booleansplit.com

dpreview.com just posted their comprehensive review of Pentax’s latest entry-level DSLR, the K2000 (or K-m). Being a Pentax K10D owner I was excited to see the K2000 hit the market to go head to head with the entry-level Nikons and Canons. Unfortunately, it seems Pentax has taken a similar path as Canon did with their original Digital Rebel (EOS 300D). By simplifying the camera to appeal to novices, they have created a starter DSLR that most users will quickly outgrow.

While I understand this tactic from a business perspective (when users outgrow the K2000 they will theoretically upgrade to a K200D or K20D), it frustrates me as a photographer that Pentax would hamstring the K2000 in the ways they have (read the review to see what I’m talking about). Seeing as how one can pick up a K200D kit for less than $500 these days, I’d have a lot of difficulty recomending the K2000 to anyone. But that’s just me. Be sure to click over to the dpreview.com review and decide for yourself.

January 30th, 2009 | Tags: Amazon.com, dpreview.com, DSLR, entry level, K-m, K2000, K200D, K20D, Pentax, review, www.booleansplit.com | Category: gear, reviews | Comments (2)

I have been thinking a lot lately about lenses and I thought I’d share some of my thoughts. I’m planning on doing a more specific lens comparison but I will save that for a later date. For now I just want to talk about my general thoughts about lenses and their applications. Why is this important? Well, as you begin to expand your collection of lenses you will soon learn that what you have really invested in is a lens system and not a camera system. Quality glass (lenses) will last a lifetime and will likely outlast the latest whiz bang technology of the latest DSLR you just bought. Hopefully by sharing my thoughts and experiences some of you will have an easier time of navigating the confusing quagmire that comes along with upgrading your DSLR’s optics and make the most out of your investment.

For this discussion I am going to primarily refer the standard 35mm film focal lengths of lenses. I will add APS-C (1.6X) focal length or 35mm equivalents in brackets [ ] where appropriate. In general, if I say 50mm I mean 50mm focal length on a 35mm film camera or full frame sensor DSLR. The reason I am doing it this way is that the 35mm equivalent focal length of a lens describes its field of view (FoV) more accurately than APS-C (or DX) format measurement does. If any of this is confusing to you I strongly suggest reading the Wikipedia page on the APS-C format before continuing.

What would I buy?

Let’s imagine for a moment that money is no object and I could fill my camera bag with whatever I wished. What would that be? While we’re in dreamland, let’s assume that the camera I’ll be shooting with all this fictional glass is Canon’s awesome new 5D Mark II. Here are the lenses I’d want to have available and why (I’m sure I could find similar choices for Nikon but I know the Canon stuff better):

• 17-40mm f/4 L wide angle zoom. Why if money is no object would I choose the 17-40 f/4L over the faster 16-35 f/2.8L? Simple, the extra speed the 2.8 provides is not worth the extra weight.  A super wide lens like this is something I’m most likely to carry around with me while traveling and the lighter it is the more likely I’ll take it with me. Also, the idea of wide angle shots is usually to capture as much detail as possible (think streetscape, landscape or 5-year-old birthday party action) so a larger aperture is just going to work against you. I’m sure there are specific situations where the extra speed of the 16-35 f/2.8 would come in handy but for me I’d most likely choose the slower and lighter option here and just dial up the ISO as needed in low light situations. The only caveat here is if I was shooting an APS-C body. Then the 16-35mm [26-56mm] would make a logical upgrade for the standard 18-55 kit lens. See my comments below for APS-C wide angle lens thoughts.
• 35mm f/1.4 L wide angle prime. I really like having a fast wide angle lens for available light shots of the kids around the house and for other times when a 50mm lens just doesn’t provide quite enough FoV to capture a scene the way I want to. In fact, while a 50mm lens best reproduces the magnification the human eye sees, a 35mm lens better represents the field of view our eyes can see (in focus). Having never owned a fast 35mm I can only guess but I bet it would end up being my standard lens mounted on my camera 90% of the time. Becomes a medium angle lens [56mm] on an APS-C camera.
• 24-105 f/4 IS L zoom. This is a close call. The 24-70 f/2.8 L is a very tempting choice. I have rented both lenses and they are both superb. The 24-105 f/4 is the one I’d put in my bag though because money is no object here and I’m going to have all these other lenses to choose from. Huh? Well, if I could only have one lens it would be the 24-70 f/2.8 L. Easy. However, if I’m going to be toting around a bag full of glass the 24-105 f/4 just makes more sense. It is lighter (see argument for 17-40 above), has a wider zoom range (better for “walking around”) and has IS. There are times when a slower shutter speed (1/30-1/4 second) is what you need to capture action and IS is the only way to get get these shots w/o the hassle of a tripod. The 24-105 focal range means I would have a stabilized lens that covers all wide to medium telephoto applications. Also an awesome all-purpose [38-168mm] lens on APS-C bodies (though lacking a bit on the wide end).
• 50mm f/1.4 USM prime. Here I go again cheaping out even though money is no object. Yes, Canon’s 50mm f/1.2L is the Mother of All fiddies. However, from what I can tell it is not that much better than the non-L 50 1.4 but it is that much bigger and heavier (and somewhat slower to focus). I know this whole weight thing is getting long in the tooth, but for the way I shoot it is important. When I travel I typically head out on foot to explore which means I have to carry my gear on my person. After spending an entire days lugging an overloaded camera bag around Hong Kong and Paris I can tell you that less is definitely more. The main problem is that you get to these wonderful places and you are faced with making the choice of picking one or two lenses and hoping for the best- or lugging your entire kit with you. I’ve done both and can say that whatever the choice the weight of what you carry always remains an issue. Studio, sports and landscape “trunk” photographers are the only ones that don’t have issues with how much stuff weighs. As for me, I carry my camera almost everywhere (including on my bike) so I want to find the best balance between size and performance. Here, the 50 1.2 just doesn’t make sense for me. YMMV. See fast prime suggestions for APS-C cameras below.
• 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro. You can’t beat a dedicated macro lens. I like the 100 f/2.8 on a full frame body as it provides the right mix of magnification and stand-off distance from the subject. I like to shoot most of my macro shots at arm’s length. Canon’s 50mm f/2.5 Macro is OK but I have found that I often have to get too close with the camera to get the magnification I want (often blocking out the available light). Meanwhile, Canon’s 180mm f/3.5 L Macro is an awesome lens but its longer focal length pretty much requires a tripod to get decent results. APS-C photographers should check out Canon’s EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro.
• 70-200 f/2.8 IS L zoom. This is one of photography’s greatest lenses. Perfect for portraiture, sports action, school plays, wildlife, the occasional macro shot, and pulling in details in just about any situation. The f/2.8 version gets the nod over the f/4 version even though it is larger and heavier. You’ll need the speed to catch those low light shots and the shorter DoF will make your subjects pop. My bet is that you’ll rarely shoot this lens at anything other than wide open. Works great on both full frame and APS-C bodies.
• 400mm f/2.8 IS L super telephoto. Here’s where the “money is no object” part really pays off. I have always wanted a fast super telephoto for getting in tight to stuff you can’t get up close to. I’m thinking sports car racing, school plays, African safaris, and the occasional full moon. Not a lens I would carry around in my bag but definitely one I’d like to have if the situation warranted it. I’d skip the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS L in favor of lens speed and ultimate image quality. Have an APS-C camera? Then your 1.6X crop factor makes this monster a 640mm f/2.8 equivalent for no extra charge ;-)

OK, so back to reality for a second. Most of us are amateurs and can not justify dropping $15K on our camera gear. Therefore, what should you take away from all of this?

• Buy the best lenses you can afford. It will outlast your camera and you’ll never find yourself second guessing a lens purchase. If you find you don’t use a lens enough to justify keeping it, you’ll also find that pro-quality glass earns top-dollar on the used market. If you are thinking of dropping $180 on a Canon 28mm f/2.8 to get a wide angle prime do yourself a favor and save your pennies until you can step up at least to the $420 28mm f/1.8 USM. What you will gain in ultimate image quality and versatility will pay off many times over in your photographs. That 28 2.8 will end up in a drawer somewhere collecting dust as soon as you realize that its useless below f/4 anyway. Trust me. I know.
• Do your research. This may directly contradict what I just said as you will find bargains out there. The non-L 50 1.4 I mentioned above is one example. In fact, at only $90 brand new Canon’s 50mm f/1.8 II is probably the best value in lenses anywhere. (Check out dpreview.com’s new review of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II.) That being said, do your research so you know what you are getting. Personally, I would wait and save up for the 50 1.4 just to get the speed and silence of the USM focus motor. Also, the 50 1.4’s 8 bladed diaphragm produces far superior bokeh and starbursts when stopped down than the 50 1.8’s 5 bladed diaphragm. Buy the 50 1.8 II and you’ll be perfectly happy with it until you shoot one of the USM lenses. Then you’ll start beating yourself up. The best places to research are websites that actually test equipment. I prefer the-digital-picture.com, photozone.de, and dpreview.com because they use standardized testing procedures. There are blogger/photographers (like me) who “test” lenses and write their opinions about them. Take those with a grain of salt but they are usually pretty useful. Be wary of discussion forums and Amazon.com review ratings and the like. These are typically very unreliable sources for quality information.
• Pick up a fast prime lens. My recommendation is a 50mm equivalent focal length at f/1.8 or faster. If you are shooting an APS-C sensor camera this is going to be tough. Technically you’ll need a 31mm lens to get an equivalent 50mm focal length. Sigma is one of the only lens manufacturers making a lens like this. Their 30mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM looks like it fits the bill perfectly. However, it’s relatively pricey ($500) and tests say it is very soft off center. Pentax’s SMCP-FA 31mm f/1.8 AL Limited is an ideal choice for Pentax shooters but at $800 you’ve got to be mighty deep into Pentax. 35mm focal length lenses are probably your best bet. Unfortunately, truly fast versions are usually pricey and hard to come by (see the $1,200 35mm f/1.4 L above). If you can’t find a 30-35mm f/1.8 or faster lens do what most everyone else does and put your money into a fast 50mm. It’ll end up being a bit long on an APS-C sensor camera [80mm] but at least you can start exploring the Wonderful World of Bokeh and available light photography.
• Consider an ultra wide angle zoom. I’m not talking fisheye. I am talking at least 15-17mm on the wide end, though. A super wide angle lens opens a whole new world of photography for less money than most lens investments. I’ve already shared my feelings above about Canon’s 17-40 f/4L and 16-35 f/2.8L lenses for full-frame applications. However, neither of these fit the bill for an APS-C body. Look for something around 10mm [16mm] on the wide end. There are a number of choices depending on your camera so do your homework. I hear Canon’s EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM is superb. I’ve owned Sigma’s 10-20 f/4-5.6 EX DC lens and thought it was great.
• Avoid super zooms. These are the 18-200mm+ do-it-all lenses that are so popular at camera stores and on-line discounters. Sure, the idea of one lens for every situation seems like a good idea, but the reality of making such a lens results in some pretty significant compromises in lens speed, image quality and usability. While prime lenses will always give you the best ultimate image quality they may not be the right choice for every situation. However, you will be much better off if you limit the range of your zooms and follow suggestion number one above. In my experience you can get very decent results from mid-level primes but anything other than top-of-the-line zooms are likely to suffer in more than one area (speed, sharpness, vignetting, chromatic aberrations, etc).
• Save up for that super telephoto. Don’t waste your money on bargain brand telephoto lenses. There are a lot out there (Phoenix) but most of them aren’t worth the plastic they are made of. If dropping $5K on a lens doesn’t seem like it will ever fit into your plan then…
• Rent before you buy. So, if you’re following my advice and buying the high dollar glass maybe you should take it for a test drive before you take the plunge. There are a number of camera equipment rental services out there. I have only rented locally while I am traveling so I can’t recommend any of the on-line services, but I hear good things about many of them. Also, renting is a great way to get those awesome once-a-year close-up Christmas school program photos of Jr. from the back row of the gymnasium. No sense putting that $5K lens in the closet until next year, right?

I hope this helps clear up the mystery of lens selection a bit for those of you who are just starting to wade into the hobby. Feel free to post specific questions in the comments or drop me an email. Those of you who are more experienced please take a moment to share your thoughts on the subject as well.

January 25th, 2009 | Tags: 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC, 100 f/2.8 USM Macro, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS, 16-35 f/2.8L, 17-40 f/4L, 180mm f/3.5L Macro, 24-105 f/4L, 24-70 f/2.8L, 28mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4L, 400mm f/2.8L IS, 50mm f/1.2L, 50mm f/1.4L, 50mm f/1.8 II, 50mm f/2.5 Macro, 5D Mark II, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, Amazon.com, APS-C, B&H Photo, bokeh, Canon, Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, dpreview.com, EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6, EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, EXIF, Flickr Friends, lens, Pentax, Phoenix, photozone.de, Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM, SMCP-FA 31mm f/1.8 AL Limited, the-digital-picture.com, Wikipedia, www.booleansplit.com | Category: gear | Comments (3)

Here’s a recent quote from Ken Rockwell’s blog:

The Canon 5D Mark II’s in-camera JPG processing is awful if you’re making huge prints. The in-camera processing of the raw data oversharpens harsh edges, adds too much contrast and smudges subtle textures into mush.

For the Canon 5D Mark II, if you’re making huge enlargements, shooting CR2 files and processing them with Adobe Lightroom 2.2 makes a world of improvement over in-camera processing. Shooting CR2 files in the 5D Mark II and processing them in Lightroom 2.2 makes files almost indistinguishable from the JPGs that come directly out of the Nikon D3X.

I find this quite amusing as Ken is infamous for bashing anyone who shoots RAW as a hack. Read his article on RAW vs. JPEG to see what I mean. If you can get beyond all of his opinions there is some pretty useful information in there.

Personally, I pretty much agreed with Ken and shot JPEG exclusively up until last year. I switched to shooting RAW with my Pentax K10D and post processing with Adobe Lightroom when I discovered how much better the RAW images looked coming out of Lightroom as JPEGs than they ever did coming out of the camera. The thing that makes it work for me is that I know the camera so well that I can picture what post processing adjustments I am going to need to do to an image as I’m peering through the viewfinder… much the same way a good film photographer considers how they will later develop and print an image in the darkroom.

I have lens specific import presets for my K10D’s RAW files that automatically apply my preferred adjustments during import (Sharpening, Detail, Clarity, Vibrance, Noise Reduction, Defringing, etc.). I shoot in auto white balance mode so all the post processing I have to do is make any required adjustments to the WB where the camera missed (which happens more often than not. Often, I can do this quite simply with a large number of images shot in the same light with less than 3 clicks (click on the first image, shift-click on the last, click on the WB pull-down tab, scroll to the correct WB preset and release). I certainly fail to see how this can be any more time consuming than fiddling with the in-camera WB settings while shooting.

I don’t recommend shooting RAW for beginners. Post processing can be a quagmire where inexperienced photographers often get lost and discouraged. However, once you get to the point that you can see what kinds of adjustments an image might need before you even release the shutter, shooting RAW starts to make a lot of sense. Used wisely, RAW images can open up a whole new world of creative and critical control. Best of all, you can always reset the image back to the default as-shot capture and do it all over again- all without creating multiple JPEG files to keep track of and store.

If you want to get an idea of what shooting RAW will do for your core image quality, look up the review of your camera on dpreview.com and navigate to the “Compared to (JPEG)” and “Compared to (RAW)” sections.

Camera Dojo just posted a pretty in-depth article on the same subject that is worth taking a look at.

January 18th, 2009 | Tags: Adobe, Camera Dojo, Canon 5D MK II, dpreview.com, Ken Rockwell, Lightroom, Pentax K10D, Photoshop, post processing, RAW vs JPEG, white balance | Category: technique | Comments (4)

dpreview.com has concluded their compact camera tests with a look at enthusiast cameras. The choice of the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 as the overall winner is no real surprise to me. I picked up an LX2 back in February ‘07 in an attempt to replace my DSLR. I was incredibly impressed with the camera’s overall performance. My biggest complaint (and the thing that caused me to return it in exchange for a Canon G7) was the heavy handed noise reduction at all ISOs that ruined the 100% magnified detail of my shots. I’m a pixel peeper so this was a deal breaker for me. Also, the separate lens cap was a huge annoyance. Otherwise, it was one hell of a camera packed into a realistically pocket-able form factor (unlike the G series Canons).

Apparently, Panasonic has listened to the complaints of photographers like myself and made improvements to the image quality. Meanwhile, the solid build, wonderful wide angle Leica lenses, built-in IS, and user-centric controls continue to make the Lumix line one of my favorites. While I ultimately decided that an advanced compact camera was not a viable substitute for a DSLR, I did settle upon a Lumix for my pocket camera of choice.

December 19th, 2008 | Tags: booleansplit, Canon G7, compact cameras, dpreview.com, enthusiast, Lumix, LX2, LX3, Panasonic, review, test | Category: reviews | Comments (1)