Sunday, February 22, 2015

If it ain't broke, let's fix it

College basketball is a great game.

So, let's screw it up.

In my humble opinion, the value of the "three point field goal" is too high and the value of a free throw is too low, with respect to a standard field goal.  Also, IHMO, the value of a technical foul is way too high.

Here is a very simple "solution" to this "problem": Change the point value of the baskets in basketball.


ActionNowProposed
Field Goal23
Long field goal34
Free throw12
Technical free throw11

That would certainly change the flow of a game!

Yesterday Virginia Military beat Western Carolina 113-111 in overtime.  They won by hitting 20 three-point field goals and 24 regular field goals.  WC only hit 7 three-pointers.  If one takes the box scores and recasts this game with this new scoring system, things change a bit.

VMI Keydets
FGM-A 3PM-A FTM-A PTS All FG 3FG 2FG FT
Jordan Weethee, F 5-10 2-5 3-4 15 5 2 3 3
Phillip Anglade, F 4-7 0-0 2-2 10 4 0 4 2
Tim Marshall, G 6-17 6-17 0-0 18 6 6 0 0
Brian Brown, G 3-8 3-7 0-0 9 3 3 0 0
Julian Eleby, G 11-22 8-15 13-15 43 11 8 3 13
Jarid Watson, C 3-4 0-0 4-7 10 3 0 3 4
Trey Chapman, F 1-4 0-0 3-4 5 1 0 1 3
Fred Iruafemi, F 0-0 0-0 0-0 0 0 0 0 0
Craig Hinton, F 1-2 1-2 0-0 3 1 1 0 0
Christian Burton, G 0-0 0-0 0-0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTALS FGM-A 3PM-A FTM-A PTS
34-74 20-46 25-32 113 80 42 50 172
45.9% 43.5% 78.1% 60 28 25 113
Western Carolina Catamounts
FGM-A 3PM-A FTM-A PTS All FG 3FG 2FG FT
Torrion Brummitt, F 11-15 0-0 9-13 31 11 0 11 9
Tucker Thompson, F 0-1 0-0 0-0 0 0 0 0 0
James Sinclair, G 16-30 4-8 4-5 40 16 4 12 4
Mike Brown, G 4-10 1-2 4-4 13 4 1 3 4
Rhett Harrelson, G 3-12 2-11 3-3 11 3 2 1 3
Ashley Williams, F 0-0 0-0 0-0 0 0 0 0 0
Justin Browning, F 4-6 0-0 2-5 10 4 0 4 2
Kenneth Hall, F 0-1 0-0 0-0 0 0 0 0 0
Devin Peterson, G 2-4 0-1 2-4 6 2 0 2 2
TOTALS FGM-A 3PM-A FTM-A PTS
40-79 7-22 24-34 111 28 99 48 175
50.6% 31.8% 70.6% 21 66 24 111

WC would have won because of the decreased relative value of the long shot.

(Naturally, the game almost certainly would have progressed very differently.  I cannot tell, for example, if it would have even gone to overtime.)

The other interesting part for this change is that one player, Eleby, would have score 67 points. My guess is that 100-point games for a player would not be unheard of.

When the NCAA was trying to decide if they wanted a three-point field goal, there were lots of experiments that occurred.  For example, the year that NC State won the NCAA championship (1983), the ACC had a 17-foot three pointer--a chip shot!

Also, they have experimented with doing away with the foul-out, but that did not work well.

It would be fun--let's give it a shot in the pre-season next year.

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Shooting the Ping Pong Tournament, Part 3 (with conclusions)

Ping Pong (a.k.a., Table Tennis) is a very difficult and frustrating sport to shoot!
  1. Poor lighting demands high ISO.  On my APS-C cameras (Canon 7D and Sony a6000), this ISO is quite noisy.  I watched a video from Tony Northrup this weekend that talks about the "conversions" among all the shooting parameters from one sensor size to another.  In particular, he shows that the noise at a specific ISO goes as the 2-dimensional sensor size.  So a 35-mm-sized sensor (a.k.a., "Full Frame") is about 1.6*1.6 (4.096) times less noisy than an APS-C sensor.  In other words, ISO 6400 on a Canon 5D (or 6D or 1Dx) is equivalent to ISO 1600 on the Canon 7D.  I *wish* I could have shot at ISO 1600!
  2. Autofocus is a bear. I think I covered that pretty well in the Sunday post.
  3. The Sony a6000 is a competent sports camera, with the right lens.
  4. My Canon FD 100mm f/2.8 from 1975 is a great lens!
  5. I love shooting indoor sports.  My current pair of APS-C cameras do a good job, but the high-ISO performance is not so great; that is, I would really like to have cleaner pictures at ISO 6400!
  6. The background at Vaughn sucks.  Blurring out the background better would have been nice.  That means either a faster/longer lens or a larger sensor.
Is it time for me to consider buying camera with a larger sensor?  (I hate using the term "Full Frame", but I guess I have to.)

(Pause.  Take a deep breath, Elliott.)

My two current APS-C cameras are:
  • Canon 7D (mark 1) - $1700, 8fps
  • Sony a6000 - $600, 10fps
If I wanted to shift to "full frame", the current cameras on the market are as follows:
  • The kings are:
    • Canon 1Dx - $6000, 11fps
    • Nikon D4s - $6500, 11fps
  • The others are:
    • Canon 5D Mark III - $3000, 6fps
    • Canon 6D - $1800, 4.5fps
    • Nikon D810 - $3000, 5fps
    • Nikon D750 - $2000, 6.5fps
    • Nikon D610 - $1500, 6fps
    • Sony A99 - $2000, 6fps
    • Leica M-P - $8000, 3fps
    • Sony a7 (any of them) - $1500-$2500, 1fps
Leicas and the Sony a7* cameras are not sports camera!  They would need better fps specs.  Also, Leica does not have any AF lenses.

For completeness, there are a couple of "outside the box" medium format alternatives:
  • Pentax 645Z - $9000, 3fps (sensor size is 44x33 mm, 50% bigger than "full frame")
  • Leica S - $25400, 3.5fps;  But it can do 24 fps of 4K video.  4K video is an 8MP (3840x2160 pixel) still image.  That would work!
  • Phase One 645DF+ - $20k?,  2fps

Conclusions/How to shoot ping pong

  • Shoot from an elevated position (8-12 feet above floor level) for most of the shots
  • Be cognizant of the background as you are shooting.  A guy in a red coat wandering by can ruin an otherwise good shot
  • The best shots (to my eye) have the ball in there.
  • Shots with one competitor facing the camera are good, but try to get a few with the back of the near competitor in there, too.
  • If the player is right-handed, you are probably best to shoot from the right side of the table.  If the other player is left handed, then you definitely want to be on the right side!
  • Crank up the ISO to get a fast shutter speed
  • Use the maximum (widest) aperture
  • On APS-C, focal lengths between 50 and 100mm seem to be best (75-150mm on full frame).  But try the longest focal length you have, too, to get very tight shots from nearby, and/or regular shots from far away.
  • Try manual focusing
  • Borrow a Canon 1Dx for best results :-)

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Shooting a Ping Pong Tournament, Part 2

I tried some different techniques on Sunday when I returned to the Vaughn Athletic Center in Aurora, IL, for the second day of the Butterfly Ping Pong tournament.

I used my Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM on my Canon 7D and my (new-to-me) Canon FD 100mm f/2.8 on my Sony a6000 (converted to a 72mm f/2.0 by the Metabones Spped Booster adapter).  

Yesterday, the AF couldn't tracking these targets, so I mostly did manual focus.  Since the targets are not really changing their distance to the camera, I figured that setting the focus would be better than the crappy AF I was seeing yesterday.  I was right.  I still had many out-of-focus pix, but I'd say I had 3 times more usably sharp images than yesterday.

I took 1100 pix with the a6000 (*all* manual focus using the 100mm lens) and 400 with the 7D (about half manual focus using both the 50mm and the 70-200mm).  

The a6000 really was able to do 10fps; the 7D was still slow, but not asking it to do AF sped it up a lot.  (Maybe 6fps, but in spurts).

I shot JPEG, exclusively.

I have purged all these images down to about 50 shots.  

One teaser shot (a6000, 100mm (72mm), ISO 6400, 1/800, f/2.8 (f/2.0)):

Inline image 1

I ordered a 16GB SDHC card capable of 150MB/sec (3.75 times faster than the card I have now).

You can see all my shots from Sunday at http://itstheoptics.com/?/category/26

Shooting a Ping Pong Tournament, Part 1

Much to my surprise and enjoyment, there was a major Ping Pong (a.k.a., "table tennis") tournament this weekend at the Vaughn Athletic Center in Aurora, IL.  There were 38 high-quality tables on the main gym floor, and they were mostly all busy all day Saturday and Sunday.  The event was sponsored by Butterfly.


On Saturday, I took 990 pictures over 90 minutes.  Auto Focus (AF) really had a hard time in the poorly lit Vaughn Center.  It (more often than not) decided to focus on the back splash.  I'd say that at least half of these pictures were terrible.

I had to shoot ISO 6400 (at least) in order to get 1/640 sec shutter within Vaughn.  These guys are really thin and they change their angle w.r.t. me a lot, so getting AF lock was tricky.  Background is not great.  HIGHER perspective is best.  Standing on the bleachers is a good angle.

One of my best shots: 




You can see the results of my efforts from Saturday at http://itstheoptics.com/?/category/24

Equipment observations.  


Shooting RAW is a lot slower than JPEG in my Canon 7D--maybe an average of 2 or 3 frames per second in these conditions.  I switched to Medium JPEG to get better fps.

My Sony a6000 held up well--its internal buffer is a lot bigger than the 7D, so I can take 10-20 RAW's at 10 fps in a spurt, but it takes ~15 seconds to clear that buffer.  (My SD card is 40MB/sec and each RAW image is 27MB.)  When I switched to JPEG (max size and min compression in camera, about 7MB/image), there was not a problem for it to keep up.  But my Sony kit lens (the only lens I brought-oops) is not good enough for this (16-50mm f/3.5-5.6).  

My Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L on APS-C is too long!  Something like 50-100mm would be better (so the 70-200 on a full-frame camera would be pretty good).  I did not bring my Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM--this might actually be the right lens for this on the 7D.  


Saturday, November 15, 2014

Leica lenses on Sony a6000

The Sony a6000 easily accepts the whole range of Leica M lenses.  I have the Metabone M->E adapter.  It is (as many Amazon reviewers said) very high precision.  In fact (again, echoing Amazon reviewers), it is a little tricky to get the lens onto the adapter and the adapter onto the camera.

My brief comment here is on the Leica Summicron (f/2.0) 90mm lens.  I had this lens renovated by Leica in NJ in August, 2013.

My preliminary observation on this lens is that it is remarkable.  My best evidence is from a chum who put this lens on his Sony A7r.  this remarkable snapshot shows the beautiful quality of the bokeh at f/2.0.

Sony A7r, Leica Summicron 90mm, f/2.0 1/800 sec, ISO 200

And here is a 100% crop in the upper-left corner.


IMHO: Lovely!!

(Again, I did NOT take these pictures, nor is it my camera.  But it is my lens.)


Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Simple test of three very different lenses on the Sony a6000

(I deleted my previous post because, well, it sucked.)

I bought the Sony a6000 bundle (with extra batteries, 64GB SD card, the 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens, and other fairly useless stuff).

I borrowed a Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 sweetie lens from a chum who owns an A7r.  The other two lenses are the kit lens and a lens I bought in 1972 for my Canon film camera, the 50mm FD f/1.4.  I use a Metabones Speed Booster to couple the FD lens to the E-mount, which turns it into a 35.7mm f/1.0 lens.

Here are the three pix.  All are shot at f/5.6, ISO 100, 1/6 sec on a tripod in my office.  I used the self timer to actually release the shutter.  Post-processing on the JPEG was to remove all color (saturation = 0) and to increase the contrast by 30%.

Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 + Speed Booster

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6

Zeiss 55mm f/1.8

These look surprisingly similar!  I didn't get the distance right on the Zeiss, so the 100% crop shows the pattern a little bit bigger.  

Here is the uncropped and unedited image from the Canon (the others, at this resolution are almost indistinguishable).


I think you can see that the overall quality of the Zeiss in this specific situation is (only) a little bit better than the other two.  I am not sure if I can tell the difference between the old FD 50mm and the Sony kit lens, though.  The numerals on the Canon FD look a bit sharper, but the lines on the Sony look a bit more distinct.

The Sony a6000 is applying lens corrections (I think) to the two electronic lenses but not the Canon.  The biggest impact of this adjustment may be that this full image from the Canon, above, has a bit of dark vignetting (whereas the others do not).

Acknowledged problems with this measurement:
  1. Terrible fluorescent lighting in my office.
  2. Inconsistent framing of the target on these three shots
  3. I was not far enough away for the numbers on the chart to be meaningful.

I may publish shots from the Canon at f/1.0 and from the Zeiss at f/1.8, just for fun.

My conclusions
  1. The Sony Kit lens is absolutely appropriate for everyday use!  
  2. The old Canon is a fine (and maybe great) lens.
UPDATE

Here are 100% crops for the Canon at f/1.0 (equivalent) and the Zeiss at f/1.8 (I moved the tripod closer to the image for the Canon shot in order to make the target about the same size in the frame.)

Canon FD f/1.4 at f/1.0 (equivalent)

Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 at f/1.8

Comparable!



Friday, October 31, 2014

Canon FD 24mm f/2.8 and Metabones Speed Booster versus Sony 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS

Here is a simple (simplistic?) comparison of the Canon FD 24mm f/2.8 from 1978, attached through and Metabones FD/E Speed Booster to the Sony Kit lens, 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS.

This test was performed on a Sony NEX-F3 (borrowed) camera.  This is a 16 MP APS-C sensor.

Here are the full res images:

Canon FD 24mm f/2.8 with Speed Booster, shot at f/8 (becomes 17mm at f/5.6), 1/2000 sec, ISO 200

Sony 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 at 18mm, f/8, 1/400 sec, ISO 200

The camera metered differently for these two shots.  The shot with the Sony kit lens was 0.8 stops too bright--I adjusted it down in Lightroom to match (more or less) the Canon FD image. The white balance was also different.  You can also see (maybe) that the 24mm lens (which gets reduced to a focal length of 17.14mm) is a bit wider than the 18mm kit lens.

Here are 640x480 100% crops of the red aircraft navigation light on the 8th floor of Wilson Hall (at Fermilab):


Canon FD and Speed Booster


Sony Kit lens

Here are two images inside, a bit closer to the camera (less than 1 meter):

Canon FD 24mm at f/2.2 (effective)


Sony Kit lens at 18mm, f/3.5


Canon FD 24mm at 100% crop


Sony Kit lens at 100% crop


Conclusion
To my eye, the Canon FD is sharper.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

What's next for my photography equipment?

Being a highly successful sports photographer for GamefaceMedia.com (ahem!), I have some money I need to spend on camera equipment (business expense = tax deduction).  I am considering:

Item
Cost
Comments
Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
$1100-1500
Great for sidelines sports (Used price is $1100 or maybe less)
Canon 7D Mark II
$1800
Ultimate APS-C sports camera; released next week
Sony a6000 kit
$600

16-50mm kit lens
$200
A tiny walkaround lens.  Could alternately opt for a fast prime.
$400
To fit all my old Canon FD lenses to this body, see below
Metabones Leica-E adapter
$100
Mechanically fit my Leica lenses to this body
Total
$1300


The Sony Kit does not help much for sports, although it would be a good backup camera (and may be quite adequate given that it can do 11 frames per second, although the AF at this speed is not nearly as good as the 7D-II).  It would be great for travelling and for day-to-day use (I like to have my camera with me all the time--I have never taken a good picture without my camera.)

The Metabones Speed Booster allows me to put my old Canon FD (manual) lenses on the Sony and it boosts their aperture by one stop!  Here are the lenses I own and how they get transformed by the Speed Booster:
·         24mm f/2.8 à 17mm f/2.0
·         50mm f/1.4 à 36mm f/1.0 (!!)
·         200mm f/4.0 à 142mm f/2.8

(The idea of the speed booster is that reduces the image circle of a lens by a factor of 1.4 (which fits the APS-C sensor but not a 35mm ("full frame") sensor) and increases the amount of light in that circle by a factor of 1.4, which is one stop.)

Note also
  •  This opens up the possibility for me to buy some inexpensive FD lenses, e.g. this 500mm f/8 telescope lens for $40 (which would become a 312mm f/5.6)
  • the Sony and its kit lens are very highly regarded and very small;
    •  Small is really important, I think--it is so much easier to carry smaller equipment every day.
  •  I can also use my Leica lenses, although there is not a Speed Booster (just a mechanical adapter)

Obviously, I am enamored with the idea of getting the Sony kit.

Comments are welcome.

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

A century

50 years ago, I was 7 years old and my grandparents and their friends talked about the two great wars of the twentieth century. When they spoke of their recollections of WWI, 50 years before, it seemed like an absurdly and unimaginably long time ago.

Well, here I am remembering events from a half century ago that recalled events from a half century before THAT.

In a way, this is "remembering" things from 100 years ago.

Weird.

Thursday, June 5, 2014

Android GPS navigation got me lost

My phone was not able to tell me that I took a wrong turn, so I went 20 miles out of my way.

Certainly, part of the problem is that our needs a wireless network to figure our where it is. Thus, when you are lost in the boonies, you are really and truly lost!

I turned on my 11 year old Garmin GPS and, despite the fact that half of the exits had changed since the maps were published, it put me exactly where I needed to be.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Camera equipment crossroads?

But ThBut whenext the ese commentslI may may changeve camera equipment.  I need to buy something now.  But what?

Here are some fact that may lead me to make a bold decision on my next purchase(s).
  • I really do noTheset like lugging around well over a kilogram of camera equipment.  My Tokina 11-16mm is a great lens, but it is really heavy.
  • When I have been able to use Marty's L-quality lenses, my impression is split: These things make great images but are really (REALLY) heavy.
  • There are much lighter cameras and lenses available that record excellent images.
Let's see some numbers on comparable Canon APS-C and the top end of the Micro Four-Thirds world.

Item Mass DxOMark DxO Score
Canon 7D 816 66
Tokina ATX-Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX 550 12
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM 290 19
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM 625 18
Total 2281 49
Olympus OM-D E-M1 497 73
Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH 300 19
Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 200 24
Olympus M.ZUIKO ED 60mm F2.8 Macro 185 21
Total 1182 64

(Masses, in grams, are from B and H.  The DxOMark scores are for the Canon lens on my camera; the Four-Thirds lens scores are from the Olympus PEN-5, which should be similar to the new OM-D E-M1.)

It looks to me that I could get sharper pictures and carry around half the weight by trading in my Canon stuff for this Micro Four-Thirds set.

You can get better DxOMark numbers from the lenses, to be sure, when they are on a Canon Full-Frame camera (5D Mark III), but it is even heavier.

Addendum, 6/5/14

These comments are no longer valid for me. I am committed to the heavy Canon equipment for now. 

But when the next EOS M comes out, ...

Thursday, September 12, 2013

50 years on, 1963 was a big year

It seems like every week this year, I see another something that is 50 years old (that is, it happened in 1963)!  Here are the biggies I have observed

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Observations on the Canon EOS Rebel SL1

I am not a gear reviewer, but I feel comfortable expressing my views on the equipment that I have used, especially as it compares to other equipment.

I needed to send my Canon 7D in for some repairs, so I decided to take this opportunity to rent the new EOS Rebel SL1 (known as the 100D in Europe and elsewhere). 

I have included two paragraphs at the end of this post: one copied from the Canon description of this camera, and the other from the conclusion of the review from dpreview.com.  In my opinion, these are both quite accurate.

My overriding impression is, well, WOW!  This is an amazing camera! 

The most impressive features are:
  • It is very small.  With my old kit lens it hardly weighs anything. 
    • As they say, the best camera in the world is the one you have with you.  This camera is a breeze to carry with you everywhere.
  • Hybrid AF system is very, VERY useful in Live View and for movies.  It continuously focuses. It finds faces and tracks them.  Really: This is a HUGE improvement in DSLR video capabilities and (IMHO) puts several nails in the coffin of the conventional camcorder.
  • The image quality is superb!  Every lens I own seems to be better on the SL1, especially my two Canon EF-S “kit” lenses.  In particular, the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens is quite excellent on this camera. (I only shoot Raw, so it is not a processing difference.)
  • The touch screen is excellent.  It works nicely when you want it to, and never gets in the way.  It has multi-touch, so “pinching” and “spreading” are supported when viewing pictures.  The lack of dedicated buttons is a bit limiting, but the touch screen, in my mind, more than makes up for this.  For example, the "Q" menu is fully touch-ful.
  • The shutter action is strangely satisfying—I like it.
  • It uses SDHC cards.  This is cool for me because my laptop has an integrated SD card reader.  And it also opens the possibility of using the well-reviews Eye-Fi SD card.
  • And, of course, the advantage of owing any Canon DSLR is that there is an unsurpassed array of lenses that work with it.  This "feature" means that it blows away the (equally small but optically challenged) Sony NEX cameras and makes it competitive to the Micro 4/3 offerings.
The drawbacks:
  • The focus system is not very sophisticated. There are only nine focus points, and choosing among them is difficult while looking through the viewfinder.  (It is wonderfully implemented, however, on the touch screen.)
  • In Raw, it only shoots about 3 frames per second, and then bogs down after about six or seven continuous frames.  You'll get better speed if you shoot JPEG, and I thunk there are faster SDHC cards available than the Class 6 card I happen to own.
  • The small battery is clearly a compromise to achieve a particular mass and volume for the camera.  In my shooting, I needed to recharge the battery every day.  One day when I did not, I did a lot of shooting on Day 2 (of course) and the battery was not up to it.


The smallness of this camera, combined with almost no compromises, makes this an great choice for virtually any photographer.  It is a particularly excellent choice as a second camera, especially if your first camera is the gargantuan 5D or 1DX.  It does movies much better than these behemoths.  And did I say it is really small?

Bottom line: If I were to own two APS-C cameras, this would be my second camera. 

-------

Here is Canon’s blurb on this camera:

As the world's smallest and lightest digital SLR camera*, the new EOS Rebel SL1 is small in size but enormous in performance. With a newly-designed Canon 18.0 Megapixel CMOS (APS-C) sensor and speedy Canon DIGIC 5 Image Processor, it delivers images of extraordinary quality - ideal for those stepping up from a smartphone or compact camera. An impressive ISO range of 100-12800 (expandable to H: 25600) for stills and 100-6400 (expandable to H: 12800) for video plus up to 4.0 fps continuous shooting make this camera the go-to for any photo opportunity, even in dim lighting or when capturing fast action subjects. And Hybrid CMOS AF II delivers accurate AF tracking during Live View shooting, helping ensure your photos and movies are crisp and clear. The EOS Rebel SL1 makes amazing movies with Canon EOS Full HD Movie Mode with Movie Servo AF, working in concert with Canon STM lenses for smooth and quiet continuous AF. In addition to its Optical Viewfinder, the EOS Rebel SL1 has a bright, wide Touch Screen 3.0" Clear View LCD monitor II, perfect for viewing a number of special scene modes and Creative Filters available in real-time display. Here is the DSLR you'll want to bring with you everyday and ignite your imagination!

DPReview.com summarizes like this:

With everything a family photographer is likely to want and little left over to intimidate, the Canon EOS Rebel SL1 may be Canon's best-targeted digital Rebel to date. As the top end of the Rebel line - currently the T5i - added more and more enthusiast features, the camera got bigger and more complex, and the SL1/100D stands as a suitable alternative without much compromise where it matters. Indeed, it currently stands as the better alternative for those who want to shoot in live view mode, and for anyone who thinks they'll want to shoot a movie now and then, thanks to Hybrid AF II. Image quality is also uncompromised, as we've come to expect from the Rebel line.

Its smaller size and lighter weight make it easier to pack and carry, meaning the Canon SL1 is more likely to be used, and its fuller feature set helps it stand out for those dissatisfied with their smartphone shots. The good news is the SL1 is a real pleasure to shoot, with ergonomics good enough for small to medium-size hands, and snappy performance, both when shooting and reviewing photos. The touchscreen makes menus and playback work like a cell phone, making it familiar to more users than would normally be the case. The only element missing to help it compete in the smartphone-dominated market is Wi-Fi, which can be added via an Eye-Fi card, which is supported in the SL1's menu.


Sunday, August 11, 2013

30000 shutter releases

I just rolled over from _MG_9999 to _MG_0001 on my 7D.  I believe this is the third time, meaning my shutter has released 30,000 times.

Hmmm.  Why did they skip _MG_0000?  Thus, _MG_0001 is actually my 29,998th shutter release.

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Fixing a Leica M2 camera and lenses

I inherited my father's Leica M2, 35mm rangefinder camera with a 35mm f/1.4 lens and a 90mm f/2.0 lens.  Awesome stuff!

I won't go into a lot of details about what is wrong with these items; here are the highlights:

  • The 90mm lens does not focus accurately
  • The 35mm lens has lost its focus knob
  • The camera body is old (probably bought in 1959).
I have received an estimate from Leica USA in New Jersey on cleaning and repairing these items:
  • 90mm lens: $350
  • 35mm lens: $335
  • Camera body: $800.
I am shocked.  But I shouldn't be, I suppose.  When a new Leica with a Leica lens costs at LEAST $10K, this should have been expected.  Nonetheless, I am shocked!

I haven't fully admitted to myself that I won't pay for this, but I am pretty sure that will be my decision.

So sad....

UPDATE: Aug 10 2013

I decided to get the 90 millimeter lens fixed and I got it back.  since we're talking about film here, it'll be awhile before I can tell if it's any good.  I'll be real disappointed if its not perfect.

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Which 70-200mm lens should I buy?


My camera body is the Canon 7D.  I own these lenses right now:
  • Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
  • Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS
  • Tokina 35mm DX Macro
  • Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
  • Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS

I am going to sell the 55-250 EF-S on eBay to help fund this purchase. 

Options


Here are the options for the 70-200's on the market (not including old lenses that aren't produced any more, or crazy adapters):

Canon
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
$      1,299
Canon
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II
$      2,199
Canon
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
$      2,000
Canon
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
$      1,149
Canon
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
$         674
Tamron
AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD [IF] VC MACRO              
$         1499
Sigma
70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM
$         1399

IMHO, there is no particular reason to consider the 3rd party lenses for this purchase.  So it comes down to three choices (eliminating the f/2.8 IS ones because they are too expensive for me right now):

Canon
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
$      1,299
Old but excellent
Canon
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
$      1,149
New model
Canon
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
$         674
Old, but excellent

IS or Extra Aperture?


First,  I never use my two IS lenses anymore.  (The actual reason I don’t use them is because they are not nearly as good as my prime lenses (I consider my 11-16mm as a prime).)  I don’t miss the IS on any of my lenses.  I generally beat the non-IS-ness of my primes by taking 3 or 4 pix in rapid fire, and then eliminate the shaky ones.  Sometimes I get 3 or 4 good ones; sometimes I get none; usually I get one.

I image using the 70-200 for low-light, action photography, like on the sidelines of a high school football game this fall.  So, for this situation, IS will be helpful (but so would an extra stop of aperture).


Pros and Cons


From what I know, the new f/2.8L II gets absolutely rave reviews, including a “four-stop” image stabilizer.  The new f/4L IS also touts four-stop stabilization, but I have not seen a specific review of this one yet.  All of the lenses Canon has introduced in the last year or so have been through-the-roof sharp, so I believe the new f/4L IS will be, too.   

Pros and cons, assuming same price and same IQ:

Canon
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
Wider aperture
Canon
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
Lighter, IS, newer design

My son owns the first one, and I have used it to create some GREAT pix!  For example:



Preliminary Conclusion

At this moment I am leaning towards the f/4L IS.  I need to find an opportunity to rent it.

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Is is

One rarely writes two identical words together in a sentence   But one hears this particular twinning all the time, often form the smartest people in the world:

The question is, "Is this OK?"

This bugs me.

If I had to write this sentence, I would say something like this:

We fundamentally need to know if this is OK.
Whatever.

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Scoring an exercise session

I joined Fitocracy some time ago.  It is a nice social site for posting your workouts and getting points.  But of course, the points don't matter, except to motivate you.

Having said that, the Fitocracy algorithm strongly favors weight lifting: Lifting 100 pounds five times is "equivalent" to running a mile.  Yeah, right!

Therefore, I decided to create my OWN point system (again, the points don't matter), which rewards the sort of exercise *I* do (jogging).

Here is the way I figure it (qualitatively).  You get more points for:

  1. Running farther,
  2. Running faster,
  3. Running with extra weight (including your own weight).
The last item is based on the reality that heavier runners expend more energy.  For example, let's say you are a svelte 130 pound marathon runner, who averages around 5:30/mile for short runs.  What would she be able to do with, say, 60 pounds of extra weight?  Could she halve her pace (11:00/mile) for a 5K with that extra weight?  Hmm?  HMMMMM?

Long story short (and I think this will need tweaking), I'll take this form for the algorithm:

Points = (scaling1)*(C1 + miles) + (scaling2)*(C2- pace) 

I'll arbitrarily say that a 1-mile run at a moderate pace for me is worth 5 points.  I'll also set scaling2=C1=1.0 (yeah, I know, the units don't match; ignore it).  A moderate pace for me is 13:00/mile (C2).  Do the arithmetic to see that scaling1=2.5:

points = 2.5*(1 + miles) + 13 - pace.

Now, we add a factor for the weight.  Since BMI is a better measurement of your overweight-ness, I have settled on this formula:

Points = 2.5*(1 + miles) + 0.4*BMI - pace.

There is only one more factor that I have to add in: you can only get points if you go at least 1/2 mile.

Using this scoring system, here are some examples of an 11-point 5K run for different BMI values:
  • 25:00, BMI=22
  • 30:00, BMI=26
  • 32:30, BMI=28
  • 35:00, BMI=30
  • 37:30, BMI=32
The world record 5K is 12:37 by Kenenisa Bekele of Ethiopia.  Let's say this particular human specimen has a BMI of 18.  Kenenisa would have received 13.4 points for this run.  Patrick Mahu's world's best marathon of 2:03:35 would have earned him (assuming a BMI of 16) 64 points!

My point system favors more frequent, shorter exercises, which is what I need right now.  That is, it is better for me to do five 2-mile runs in a week than three 5K's (about 40 points versus 33 points).

My sort-term goal is 25 points per week.  I hope to increase this to 40 points per week over the coming weeks.

Friday, April 26, 2013

Zoom versus Prime lenses

I know how I stand on the whole "Zooms versus Primes" debate: I prefer primes.

A "zoom" lens has the ability to change its focal length; a "prime" lens does not.  Here is a link to my son's incredible Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L zoom lens.  Here is a link to my incredible Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 lens.  In terms of image quality, it is arguable that these two lenses, at 50mm, are quite similar.

ZoomPrime
PROS
  • Variable focal length
  • You can often get a decent zoom lenses with image stabilization for a reasonable price.  For example, this new kit lens from Canon.
  • Heavier lens is sometimes easier to hold steady.
  • It seems that the newest technologies appear on zoom lenses first (like the kit lens linked to, above).
  • Great IQ for not much money
  • Small and light (in most cases)
  • Usually, primes are faster (have a larger maximum aperture) than zooms
  • Many artistic photographers like the constraint of a single focal length (and I am one of them).  It forces you to look at the scene carefully and find the interesting perspectives.
  • Only one moving part (focus)
  • Some primes are incredibly small (e.g., this Canon 40mm pancake lens).
CONS
  • To get comparable image quality to a prime, you have to spend a lot of money
  • Large and heavy
  • Usually, zooms are slower (have a smaller maximum aperture) than primes
  • Lots of moving parts (focus, zoom and (often) image stabilization)
  • Cannot change the focal length
  • Image stabilization is not common.  When you can get it, it is quite expensive (at this time).

So, I prefer primes for the reasons I state here.

The bottom line for me is stated as Image Quality/Price--you can't beat that ratio in primes.

IMHO.