himself far cleverer than he actually was (a bean counter job qualification, it seems), he decreed that, for marketing purposes, from thenceforth these ill-fitting socks should come in all the colors of the electromagnetic spectrum -- making them largely useless for actual human beings. The result was that now all socks are abnormally long, incredibly skinny even in the extra large size, thin as guaze and about as durable as tissue paper. Thus, the never-ending search for socks that actually fit and perform to function began. Sadly, it continues today, unrequited.
What Else Can Go Wrong? (Part 1) ▲ Sometimes it is better to laugh rather than otherwise. Readers are by now familiar with my adventures -- and misadventures -- with cataract surgery on the left eye. That evolution was almost a disaster, reprieved at the end by not sticking with a flawed outcome and by the efforts of a specialist who replaced the initial bad choice. That left the right eye waiting in the wings. My fondest hope was that the second surgery would be much, much smoother -- routine in fact. Well, not so fast. Fate, it seems, was determined to have the last laugh. This time I chose a toric implant. Recall that the left eye was initially done with a multi-focal, a very bad choice as it turned out. This was replaced with a simple implant, followed by laser polishing a month later. Sadly, double vision was present after the replacement implant, and it was not fully corrected with glasses. How this was dealt with will unfold shortly. But meanwhile, "on to Cincinnati" ©, er, the other eye. (© Bill Belichick, following his team's 2014 loss to Kansas City.) This time, a toric (astigmatism correcting) implant was chosen. The day of surgery finally arrived and, with much optimism, I was wheeled into theater. The first step was real-time measurement of the exact shape of the eye and alignment of the astigmatism axis -- needed to properly align the toric implant. This involves an optical measuring device that shines a light on the eye and provides readings for the above. The process had hardly begun when the surgeon stopped and asked the machine operator why the device wasn't working. She replied, "It crashed." !!! "Well, reboot it," came the not unreasonable response. Meanwhile I'm laying there, wondering what else can go wrong -- and will my eyes ever be right again. Fate being not kind, the obliging machine crashed again. And again. Trying to maintain a demeanor of equanimity, to keep me calm I suppose, the surgeon said, "I'll go and see if I can find another operating theater." And with that, he departed to parts unknown. Meanwhile, the machine continued on its path to perdition, crashing at every attempt to restart it. Finally, I asked what exactly was happening. "Well, it crashes at the validation stage." "What is that," I asked in my best professorial voice." "There's an artificial eyeball that the machine uses to calibrate itself before proceeding to actual eye measurement," the operator replied. "Do you have a spare eyeball?" I asked, more curious than worried now. "No." "Well then, just unplug it and plug it back in." I opined. "Sometimes corrosion on the socket can break a connection." Moments later. . . "It worked! It's running properly now." And, "Perhaps we should get you to fix these things in the future." Ah, well, I thought to myself. At this point, I'll just settle for nothing else going wrong. Of course fate wasn't quite done yet. Instead, it took one final swipe as it departed. About that time the surgeon returned, announcing in his best cheerful, reassuring voice that he didn't find another theater so he went ahead and did another cataract surgery on a different patient while he was gone. Great, I thought. What am I doing here, anyway? "Unfortunately," intoned the surgeon, "there's a large floater right where I need to take measurements." The surgery proceeded anyway, but as you might guess, the corrupted measurements turned out to be fate's last laugh. But we'll save that for the next chapter. . . What Else Can Go Wrong? (Part 2) ▲ Continuing from Part 1 above. . . So now, we had double vision in both eyes. I kept thinking, Why me, Lord?!! The great majority of people who have cataract surgery have no further problems, and they wax eloquent about the instant improvement in their vision. My wife was such a one, so I speak from close personal experience. But, patience, the game isn't over yet, even though we're down a break late in the final set, with scoreboard margin running out. After surgery, there's always post-op visits. My problems -- with both eyes -- were immediately manifest duing the vision test, You know, the darkened room A Z C Q O G "How much can you read?" thing. (Can anyone tell C, Q, O and G apart? Not me, I assure you.) The recommendations were two-fold. The left eye needed laser correction, the recommendation being a "limbal relaxing incision," or LRI. Cut my left eye? Are you mad? (We'll get to the right eye in a moment.) By now, having a reputation for questioning everything, I asked innocently how that was done. The answer is that a 600nm laser "blade" is used to make small incisions in the corneal perphery, the result being a slight reshaping of the eye to remove residual astigmatism and, hopefully, eliminate left eye double vision once and for all. Ah, ha! Not being entirely unfamiliar with basic mathematics, I then inquired, Well, how thick is my cornea? Is there a way to measure it? The opthomologist asked the attending nurse to fetch a gadget, the name of which I forget. The ensuing measurements were in the range of 540nm at the center of the cornea and 590nm at the edge, where the work is to be done. Well, said I, and not unreasonably given the arithmetic involved, how can that possibly work? The answer, of course, was that the laser "blade" would not be used at max depth. Oh, well, that's reassuring. Not! But, having little other choice, I elected to go forward with the LRI on the left eye. There the remained the right eye to deal with -- double vision as bad as ever, despite the toric implant. In-office measurements revealed the problem. The toric implant was almost 90 degrees out of phase, undoubtedly at least partly due to the baleful impact of that giant floater present during pre-surgery eye measurement. The difference, virtually the maximum possible (Are you kidding me?), was too much to correct with a right eye LRI. The only choice was to go back in and rotate the implant to the proper orientation. Gah! So, On to Cincinnati again. To make a long story short, both the LRI and the toric rotation happened during the same session. The LRI was unremarkable, and the outcome, while not perfect, was much reduced double vision -- hopefully corrected with glasses. The rotation was a different beast entirely, and much more traumatic than the original surgery. Sparing the reader from the messy details, the bottom line is that the rotated toric lens is now almost perfectly aligned, and it produces excellent right eye vision. At long last, there remains only a final exam or two and fitting for progressive lenses (eschewing readers, which have to be removed for distance vision) to provide the close up vision that standard and toric implants lack. Hallelujah! Sad end to a brave pilot ? As may no doubt be inferred from other content herein (Carrier War 1942, Midway 2019 Movie Review), I've always been fascinated by the Battle of Midway. Having read many books and articles, I've developed a fair layman's understanding of the events and personalities of that war-altering engagement. By now, exhaustive scholarship has surfaced much of the detail, with perhaps the only remaining mystery being the true heading of the Hornet (CV-8) air group's "Flight to Nowhere." However, there is a dissenting voice, that of the late LCDR George Walsh, a combat veteran dive bomber pilot whose Pacific campaign began long after the battle but who nevertheless parlayed omniscient Monday morning quarterback hindsight into some quite bitter and accusatory opinions regarding an event that he was not present to observe. Walsh believed that
His contentious tract, The Battle of Midway: Searching for the Truth, is a 100 page diatribe to the effect of the above. His opinions are at this point moot -- having been addressed and refuted through decades of historical research and scholarship. He does have a supporter in David Rigby, author of the unfortunate Wade McClusky and the Battle of Midway. In the latter, Rigby repeats Walsh's tendentious claims ad nauseum, resulting in the tone of a polemic rather than an attempt at objective history. To Rigby's credit, he does contribute a long overdue discussion of McClusky's career. And, he offers a plausble albeit disputed explanation for McClusky's dive on Kaga, one based in part on communication mixups between the elements of Enterprise's Scouting and Bombing Six -- possibly due to oxygen supply problems with Dick Best's Dauntless, resulting in divergence of the dive bombers into separate elements. But, even the biogaphical material is filled with long digressions, an example of which is the establishment of the Naval Academy, complete with a tribute to the architect who designed the primary buildings. Let us rest the case on the views of two who were in a position to know:
George Walsh was undoubtedly a brave and skilled pilot, risking death every time he climbed into the cockpit (as did many others, some of whom made the ultimate sacrifice), and for that his legacy should be forever honored. It is sad that his later years should be marred by such misplaced bitterness.
Be careful what you wish for ▲ At its latest corporate strategy conference, Canon announced to the world that it intended to be the number one mirrorless camera maker in the world. This is not surprising, perhaps, in view of the fact that Canon has for several decades been the number one SLR and then DSLR maker. But, they are new to the full-frame mirrorless world, having short-sightedly surrendered a decade-long head start to Sony in that department, making Canon's lofty goal a difficult ask. Added to that, their initial APS-C mirrorless line, the M-mount cameras, used a different and incompatible mount compared to the new full frame RF mount, leaving customers with no upgrade path to full frame. This created a knotty conumdrum for Canon given that the majority of the market is in the less expensive APS-C segment, which is rapidly contracting due to the runaway success of smartphones and their integral cameras. (Canon recetnly rectified this incompatibility with a couple of RF-mount APS-C models, but it does call into question that original M-mount release.) Since Canon's current overall market leadership, at least in units sold, still consists of roughly 40% EOS DSLRs, most of which are APS-C, there would appear to be heavy seas ahead. Which leads to the observation, be careful what you wish for -- Chevrolet was, for a long time, number one in auto sales, but no one who wanted quality transportation thought first of buying a Chevy -- Cadillac and not Chevy was the halo line for General Motors. Likewise, a big part of Canon's reputation in the early days of the EF mount was created by the forest of big white professional lenses on the sidelines of sports events. In fact, it might be argued that Canon's full frame professional lenses sold their cameras rather than the other way around. And, those were definitely not Chevy level lenses. . . Now that smartphones are rapidly eroding the low end of the camera market, a segment long dominated by Canon, combined with recent less than dazzling RF lens introductions, one has to question just what Canon's product line will look like if they do achieve their stated goal of reaching the top of the mirrorless heap.
More on keyword searches ▲ Previously, we lamented the lack of a sessions-based multi-folder keyword search in Capture One. After sending a tech support request, we were told that sessions are not managed within the Capture One database management scheme, which includes Catalogs, Albums and Smart Albums. Per tech support, the needed indexes for multi-folder session searches do not exist and are not compatible with current CO DBMS indexing schemes. We've avoided the provided DBMS approaches because, although they do allow complex multi-folder searches, they are heavyweight solutions that require additional user input to set up over and above the necessary-in-any-case task of keywording each image. The tech support response got us to thinking about a simple approach that would work outside of the current CO schemes. Since sessions basically track the file system's own hierarchical, tree structure, it occurred that a run-time recursive tree search might do the trick. CO stores a "CaptureOne" subfolder in each user image folder, containing proxies, adjustments, etc. Useful for a sessions based tree search is the fact that a folder named "Settings" holds a file for each image specifying all relevant settings, including a list of all keywords assigned to that image. A tree search could successively visit each subfolder, building a run-time list of images that quality. As an example of what is possible, one user employed one of the available text search editors to search for a specied keyword in the settings files of a folder and its subfolders, with immediate success. Also, Windows Search can be used for the same purpose, although the folder(s) in question must be indexed first to include the setting file type, and the search cannot be limited to only that file type, making it less than satisfactory for the task. Nevertheless, these examples demonstrate the feasability of the approach. Searching multiple top level folders would introduce additional complexity but isn't conceptually excluded from this approach. I made this suggestion by return email, but received only a bursh-off reply. The response might suggest a reluctance to perform a time-consuming run-time search, for which the time to complete against a very large image collection might not be palatable to impatient users. Or, simply a reluctance to add code where a solution already exists. What's up with Canon? ▲ Canon's evil lens twin has been busy. 600mm f11 and 800mm f11 fixed aperture optics? And now RF800mm f5.6L and RF 1200mm f8L optics that are essentially shorter existing lens formulas with 2X extenders integrated into the back end -- but priced like small autos rather than camera gear? The optical quality, whether of the new RF lenses or the EF III parents with 2X extenders, is already at the limits of what many consider acceptable. Who does Canon think is gullible enough to buy these white elephants. Why would you? To add yet more extenders? That will only make image quality worse. For more, read the full article at What's Up With Canon. Video Kudzu ▲ Once upon a time mankind learned to write. From this sprang, first stone tablets, then scrolls, and finally Gutenberg's printing press. And with the widespread dissemination of the written word, there came the broad ability to read -- and the world was educated. Information -- and opinions -- proliferated in the form of books, newspapers, doctoral theses, poems, even illustrated childrens' stories. And it was good. But then, in 1878 Eadweard Muybridge made the first movie ever, a racehorse in motion, to prove that at some point in the horse's stride all four hooves were off the ground. Soon there were movie cameras, and eventually home cameras, digital cameras and, finally, video capabilities within consumer cameras. At this point, the talking-head video was born, along with web sites where videos could be uploaded for sharing with the general public. Soon everybody was uploading videos, on just about ever conceivable subject. They proliferated, and soon writing became extinct -- except on discussion forums, where grammar and spelling persished and civility disappeared. No, wait, that hasn't happened yet. But, things seem to be tending that way. Video content has increasingly replaced written news articles. How-to instructions now take the form of videos rather than written step-by-steps. Sometimes this can be a good thing, but certainly not always. Perhaps the best comparative metric for effectiveness is the density of information presented, measured in terms of the length of time required for reading written content vs the time required to view a video of equivalent information content -- with comprehension and retention. Of course, there are other considerations. For instance, suitability for purpose. If the task is to present assembly instructions for a complex mechanism, pure text is probably the least effective approach. Written and illustrated step-by-step instructions have long been a staple of such tasks and, if well done, can be very effective. But sometimes, a carefully staged video can be invaluable. I.e. horses for courses. Also, there is the matter of easy referral, or skipping back and forth within the media. Written (and illustrated) text, annotated with headings and summary lists, is frequently the easiest form of presentation in which to move back and forth quickly. The lack of easy referral is also characteristic of electronic books. While there are ways to midigate it in the latter, none are as quick to use and as effective as an indexed book or a written article. Perhaps the bottom line is that all forms are useful in their place. But, when videos begin to spread like kudzu and displace more effective forms of presentation maybe it's time to step back and reconsider what best benefits the consumer rather than which fads the producer wished to cater to. "Lips sticking to teeth. . ." ▲ With the passing of John Madden, one of the iconic sports broadcast duos of all time fades into memory. Teamed in the booth with Pat Summerall, now also departed, they virtually defined sports broadcast professionalism, competence and in-depth knowledge of their sport as well as how to conduct a broadcast. Since then, things haven't always been so rosy. Case in point, Olympic sports. This became painfully evident during the Rio Olympics in 2016. One of our favorite sports is olympic rowing. Probably not a favorite of everyone, but I've always found it oddly tension filled as well as curious in the way that the unfamiliar invites further understanding. Anyway, at the Rio event, the broadcast team, as is frequently the case, consisted of an announcer and an analyst, sometimes called a color commentator. The former is usually a broadcast professional, serving as a foil to set up the analyst, who is usually someone who played or coached the sport. In this case, the analyst was a former coxswain, the non-rower who calls cadence in the team-of-eight boats. Perhaps it's just curmudgeonly of me, but the analyst was short on analysis and long on gushing puffery. There was virtually no technical information imparted, only rapshodies about the "emotion" the rowers were feeling and the "effort" they were putting into their races. A particular crew was "giving it everything they had" and "those rowers are sacrificing themselves for a win." As if everyone else wasn't? But the pièce de résistance came at the much delayed 2020/2021Tokyo Olympics rowing venue. A similarly bubbly analyst, a former rower as well, talked about muscles straining, lungs bursting and gasping for breath, single-minded concentration, and intensity so onerous, so monumentally arduous that "lips stuck to teeth." A great novel passage, perhaps, if a bit florid, but once again the technical aspects of the sport, things that only a participant can know, and that might help the interested viewer better understand the sport, was nowhere to be found. At that point, "lips sticking to teeth" became a meme for vapid, overly emotional, content-devoid sports commentary boosterism, at least for me. Once aware of the phenomenon, the frequency of anaysts so afflected became ever more noticable. Since then, that sobriquet has become a running joke in our family. As my favorite author, Jane Austen, might have written, such people are purveyors of "excessive parade." Just so. Do not pass Go ▲ Being one of those people who prefers to support local or modest size businesses, it is with some dismay that I find myself unable to purchase a certain photography product from my long time favorite brick-and-mortar camera store. Nor is the particular item available in somewhat larger (but still not nationwide) Internet-oriented mail order houses. Times are tight all over, of course, but the product isn't completely unavailable. It turns out that the manufacturer's national corporate entity has an online "store" which shows the product "in stock." This piqued my curiosity, and I went exploring on the web to see who else maintained a sales presence directly related to the manufacturer's national corporate presence. Turns out all three of the major camera manufacturers do so. The natural consequence of this is that these manufacturers are competing directly with the many, many businesses across the nation that sell their products retail. Since these manufacturers' national corporations control direct (and therefore warrantied) imports, they can effectively throttle the supply to retail merchants, in the process effectively creating a soft monopoly on sales. In Monopoly (the popular board game, that is) this is effectively a supply and sales "Do not pass go" card for all other retail merchants. We will refrain from adding a personal value judgement regarding the ethical character of this practice. However it has been stated that, in economic terms, competition (one of the underlying tenets of capitalism), if unregulated, inevitably leads to monopolies. Sort of a business Darwinism, if you will. Relating that back to the big three camera manufacturers, their collective presence in the market seems to contradict that idea. However in general, when several large entities together dominate a market, the result is a form of cooperative monopoly properly called an oligopoly. Certainly we haven't reached that point with cameras, but the existence of "stores" run by the importers themselves does call into question just how free the competition is for sales of those respective brands. Ad Mad! ▲ One of the oddest phenomena on Internet -- and one of the most offputting -- is people complaining vociferously about informative web sites that pay their way with ads and click-thrus to merchant sites. Plaguing every content provider, there are a few whose attitude seems to be “where’s my free stuff.?? I.e., why do I have to endure ads and other distractions; why can’t someone cater to my every whim by providing ad-free content tailored to my exact wants -- donating labor and site expenses at no charge in the bargain. While ads can be annoying -- and sometimes cloying -- someone has to be recompensed for providing the content that the malcontents demand. I suspect most people would prefer ads to pay walls. Broadcast TV anyone? Unless the complainants live in mommy’s basement, these malefactors no doubt have to earn their keep like the rest of us. Why do they begrudge others the same necessity? Human nature, I suppose -- but wouldn’t it be nice if everyone was just, well, nice. Viewfinders? ▲ Wow. Umpteen pages of viewfinder vs not-viewfinder -- the surprising and sometimes borderline acrimonious content of a recent photography forum thead on possible new camera announcements in 2022. The rumor/hint that one such might not have a viewfinder sent the rumor-verse into mass disarray. Must have been a slow day at the OK Corral. My philosophy: buy what I want and don’t worry about what others may favor. Besides which, debating on Internet forums appears to have minimal effect on what manufacturers produce. A thought: take complaints to the manufacturer in the form of customer written feedback (or more to the point, purchase vs non-purchase). I used to besiege the late and lamented, and very forebearing Chuck Westfall with lots of “feedback?? that he probably would have preferred to have done without (but to which he always responded more graciously than the tone in which it was offered). My own personal opinion (based on which I spend my own money, or not)? “Big?? cameras (define that however you like) – viewfinder is a must, i.e. no-go without. “Small?? (once again, definition in the eye of the beholder) or pocketable cameras – don’t want or need a viewfinder. Example: I’m currently in the market for a pocketable point-and-shoot, the particular model of which has a popup viewfinder. Personally, I’d prefer a slightly smaller, lighter and less costly camera without the viewfinder but with the same features otherwise. But, overall, capabilities hit the mark so I’ll live with the minor downside in return for the many favorable aspects. Glasses or laser? ▲ In the ongoing saga of my cataract interocular lens implant surgery (IOL), I have finally gotten to the stage of a refractive vision exam. A substantial degree of residual astigmatism, leading to strong double vision, lingered after two IOL surgeries and a laser polishing. The exam revealed uncorrected vision in the affected eye to be 20/60. With either laser correction (LASIK or PRK) or glasses this can be improved to 20/25, a good outcome all things considered. Laser correction is widely used these days, but it is permanent and irreversible. Once bitten, twice shy, as the saying goes. Given the long and convoluted journey following an initial unsatisfactory multi-focal IOL implant, eventually replaced with a simple non-toric lens, the thought of yet another eye intervention was a little unsettling. Glasses may need to be changed over time, but I've lived with that situation since age 12, so the risk-aversive choice was to go with glasses for now. With their delivery, we should be back in business soon. Then we will tackle the other eye, now clearly in need of cataract surgery as well. Next time around, simple is best. UPDATE: Not so fast on the glasses. The distinct double vision at distances is gone, but now there is a smeared ghost double vision in its place. Oddly, near vision with progressive lenses is excellent -- although exact head angle and placement is critical to best results. Need to schedule yet another refraction test to see if the results are different. In other words, here we go again. . . Adapters: simple, control ring or polarizer? ▲ The Canon EOS R mirrorless system introduced a new lens mount. The RF mount differs from the long time EF mount in flange distance, pinout and bayonet configuration. Of course, one can sell off one’s stable of EF lenses and buy fully into RF mount lenses, but that’s expensive and the gain in performance and functionality isn’t worth the cost for some EF lens owners. Also, some equivalents do not yet exist, notable among them Canon's excellent line of tilt-shift lenses. In the latter case, one is faced with the need to choose an adapter in order to continue use of EF lenses. Canon makes three, a simple pass-thru version, a control ring version and a drop-in filter version that comes with either a circular polarizer or a variable ND filter. The simple version is the least costly and it works virtually seamlessly to mate EF lenses to EOS R cameras. The control ring version, at twice the price, mimics the control ring found on most RF lenses, and it allows one to map an additional function to the ring, e.g. ISO, exposure compensation or a number of other choices. Bodies such as the R5 already have three programmable dials, and the control ring provides a fourth if needed. If not needed, then the simple adapter is the best and least expensive choice. The drop-in filter version is quite pricey, but it can replace several filter sizes at once, and if one uses either filter quite a lot, the added cost may be well worth it. There is a sentiment among some that the more expensive control ring version is not needed since one never had the flexibility it provides in the past and therefore there is no need for it now. And if one truly cannot think of a use for it, then by all means the simple adapter works transparently at half the price. But, I’ve never understood the logic behind the “never had it before so don’t need it now?? reasoning. To adapt a certain phrase, "progress happens." By analogy, my first car was a second-hand 1950s era three-speed manual shift clunker with an in-line six cylinder engine that blew a quart of oil out the tailpipe every 100 miles. By the above logic I should still be driving that archaic beast. But I have had no trouble adapting to a modern power train featuring a nine speed push button fly-by-wire automatic transmission, paddle shifters and variable torque management all-wheel drive, the latter offering a marvelous boost to powering out of apexes. For those resisting anything new, Ferrari introduced paddle shifters on their 1980s Formula One race cars. If it’s good enough for Formula One, I think I can figure out a use for it. As for the control ring, after much experimentation and experience in use, mine now sets flash exposure compensation, a useful feature since I use fill flash for many subjects, including birds and portraits. Experience has brought other changes. After a year with the R5, I now use either manual exposure with Auto ISO and exposure compensation or just straight manual exposure for the main exposure mode as well as the C1, C2 and C3 custom shooting modes. In all modes the front dial sets aperture and the back dial adjusts shutter speed. For cases with Auto ISO, the top Mode dial sets exposure compensation, and for full manual cases the Mode dial adjusts ISO. Goodbye manual shift oil burning clunker. Who among us Is a photographer? ▲ There are many reasons why an individual might be considered a photographer. Perhaps in the common perception a photographer is one who uses a camera to produce images that are recognizably artistic, images of an almost infinite variety of subjects and genres. Such people would indisputably be considered photographers. Another recognized category is photojournalists and their subcategory, sports photographers. These individuals document topical events that match the interest on the part of many people, often part of a daily news cycle. Occasionally images from these events become iconic representations of an era. There are many more. Wedding photographers preside over thriving businesses. Commercial and product photographers produce many of the images we see in a variety of advertising media. Photographers document corporate events, ceremonies, school graduations, and much more. All would be considered photographers. But what about the casual snapshooter? In an age of ubiquitous camera phones and instant social media, the number of images created has multiplied almost without bound. But, are such people really photographers? Many would answer in the negative. However, there is a related category that should receive consideration, i.e. those who document everyday life around them, particularly the comings and goings of family. Why is this category worth considering? Speaking personally, some of my most treasured images are those of family members from the distant past, often from a hundred years ago or more. These are my ancestors, and each has contributed a little to who I am. Given that imaging equipment was more primitive and less widespread, these images are limited in number, almost exclusively black-and-white, and often posed, sometimes obviously in a studio setting and sometimes in a casual setting. Often these are the only glimpses we have into the lives of the people who came before. As such, they are priceless beyond measure. For my money, those who capture family moments, often simply making a permanent record of their own memories but with the side effect of documenting daily life for posterity, perform a vital service whether they qualify as photographers or not. With cameras at dawn ▲ Things aren't always as they appear. And, sometimes imagination plays tricks on people. There are even times when cameras can seem to be something entirely differnt. . . It happened a few months ago, during a visit to one of our favorite vacation spots, a well-known restored historical area choc full of architectural photo opportunities. Such places can be quite popular, and getting good photos without crowds in the frame can be a challenge. However, even the most enthusiastic history buffs ususally don't get up with the sunrise. So, it was up and out in the early pre-dawn light for some unobstructed compositions. This was also the first opportunity to try out a new wearable double camera harness. For nature outings, I try to work not too far from a car, not being a huge fan of hiking. (One trip down into a very deep hollow to photograph a scenic waterfall confirmed my preference; the hike back up carrying two cameras and a tripod almost did me in.) And, for tourist type outings, I prefer to go without a camera bag, with a pair of cameras slung on straps, one across each shoulder -- usually a 24-105mm f/4 zoom and the tilt-shift lens du jour. But, the hazard of a strap sliding off a shoulder and wrecking a bunch of expensive gear doesn't appeal, so I've tried several alternatives, finally settling on a minimalist product that promised to do the job without a lot of excess weight. The harness in question fits like a skeleton vest and allows each camera to hang down at one's side, instantly accessible but otherwise out of the way. And, therein lies the tale. Being a friendly type, I waved a greeting as the car approached, and then kept walking toward my objective. Suddenly the car stopped, as if the occupants were sizing me up. What are they up to, I thought? The writing and logo on the side of the car made clear their interest -- it was a city police car. And, I was left to wonder -- as I continued along without breaking stride -- did they initially mistake those two cameras hanging down at belt level for something else? The car eventually moved on, and I hope they had a good laugh at this morning apperition seemingly out of the old West. Upon reflection, I certainly saw the humor in it! Light at the end of the tunnel ▲ This is the latest update in the ongoing saga of my Cataract Confusion implant surgery, introduced in the linked article. As we saw from last time, at the three week mark, progress, in the form of replacement of an unsatisfactory multifocal implant with a single focus lens, appeared to produce an improvement, subject to needed vision correction and a bit of laser polishing to remove scaring from the surgery, which seems to have caused both blurring of the image and a significant loss of visual contrast. Well, we've had another visit, this time to take a look at the scarring. My hunch regarding the prospect of improved contrast following laser polishing (see link to American Academy of Opthamology article referenced previously) proved correct. The result was that the laser polishing did improve contrast, as well as overall visual acuity, and lo and behold, the hazy rendition through that eye has disappeared!! Hallaluah! That eye now forms a clear image, albeit still with some double vision attributable to astigmatism. Colors are finally both vivid and correct. Whites are now white, blacks are black, each with plenty of contrast in subtle shades, and colors are positively intense. The end may now be in sight. We go back once more for a vision exam and possible laser correction to fix the astigmatism and to get a proper progressive lens to add closeup vision to the distance implant. That suggests that there will, hopefully, be only one more update to this saga and then we'll come out the other side. After that, we'll work on the other eye. Eyes, updated ▲ The article, Cataract Confusion, introduced below in "The Eyes Have It . . . Or Not!", discussed intraocular lens implants (IOL) as a treatment for cataracts based on my own mixed personal experience. Before cataract surgery the eye needing surgery was 20/70, with or without optical correction. In other words, nothing more could be done without an IOL implant. Briefly, there are several IOL types: simple, astigmatism correcting and multi-focal. I initially chose multi-focal but could never get a sharp image with it. Additionally, colors were less vivid than before, an unusual and unexpected outcome. After consultation, I went to a specialist for a replacment, this time choosing the simplest alternative. Initial results were encouraging, but progress was slow. Vision remained blurred, this time with an intruding ghost image offset from the main subject. Colors remained disappointingly muted, as if seen through haze or fog. While Internet by no means replaces sound medical diagnosis and advice, a search nevertheless turned up the possibility that the ghost image resulted from astigmatism, a defect that both eyes possessed before surgery on the worst one. In fact, without glasses, the other eye also exhibits ghost images as well. Having no choice, I waited for my three week post surgery exam before panicing. The result was better than expected. Everyone is familiar with the standard alphabet chart, a row of letters rendered in decreasing size until one can no longer make out the letters. This time, I was given the pinhole test. In this test, one eye is covered as ususal, but rather than the eye to be tested being completely open, the tested eye is blocked with an insert that has a scattering of pinholes. The theory is that the pinholes restrict the incoming light rays to a small part of the eye's lens, thus minimizing the effect of any aberations. To my surprise, the test chart letters were sharp and clear, rather than blurry blobs, down to a 20/20 vision level! The doctor laughed and said, "Your vision is perfect, you just need new glasses. Needless to say, this was excellent news. He was not optimistic about the loss of color contrast. As a photographer this didn't sit well. So, I turned to Internet again and found a possible explanation from the Americn Adademy of Opthamology, namely that the posterior capsule (membrane behind the implant) can become hazy from cell growth. This is treatable with YAG laser polishing, a simple in-office procedure, and one that is often needed to remove post surgery scarring anyway. So now we await new glasses and laser polishing in a much more optimistic frame of mind! Keyword catastrophe ▲ Subject: Organizing and finding stuff in a large image collection. (Reader alert: In this post, the curmudgeon strikes again. There is no real catastrophe here, just gripes -- i.e. nothing to see, move along. . . ) Photographers often use digital asset management software (DAM) to organize their image collections. Typically such software stores stuff where it wants and gives the user a set of tools to access it. Being one who wants to know what actually goes into the sausage, I prefer to manage my own file system, thank you very much. For those who care about such things, our file structure is described in How We Process Images > Organizing Images. All well and good -- but. . . Collections get bigger and bigger over time. Faced with trying to find that special image that one remembers but cannot quite recall where it is stored, DAM starts to make sense. Naively, I thought that keywords might be the answer. As a user of Capture One Pro, it seemed natural to assume that keywords would do what I wanted. So, being a top down thinker, I set out to create a comprehensive set of keywords that would do the trick. This included keyword collections for various subjects such as Travel, People & Places, Birds, Animals, Flowers, etc., each library containing dozens of keywords This process was made easier by using Copy Path to extract text IDs of various folders containing subject and session organizing structures. The subjects were then imported into Capture One's keyword library tool using CO's very handy text import feature. Great so far. . . Or so I thought. That's when the angst began. All went well until I tried to search for keyworded images across multiple folders. To my dismay, this simply doesn't work. As was once said of Oakland, "There's no there, there." Which calls into question just what use Capture One's keywords are. An Internet search turned up a raft of similar complaints. There was a presumably constructive recommendation to try CO's Smart Albums. But, a quick examination of this feature revealed that in order to accomplish what I wanted I would have to create a Smart Album for every keyword in my keyword libraries, numbering in the scores. This on top of keywording every image in my collection, which I would have to do in any case. Being of sound mind (there's that sausage thing again), I gave up, and I'm now scanning each CO update to see if and when the requisite capability is finally added. Brand wars ▲ Some of the most acrimonious debates on Internet photography forums follow from loyalty to a particular product or brand. This certainly applies to cameras and their associated lenses and accessories. But it also applies to image processing products as well -- and no doubt other photography gear if one looks closer. For now, we'll confine discussion to the two aforementioned product lines, cameras and image processing software. The bottom line-- perhaps disappointing to trolls and argumentative types -- is that there are many more-than-satisfactory products in each category, and it all comes down to specific use cases, preferences and financial concerns. Every product and brand has strengths and weaknesses, and what is best for one individual may not be quite so good for another. Neither is right or wrong. In the camera world, I moved from Minolta to Canon in 1999 once I could afford to pursue bird photography in a big way. The attraction then was their unique-at-the-time image stabilized supertelephotos. Since then, the market has caught up, and as I made the case in Rebuilding My Photo Kit, any of the big three brands, Canon, Nikon or Sony, could be made to work for my particular interests. In which case, there is no compelling reason to switch -- especially considering the cost of doing so. In the RAW processing domain, I've tried Photoshop, Lightroom, Canon DPP, Capture One, Rawshooter (IP sold to Adobe), Bibble (now defunct), Affinity and Luminar. There are certainly additional RAW processors that have a following, although I've not tried them. Other software includes HDR, panorama stitching and virtual tour products, including Photomatix, AuroraHDR, AutoPano, PanoTour, PTGui and Pano2VR. Specialty products include Neat Image, Topaz DeNoise AI, Topaz Sharpen AI and Pictures2Exe. They all did the job at the time, although I've sometimes moved on for better features or greater usability. Given the relatively minor cost of software compared to camera hardware, cost has rarely been an issue. But then, such a stance leaves little room for endless Internet brand wars. . . The eyes have it. . . Or not! ▲ Author's disclaimer: My extended article, Cataract Confusion, discusses intraocular lens implants (IOL) as a treatment for cataracts based on my own mixed personal experience. There are multiple IOL types, brands and technologies. Once one is confronted with these choices, one is left to best match the choice with one's own preferences and needs. Individuals have had success -- and problems -- with each and every type. As for myself, as a photographer and a tennis player, picking the right IOL turned out to be non-trivial since each type could conceivably be useful for one or more of my personal interests and requirements. Each individual is different, so my experience is not applicable to everyone, and it should it not be taken as guidance as to what any individual should do. Anyone considering cataract surgery should consult a qualified ophthalmology surgeon and should make themselves fully acquainted with all aspects of the process and the products -- especially the down side of each choice. For those short on patience, the bottom line is that my initial choice, of a diffractive optics multi-focal IOL implant (MF), proved unsatisfactory -- for me. Despite the risk involved, I chose to have it removed and replaced with a simple single focus (SF) implant instead, bypassing the more expensive astigmatism correcting (AC) single focus IOL. I can only say that I wish that the post below, by a practicing ophthalmologist, had been available when I made my initial, fateful decision. The text, which recommends against current multi-focal technology for many situations, with explanation of why, is self-explanatory, although the entire thread is worth following. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1688844/4#15724007 Flagship, row boat -- What's in a name? ▲ The introduction of the Canon R3 brings with it a new form of Internet semantic nonsense -- is the R3 a "flagship" camera or isn't it? Since the R3 seems to best Canon's acknowledged flagship, the EOS 1DX MkIII, and is priced within a stones throw as well, why isn't the R3 a flagship? Or even the flagship? Even Canon acknowledges that in some ways it deserves that moniker, but given where MILC technology is going, they want to do better before attaching the flagship name to a supposed R1. All of which begs the question, what is a flagship? The common definition is that it is the best compared to its companions. In navy terms, the flagship is the ship with the embarked admiral, in command of the fleet or task force or whatever, i.e. a multi-ship aggregation. But, in the end, cameras aren't navy ships, and the what's in a name question applies. What really matters is capabilities, performance and price. What is the frame rate? How many megapixels? What is the dynamic range? What features does it have, e.g. GPS, wireless downloads, etc.? How robust is it? How big, how heavy? What customizations are available? . . .And many more. These are the things that matter, and not marketing labels. Arguing over terminology and semantics is pretty much an exercise in futility -- full of sound and fury but much ado about nothing. . . with apologies to the Bard! Argument from Authority, or The pitfalls of market research ▲ There are those who defend the fact that in recent years Canon has sometimes produced sensors with fewer megapixels than competing brands. A good example is the recently announced R3 at 24MP. The claim of the defenders is that Canon is the best selling brand overall and that surely they have done market research that supports their direction. However, isn't basing an argument for ~20MP sensors on the foundation that the company is the top-selling brand and that it has done market research a bit like the logical fallacy of argument from authority: https://www.logical-fallacy.com/articles/appeal-to-authority/? Stalin says such-and-such | Stalin is Party Secretary | Therefore such-and-such must be true. Top-selling Company is releasing this-and-that | Top-selling Company has done market research | Therefore this-and-that must be what the market wants. Might be true, but do we really know? Canon is indisputably the market leader in sales -- although where it ranks in full frame camera sales, and especially high-end FF cameras of the types likely to be used by professionals, is less well known. Canon, like all manufacturers, is certainly better positioned to know buyer preferences than individual customers, whether by sales, market research or user feedback -- but are they infallible? Finally, the claim that the target market, heavily weighted toward sports photographers and photojournalists, neither needs nor wants high MP cameras due to constraints on upload time, seems to make good sense. But, whether this is universally true, and if so whether it will remain true as communication and processing speeds increase, is nevertheless up for debate. In any case, there are other possibilities as well, not only as to why Canon has chosen its particular product lineup but also why people continue to buy products with what some believe to be inferior specs. In fact, more than one explanation may be valid -- even for an individual user.
Feel free to add others that appear plausible. Which one or more of these represent reality? And who knows for sure? Not I, certainly. And not, I think, anyone expressing opinion as certainty. Not even those who resort to https://www.logical-fallacy.com/articles/ad-hominem/ and https://www.logical-fallacy.com/articles/name-calling/ It would be interesting to know long term market share of the A1 and Z9 relative to the R3 – although we in Internet land will likely never have accurate data on same. In fact, while Canon is the best selling brand by total sales, we don't actually have detailed data on their relative position with respect to full frame cameras only, nor to upper tier cameras. Nor do we know trends, which could over time reverse market positions in one or more product categories, including high end cameras. Since the rapidly shrinking market for traditional cameras, whether DSLR or MILC, is headed toward upper end, higher value cameras, that seems to be a very relevant unknown. Aurora HDR orphaned? ▲ Every company makes choices regarding how they position their products to compete for sales. SKYLUM has evidently chosen to focus Luminar on exotic compositing features such as sky replacement and others under the much overused rubric of “AI". Meanwhile, what was once the best HDR software on the market, Aurora HDR, languishes without even the simplest update for more recent cameras and RAW file formats. One guesses that corporate financial analysis projected a better return on limited software development resources from the direction Luminar has taken, at the expense of Aurora HDR sales and customer good will. The fact that Aurora HDR has not been even minimally updated to incorporate more recent camera file formats suggests that the debayering code may not be sufficiently modular to be reused between Luminar and Aurora HDR. If this is indeed the case it would behoove SKYLUM to invest development resources in that direction if Aurora HDR is to have a future. I have no idea whether the exclusive Luminar focus to the exclusion of Aurora HDR is the correct choice from a profitability perspective. However, personally I have no interest in the image manipulations that Luminar current direction seems to suggest. I simply want the best set of tools to produce highly refined images representing the scene I captured, across domains that include nature, wildlife, landscape, sports, architecture and portraiture. As a multi-decade Capture One user, I have that tool, so the direction chosen for Luminar is irrelevant to me. And now, Capture One has announced that the next version will feature both HDR and panorama stitching, each of which I use extensively. So, it looks like SKYLUM has delayed long enough to miss a possible Aurora HDR upgrade sale that would have allowed me to process recent camera files. Well done. Mixed memory card types ▲ The Internet gives short shrift to cameras with mixed card types. (And that's ignoring the calumny visited on cameras that accept only one card.) This opprobrium resurfaced with Canon's R3 and the development announced R3, both of which feature a slot for the recently developed CFExpress standard and a second slot for SD/SDXC cards. However, one pro suggested that perhaps bringing forward a card such as the SD that users already have on hand not only saves cost but also in many cases does not adversely impact end user performance. He may have a point. Speaking only for myself, it’s been a long time and many camera models ago since I ran into card and buffer limitations. And, like many I have drawers full of cards of various generations – flash card archeology, if you will. So, the above logic makes sense – even if it is irrelevant to my own preferences, which run to identical card slots and the fastest technology available. Why? Just because. But, that’s just me, and it’s hardly a requirement – I don’t shoot much BIF, and when I shot pro tennis it was all about timing for the moment of most visual impact: ball incoming, instant of contact, outgoing just off the racquet. Or, the point of peak potential energy in the ball toss for a serve -- as well as the ball just coming off the racquet. High frame rates (and an adequate buffer) were more important than the specifics of the cards in order to better the chances of getting it just right Regarding frame rates, the higher the better, and I’ll gladly accept the extended culling time from 20 or 30 fps sequences in exchange for more “perfect'? compositions. Comments on commenters and commentators ▲ Ever opened your favorite photography web site and browsed to the online forums, only to discover that you’ve landed in the middle of a vituperative mud-slinging match? Internet, it seems, is something of a verbal Wild West show. Specifically Internet photography forums. (But, casual perusal of almost any domain of public discourse is likely to turn up similarities.) Sound familiar? Then visit our “Grumpy Grandpa's Gear Gripes" article. Molly Gibson and Fanny Price ▲ Jane Austen's Fanny Price, the heroine of Mansfield Park, Austen's novel in the Regency genre of morality and conduct for young women (see, for example, Fordyce's Sermons to Young Women), is frequently seen as a milquetoast heroine, not worthy of the accolades bestowed on Jane Austen’s other leading ladies. If only she had a little more gumption! For an example of what Miss Price might have been, one need look no farther than Elizabeth Gaskell’s Molly Gibson, the quiet but determined protagonist of Wives and Daughters. Like Fanny, Molly makes her way through life creating the same respect and reliance on the part of everyone she encounters with her patient understanding, finely-honed judgment and fidelity to those she loves. But, unlike Fanny, Molly is nobody’s pushover. In that respect, Molly Gibson is perhaps the heroine we all wish Jane Austen had authored. In fairness to Austen, perhaps Fanny Price's lack of assertiveness was a necessary literary choice in order to render more vivid her inner strength of character in standing up to the temptations surrounding her in Mansfield Park's Bertram household. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
After years of enduring the above
aggrevations, especially constant flag wrapping, we decided a better
solution was needed. A search turned up a rather
But, raising and lowering flags was still
difficult -- string under tension just didn't slip easily on the caribiners.
So, we began to look at end caps with rotating pulley attached.
Then, during the search for a good buy, we came across a customer
who, faced with the same problem, instead attached a
Just
to be clear, one of my all-time favorite photographs is of a snowy
egret taken with a Minolta 8000i and a 200mm APO lens on
Kodachrome at almost reach out and touch range. There's plenty of detail
for modest prints. But, one can't always count on being so
fortunate or so close. I also have an image of a pileated
woodpecker high up in a tree (line of sight distance 100 feet
measured with a rangefinder), captured with the R5 at
1200mm. The image, a vertical cropped from a horizontal
frame, shows feather detail in the subject. We've kept the EF600mm f4L II
precisely because it can resolve
that kind of detail with a 2X extender.
Well, the answer
is, we can. Arrived at almost by accident, the required
adjustments are really quite straightforward. All it takes
is a few simple slider adjustments for contrast and highlight
recovery -- and perhaps a high contrast tweak with the Curve
tool -- and voila, there it is. My process makes
use of Capture One features, but undoubtedly other RAW
processors can do the same thing.
There I was,
strolling along the sidewalk along a broad avenue of restored
and reproduction history, the sun not yet peeking through
morning clouds, my objective at the end of the street a gorgeous
reproduction high court and legislative complex -- an
architectural gem -- with wide-brim slouch hat pulled low and my
trusty cameras slung by my side. In the distance, I
noticed a single car, headlights still on, creeping along the
otherwise deserted avenue at walking speed toward my location.
