Light Adrenaline Blog

Nikon D4 thoughts

2012-01-16T14:40:00.001-06:00

The Nikon D4 is here. Because everyone and their brother has an opinion on it and because people far more capable than me have already had a chance to play with it, I'm simply going to make some comments and observations based on what I've seen and know about this camera.

Strategy. Unlike Canon, which seems to have blended their high end line into a single body, Nikon has remained true to form with the D4. It's an upgrade from the D3/s body and nothing more. It adds loads of features for sure, but does nothing to disrupt the hierarchy of bodies which Nikon loyalists have come to understand. No, Nikon will wait and do that with the upcoming D800. More on this later...

When Canon set out with the 1Dx they were looking to try and make something that suited almost everyone. They kept, and in fact, improved on the high speed shooting abilities of the 1D Mark IV, but did so for the first time with a full frame sensor as opposed to the 1.3x APS-H size sensor which was standard on their photojournalist/sports bodies for years.

They met on middle ground with the resolution for this sensor. They bumped it up from the Mark IV's 16 but dropped it down from the 1Ds Mark III's 21, and the result is 18MP. This sentence alone is proof of why so many users might just be happy with the merger - too many Marks to keep up with!

Canon also loaded the camera with twin processors and loads of new video features, etc., which you can read more about in my other post or check out the discussions online. The concept I wanted to briefly discuss was this: That Canon married the 1D and 1Ds lines to produce a hybrid of sorts that would best suite the widest spectrum of needs. It seems that for straight studio work Canon users will stick with the 5D Mark II or the upcoming Mark III upgrade.

Back to Nikon. So, Nikon's approach to the D4 was more streamlined. In fact, it was really just an upgrade to the already excellent D3 line. This is not to say that they didn't add features, but they really didn't change what the line is known for. It's more of a refining than a rebirth.

So, what's under the hood? More resolution. Those who felt they were behind the megapixel curve with a scant 12MP now have 16 at their disposal. So, this is a larger increase in resolution than owners of the 1D Mark IV will see in the new 1Dx, but remember, the Mark IV was already at 16MP. The D3 series has had a full frame sensor, so there's no change there. Nikon's D3x will remain the megapixel leader until the D800 shows up. Again, more on this later.

The Nikon also gets a better buffer, faster frame rates, a new silent shutter mode (limited to 2MP), better AF performance especially in low light and a slightly larger screen (3.2 inches vs. 3 inches) that keeps the same resolution. The 1Dx has3.2" screen as well, but with higher resolution. There are also a few button layout tweaks that, from my perspective, seem to be improvements. Every camera get's these little tweaks. So, what, besides the almighty resolution, does the D4 get? Let's take a look.

Perhaps my favorite new feature on this camera is the illuminated buttons. I shoot in dark environments quite a bit so I can appreciate this upgrade beyond its obviously being cool. Wedding, event, sports and nature photographers are going to love this new feature. It keeps you from having to feel your way around in the dark and from memorizing everything in order to navigate your controls and menu settings. Below is a screen shot from Nikon's promotional video. Click on the image to view the YouTube clip.

PS - if you don't want a D4 yet, the video will make you want one. It shows all of the cool features while playing an Oscar-worthy score of triumph. I think they got Hans Zimmer to do it, but I digress...

Another new feature which has caught the eye of a lot of people is the new XQD memory card slot. The D4 is the world's first camera to feature this new card technology. It is smaller and more durable than current cards and the Compact Flash group says it will be the new standard. It's supposedly outstanding for video and photos because of it's read and write speeds. The camera also features a standard CF slot, so you're not forced into any new tech right out of the gate. Bummer: the double CF card slots were awesome. New owners will not have the luxury of using two of the same storage type like before. It would have been cool if they could have crammed twin CF slots and a new QXD in there, but oh well. You'll lose the ability to double up on your current "film stock" but you'll get the luxury of newer, faster tech if you opt for the new cards which are, thankfully, not significantly more expensive than their current CF counterparts.

The next feature, better ISO performance? I end that statement with a question mark because until we have the ability to compare the results with other models, we have to trust what Nikon says about its sensor. The D3s became a legend because of it's lowlight abilities. Early estimates by Nikon are that the D4 is approximately a stop better in the noise category than the D3s, which, if true, is a significant feat. Why? Well, consider it. Sure, having images at ISO 12,800 out of the D4 that are as clean at shots at ISO 6,400 from the D3s is stellar. But couple that with the bump in resolution and the stop better lowlight AF specs and you've got a real weapon on your hands. We should be seeing some test results within a few weeks, but wait until the Olympics to get a real look at how this stuff excels - or doesn't. The Olympics is an extraordinary testing ground for new state-of-the-art optics and bodies and this year's gathering could prove crucial for both the D4 and 1Dx.

Finally, we have video. The D3s had it, but many hardcore videographers would argue about the genuineness of that statement. It was 720p with full-time manual focus and that's about it. The D4 could be a cinematographer's dream. It's got full HD support with the option for direct output of uncompressed HD footage which is both impressive and problematic. The number of hard drives you'd need to store the footage could require a bigger financial sacrifice than the camera itself, but hey, the feature's there if you need it. Combine the stellar lowlight performance with Nikon's legendary optics and you'll get some astounding video quality. They've also integrated a headphone jack and options for microphone inputs which makes it perhaps the most video ready DSLR out there. However, Canon's new cinema line of bodies shows its dedication to the video industry. I don't see Nikon sharing this path, but the new D4 will easily be the go-to body for production companies who want to best video features Nikon has to offer.

Many users consider video rather out of place in the DSLR, but I disagree. Visual artists - i.e. 98 percent or more of the D4 buyers, etc. - usually welcome this feature. Not because they plan on making feature films or documentaries, but because they can. No one who is in the market for a home video camera is really going to buy the D4. Why? because it's $6000 and you still need storage cards and lenses! It will, however, appeal to documentary groups, wildlife production teams as well as wedding and sports crews. Sure, far less expensive cameras can rock HD video, but with this level of quality, lowlight performance and feature set - it's really in a league of its own. This camera is clearly aimed at the hardcore professional photographer and videographer or the combination of the two. It's also aimed at people who want the latest and greatest and have deep pockets. Nikon will sell this to anyone with a valid credit card.

Worst new feature: battery. The battery life is rated significantly lower than the battery life on the D3s, by more than 1,000 shots! Real world testing is pending, but the estimates are crappy. You'll wanna carry more batteries and, oh yah, they're more expensive. You didn't expect it to be perfect did you? Ha. I suppose it has something to do with environmental standards or something, but I'm for more landfills if I can shoot a few hours longer. I'm kidding - mostly.

So, is it cool? You bet. Do I want one? Of course. Will I get one? Not on my own dime. If the university where I work puts a new budget into play, then I will get this camera. It will be the absolute best solution for what my job requires. I do quite a bit of video production in addition to lowlight sports action, event coverage and studio work. It has excellent resolution for the promotional stuff and just might be the world's best all-in-one system. The 1Dx will certainly be a contender as well.

So, personally, I love the idea of this camera and will be anxious to see how it works in the real world. If I get my hands on one I will do a post about it without question. If I hit the lottery I don't play or inherit a load of cash from my middle income family members, then I might splurge. However, for my personal work the D3s and trusty D700 are still excellent weapons. Though the D4 is theoretically the best solution, it will not change my work in a significant enough way - at least at the moment - for me to go hog wild with the credit cards. I'll update some lenses instead and call it a year. Maybe I'll grab a used one in a few years or get the new D5 in 2017.

Now, about that "Nikon will screw up the hierarchy/functionality comment"... Well, though Nikon left the D3 series alone, it just might have stirred the pot with the next tier down - the D700. The D700 is a brilliant camera. It shares a sensor with the D3 which is a good thing. The D700 was Nikon's first full frame body for enthusiasts and was setup, it would seem to offset the Canon 5D series. However, Nikon through a wrench in that thinking and ultimately produced a unique body that really didn't have any major competition. The D700 offered a respectable 12MP full frame sensor, had excellent lowlight performance for it's class, good build quality and with the optional grip and higher end battery could kick out 8fps! It was sort of like a poor man's D3. Canon's 5D trumped the D700 in the resolution category, but couldn't hold a candle to it with regard to build quality, shooting speed or lowlight ability - at least in the Mark I. And Nikon users ate it up.

So, how did Nikon screw this great thing up? Well, if the rumors hold true, they've essentially killed this category of camera to focus more on a head to head with the Canon 5D. It seems that this class of camera is now all about resolution and video than lowlight and high speed. Early estimates are that the D800 will be around 36MP - which is insane - but will slouch in the frames per second arena and undoubtedly in the lowlight area. There's really too many photo sites that are just too small to make super lowlight all that great, but I could be wrong. I figure clean to maybe 3,200, but not by D3s or D4 standards. No one will wanna shoot it it over that is my prediction. Think studio not sports.

So, my guess is Nikon will convert the D700 to a 5D alternate in the D800. Then, maybe, they'll pick the slack back up with the D400. IF the D400 can be what we all wanted the D800 to be, a budget-friendly high-speed, lowlight performer, then that would be just swell. But it needs to gain the FX sensor to do that. If the D400 is just a D300s upgrade, then we will lose that magical D700 window and it will simply be a 7D combatant. The D700 legend will fade into oblivion.

But maybe the D4, D800 and D400 will make us forget all about it. Maybe the D800 will do what the 5D series is looking to do at Canon and that is whip the ridiculously priced D3x line out of business. Canon quit selling 1Ds bodies when the 5D Mark II came out. People realized they got the same performance for half the price. Maybe the "X" is done at Nikon and now popular at Canon. I don't know. But $8,000 for the D3x is stupid and has been from the onset. If the D800 manages somehow to replace the X series then perhaps it will become a legend in its own way.

We'll see what Nikon does with the D800. I'm guessing it'll be announced in February. I'd love to see the D400 along with it just to clean up the aging lines - but they'll make us wait.

Until next time, be safe and happy shooting.

Putting your skills to good use

2012-01-09T16:16:00.015-06:00

I should clarify the title of this article. I'm not in any way suggesting that photographers and graphic designers don't put their talents to good use every day in the workplace. I simply want to discuss using your talents to help others and doing so on a volunteer basis.

Many photographers are familiar with Help Portrait and similar efforts, but you can use your talents in other ways as well. I often volunteer to shoot and design for local non-profit organizations. I recently designed a few banners for a local Cub Scout pack for their holiday parade float and shoot images for my local church regularly.

Recently, a student-athlete at the university were I work asked me to help with a poster design for an upcoming mission trip. She needs to raise more than $15,000 to sponsor 11 months of work in 11 countries on her World Race. She really just wanted a decent photo and some text next to it so she'd have something to get peoples' attention. Being a person that's either full speed or stop, I couldn't let it just be a boring image. My opinion was simple: even if people don't like the concept, they won't be able to say that no effort was put into it. And away I ran with the idea.

The concept was to mimic the film Book of Eli. I won't spoil the film if you haven't seen it, but the premiss is that a man has been called by God to travel across the American wasteland (post nuclear war) to fulfill a specific mission. Nesya, the student taking the trip, will do much of the same. She will spend nearly a year visiting impoverished countries and communities and working with a variety of people groups on countless aid projects and in teaching ministries. She'll be living out of a backpack the entire time. Again, if you've seen the film, this was a perfect fit for a theme.

Step one was to conceptualize the final piece and how it would be used. We decided that it would be good to have some business cards with her information to send out in letters and to hand out to people she may happen on by chance. We also wanted to make 11x17 posters to present some of the basic information and encourage viewers to find out more about the work.

The concept was an open desert - were much of the Book of Eli film takes place. I didn't have any good images of the desert, despite living in Arizona for several years so, I resorted to stock images which I purchased, retouched and composited. Here are the two images that we decided on:

The above images was chosen as the major background piece. Even the sky would work perfectly for the look we were after, especially after a few tweaks in Photoshop.

The image above would be used for the road only. I had to alter the perspective to work with the horizon line in the top photo and it required lengthening and tapering to gain a vanishing point.

Here is what the background looked like after some composite work in Photoshop.

The film is shot in desaturated tones to convey the drab and desolate world that remains. So, I punched up the drama in the sky, desaturated the setting and boosted the contrast.

Next we had to shoot Nesya. In the film, Mila Kunis' character is dressed in clothing that remains. She has a plaid long sleeve shirt, vest, hip pouch and aviators. At the end of the film, she carries a backpack and inserts a pair of Dr. Dre Beats headphones as she begins her journey. So, we echoed this the best we could with what we had.

I photographed her in the parking lot outside my office so that I could use the sun as a hair light and so I'd have plenty of ambient. I ended up shooting at ISO 400 at 1/200th at f/11 or so, though I did make some changes depending on the pose. I photographed her looking in various directions. We'd check them on the background later and decide which image we felt worked best.

Here is the selected image right out of the camera.

I did a poor job of keeping her in front of the original background which was a light colored building in the distance. We had no clear view of the sky from an angle that would work for the point of view, so we just, well, winged it.

I lit her with a single Alien Bees 800 strobe shot through a 51" translucent PLM umbrella with the Spill Kill fabric installed on the back so, it was basically a brolly box. This threw a broad, but diffused light and the Kill fabric allowed maximum efficiency by forcing all light through the front of the umbrella face. I set it to just under 1/4 power to fill the unlit portion of her face. You can see the reflection in her sunglasses. The PLM was approximately 5 feet off the ground and 5 feet away and powered with a Paul C. Buff Vagabond pack.

The final lighting setup is shown below and is a classic cross-light setup using the sun as the hair light.

After we had the shot, I removed her form the background, removed the light reflection from the sunglasses, did very minor retouching to the skin and then added some contrast and desaturation work to echo the background environment.

Once she was added to the frame it was simply a matter of adding a shadow to the ground behind her, bringing in some gradients to allow the text to stand out and placing the text in the appropriate areas. Here is the final composite.

I hope you found this breakdown helpful, but more importantly, I hope you take away the principle of helping others with your craft. There's no harm in charging for your services, but donating your time is hugely rewarding to those you help, and perhaps more so, for you individually.

Until next time, be safe and happy shooting.

BTS: Faulkner Women's Soccer Brochure Cover Shoot 2011

2011-10-27T10:12:00.000-05:00

Here's another BTS video I shot several weeks ago, but am just now getting to post. This is a look at the setup and shoot for the cover of this year's women's soccer brochure for Faulkner University.

This is perhaps the most minimalistic setup I've ever used for a promotional product piece. It's about as easy as you can get; a Nikon SB-800 with a CTO gel fired remotely on a stand about 45 degrees to camera left.

I used the CTO gel to balance for the setting sun that was already turning orange/gold. I obviously used the sun as the main light and simply added fill from the left with the flash. The flash is set to remote mode and I believe it was set to 50mm zoom with about 1/8th output. I pushed the shutter up to 1/400th and had the ISO at 400 and the aperture parked at f/5.6. I used continuous focus tracking and simply tried to time the shot where I wanted it.

The video doesn't show the cutout process of each player like the football video, but you still get the idea. Feel free to post any comments or questions.

Enjoy!

BTS: Faulkner Football Brochure Cover Shoot 2011

2011-10-24T13:11:00.002-05:00

Here is a behind the scenes look at the 2011 Faulkner University football cover shoot. This year the coaches decided to feature a representative from each class. The shooting order in the video is as follows: Matt Enyart, senior defensive end; Isaac Franklin, freshman safety; Josh Hollingsworth, sophomore quarterback; and Matt Nolan, junior offensive lineman.

This video is posted to show the lighting setup used for each of the shots and then the progression in post for each of the selected images. Here is a basic look at the setup used, though the lights were moved around obviously, depending on the subject orientation.

Unfortunately, none of the power settings used were recorded. I typically meter visually and the actual metered output isn't recorded. This will at least give you an idea of where the lights were placed and the effect that each was designed to create.

This was a fun project, as usual, and the guys were great to work with. Hope you enjoy the video and for the photographers out there, I hope you find the setups somewhat helpful. I hope to have the women's soccer shoot up soon.

Camera Test: Is the iPhone 4s a good option for an every day camera?

2011-10-20T18:33:00.003-05:00

Since so many people are obviously interested in the iPhone 4s and because Apple is touting the new optics as the "you-can't-believe-it's-on-a-phone camera," I figured why not give it a real world walk around test against an ordinary pocket camera.

Top: Canon PowerShot SX230 HS, below: the iPhone 4s

As much as people like to push comparisons to the max, I find no need whatsoever to compare the iPhone's camera to anything higher up the ladder than a decent consumer level camera. If you want to see still and video samples comparing it to DSLRs which are dedicated image-making machines with sensors a hundred times larger backed by hardcore processors behind state-of-the-art lenses that total thousands of dollars - look elsewhere.

The iPhone is a phone first and foremost, hence the name. It features a camera. Just keep this in mind. The sensor in the iPhone's camera is tiny. This comparison with a point-and-shoot camera isn't even really all that fair because the sensor in the Canon is larger and again, a part of a dedicated product designed to do nothing but make images.

Keeping this in mind as we dive into this comparison will help make things "fair." In addition, this isn't a comparison to prove that one is better or worse than the other. This isn't a test to see if the iPhone can "beat" a "real" camera, but rather to see how well the 4s can hold up as a day-to-day photo device. Basically, I wanted to know, is it worth packing the extra camera for normal shooting or can the 4s serve this purpose.

If I'm doing serious shooting, I'm suing my DSLR. For fun, random, Facebook, Twitter pics, a point and shoot is far easier to work with and less cumbersome to carry. If I can get this same, or very similar, functionality in my phone, that's even better. Taking usable images and video on a device that is constantly connected with social networking and virtually every other communication avenue on earth eliminates the middle man - the computer.

So, how does it stack up?

The devices:

The iPhone 4s has an 8 megapixel sensor, a fixed aperture of f/2.4 and fixed focal length lens and no access to manual controls. The shutter is touch screen or volume button controlled and it has an LED flash. This makes it very much an Auto-only device. It also sports full 1080p video with stabilization and has geotagging built in it's files.

The Canon PowerShot SX230 HS is, by comparison, much more feature-laden. It sports a 14x optical zoom lens, larger size 12 megapixel sensor and provides various levels of manual control including white balance, ISO, aperture and shutter speed settings. The lens has a variable aperture of f/3.1-5.9 and a built in stabilizer. The camera is also one of the newer consumer cameras that does have built in GPS, so geotagging is built in here as well. It has a standard pop-up flash and offers mini HDMI output and shoots 1080p video as well.

So, out of the gate, the Canon ~~is heavily favored~~ has more to offer. Remember, this isn't a battle, rather a comparison.

All images on the Canon were shot in auto mode at a comparable focal length to make things as neutral as possible. This made ISO, aperture and white balance camera selected. All images are unaltered right out of the camera. I just cropped them to the same ratio. No flash was used so that both cameras would have full access to rendering the image with the built-in features of the sensor.

PHOTOGRAPHS

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/250th, f/4, ISO 250

iPhone 4s chose: 1/320th, f/2.4, ISO 64

In the above leaf images there are some noticeable differences. The Canon image is brighter and offers slightly more detail, but the iPhone's white balance is more accurate and the exposure is closer to reality. As you'll see, the iPhone offers more color saturation, which is nice for the most part, but can get it into some trouble.

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/800th, f/4, ISO 100

iPhone 4s chose: 1/1500th, f/2.4, ISO 64

It's hard to tell in the smaller images, but the Canon does have a very slight edge in sharpness, but it's pretty close. The blue of the sky is more accurate on the Canon, something I'll mention more about on the iPhone as we go. The iPhone was more accurate again on white balance - with the exception of the blue - and exhibited less purple fringing than the Canon. This was most noticeable int he tree to the left of the frame. These two images are among the closest in the pool.

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/2000th, f/4, ISO 100

iPhone 4s chose: 1/3200th, f/2.4, ISO 64

Again, the white balance on the iPhone is much more accurate overall. The cream stucco of the building and orange cast of the bricks are spot on in this light. The saturation of the 4s is also very good, but it is a tad strong in the blue of the sky. This saturation does bring some color pixelation/artifacts into play in a lot of sky images, where as the Canon, and most cameras, render it as a smoother tone. Even Apple's sample images on their site reveil this trate to a small degree.

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS close crop of the above image

iPhone 4s close crop of the above image

Here is a close crop of the gymnasium picture from above. I chose an outdoor photo so that ISOs were at their lowest and shutter speeds at their highest to try to maximize image quality. As you can see, the Canon as slightly more resolving power, but it's close. No one would ever go this nuts on crop, but this gives some indication of the quality of image that the iPhone is capable of producing compared to a standard camera.

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 11250th, f/4, ISO 320

iPhone 4s chose: 1/1151th, f/2.4, ISO 64

No, that's not a typo. The 4s' metadata indicated a bizar 1/1151th of a second shutter speed. That oddity aside these images speak volumes about how each camera rendered this image. In contrast to the building exterior above, these two images are perhaps the most unique interpretations of the same subject. The iPhone, again, was more accurate with white balance and that combined with the color saturation makes for a very good image here in my opinion. I actually had to double check and make sure I didn't label the images backward. This is a great example of how little megapixels can matter. Here, the 8MP at a better white balance and saturation produced a more pleasing image to me than the 12MP sensor.

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/1600th, f/4, ISO 125

iPhone 4s chose: 1/3000th, f/2.4, ISO 64

Just when you thought the iPhone was ~~going to win~~ was seemingly without many flaws, you get this. This is an example of where a flat lens front and wide aperture can cause problems. Either way you dice it, the 4s is highly prone to lens flare in bright sunlight. This was taken around 1 p.m., so the sun was definitely high, but the Canon had little trouble. Also, without the ability to compose with optical zoom help, this could be an issue in many shooting scenarios. The lens flared in the upper right near the light source and in the lower left at the opposite corner. Without question the Canon did a much better job here, though the white balance on the 4s is still slightly more accurate.

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/30th, f/3.1, ISO 800

iPhone 4s chose: 1/20th, f/2.4, ISO 250

In this lower light indoor situation, I find the Canon's white balance was more accurate, but I prefer the iPhone's warmer tones. The field is deeper on the 4s, despite the shallower aperture used - I suppose because of sensor size in relation to the aperture. Either way, both did a good job, especially considering the slower shutter speeds. Note that the ISO of 250 here was the highest selected by the iPhone in any test image I had. The same 250 was selected in the paddle image below. I'm not sure what the max is, but this might be close.

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/30th, f/3.1, ISO 800

iPhone 4s chose: 1/20th, f/2.4, ISO 250

Once again, the iPhone has more accurate and pleasing white balance. The color is more saturated and arguably more pleasing, at least to me. The Canon's higher ISO selection results in a slightly noisier image, but it does render more detail in the shadow areas - note the area between the paddle and the balls.

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/30th, f/3.1, ISO 160

iPhone 4s chose: 1/25th, f/2.4, ISO 64

Here is an indoor, low light, backlit scenario. Both cameras actually did a really good job considering the circumstances. The iPhone's warm white balance tendencies got sort of strong in the background near the window an did throw a gold cast on the jar. So, the warmth isn't always a plus. The Canon's cooler tendency renders a more accurate image here. The Canon shot is also slightly sharper.

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/160th, f/4, ISO 200

iPhone 4s chose: 1/552th, f2./4, ISO 64

Again, this is another example of an uncommon shutter speed. The iPhone popped at 1/552th, which is an odd number (well, it's even, but you get my point). This was an interesting shot. I focused on the upper left window pane so that it would throw most of the tones in the dark. The iPhone really surprised me here. The metering did a very good job of rendering for the selected area. There is more detail in the stained glass and the light levels there are very good. As a result the other elements went darker, but that's to be expected. The Canon did a good job as well, but there is less detail in the window pane. Because the camera didn't meter it quite the same, the foreground is rendered much brighter.

HD VIDEO CLIPS

10 second clip from Canon SX230 HS - view on YouTube for full 1080p

10 second clip from iPhone 4s - view on YouTube for full 1080p

The iPhone got a little bit of light creeping in the left side, so it washed the tones out a bit, but overall, I like the way the 4s rendered the scene better. The result is much sharper actually and the color is very accurate. Note that the framing is slightly closer on the iPhone due to the default crop on the camera. Both were shot from a tripod with AF engaged before recording began. Both clips were imported into iMovie and trimmed to 10 seconds. No other alterations were made.

10 second clip from Canon SX230 HS - view on YouTube for full 1080p

10 second clip from iPhone 4s - view on YouTube for full 1080p

Here is a second clip from both cameras. Again, shot from a tripod with similar framing, imported into iMovie and cut to 10 seconds with no other alterations made. Note, I did have to use some optical zoom on the Canon to try and match the framing of the iPhone. Here, the Canon has the edge with resolution and there are less artifacts in the blue of the sky than on the iphone. Both cameras were focused on the flag. The iPhone wasn't quite as sharp at the flag, but rendered more detail in the trees. Both clips here are very similar.

CONCLUSIONS:

In short, the iPhone 4s is a more than worthy go everywhere option and proves that it can hold its own under all but the most extreme conditions. Lens flare is a problem in strong sunlight and the lack of optical zoom can limit composition and, of course, your ability close to your subject if walking forward is prohibited - think sporting events, museums, etc.

The camera in the 4s also seems limited by a somewhat moderate ISO max (my samples capped at 250) and there are no options for manual control. Autofocusing is rather quick and accurate, especially for a phone, and face detection - though not directly tested here - is a nice feature.

White balance is remarkably accurate and significantly better than on the iPhone 4 and even trumps the SX230 HS under most conditions. Colors have a pleasing warm tone and are nicely saturated, though blue skys can come out mildly dark and with some artifacts. Sharpness and and detail are both very good and on par with most point-and-shoot cameras. Noise is even well controlled and aided by the ISO ceiling.

Video is exceptionally good for a phone and produces sharp, color accurate and well exposed clips. Audio is on par with consumer cameras as well.

In a nutshell, the 4s is a noticeable upgrade from the 4 in terms of the camera feature. In fact, the only area where users might notice a negative trait is in the battery life. Though not tested directly, the battery does seem to drain a little faster, but the better results make up for this easily in my view.

Will it replace your current point-and-shoot? Well, that depends. If you take tons of images and battery life for talking, texting, emailing and Facebooking (ya, apparently it's a verb) might become a casualty, then consider carrying an extra imaging device. Also, if you need optical zoom, manual controls, a plethora of gimmicky settings (like night mode, landscape or underwater), HDMI ports, and the like, then you'll also want to look to make your images elsewhere.

If, however, you are wanting a simple, convenient, capable imaging device that you're guaranteed to always have with you, then the iPhone is a talented option. It's capable of producing very good images under most normal conditions and it's ability to post or share images and clips directly from the same device is significantly handy for the social network addicted crowd.

When you consider that the iPhone 4s runs $200-400 (with 2-year contract) and that it is first and foremost a phone and mini computer that features a camera, it's actually an affordable option. The Canon SX230 HS retails for around $330 and is a camera only. In my opinion, the manual controls and versatility of the Canon are strong options that more knowledgable shooters will enjoy, but the speed, convenience, simplicity and all around excellent quality of the 4s camera might appeal to more audiences for every day use. Keep in mind that the Canon doesn't have a monthly fee either.

I've tested both cameras under what I consider real world conditions in how the majority of shooters are going to use these devices. The results speak for themselves. The iPhone can certainly hold it's own as an every day companion and the Canon just might make it's way to eBay just to eliminate one extra gadget.

I hope this review of the iPhone 4s camera was helpful.

Until next time, be safe and happy shooting.

- R

Canon's 1DX an all-in-one pro solution?

2011-10-19T19:41:00.000-05:00

Canon announced the new EOS 1D X camera on Tuesday to seemingly mixed reviews. For some, the new system is a departure from the expected take in the 1D line, while for others its a well-thought-out successor in a long line of legendary professional imaging tools.

For those who claim the former, they seem to feel that the rather scant megapixel count doesn't seem all that more advanced than the 1D Mark IV's 16MP sensor. Besides, the IV's sensor carried a peculiar 1.3x crop so gaining the realestate of the X's full frame sensor - Canon's third body to offer this size - would allow for the additional pixels without much perceived effort. But, there's more under the hood here than pixels, and it's those added features that make this a rather significant upgrade.

For starters you've got 12 fps performance out of the box and up to 14 fps in JPEG with proper settings engaged. This is a 25-33% increase in image capture performance. This is made possible by the dual - yes TWO - Digic 5+ image processors built into the body. The double-duty processing power also helps with the ISO performance. The new X touts a max normal ISO of 51,200, up from 12,800 on the IV.

Other notable improvements are the 400,00 actuation rated shutter mechanism, full 1080p video with multiple frame rates including 24 fps and dual CF card support.

There are a host of other changes, but this covers the most significant. It will be available in March for around $7000, which is somewhat competitively priced, though I feel $6000 would be more appropriate.
So, why the mixed reviews?

Well, for one, there are simply too many pixel counters out there. 18MP is plenty for what this camera is designed to shoot - basically everything that's not going to be on the cover of a major magazine; and even then, it's probably enough. It's target audience is going to be the the photojournalists, sports shooters and wedding photographers that are Canon loyal. The body is designed to take a beating and deliver nearly half a million shots before shutter failure. Basically, it's a do-it-all workhorse for professional photographers.

Look, 18MP is plenty of resolution, especially when high ISO performance comes into play. If you need studio quality, medium format-rivaling resolution, pick up a 5D Mark II for less than $3000 and be quiet. Or, better yet, wait for the MIII. Those in this camp should consider the minuscule difference in resolution anyway - keep reading. You're not going to get 30MP with ultra high ISO performance at 10+ fps...at least not yet.

The only direct competition with this camera is the aging Nikon D3 series which boasts 12MP and 10-11 fps. The D3's ISO performance as become legendary and at a price tage of less than $6000 it will remain a force to compete with. Rumors are churning about a D4 that should hit the market around the same time with a possible announcement around the first of the year, perhaps at PMA. This could make for an interesting race if Nikon plays its cards right.

Those that like this announcement get what it is: a slightly overpriced professional go-to body. It attempts, I think, to eliminate the multi-body-depending-on-assignment predicament that some shooters face. For some Canon shooters the question might be: "do I grab my $2400-6000 high resolution full frame camera or my lower resolution high speed work tank?" This attempts to blend the two I think. Remember, the 5D MII and 1Ds MIII are only 21MP. The X then is 2MP up from the 1D MIV and only 3MP down from the 5D and 1Ds and you're gaining full frame coverage in a body that's even faster than the MIV. The problem with this blend is the price. If you have the 1Ds (forget the 5D for a moment) at $7000 and the MIV at $5000 and you're really trying to sort of appeal to BOTH audiences, wouldn't $6000 be a more accurate figure? Make it $5500 and you've got something incredible here.

Would I buy it? If I were back to shooting Canon and I wanted a do-it-all body, then absolutely - but I might wait a bit for the price to drop. I shoot sports and weddings, so it's ideal. It's enough resolution for bridal portraits and promotional materials and enough speed, durability and ISO performance to handle the rest. Several Canon shooters won't be tempted by this, however. Many, who shoot predominantly in one field may elect to remain with their current lineup. Wedding and portrait shooters rave about the 5D series and feel it's more than capable in low light. Action shooters my feel that an extra 2MP and 2fps won't justifiably alter their workflow enough to fork over seven grand.

If nothing else, you'll see the cost of the 1D MIV and 1Ds plummet and hit the used market. So, if you've been wanting one of these, hold on until spring and you can pick up a great camera for a lot less money.

For me, a Nikon shooter, the most interesting thing about this announcement is what it will do to the Nikon line. If there is a D4 coming in the next 6 months, how will it compare? The rumored D800 could be announced next week, but if the rumors are true, it'll be a dream machine for studio and landscape photographers, but the focus on resolution and lack of emphasis on low light and speed performance will jar a lot of loyalists. Most owners are in the D700 camp because it was a cost effective option that offered great low light performance, admirable shooting speeds and acceptable resolution in a cost-effective package. Again, it's a prosumer version of what Canon is trying to push on the professional crowd with the X. One thing's for sure, only time will tell how well the new X will be received and what competitors are cooking up to compete with it.

Be safe and happy shooting.

-R

Farewell to a visionary and icon - Steve Jobs

2011-10-05T21:53:00.000-05:00

Today the world lost a truly magical mind. Steve Jobs, co-founder and, until six weeks ago, CEO of Apple, Inc., passed away at the age of 56.

Jobs was behind some of the greatest technological innovations of our time. Believe it or not MP3 players weren't always collectively referred to as iPods and cell phones used to have keypads.

The question used to be, "How do we compete with Microsoft?" Now, the world is trying to keep up with Apple.

He stepped down as CEO a little over a month ago and the company held it's first major product announcement of the post-Jobs era yesterday with the unveiling of the iPhone 4s.

People have questioned how Apple would function with Jobs simply on the sideline. Now the world will watch the company progress without its founder, pioneer and, for lack of a better word, inspiration.

Apple's future will undoubtedly be strong. Jobs has left his mark on the company and industry as a whole. He taught us that it's okay to try new things and to do what others never dreamed possible. To borrow from a former company slogan, he taught all of us to "Think Different."

He gave us products we needed, products we wanted and products he promised we'd want. He revolutionized the music industry, made computers intuitive and fun, and forever changed how we connect with the world around us; and that world is a slightly dimmer place without him.

My prayers are with the Jobs and Apple families. He will be missed.

Great Gadgets for Photographers: Kertz's Studio Lighting Setup PSD

2011-10-03T12:55:00.000-05:00

I've decided to start blogging more, when I get the time, and one of the things I want to try and start doing regularly is posting information and links about great gadgets for the working photographer. These gadgets can range from actual equipment to setups to post production techniques to philosophy. Anything that I have found to be beneficial in my workflow, I'll try to highlight in these posts.

Though often the gadget in question might require a financial investment, I'm going to start things off with a FREE tool that is highly customizable and exceptionally handy in logging your technique with lighting setup and ultimately sharing that idea with others.

Today I'm talking about Kevin Kertz's handy Photoshop file for Studio Lighting Setups. You can download it by clicking here. The linked document is a zipped PSD file that's rather small in size, but robust in features.

The idea is simple, provide photographers with the ability to create a virtual representation of the studio or location lighting setup they've implemented. Here's an example:

Keep in mind that the tools are designed to illustrate an overview of the setup from above. Here is a mockup of how I approach my head shots for the athletic media guides. Once arranged the final product can be saved as a JPEG file and stored for future reference, emailed to a friend or coworker, or posted online.

What makes this PSD file so handy is the variety of tools that Kevin has preloaded. There are two backgrounds to choose from, three cameras (35mm, medium format and large format) subjects both with and without shadows (human and a ball for inanimate subjects) and a buffet of lighting systems and modifiers. You can choose from plain strobes or gridded or gelled or a strobe shooting through a diffusion screen. Select both gridded and non-gridded softboxes and strip boxes, beauty dishes, hair lights, gobos, reflectors, umbrellas and ring flashes. Add or remove a grid and even turn on arrows and note windows for sharing ideas, settings, etc.

Think this is only for studio pros? Think again. Although I didn't find an off camera flash graphic, using a standard strobe and turning the background paper off is a great way to illustrate outdoor shoots as well. Here's a very basic example:

Here is the lighting setup I used for the women's soccer cover shoot that I did on the football field. I used the subject with shadow to indicate the light direction and then picked the strobe with a gel for reference. I was using a Nikon SB-800 on a stand but did have a CTO gel to balance with the setting sun. For some shots I did use a second SB speedlight on a stand at a lower height, but it was only on one of the four sessions so I just left it off.

The note windows and arrows are handy for creating an all-in-one graphic for the setup. Since I typically add discussions with my illustrations and since many setups can be come bogged down with icons, etc., I tend not to use these tools as often. However, for basic reference, you can easily add these elements. Here's the same setup but with notes added followed by an image taken under the illustrated setup:

Amanda Gemmell - Faulkner University Women's Soccer

Here is the same setup, but I added the other "subject" I mentioned previously - the ball with shadow - since it was a soccer shoot. This example shows the settings and approximate distances, etc., that I basically used for the shoot. This is a way to make quick points that are self-contained in the images and require little additional explanation. As you can see the ideas and possibilities are endless.

Overall its an easy and fun tool to use. There are several options to choose from and if something isn't exactly what you wanted, you can just add a note box and explain it. If you are accustomed to using layers in Photoshop, this is an outstanding reference tool and the elements are already made for you.

My only recommendation is that you leave the white background layer on. This layer reveals Kevin's information, etc. and will give him appropriate credit for the design of the layout tools as well as direct others interested in using his tool to his website.

If you shoot portraits or still life with any type of off camera flash this is a superb archiving and learning tool. I find that I throw some ideas together before shoots with lighting setups I want to try. I can use it as a visual strategy and it helps take some guess work out of the equation and it's much easier to read than my sloppy sketches.

Give the PSD a try. It's free, just don't use it for commercial purposes. It should be a reference and learning tool. Thanks Kevin for the hard work and wonderful design.

Until next time, be safe and happy shooting.

- R

Nikon's long-awaited announcement arrives - to mixed thoughts

2011-09-21T14:01:00.000-05:00

It has been rumored for some time now that the world could expect a "big" announcement from camera titan Nikon. The public thought that the announcement would come a handful of weeks ago, but only a small release of Coolpix cameras made their debut.

Then rumors started about a new announcement date of Sept. 21 and sure enough, at midnight, an official press release announced Nikon's entry into the mirrorless arena.

Here's the rundown, if you're in the market for a mirrorless system, it's probably worth the wait until late October when the new V1 and J1 offerings from Nikon hit the shelves - or so we hope. The system offers plenty to admire and several things to question. Let's take a quick preliminary look at the Nikon 1 system.

Potentially good:

Size: The 1 system is tiny for an ICL (interchangeable lens) system. In fact, Nikon claims that the V1 is the smallest and lightest in the world with a built in EVF.

Options: The 1 system comes in two flavors, a base J1 body and a bigger brother in the V1. They have the same features, but the V1 offers a 1.4 million dot EVF that's auto activated when you raise it to your eye, has a magnesium alloy body, both an electronic and mechanical shutter and an accessory port for external flash and GPS unit as well as an external mic port.

Lenses: Both bodies will be offered in kit format with a 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 VR lens (more on this in a minute). With a 2.7x crop factor this works out to a 27-81mm equivalent and makes for a good general purpose lens. Other optics that will be available in the beginning include a 30-110mm f/3.8-5.6 VR (81-297mm eqiv.) a 10mm f/2.8 prime (27mm eqiv.) and a full range zoom in the 10-100mm f/4.5-5.6 VR (27-270mm equiv.). This is a decent lens lineup right out of the gate, but Nikon has SIX additional prototype lenses in the pipe that range from fast portrait primes to macro optics to sports zooms.

Accessories: The V1 is compatible with the new SB-N5 external flash for more powerful fill (the J1 has a popup flash built in) and the new GP-N100 GPS unit for geo tagging images, etc. Finally there is the FT-1 which is an optical converter which lets users mount existing F mount lenses on their 1 series bodies.

Specifications: The sensor, though smallish by comparison to other mirrorless systems (more in a minute) offers 10 MP resolution and full 1080p HD video at 30fps or 1080i at 60fps. The bodies incorporate a new hybrid 73-point AF system that uses both contrast and phase detection for optimal autofocus accuracy in a variety of conditions. The shutter speed caps out at 1/4000th on the mechanical shutter (V1) and 1/160000th on the electronic shutter. The camera can capture up to 10 fps in autofocus mode for rapid-fire action-stopping images. The sensor boasts an ISO range of 100-6400 with hi/lo expansion.

Potentially bad:

CX Sensor Size: For most people, this is going to be the kicker. Many, myself included, think the introduction of the CX sensor size is rather odd. Here's why. Nikon's late to the mirrorless game. In fact, the only other camera manufacturer that anyone really cares about that's not in the game now is Canon. So, let's consider the competition. The companies that really started the fad are Olympus and Panasonic with their open format micro 4/3 offerings. Two huge benefits for O and P are: 1. the sensor is roughly TWICE as large as the Nikon CX offering here and 2. the mount is an open standard, making lenses from multiple manufactures simple to use and the selection much broader. Virtually all offering from O and P have slightly higher resolution, but it's rather negligible in therms of numbers, but perhaps not in terms of image output.

Going up the ladder, you have Sony, with its NEX system which offers a standard APS-C sensor on board. It boasts the highest resolution sensor on the market with the new lineup offering 24 MP of larger sensor data. The APS-C sensor is the same size that's in the majority of consumer and enthusiast DSLR bodies and at a resolution few can match at the time of this post.

So what? Well, typically (though not always) larger sensors can handle detail and color better than smaller sensors and this gets exponentially better as the ISO increases. The new image test of choice is how well a sensor/lens combo handles moderate to low light levels with regard to image noise and detail. So with Nikon's CX sensor weighting it at half the size of m4/3 and 1/4 the size of the industry leading NEX sensor, Nikon is going to have it's work cut out if it wants to compete with the industry leaders.

Saving grace - if Nikon has manages to produce images equal to or better in quality than the bulk of it's rivals despite the smaller sensor, it's going to be a game-changer for sure. Right now there's a funky middle ground in the ICL camera market. The mirrorless "advantage" was supposed to be superior quality in a smaller package. Kinda like Blade, the day-walking vampire slayer. Mirrorless was sort of touted as having "all of the strengths (of a DSLR) and none of the weaknesses (bulk, weight, cost)." So, you get a smaller, lighter, capable, flexible system that costs less (potentially) and does virtually the same thing as it's bigger brother. Was mirrorless designed to tempt the avid pro? No. No SI shooter or Vogue photographer is going to shoot anything important on a tiny ICL unless it's for fun. Will they make enticing personal walk-around cameras? Yes. For those of us used to lens choices and manual versatility, yes - as long as we can justifiably afford a completely new auxiliary system!

The problem has been in image quality. So far, normal, every day images have been great out of all but the worst mirrorless systems. In fact, the Panasonic GF line and Olympus Pen cams have been extremely popular with users. However, when the light falls, the images do tend to suffer. Sony has done more in this territory with it's larger sensor, but even it can come up short. In fact, many have indicated that given it's obvious size advantage it should actually do better. All of these offerings trump point-and-shoot images even from the higher end contenders like the Canon G series, which also rivals the mirrorless market in price.

So, if the Nikon 1 system can manage strong image quality, especially in lower light, it will make a run and might just find itself at the top of the pile in the ever-growing mirrorless pool. If, however, the smallish sensor does suffer from weak quality, the entry might just be dead on arrival. It's really going to come down to the sensor. If it performs, Nikon's got a home run. If it fails, the line will fail. They came along simply too late in the game to hope to build a broad fan base on anything but brand loyalists if the images aren't strong.

The provided sample images from Nikon do reveal wonderful color reproduction, good detail and effective low light performance to ISO 800. However, these images are always strongly controlled situations that the average shooter would never mimic and the low light shot is more a moderate ISO boost in subpar light than in a bat cave at 6400. We will see more on this soon.

Lens Selection: It's good that Nikon is offering four lens choices that cover a very respectable focal range. However, many enthusiasts who know what they are looking for will be patiently awaiting those faster prime prototypes that Nikon has put un display - especially with the smaller sensor. Why? Well, theoretically the smaller sensor will offer weaker low light performance, so a faster lens will help in that regard as well as potentially helping with shallow DOF. However, the later is strongly effected by the sensor size as well, so a wider aperture alone won't likely make a massive difference in a blurrier background.

Nikon has been an industry leader in optics for forever, so maybe they have an ultra wide design coming down the line. They do have a wide angle "landscape" prototype, but no focal length numbers are available yet. Right now 27mm is as wide as you're gonna get, which is respectable, but for a lot of users, they're gonna wanna see something approaching the 20mm range or even wider. Panasonic offers a 7-14mm f/4, which with the mere 2x conversion equates to a 14-28mm. Now the lens also costs around $900, but it's available for those who want it and will work on either Olympus or Panasonic bodies.

Advantage - as of now all but the 10mm prime are equipped with VR which makes hand-held work easier.

Hot Shoe: The lack of a hot shoe is not going to phase most people, but more experienced shooters might be turned off by this. It's a similar issue that the early Sony NEX bodies faced as well, though the new NEX flock has the ridiculous proprietary shoe added. Most of the Panasonic and Olympus offerings, including the X series, have a standard shoe. This is helpful if you want to add a larger flash option or a radio trigger system. I know this sounds advanced for such a system, but it's actually super handy. When I traveled with my Olympus E-PL2 system to Hawaii with our softball team, I used the hot shoe countless times. I set my Nikon speedlight on a shelf or on a small stand to the side and triggered it with my handy Alien Bees radio transmitter and receiver. They are both tiny and it makes for a versatile lighting setup. Just for fun I even did some portraits in the studio with the Olympus.

Is it a deal breaker? Probably not, but the little SB-N5 add-on will not compare in versatility or power to a more capable SB speedlight. I suppose if you have an optical slave it'll work, but a popup flash in that situation is just as helpful.

Cost: At $650 to $900 (suggested retail) for a single lens kit it's not cheap, but nicely in line with some of the other offerings. The larger sensor Sony NEX-C3 comes in at $600 and the NEX-5 retails for $650. The NEX-5N has a tag of $700 and the new NEX-7 with 24mp presses on the wallet at $1350 with comparable lens.

The new Olympus E-P3 costs $900 and the new E-PL3 is $700. Panasonic's GF2 runs $500.

The thing to remember is this; a brand new Nikon D3100 DSLR with 18-55mm is only $650 and currently $600 with some instant savings options.

And those add on lenses? Not much cheaper. The 10mm and the 30-110mm will have a suggested retail of about $250 each. A 70-300mm lens can be had for about $170. Keep in mind that that's a 105-450mm equiv. on a DX sensor. It lacks the VR ability, however. And that 27mm 2.8 equivalent? The superb 35mm (50ish mmm equiv.) f/1.8 DX is longer, but faster and costs only $199.

The cost of the optics is not excessive, but it will make consumers considering this as a SECONDARY camera think twice.

Looks: Though it's about as essential as having nice-looking golf clubs, since the camera is a tool and not the end product, people want pretty equipment. I'm less concerned about this since I'll use anything that gets the job done effectively, but the esthetic quality is indeed a bit off, especially in the V1. The EVF hood makes for what appears to be a half-witted effort by a first year industrial design student. Suffice it to say that the designers would be fired if they worked at Apple, but that's not the point. They were obviously trying to keep it clean and simple and to that end I think they might have succeeded though few have had a hands-on experience as of yet.

THE EARLY VERDICT: In my opinion it's an odd, but interesting offering. It's compelling for a few reasons. 1. Nikon's finally in the mirrorless game and could make huge waves if the 1 series is well-received. 2. It's small and light and despite this, seemingly feature laden. 3. The lens choices are good for a startup and the others look like they could bring a lot to the table. 4. It's somewhat pricey, but well within the range of what you'd expect for this type of system. 5. It's a new gadget that a lot of people are gonna wanna play with.

The questionable: 1. I'm concerned about the image quality and overall performance, though as I mentioned earlier, the standard images available right now look fairly strong. 2. Ergonomics, will the system be too smallish for practical use without HAVING to use a neck strap? Some of these smaller cameras can come free easily in your hands.

Overall I think, and certainly hope, this is a strong contender for Nikon. In the point-and-shoot market Nikon is getting spanked by Canon in terms of image quality and they really need this venture to be productive.

The BIGGEST problem with this announcement is the LACK of a new pro DSLR. I know, it has nothing to do with this camera, but the fact that so many were expecting a D700 replacement at least has inadvertently made the early 1 system flavor a bit sour. Perhaps the new higher end camera is still indeed coming soon and perhaps Nikon felt that it would overshadow the 1 announcement if launched together. Who knows? Hind sight is always 20/20, but it seems that at last for US audiences a D700 upgrade today followed by the 1 system next week would have made more sense. It's been forever since any full frame updates have come out of Nikon and users keep seeing the improvements offered by other manufactures - mainly Canon - and are starting to wonder what gives.

Any undo negatives will soon fade from the 1 system facade to make way for any serious negative reactions that are legitimately based on performance once testing is under way.

The 1 system is promising, but only time will tell if it will be a true contender in the mirrorless market.

Fuji X-100 impressions

2011-03-02T18:48:00.002-06:00

The photography world got a pleasant surprise when they announced that the X100 would be arriving this spring. Amidst all of the other big releases, it was this little, simplistic, retro unit that really caught the attention of so many people. Why? Well, even though the needs and likes of each photographer are different, there has to be something about it that's indeed a universal draw and I think that the simplistic functionality coupled with the retro styling and just the right amount of technology has really boosted this camera into the limelight.

The retro styling is the first thing that jumps out about this camera. It's unlike anything else on the market, with perhaps its closest competition being the Olympus PEN series, which doesn't go this far down the retro styling track.

There is a manual knob on the top for shutter speed and another for exposure compensation. There is a retro style shutter button that takes the syringe-style screw in remote shutter release cable and there is a hot shoe - that's it!

The aperture dial is where it used to be - on the lens. The newest lenses out there have the aperture controlled electronically. This has the aperture dial right where it should be at the base of the lens next to the body and it's marked with full stop increments starting at f/2. It appears that ISO is still dialed in via the menu system.

The lens is fast, but fixed. That means you have 35mm equivalent all the time. Because of this, the camera will probably appeal to hobbyists as well as travel and street photographers more so than traditional shooters or those looking for more focal range. The lens has a four leaf shutter that is very quiet and fires at up to 1/4000 of a second.

Behind the lens is a 12 megapixel APS-C size sensor. That puts it on par with sensor sizes in most DSLRs and up in size from the four thirds offerings from Olympus and Panasonic. The only other major small body APS-C player is the Sony NEX series. It offers interchangeable lenses and a lower price point, but it lacks a viewfinder - even an option for an add-on - and a hot shoe. There are other pros and cons that come into play, but the bottom line here is that Fuji will have a love it or hate it following as there isn't much out there that can compete with the feature set directly.

The flagship feature of this model is the hybrid viewfinder. The camera features a genuine optical viewfinder with digital overlay indicating the exposure information, EV levels, a histogram, color temperature, digital level and more. With the flip of the switch on the front of the camera, the optical window closes and a super high resolution electronic viewfinder takes over. It's the first of it's kind and it has certainly generated a great deal of discussion and from the hands-on reviews I've looked at so far, it's very good. Or, if you must, you can use the LCD screen to compose your images. (PS, if your doing this, you might want to look at some less expensive cameras as you're eliminating one of the camera's strongest features).

For a complete look at the features, visit the product site here.

The body is well built, simple and will certainly be fun for the lucky owners.

The bad? Other than the arguably limited fixed focal length, it's expensive at $1,200. You can get a very well equipped DSLR with various lenses for the same price or less and offers you more versatility. But you wont get the looks, build, and hybrid finder. And not to mention a small, easy to use, compact take-anywhere shooter.

Others will compare it to maybe something like an Olympus E-PL series. Well, you get a body and more versatile 28-84mm equiv. lens, but it's slower and there's no EVF built in. If you want to make a similar package you'd need the $350 Panasonic 20mm (40mm equiv.) f/1.7 lens and the $250 EVF adapter and pairing that with a $600 E-PL2 body puts you in a similar price point. Remember, the E-PL2's shoe will be occupied by the EVF, so you LOSE your hot shoe potential.

Again, this is not a review as I have not had any hands-on experience with it nor will I be purchasing one. This is a look at the potential pros and cons and my opinion on where this little guy will fall in the end.

PROS:

Sexy, sleek, retro design

Build quality

Fast lens

Great simplicity - it gets to the shooting and away from living in menus

Extraordinary viewfinder

APS-C size sensor really puts it in a league of it's own

Quiet leaf shutter

Cool built in modes including panorama stitch similar to that found on Sony cameras

Seemingly great high ISO performance - see DPREVIEWs sample images here.

Everyone will be jealous of you

CONS:

Expensive

Fixed focal length

Smaller body may not be for everyone

Bottom line: Get in line, because even at $1,200 these babies are going to fly off the shelves.

Velbon Ultra VOXi L Tripod Review

2011-02-21T19:04:00.003-06:00

One of the fundamental components of the photographer's gear bag is the beloved tripod. Some "authoritative" figures out there on the web like to lobby for the "with improved high ISO performance and stabilized lenses, one doesn't need a tripod nowadays" theory. In my humble opinion, and of course the opinion of anyone who shoots in a variety of settings with a variety of settings, this mentality is simply problematic. There are situations where there is absolutely no substitute for a good tripod and this review will look specifically at the compact traveler companion rather than the industrial studio rail or the heavy-deuty landscape trekker's sole mate.

Criteria: I want to state up front that your tripod needs depend on many things. The two most important things to consider when purchasing any tripod are 1.) the size and weight of your camera equipment and 2.) your intended use. For example, if you are using an 8x10 large format camera a $28 tripod from WalMart isn't going to cut it no matter how hard you try. The opposite is not necessarily true. There's no such thing as "too much support," but you probably wont want to carry a 20 lbs. set of legs out into Yellowstone to mount your pocket point and shoot camera. Therefore, consider your needs carefully before purchasing your legs and you will often find, depending on how versatile your shooting and the conditions in which you shoot, that you need more than one set of legs.

I already own a conventional tripod that I love, but wanted something light weight, compact, versatile and as close to normal shooting height when fully extended as possible (50"+ in my case) for travel and street photography with my Olympus E-PL2 camera. I was willing to compromise on some features if necessary, but was really wanting to get as many of these features in a tripod as possible...oh, and I needed it to be as inexpensive - within reason - as possible. My budget for legs and a ball head was about $200, but I was willing to be flexible - a BIT - if something significant came down the pipe.

Therefore, this review will compare my ultimate choice, the Velbon Ultra VOXi L, with some competition and will ultimately look at the key features of this excellent little stabilizer.

Alternate Tripods: Whether you've been a player in the tripod game for a while or are new to the arena, several brand names are very likely already familiar to you. Gitzo, Manfrotto and even Benro have been around for quite some time and have an almost cult following among shooters today. Personally, I've worked with Manfrotto of and on through the year and love their gear. But when it comes to something as specific as the traveler companion I was after, huge brand names were shifted to the back burner as far as being mandatory. If I could find an affordable winner among the popular brands then that would just be a bonus. Quality was definitely an important component in my search, but was willing to go with an "unknown" if the product could meet my needs.

The Players: Although there are several other tripods out there that could fall into the traveler category, I was specifically looking at the sub 3 lbs units which ultimately evicted some would-be companions right out of the gate. Ultimately, my search generated the following legs: Gitzo Traveler 1541T and 1550T, Manfrotto 190CX3 and 732 M-Y, Feisol CT3441S and SB, Benro A0680 Travel Angel, Horusbennu M-2530TT, Tamrac ZipShot and the Velbon Ultra VOXi L. The Feisol and Horusbennu are most commonly acquired through eBay.

To keep the body of this already lengthy post somewhat condensed, I've attached the chart of the specs and sort of my mindset when narrowing down my choice. Several of the units scored higher than the Velbon in certain areas, but as a whole they didn't quite level out due mainly to a severely week point in the criteria or an absurd price. The later really took a toll on the Gitzo and Feisol offerings even though the units themselves had very strong marks in some of the necessary areas.

To sum it up, the Velbon had the most bang-for-the-buck out of the models I compared by my standards. This review is to help you in your decision making or introduce some players you might have overlooked and NOT to tell you which tripod to get. You can look at the chart and see how I rated each element on the list and how I came to my conclusion. I tried to be both flexible, but fair. For example I didn't even score the Velbon in the weight category as a Top 3 pick even though it missed the cut by just 0.2 lbs! I tried not to lean in any particular direction. I did however, give some leniency in my ratings. For example, in weight, I marked 1.98-2.2 lbs all as second place units because the weight was virtually the same.

At the end of the day the Velbon had the best height-to-folded length-to-weight balance of any of the devices that were under $300. And with a max recommended load of just shy of 8 lbs, I was home free.

As you can see in my ratings the Manfrotto 732 M-Y and the Benro Travel Angel came in second and the relatively unknown Horusbennu ranked third. In fact, had the Hoursbennu not had a ridiculously unusable max height of just over 46" then I would have definitely given it a shot. But, I really wanted a normal height option and the 60" offered by the Velbon as well as it's versatility in setup ultimately won the day.

THE REVIEW

Now that I've described how I made my decision, I'll take you through a guided tour and wrap up with a quick list of pros and cos as I find them.

The above images show the VOXi alongside a Velbon El Carmagne 630 - a more standard 22.5" tripod for size comparisons. The VOXi stands at just a peep over 14" long when folded. The top image shows both tripods standing closed and the second shows them at their base unfolded length. As you can see the VOXi is significantly small both in length and width at its base settings.

However...

...when fully extended you can see how comparable the two become. The Carmagne does have more height, but for a compact unit, the VOXi is capable of running as a standalone device if needed. This was a HUGE plus for me when I was considering my options and it s major factor in going with the VOXi. It reaches to just over 5' tall with column extended!

Although not the most "ideal" option for a full size DSLR, it can handle the load if you want it to. Here I've mounted my D700 with grip and extended battery, RRS "L" plate and a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. I put the ball head - a Velbon 41Q - at an off center alignment to illustrate the holding power of the LEGS. They are not going to tip over on you. I would recommend a stronger head for cameras north of perhaps a Rebel or D3100 or so, but honestly the legs are fine. You will get less vibration and more overall stability and peace of mind if you opt for standard legs, but in a pinch or on travel, the VOXi is a great alternative to a standard pod. It's rated at 7.7 lbs, but could easily hold more with the right head - though as usual, you are running a risk whenever you exceed the manufactures specifications for anything.

Above are the various leg angle settings on the VOXi. I removed the base portion of the center column (it unscrews) for these illustrations. These positions allow you to get lower to the ground without having to inver the column. If the lowest leg spread is not low enough you have the option to inver the center column and either rotate a telephoto tripod collar to an upside down position or, simply mound your camera upside down and rotate the image in post. The image below is an example, again with the D700 and telephoto mounted from the lens' tripod collar.

Remember, I'm going to be using the VOXi with a micro 4/3 camera, but used the D700 to illustrate the abilities of the tripod. Smaller cameras are even easier to manipulate on the unit for obvious reasons.

The platform is well designed, but only has a small thread for a head. So your RRS BH-55 ain't gonna work here. But then again, the 55 weights more than this thing! It's designed to work with smaller, more modest heads and the pairing is not an issue for the weights it's rated for anyway.

The leg angle adjustment switch has been moved over on the front leg for illustrative purposes. Doing so allows the leg to be fully extended out for the lowest shooting angle. As you bend the leg back toward the center column the switch 'clicks' and locks into each subsequent setting with needing to reactivate the switch. The joint has been very strong, quite and fluid thus far.

The two photos above are to illustrate relative size. I have short, though fat fingers and as you can see the, though small, the legs do have some admirable girth to them - unlike say, the Tamrac ZipShot. The rubber leg locks are a decent size too and the bottom lock doubles as the leg foot. NOTE: One of the upper rubber grips did come loose while shooting at the beach over the weekend. Some super glue will fix this issue. I think there is an urge to really tighten the legs when a modest amount of torque will do the job fine. I am uncertain if the issue was a result of tension on my part, lack of the necessary glue in production or the very damp conditions I was shooting in. Either way, it's not a deal breaker for me.

The unit is rated at just over 2.4 lbs, but our postage meter clocked it in at just over 2.6 lbs. Either way, it's tiny and light by virtually any standard.

Above you can see the thickness of the leg sections. The top sections has the gray rim all the way to the left. The second section connects to the first lock, then three more sections extend to the foot. The following video is a brief look at how the legs work:

The unit measures just over 14". I tried to shoot it from a low angle because of glare.

It's a bit harder to illustrate how the center column lock works with photos, so I've added a short video for that as well.

I plan on doing a quick video review of the VOXi soon (I hope - extremely busy right now) for YouTube. If and when I do, I'll embed the video in this post.

CONCLUSION:

In short, it's a wonderful tripod. If you own a PAS, micro 4/3, super zoom compact, 4/3 or even an entry level DSLR this could serve as your only tripod if you pair it with the right head. For the PAS through to the average sized 4/3 owner, you're home free with an inexpensive ball head like the Velbon 41Q - which I used for the Olympus Pen series. If you are using longer lenses however, like say, the Panasonic 100-300mm for micro 4/3 or any major telephoto, you should really consider a larger, sturdier head as the 41Q might display a bit of shake at longer focal lengths and it certainly isn't wonderful for manually focusing lenses in video mode when every bump or shake is recorded in all it's glory! But for smaller cameras and shooting that doesn't require tons of subtle adjusting or incorporate significant weight, the 41Q is plenty of support.

For the avid pro, this is a great auxiliary pod for travel or for your fun camera (as is the case here).

These legs are really brilliant. Though perhaps not as well built as the Gitzo Traveler series, it's also not $600+ dollars. It's certainly got stability to spare given the criteria I mentioned earlier. You can pick it up easily with a single finger when fully extended, but at the same time, not worry about it blowing over in a normal wind. It's fun and easy to use, packs easily and is indispensable for low light, macro shooting and long exposures.

You get upwards of 8 lbs of support (rated - though it will hold more with the right head), 60.5" of max height, ground level shooting with an inverted column, 14" of compact length at just over 2.6 lbs. for less than $200 and that is a real bargain.

If you're in the market for a compact traveler and the specs meet your criteria, I highly recommend the Velbon Ultra VOXi L!

PROS:

Very light weight

Small folded size

Sturdy for size

Well built

Several shooting heights and orientations including a reversible center column for very low shooting

Good max load rating considering packed size

Well-designed center column lock

Excellent max height

Great for point-and-shoot, mirco and standard 4/3 cameras as well as many DSLRs

Comes with a decent bag

CONS:

Somewhat expensive for a 'travel' device if that's what you're going to use it for

Legs can be tricky

Rubber on twist locks can become loose with turning or extreme weather (super glue will fix that)

No foam grip/protection on legs to guard against dings and help in extreme temperatures

No "bag hook" on column to secure a small camera bag for better center of gravity and convenience

No head included in the price

I hope to add a review of the Olympus E-PL2 soon. I am waiting on an additional lens and a bit more shooting experiments with it first. If you are interested in that camera, check back soon.

Until next time, be safe and happy shooting!

- R

Apple launches App Store, mostly exciting...

2011-01-06T16:17:00.006-06:00

Today Apple launched the much-anticipated App Store that offers users an iTunes-like venue in which to purchase some current and upcoming application titles. The idea is simple and brilliant - put software in a familiar, intuitive and downloadable arena and users will flock to the water hole. That seems to be happening, so far.

If you use iTunes, then the App Store layout will be more than familiar with Top Paid and Top Free apps running down the right and side and top new titles in a slideshow-like window at the top. There also New and Noteworthy titles, Staff Favorites, etc.

While the layout and navigation of the system are logical easy to use, those considering purchasing via the oh-so-easy software should consider a few things before making the plunge - both good and bad.

Let's consider the positive. In addition to being easy to navigate and use, many of your favorite Mac apps are now individually available! Instead of paying $80 for the iWorks bundle, for example, you can now get them for only $20 a pop. Then, if you only want, say, Pages, you only buy the solo app! It's wonderful. This is perhaps even better with iLife. I only use Garageband to make ringtones, so why would I want to upgrade it? I use Adobe Lightroom to file my photos, so iPhoto is sort of non-essential. iTunes is always free and constantly updated, so I don't need that. I do my website through third party software - which also happens to be available in the App Store :) - so I don't use iWeb (it's not currently offered in the App Store), but I'd really like to get iMovie. I can get the stand-alone app for just $15 when I'd have had to pay $80 before. iDVD is another great app, but it's not currently available via the App Store. This is likely because in iLife 11, only iPhoto, iMovie and Garageband were really updated. Expect to see new renditions of the the other apps in the future.

Future Apple updates is another perk of the new venue. Why? Well, if Apple comes out with a new idea for iDVD, they no longer have to wait until they get updates for the rest of iLife to release it. They can just drop it in the App Store and send your computer an alert that an update is available! It remains to be seen if major software like Final Cut will be available here in the future, so only time will tell.

Install tracking is another plus. If the software detects that you already have the app installed via a pervious method (retail disc), it marks the app as INSTALLED for you to keep you from accidentally buy it.

Excellent pricing is a huge plus. Because Apple, and third party developers, can theoretically eliminate the need for boxes, brochures and discs, the entire process is now less expensive and immediate. No longer waiting on Apple to mail you your software or running out to the store. Just click and download and your done! Apple might go download-only in the future. Since their software - aside from iTunes which is already available for download for Mac and PC - requires you own a Mac anyway and almost everyone has access to the Internet somewhere, even if it's just free WiFi, it would seem likely that future app releases would go completely virtual. Since the server logs your software purchases it would be easy to move to a new computer or backup if you don't use Time Machine, etc.

Speaking of discount pricing, check out the new price of Apple's Aperture 3 software. You can now get it NEW for less than the old upgrade price! Previously it was $199, the App Store now offers it for $79!

Now for the potentially negative and or delayed:

You need OS 10.6.6. Not a big deal since most users are on Snow Leopard, but if your on Leopard or Tiger, you're out of luck without an upgrade. I think the upgrade is available for about $30, so no big deal. Once the system is App Store friendly, could future OS updates become available there? Right now you can't get the update without ordering it or buying it retail. I'm not sure about the technical limitations of downloading a complete OS update, but I suppose we'll see when Lion arrives.

Consider other pricing points. Though the new pricing is cheaper than existing pricing, it does not take into account Family Packs. So, if you wanted to purchase the 10 license limit that iWork Family pack offers you for $99 through the traditional software in the Apple Store or retail, you'd be forking over a lot of dough.

Now, supposedly you can share the downloaded software between your iOS devices by using the PURCHASES option at the top. Much like sharing apps on your iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch without having to buy unique copies. It recognizes that it's your computer when you login to your account. I have not tried it, but other reviewers have indicated that it does work. This makes sense because if you want to work on say, a Keynote presentation on your desktop, but then use it for a demonstration on your laptop, you'd have to fork out $40 for the single app to use it in two locations. With just the one app you'd be nearing the half way price of the 10 license bundle cost. If you DO have a need for the Family Pack price and the PURCHASES feature ends up NOT covering your needs, then you could be out more money than necessary. This is likely not a major issue, but let's face it, without a disc and serial number that you can run all over creation with, some users might be caught off guard. If I can purchase an app and legally put it on my office computer, my home computer and say, my laptop without having the bank repossess my house to do so, then I'm a happy camper.

Another let down, though it's not Apple's fault, is that many apps that would be awesome in the App Store have not arrived yet, and might not ever. Take Microsoft Office for example. Some people out there only use Word from the Office bundle, so why not make that a stand-alone download in the App Store? Even if it was $40 or so, it would beat paying $200+ and getting Excel and PowerPoint and Exchange, etc. if you don't plan on using them. It would be smart for Microsoft to do it, but I doubt the greedy giant will cave to the logical. It might also be some time, if ever, that we see even the Microsoft bundle available. I could care less, but as long as the corporate structure in society dictates that we have Office apps we are inadvertently forced to run them and I would therefore enjoy their presence in the App Store.

App Syncing. Now that the Mac is going toward the iPad/iPhone format, in a way, with app downloads, it would be nice if Apple and third party developers would integrate everything. For example, if I have content in an app that is already on my iPhone or iPad, it'd be awesome to have all that content sync. Apparently App Store software is not capable of being "hard synced" with other software. The technical support site for the popular Things app - a program that allows you to manage To-Do lists, notes, etc. - says:

"Syncing via USB cable or Bluetooth is technically not possible for third party applications from the App Store."

They got smart and made it possible to sync all of your devices via WiFi, so this app DOES allow all content to be managed seamlessly. But why, with all of the connectivity that they currently support, would Apple not integrate App Store and iTunes communication for apps. I get that they are different "programs", but in 2011 it seems like if you have the same app on similar devices that they should be able to communicate with one another.

I don't mind paying for an additional copy of an app I use quite often, but without syncing, it seems unlikely that I'd want to recopy all that data over and over. I love iCal, but it's not as robust as some of the other apps out there and I simply like the UI of many of the apps I already own better. Hey, Apple, let's get this syncing thing sorted out so that everything works with Apple-like simplicity!

If they do sort out the syncing deal, you might see some promos available for multi-bundles. For example, let's use Things. The Things app for the iPhone/Touch is $10. It's $20 for the iPad and $50 for the Mac. If there were more incentive via proper, worry-free syncing, then Things might offer a MacPack (hey, Apple, I've already named it for you!) where you can get all three apps for $60-65 instead of $80! By 2012 everyone will have an iPhone and an iPad it seems like. Why not make the Mac peripheral devices talk nicely with the Mac? Just a thought.

Misfiring. I'm not sure if it's a glitch in the Apple developer kit or if third party developers are just trying to become familiar with the new setup, but it seems like a lot of apps are not working properly. Some wont launch, other's crash unexpectedly and often and others are incomplete. I doubt we can fully blame Apple for this, but it's something to consider. Make sure you read the reviews before buying.

Overall, the idea is superb and with time the kinks will be ironed out. Expect it to become insanely popular like iTunes, but because desktop apps are not purchased quite as often as music or mobile apps, and because it's Apple-only, I don't expect half a million desktop apps anytime soon.

Hey, Adobe, let's get some apps in the store and make our lives even easier! It would also be cool to see options for Education Pricing, but if prices drop low enough, special pricing would become a non-issue.

That's my two cents. Head on over to the App Store and check it out.

- R

The new Air, and why I'd love one...

2010-10-29T19:09:00.000-05:00

Ok, for the two of you out there who are not Apple users - that's a joke, but seriously, if you're not an Apple user, and especially if you're in any type of visually-driven industry, give them a hard look - this is the new MacBook Air. So, let's start with the obvious. Reason No. 1 why I, and you, want one - look at it. That is reason enough for approximately 40% of future owners of this device. For the remaining 60%, lets take a closer look.

Reason No. 2: Instant on. Because the OS is embedded in the Flash based hard drive (see below) the system boots quickly. Closing the lid sends the computer into hibernate mode, as usual, and opening the unit powers it back up instantly. Much like the iPod/iPad. When not in use it goes dark and then when you need it, it's ready. There is no drive to heat up, and therefore, less moving parts and theoretically fewer drive failures and less lost data. Standby time is rated at 30 days in hibernate mode. Which is excellent considering my current Air is only good for a few days if it's not used at all. On the 11" this promotes 5ish hours of battery life and up to 7 hours on the 13" - both are excellent.

Reason No. 3: Flash based storage. This provides extremely fast and silent operation. Think of it as a built in thumb drive, but considerably faster since it's not communicating through a USB 2.0 interface. As of now, storage options are smaller than traditional laptops, but those looking at this device are likely not going to suffer from storage space as this will probably be a secondary unit or something for college or work in which case most information is saved to an external hard drive - or should be. The lower end 11.6" model sports a somewhat scant 64GB hard drive. Hilarious, given that my $4,000 Gateway (yes, after my Mac LC II, I went to the dark side, but have since repented and returned to the light) desktop that I purchased back in the late 90's had a whopping 10GB arena of storage, and now my iPhone has more than triple that. The only reason that 64GB would become problematic is if you do lots of high resolution digital picture taking and have an iTunes vault rivals that of the Library of Congress. So, if you are a media savvy college student, an engineer packing countless Auto CAD designs, an art director who likes to carry the entire portfolio, or filmmaker with the RAW footage of your next Sundance award-wining masterpiece, consider the MacBook Pro line - or at least the 13" with the larger storage options. For the user looking for the pint-sized 11.6" model, I doubt the 64GB flash storage will be a major deterrent, especially considering that you can double it for $200.

Reason No. 4: Screens and Sizes and everything else. For the first time ever, Apple is offering the Air in both a 13.3" and 11.6" model. This is a superb, and might I say, belated idea. So many users, even Apple lovers, have been looking for something that has Apple reliability, usability, functionality and performance in something along the netbook lines. With netbooks offering screens from 7-10" and units running around 2 lbs, it's easy to see why people on the move would be interested in such a device. Where the netbook line has been crippled, in my opinion, is in the following key areas: screen resolution and size, battery life, durability and feature set. The screens on some, but certainly not all of the models, are simply too small for practical use. Sure, a 7" screen is nice to carry around, but try typing a term paper on it or reading text on the web for long periods of time or even trying to organize and, dare I say, manipulate your digital images. It becomes rather obvious that this screen size sounds good, but for people that actually intend on using their laptop for productivity, it sucks! Then there is the resolution issue. Well, I'll keep it short. With the tolerable exception of a few Lenovos or some HPs and Dells, the resolution on most units leaves much to be desired, color is often poor and the lighting is dim. Next we have battery life. Some units have managed to pull off five hours or so, but usually that's with an extended life battery that is an add-on option. Some of these extended life batteries, especially offerings from Acer and Lenovo are also extended space and add as much as 2 inches to the back of the unit to gain that extra juice. Durability is usually terrible in the PC world overall. The good thing is that the plastic is so tightly restricted due to size that they seem to have better build quality at first glance than their bigger brothers. Companies started trying to disguise the fact that their gear is made out of loosely screwed-together plastic by decorating that plastic with pretty colors and various designs. The offerings from several netbook manufactures look like a Sherwin Williams exploded during the coloring process. This marketing tactic was really spearheaded by Dell. They offer more shell options than hardware configurations which is interesting for a company that is known for it's hardware mix-and-match availability. This is cool in one degree because it offers some variety in an overly crowded and boring market. On the other hand there's still a good chance that you'll run in to someone that has the same "personalized" laptop running the same outdated software. And that brings us to feature set. Lets sort out the first group of plagued netbooks right off the bat - the half-witted Linux-based OS as in the Acer Aspire One. This is a cool, easy to use interface. The problem is, it doesn't do anything. Nothing that you're used to doing on a computer can really be done on such a device. So, enter the Windows based models. Say what you want about Microsoft, I certainly will, but they are a lightyear ahead of the Linux units. They at least feel like a computer and you can install other normal software on them as long as your hardware supports it. So, you just need to figure out if you want Windows XP, XP Home, XP Business, 7 or one of the other 641 variations of the same inadequate OS and let 'er rip! Once you've spent $600-100o on your micro machine, then all you have to do is buy a competent photo manager/editor; a video production kit, if that's your thing; download iTunes because you know you have an iPod (Zune, really?) and then pick up Office - the most practical and, dare I say, quality product in the Microsoft lineup. Or you could go with an Air that has the highest resolution, instant-on super bright LED display on the planet. It also happens to be in the same weight category; is made of super durable aluminum; has a full, single-option OS that is so easy to use you'll be confused as to why you don't get a headache searching for your applications; has all of the best digital productivity software on the market INCLUDED (iPhoto, iTunes, iMovie, Garageband, iWeb and iDVD); has excellent battery life and is backed by the best customer service in the industry. The only serious thing missing is an Office software suite. I love iWork. It's faster and more practical than Microsoft Office and is about half the price. It includes Pages (Word), Numbers (Excel) and Keynote (Powerpoint) and pretty soon it looks like these will be available independently through Apple's upcoming Mac App store which is sure to revolutionize the way we all get and use our desktop applications.

Reason No. 5: New Additions. I have the older generation of the Air and I love it, but these new improvements really push the device over the top and make it a worthy upgrade. Some other new features that the newer generation(s) sport are the addition of a second USB port, which is a huge plus, and in the 13.3" you get an SD card slot which makes importing photos from most consumer cameras a snap and it provides an alternate storage option if you don't want to use the optional Super Drive, an external USB hard drive or a thumb drive. They've also moved all of the connections to the sides of the device instead of in the bay door on the old model which was kinda cool until you had to use them while trying to work with the laptop on a flat surface. The keyboard remains full size and is, in my opinion, the best portable typing surface on the market. When OSX Lion hits, everything is going to get even better.

I love the new Airs. Bang for buck, they still aren't quite same deal as the impressive entry level MacBook Pro 13", but if you're looking for thin, light and very capable, it's the best thing going. Personally, I'd love to upgrade to the new 13.3" with the 128GB drive and bump it to 4GB of RAM for $100. It's got excellent battery life for something with a 13" screen that is so thin, it's whisper quiet, has decent expansion for a thin-and-light, has the SD slot, instant-on and a superb display. It will run $1,400 for that configuration, but I can run all of my most important applications on it with ease and it's an excellent travel companion. It wont fit on an in-flight tray table quite like the 11.6", but I have and iPhone for that. Or better yet, use an iPad! The funny thing is, I don't really see the two devices (Air and iPad) competing. They both really do different things. At the end of the day, I'd side with any of the Airs because of their versatility over the iPad, but I wouldn't hate owning both.

As a professional photographer and journalist of sorts who is on the go quite often, this is the ideal partner - for me. I have screen real estate and power in my office. When I'm covering events, traveling and writing articles on the move I want light, fast and versatile. I can shoot, upload, sort, select, drop, export and deliver the images along with my articles from one spot without any issues. If I'm doing a longer trip, I'll throw an external drive in my bag for storage. I almost never do hardcore editing in the field and always transfer the files to my main system anyway. The Air running iWork and Lightroom is, in my book, the perfect travel device for shooters on the go because it really gives you everything you need and doesn't lack much of what we want. If it had a Firewire 800 port for faster CF card file uploading, then that would be cool, but I'm a practical guy. I also have the Super Drive which is convenient for loading software and burning discs when necessary. You can certainly get more power for your money in a portable package, but if you want something sexy or are just looking to go as fully capable and as light as possible the Air is simply the only option in my book.

Again, all of this is opinion. Take it as such and enjoy.

- R

BTS Look at the 2010 Faulkner Football Poster Shoot

2010-09-16T13:47:00.000-05:00

Here is a behind the scenes look at the development of the 2010 Faulkner University football poster. The end result is shown below and the video beneath that shows the photographic process and the compiling of the final product. I hope to have a video showing my work for the 2010 football media guide cover soon, so stay tuned.

Here is the youtube video showing the behind the scenes work...

Enjoy

- R

Nikon introduces a new flash and a host of lenses

2010-09-16T13:38:00.001-05:00

Nikon has had two lens releases since my last gear review post and that's both a good and bad thing. It's bad because that means I'm behind on my posts. But it's good considering that usually such releases are only twice a year at best. So, without further delay, here is a quick look at the new flash and lens releases from Nikon.

Nikon SB-700: Think of this puppy as the SB-900's mini-me. It brings in the focusing power, the improved LED display, better build, better head rotation, over-heating tracking, FX/DX auto tracking, filter identification and more are all incorporated in this new body. The unit is not as powerful, of course, as it's big brother, but that's to be expected. The BIG thing that I feel Nikon really overlooked or just deliberately left out is the PC-sync terminal. For $325-350 it really should feature the PC-sync input. This allows for the addition of wireless receivers to trigger the flashes remotely. You can add such receivers via hot shoe adapters, but that is an extra piece of equipment to have to keep up with. Pocketwizard has released new Mini and Flex units that can be placed on the camera and flash to bring that communication in, but at $200-220 each, that's a step you have to really consider taking.

One new feature that the SB-700 inherits from the SB-900 that the SB-600 does not have is the SU-4 mode. This setting allows the flash to use an optical slave to trigger when it sees another flash fire. This is very handy considering the lake of the sync slot, but it might not be suitable for all shooting circumstances and environments.

Bottom line, if you are in need of a flash unit and can get by without the PC-sync terminal, then this is the most well-rounded unit currently in the Nikon lineup. The SB-600 is not quite as feature laden, but it comes in at more than $100 less. The big brother, the SB-900, has more power and features, but will run you $100 more. Flashes have never been, nor will they ever be, inexpensive and at $330 online, it's a good compromise overall.

Updated AF-S 200mm f/2 VR II N: This a beautiful lens that every wedding, event and sports photographer wants in his/her bag. This is one of the best optics on the planet. It provides superb bokeh, rapid AF, excellent VR control and razor sharp results. This is an update to the previous version. This rendition gets the nano crystal coating (N) and the new VR II system (versus VR). At $6,000 though, you might want to rethink things. The current, and equally excellent copy, retails online for $4,800 for the USA copy and $4,000 for the gray market version. The newer one likely has somewhat noticeably better results, but depending you your line of work, they might not be a few thousands dollars better.

NEW Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.4 N: Finally after years of waiting Nikon decided to bring AF-S to one of the best lenses in its lineup. The current AF 85mm f/1.4 is superb, but it focuses slow even on the best bodies and does so with a bit of a grunt. The new nano crystal coating should help with overall image quality and the AF-S feature will allow it to be used in even more environments - like sports. The current AF version runs about $1,250 online and the new N coating and AF-S will bump the price $450 to $1,700. If you don't have this optic and you shoot portraits, weddings, etc. you should definitely consider it. It is my favorite Nikon lens of all time. For me, the ability to use it in the athletic world as well as the portrait world does at the moment justify the extra funds. But this is my take on things. I'm considering selling my AF for the AF-S, but we'll see.

New Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.4 N: Another huge finally.Why? Because there are a handful of 35mm options from Nikon, but none that quite hit the sweet spot. The current 35mm f/1.4 was non-af, making it virtually useless by today's standards. The AF 35mm f/2 was slow and load and despite a lot of great reviews was one of the worst lenses I ever used. I wound up sending mine back to B&H. The newer 35mm is the AF-S f/1.8, but it came in the DX flavor, rendering it pointless for FX sensors. For the money the 1.8 is an excellent optic and should be on every DX Nikon out there, but full frame shooters were stuck with no AF or slow AF with crapy results. Now we have something to consider. But consider it we must. At $1,800 it's the same as the 14-24mm f/2.8 N, a hefty amount more than the 50mm f/1.4 N (of course it's noticeably wider) which rings it at around $475 and is more expensive than the 24-70mm f/2.8 N. These optics are not all in the same category, but depending on what you need, you can see the overall cost. The Canon equivalent is only $1350, but it's a bit older. I'd love to have this lens, but only the 24mm f/1.4 at $2,200 scares me more for versatility for the price.

NEW Nikon AF-S 24-120mm f/4 N VR: Another lens that finally brings competition to the Canon equivalent. This lens offers a relatively wide to moderate telephoto option with a respectable constant aperture of f/4. The VR feature will help control vibration and the fact that it can be used on an FX camera is a big plus and the N coating will improve image results. However, if you can handle an f/3.5-5.6 variation the current version is a lot less expensive at $570 online. The new one rings in at $1,300, but should provide far better results. The reviews that I read on the current version were not so hot, but for $1,300, the older one at sub $600 might be a better option. This one might be more of a shelf-sitter than other new releases.

NEW Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR: This, to me, is a far more exciting introduction than the 24-120. Why? It's faster on the wide end - and is practically as wide - 100mm longer on the long end - and only a stop slower - has VR, is FX ready and is nearly $300 less than the 24-120! This is considered the 18-200mm lens for FX users. Nikon's popular 18-200mm has been an awesome "do all" lens for DX users, but FX bodies have had no such friend...until now. The 28-300 is a very good general "do all" focal range and the variable aperture is more than sufficient for most situations. It has a zoom lock switch so it does not creep open when held downward and is an all round nice little package. At $1,050 it's not for everyone, but considering that it could quite possibly be the only lens necessary for travel and adventure photographers, it's a steal in my book.

If I were going to be doing an international trip, entering a variety of shooting situations, packing an FX body and a few flashes, I would have to strongly consider weather I needed all the extra gear I would normally haul along. My current widest lens is 24mm and my longest without telephoto converter is 200mm. This trumps that and it's ONE lens. If I decided that I really would not need, or could, without penalty, forego apertures of 2.8 or faster, I would take ONLY this lens. If I had to pack something else, it would be my ultra light, inexpensive and fast 50 f/1.8. And I would ONLY use it for depth of field work and extreme low light shooting. My perfect - low weight, low cost travel/mission work/adventure/gone for the day/do it all setup for FX would be: D700 body, SB-800/900, 50 1.8, 28-300, a small transmitter and receiver - DONE. I love my MB-D10 grip and battery, but if I pretty much know I'm not going to be shooting a ton of action, I'd leave it (for pack space and weight) at home. If I had extra room, I'd toss in a clamp and another flash. When you own heavy, fast, expensive glass, you get used to the versatility and results, but many times, that much gear is simply not practical. When I went to Ukraine a few years ago to work with orphans, I decided that my point and shoot option from my previous visit was far too limiting considering that photography is my job and hobby. So, I took my backup body - then a D40 - a 55-200 VR lens, three Nikon flashes, two small light stands, a few collapsible umbrellas and a transmitter and my receivers. I was able to shoot a variety of things and only had the one lens! I set up some small "portrait" shoots outside with the lighting gear and the results were pretty good considering all of my limitations.

Today, I might consider the new Coolpix P7000 for it's quality, size and weight, but for double that price, I could get this excellent lens to pair with my D700.

I'm considering adding this to my kit for future travel use. I think it's a great solution.

NEW Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR DX: This will apply to cropped DX sensors only and is a new "kit type" alternative to the popular 55-200mm VR. When most people pick up a kit purchase it usually features the 18-55mm and if it has a second lens, it's the 55-200mm VR. They are both great lenses for general shooting and the new 55-300mm offering simply sweetens the deal further. The new 55-300 offers the same aperture values as the 55-200, but with 100mm more focal length potential. The lens is also a nice alternative to the excellent 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR. At $80 less than the 70-300 it's wider on the back end and definitely worth a look. At $170ish more than the 55-200 it's a bit of a leap, but it offers more focal length in a very similar package size. The 70-300 still has the advantage of working on FX bodies. Overall I think it's a great new choice for the D300s model and down.

Again, all of these points are my own personal ones and in no way reflect what each unique shooter/buyer will think, want or get. I simply post my ideas to help in your decision to expand or replace your gear.

- R

Nikon releases the D7000

2010-09-16T11:54:00.000-05:00

It's been a while since my last post on gear even though Nikon has coughed up a ton of new stuff, predominantly new lens, which is a good thing. They have introduced new entry level items as well as glass that the avid pro has been pining for for some time. If you don't believe me, look at my previous posts and you'll see that a lot of things I, and pros across the board, have been wanting and, in fact, genuinely needing for years. This post will focus on the new D7000 and I will follow up with a look at the new flash and lenses. Again, any recommendations, likes or dislikes are simply that - my opinions given my understanding of the equipment, cost and usability. So, here we go.

Enter the D7000:

So, what is it? Well, it's been dubbed the successor to the D90, which in all fairness, it sort of is. Expect the D90 to dwindle out by the first of the year or a little after. It might hang around longer, but when you compare the list pros and cons and create your bang-for-buck scenario, I think the vast majority of shooters that are looking at this price point will side with the D7000. Now, the D90 might get a new life if the price continues to drop, but I'm not sure Nikon will continue to output that model once this one is readily available.

Now for the real kicker that many are probably NOT considering. Is the D7000 a D300s killer? We'll take a look at the features and see. Now, I'm obviously not going to talk about all of them, but there are certainly some things to hit on. After each topic I will keep a running "point" total as I see it.

1. Build: It's got a new magnesium alloy frame. This puts it on par with the D300s and a big step up from the D90. This improves body integrity and can contribute to better weather sealing. D7000: 1 D90: 0 D300s 1

2. Sensor: The D7000 gets a bump up to 16MP from 12MP. This is not, of course, the end all, be all of image quality, but it does help. The user should see sharper images with more detail overall with everything being equal between the bodies. This could effect low light shooting results, but only tests will confirm this. I highly doubt that this sensor will suffer more than the current generations when it comes to low light work. Nikon is leading the industry in this area as far as I'm concerned. You still get the cropped DX sensor, but what did you expect? D7000: 2 D90: 0 D300s 1

3. ISO: Another point for the D7000. The D90 and D300s are base 200-3200 with expansion up to 6400. The D7000 knocks that out of the park with a base of 100-6400 with expansion to a ridiculous 25,600. Not as high as the D3s, but more than enough for even non-practical purposes. D7000: 3 D90: 0 D300s 1

4. Movie Mode: This might not even appeal to a lot of shooters, but it's definitely something that would-be indie film makers will love and, honestly, it does expand the creative arena for the photographer. So many photographers are moving into film because of the lower cost of gear - because they already own it! The D90 revolutionized the DSLR world when it became the first body that produced HD video. Then everyone followed. Now the D7000 breaks into a new realm - autofocus in video mode. This is a HUGE step forward because it allows you to use follow focus if you want, but does not make it necessary. It also shoots full resolution 1080 HD at 24 fps. So, even though the D90 does have video, the D7000 blows it away and the point will only go to the new body. D7000: 4 D90: 0 D300s 1

5. AF Sensor: Luckily all three of these cameras will focus even non-AFS lenses. It remains to be seen if the D7000 will be a significant leap in AF speed, but the sensor is a bump from the D90 where it gets 39 points with 9 cross type areas versus the 11 and 1 of the D90. It still isn't on par with the fabulous 51 area/15 cross type of the D300s (and D3 bodies), but it's excellent at this level of camera. But, because we are doing a side by side look, the D300s will get the point. D7000: 4 D90: 0 D300s 2

6. Metering Sensor: The D7000 will win here too as it features a new 2016 pixel sensor versus the 1005 of the D300s and the 403 from the D90. What does this mean? Theoretically it makes the camera more efficient at ganging light levels for proper exposure, white balance, focus tracking and iTTL output. D7000: 5 D90: 0 D300s 2

7. Viewfinder: The D7000, like the D300s gives you 100% coverage at .94x magnification. The D90 gave you 96%. It's a tie with the D300s. D7000: 6 D90: 0 D300s 3

8. Shooting Speed: This might be where the pack gets separated in a major feature for some. The D90 could only output 4.5 fps on a good day. This is not bad for family shooting, but when you compare the D7000 to the D300s and higher, this number will become a factor. The D7000 outputs a maximum 6 fps which is very respectable, but no match for the excellent 8 fps max that the D300s is capable of - although it does require the MB-D10 grip and more battery power. So, if you're a sports shooter looking for either a new rig or a backup, you should consider the lack of frame rate in your purchase. Again, for non-sports shooters, this might not be an issue. D7000: 5 D90: 0 D300s 3

9. Storage: The D7000 keeps the SD slot for its storage type, but does provide a second slot to either provide roll over storage or separated storage or say RAW and JPEG when shot simultaneously. I prefer the Compact Flash option on the D300s, but I think for this class of camera, the SD is a more common storage format and since it accommodates the SDXC cards and there is double the internal capacity, the D7000 gets the point. D7000: 6 D90: 0 D300s 3

10. $: This is tougher to do side by side, because you have to take value into consideration here. For a hands down winner, the D90 finally gets a point coming in at $780 for the body only (as of this post). I expect that price to drop even more as it exits the stage, so if you are a new shooter in the DSLR field or just want a superb backup, grab the D90 or wait for it to drop a little. I see it absolutely bottoming out at $699 new, but I'm not a marketing expert. The D300s has been around for quite a while and is in need of an update, but not more so than the excellent D700. The D300s will cost you about $1,480 new body only. It's at the top of the list and considering that it's only real advantages over the new D7000 are AF points, 2 more fps and a possible preference for the CF card, it seems unlikely that most shoppers will throw out the extra $300. The D7000 also offers some newer metering sensors, the new processing engine and the excellent movie mode. I think the deal breaker here would really just be the shooting speed. The D7000 comes it at a respectable $1,200 and in my opinion is the bang for buck champ of the group. The point for dollar amount goes to the D9o, but the value point goes to the D7000. D7000: 6 D90: 1 D300s 3

11. Value: See point 10. for info. D7000: 7 D90: 1 D300s 3

At the end of the day, camera dimensions and weight are totally subjective, so are not included in the review. I actually prefer a meatier camera so I like the D3s/x bodies, but I shoot with a heavier (when fully loaded) D700. There are also other features that can be talked about, but I think they impact the shooter/buyer less than those points listed above.

If you're a full-frame shooter, just keep waiting for the D700 update or other major D3 advancement. If you're an entry level shooter consider the D3100 or D5000. If you are looking at the middle of the pack consider the D90 for it's excellent price if the features of the D7000 are not necessary for you. If you need speed, still go with the D300s if the D3s is out of your price point. If you want the most for the best value, I'd strongly consider the D7000. Wait for some image and performance reviews from other great sites, but at the end of the day it offers a TON of features that are sure to justify the $1,200 price tag.

- R

Volleyball Poster Shoot '09

2010-08-17T11:59:00.000-05:00

Here is another shoot from last year. This is a behind the scenes look at the shoot I did for the volleyball poster last year. More to come...

Volleyball Media Guide Cover Shoot '09

2010-08-17T11:40:00.001-05:00

This is going back in time a bit, but I came across some semi behind the scenes footage and thought I'd post it. I will be adding some other videos soon...

Thoughts on next generation iPad

2010-06-28T16:37:00.000-05:00

With the iPhone 4 ushering in so many new features, it seems safe to say that the iPad II will inherit many of it's little brother's features.

Here is what I'm betting on:

Retina Display - it's far too sharp with text to NOT put it in the second gen iPad

Front Facing Camera - this will likely be in there because supposedly there is room for it and all iPads are WiFi compatible - the avenue used by FaceTime.

More RAM - I believe the iPad has 256 MB of RAM while the iPhone 4 has 512 MB.

Faster Chip - duh, newer units are always faster, but maybe not by a lot.

SD Card Slot - this might be pushing it, but it'd be cool to see an SD slot on an iPad. It would make for faster image uploading and you could use it for extra storage.

Possible Redesign - we MIGHT see a redesign based on the iPhone 4. Maybe not a glass back, but I wouldn't put it passed them. If not, it may look similar, but with an aluminum back.

No Camera or HD video - it is really nonsensical to add this feature to such a big product. Forward facing camera is likely as mentioned. If there IS one on the back it will be fore FaceTime purposes and likely lower resolution.

I think we could see this as soon as January, but it could be further out and late in 2011. Apple seems to want to make it's products uniform. Just look at the Macbook Pro line. 13-17" are identical except for size. Same with iMacs and even the new Mac Mini has taken on the design characteristics of the iMac. The only odd ball in the group is the regular MacBook. I wont be surprised if this one goes away eventually to make room for a pad between the iPad and the Macbook pro? Why? Because for like $200 more than the Macbook, the lowest end Macbook Pro is way more than $200 worth the hardware in my opinion.

We'll see. It's always fun to see that they're gonna do.

- R

No worm for the early birds

2010-06-23T16:06:00.000-05:00

An interesting twist is occurring in the iPhone 4 launch debacle. It seems that early players in the pre-order game are actually being penalized for their efforts. Many of the pre-order customers who's orders were postponed or processed late in the day are actually getting their precious packages ahead of schedule, while many of the early birds, as it were, are not expecting delivery until at least launch day.

The fact that the orders - for the most part - seem to be scheduled for on-time delivery is a good thing. However, many of those who had conducted the pre-order at the beginning of the day are actually getting their units after the late bloomers.

There has been some variation in delivery times between those who waited at Apple direct stores and those who ventured to AT&T retailers, but other issues are occurring between orders sent form the same location.

For example, I was one of the first four people in the door at the local AT&T store here in Montgomery. No, I'm not a crazed fan - well, yes I am, but I was not rushing to the store to beat every other iPhone patron nor was even there to pre-order, but rather to determine when the online server failure would be resolved. I then discovered that they would be taking pre-orders in-store. Lucky me.

There were four of us there when the doors opened and all of us were greeted by AT&T reps - no lines, at that point. Within 3o minutes the system errors became clear. Within an hour and a half they were unable to process orders and within two hours they were turning people away. The whole thing went from bad to worse in less time that it takes to play a World Cup match, and considering that this is the FOURTH time the phone has been upgraded, you'd think that this wouldn't have happened - but I digress.

Anyway, a few people that I know got their phone pre-orders in well after mine and as it turns out, their devices are getting in sooner. My pre-order was completed at 9:45 a.m. One friend's was completed at 2 p.m. and the other at 6 p.m. How are they arriving? The 6 p.m. order arrived today - a day early - just after lunch. The 2 p.m. order was delivered at 3 p.m. today - again a day early. And mine? The early bird pre-order? It should be here tomorrow. Launch day, yes, but really? The first in line get their's later? My shipping information was "not found" in the FedEx database - like thousands of others. It only updated this morning around 8 a.m. Ironically, it was the first in the system. I guess the guys at Apple started boxing and labeling devices and created a big pile, then, started shipping from the top of that pile. Makes sense...to someone, somewhere, I guess.

At the end of the day, does it matter? No. It just sucks that those who did get their early wound up not getting the priority. I know if I were the first to a restaurant I'd expect to get seated before those who came after me with the same party number. In the end we'll all get to eat, but it's just common courtesy I suppose. I'm a little irked at the situation to say the least, but as I like to say, "I'll live."

- R

AT&T not "changing everything". Again.

2010-06-15T14:48:00.000-05:00

If spotty cell coverage and the inability to tether haven't been reason enough for Apple to consider expanding its wireless carrier relations, today's problematic start to the most anticipated wireless device launch in history surely should be.

In an effort to circumvent customers' problems with getting iPhones in the past - I suppose - Apple decided to offer pre-ordering for the first time ever - that I recall. The iPhone launched in much the same way as the iPod. It was new, and cool and everyone probably wanted one, but not everyone jumped on board - at first. Now the iPod is so popular that it, in fact, is the default name for the entire MP3 player line. Even if you are sporting a Roxio or, dare I say, Zune, everyone asks, "Hey, what are you listening to on your iPod?"

The iPhone went through similar paces with the second generation, the 3G, bringing in a larger crowd and with the 3Gs the iPhone became one of the most popular mobile devices on the planet. The unit, in conjunction with the iTunes, the iTunes Store and the hundreds of thousands of Apps has created a family of usability unmatched by any other manufacturer - period. Sorry Droid. But all of this is separate from the carrier end. Yes, Cingular jumped on board with the Rocker - which was actually terrible aside from the fact that it did iTunes - and visual voicemail and they do provide good data speed compared to some other vendors, but they monopoly on iPhone rights has taken a toll on customers. Something that Apple has had to start answering for more recently.

It becomes harder and harder for Apple to separate itself from AT&T when it comes to coverage problems because even though the two are really mutually exclusive with regard to what they handle in the unit, Apple has been getting some flack for not allowing other carriers, like Verizon for example, have a shot at it. Yes, Verizon's data is not strong, but with a nod from Apple, that would likely be fixed and quickly. But, until the multi-carrier day arrives, AT&T has exclusive rights to do what they want and lately it seems like they want to screw it up.

When the 3Gs launched it was a big enough deal that it spawned record lines of people waiting to either upgrade or obtain the device for the first time. Even here in podunk Montgomery, Alabama, one store saw more than an hundred people in line on launch day. The store only had about 40 phones, but wouldn't tell anyone in the back of the line not to waste their time. What did those toward the rear get after hours of waiting? "Sorry, we're out and there's no rain-checks."

Another problem that's slightly more understandable, but still super frustrating was the early days of activation. I remember being without cell service for more than 10 hours cause the network was clogged. Now, it's a new problem - and it's not even activation time.

As of this post I am - as far as I'm aware - one of only about five or so individuals in Montgomery that actually as a receipt confirming a reserved iPhone 4. Why? Because the AT&T servers can't handle the load. Everything goes smoothly online (or did) until you actually want to pick your phone and then the system crashes and tells you to call an 800 number to upgrade to anything BUT the iPhone 4. The AT&T servers have also screwed up the Apple pre-order deal as well because they are having to tap in to the AT&T system to verify that the customer is either qualified via credit approval or eligible for a product upgrade.

So, I did what any rational person would do. I went to a an AT&T retail store. I went to the source. After 45 minutes in line, I got my receipt. Apparently the main glitch is coming from the address verification component for product delivery. No matter what gets entered, it cannot verify the address and won't complete the order. I wanted mine sent to my office so someone would be there to sign for it. When that wouldn't take the AT&T rep tried the retail store. It too failed. Then she entered my home address. Fail. She just kept trying until finally it accepted the order and printed a receipt. So, as of now, I am a verified pre-owner of the iPhone 4. I have no idea where the phone is going to ship to, but I'll know like two days before it's supposed to arrive when I get an email. Nifty.

Another cool thing that would be awesome for the clerks to know is if someone has to be home to sign for the package and which carrier will bring it. Everything I've ordered from Apple in the past has come FedEx, but we'll see. Since FedEx can deliver from like 7 to 7, it can come any time. If someone has to be at home to sign for it and if everyone is at work trying to make money to pay for it and FedEx wont leave it on the door step, then there is another major problem with the system. FedEx might have thousands of people in line waiting to get their undeliverable iPhones! All because the AT&T reps - at least here - have no idea who is bringing them or how, and they can't get an address in the system anyway.

A work associate of mine was in line right behind me and he called me an hour after I left and said they were turning people away because they couldn't push any orders through. He was told that the manager would personally call him once it was sorted out and as of five hours later - still no word. Since the location I was at opened an hour before the other lone AT&T retailer in the city and since he was right behind me in line, it might be safe to assume that only the first of us who got to a rep first got into the system.

So, Apple offers a pre-order process nine or so days before the actual launch to help streamline the process and ensure supply demands are better met, but AT&T wasn't ready. I'm not sure how this could be the case. Did the IT department take a vacation? Did they fail to see the product reveal? Apple has sold an iPad every THREE SECONDS since it launched and it DIDN'T have a three-year history of loyal owners and 90% of the new owners STILL aren't sure exactly what it's for and AT&T didn't prepare for the iPhone 4?! It makes no sense. This is where AT&T is extremely lucky to be the ONLY provider with the most popular device in the world. Because there are really no repercussions. Big deal if people have to keep coming back and get pissed off - they can't shop elsewhere.

I have an idea. If I am the CEO of the exclusive US carrier of the most popular handset in history and I know that the most significant upgrade to the device is coming since the second generation (really) and they are offering customers advanced purchasing - I'm going to dedicate a server farm to the task and my IT team is going to be getting lots of overtime quadruple checking that the address field works! Yes, I realize that there is an extreme demand on the system, but this is 2010 and we're talking about one of the largest telecommunications companies on the globe. This is stupid.

Luckily, they have nine days to sort it out and hopefully people wont get left out in the rain because they got bumped down a list and there weren't enough phones to go around. Then after nine days of waiting, maybe we'll all be in for a treat when the millions of people got preordered units all try to activate them within a few hours of each other. If the servers and system can't handle an address field, what happens when all those people got to turn on their phones?

The 3Gs activation was seamless - at least here - so there is hope. But it was first come first served and the system was more controlled. You didn't have millions of people all WITH units trying to activate at the same time. This should be fun. For FedEx's sake they can get them all delivered on time...

We'll just have to wait and see...

The hot and cold in Nikon's latest lenses

2010-02-09T20:20:00.000-06:00

My first response? I'm psyched! Finally, Nikon 1.) introduces a world's first and 2.) revisits the professional days of yore. My second response is, well, we'll get to that in a moment.

First up to the plate is the AF-S 16-35mm f/4 G VR; the world's first ultra wide professional zoom with Vibration Reduction. Like all new Nikon lenses this one also receives the N emblem for Nano Crystal coating and inherits Nikon's newest lens styling with a magnesium body and undoubtedly solid, tight construction. The constant aperture of f/4 gives you moderate speed - especially for a lens in this price range. And since we've hit that topic, the lens will be available this month with a $1,260 price tag. Ouch.

The main issue I have with this lens is it's price. It is approximately $600 cheaper than the excellent 14-24mm f/2.8 which, at first glance, looks to be a chunk change - around 33% savings. But when you break down the specs, you really have to ask some tough questions. What are you getting for the extra $600 with the 14-24mm? First, you're getting a wider wide. Second, you're getting an even flow to the next major lens in the Nikon lineup - the 24-70mm f/2.8. There is no overflow from 24-35mm. Not that that's a big deal, but you're technically purchasing more on the long end, which you don't need, if you own the medium tele. You're also gaining a stop of light with the higher end lens.

Now, what does the new baby brother offer that its older sibling does not besides price? First, it offers VR. Many may consider this overkill for a wide angle, but it's a nice feature for sure. Another nice feature is that it will take a filter - even if just for protection purposes - and it's a standard 77mm pro size to boot. The 14-24's bulging front element prevents it from accepting a filter, let alone a normal snap-in lens cap.

Now let's look quickly at how it stacks up against it's closest rival, the Canon 17-40mm f/4L. The Nikon offers a little more on the wide end, but the Canon makes up for it on the long end. Both lenses have quick and quiet AF thanks to Nikon's AF-S and Canon's USM technology. Both lenses offer a constant aperture of f/4 and build wise, both are in the pro end of the lineup. The VR does give the Nikon the technology advantage, but the Canon is much lighter on the pocketbook at under $800. At the end of the day the Nikon might be more technologically advanced and perhaps even sharper, but for nearly $500 more, it is really might not be such a great comparison.

This lens is going to appeal to the prosumer and professional Nikon shooter who simply doesn't need the speed of the 14-24mm. This will likely be a many photojournalists and travel photographers and landscape lovers. For sports shooters, wedding and event photographers and those who work in other low light areas, the 14-24mm will be in tow.

To sum up this lens, I think it will be insanely popular - for those who can afford it -because of what it is: a well-built, wide, pro caliber lens with VR. However, for many shooters in the market for a wide, pro caliber lens fitting this description, the 14-24mm may still win when it comes down to it. Personally, I'd rather cough up the extra coin for the speed of the 14-24mm. There are simply too many times where f/4 wont cut it for me and in the $1200+ range, I want all I can get. I'll sacrifice the filter and VR. But that's just one shooter's opinion. My advice would be, if you don't see yourself in one of the lesser expensive lenses and you're not switching to Canon, think long and hard about your investment to ensure you're getting the most for your money.

Now onto something that's less revolutionary and more evolutionary; the new AF-S 24mm f/1.4G. This is a lens that a lot of Nikon shooters have been waiting for since the 28mm f/1.4 vanished a while back. A super fast, wide angle lens that is quiet and sharp is just what many a pro has been awaiting in the Nikon lineup.

When this baby showed up on the announcement sites last night around 10 p.m. CST you could almost hear the applause of Nikon shooters worldwide.

Up until yesterday, Nikon's fast and wide AF lens selection was rather sparse. Ok, let's face it, aside from the 35mm f/1.8 - which is limited to the DX camera line - it was really non-existant. The new 50mm f/1.4G doesn't qualify as a wide angle and everything else is older than virtually every camera that anyone is really shooting today. None of them were AF-S and all of them were limited to f/2.8 with the exception of the 35mm f/2D. I tried that lens and must have had a bad sample because it's really the worst Nikkor lens I've ever used. It focused dreadfully slow compared to my other lenses and was terribly softness.

Enter the state-of-the-art 24mm f/1.4. It's reportedly razor sharp, quick, quiet and obviously fast. So, what's not to love? The price tag. At $2200 it's a financial beast. It's only $300 less than Nikon's superb new 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II. Bottom line, you've got to know you need it before you put it on the credit card. The shooters who are going to get this know exactly who they are, and perhaps surprisingly to many, that might not be a small crowd. I've read other reports of people suggesting that this lens would pair nicely with the likes of a D40-60. But, just because it will focus on such a camera by no means entitles it to be there. If someone is rocking a $2200 lens on a $400 camera I'll be more than surprised.

The Canon version comes in at around $1800, so prices are again elevated in the Nikon camp, but it is a newer lens and the gap is a little less significant. Nikon has nothing else like it.

So, if you want and need it and have the cash, don't hesitate, get it. It'll be that good. If you're like me, love it all you want, but don't start making room in your camera bag just yet. I'm going to have to weight the cost against the images it will provide me and when all is said and done, I'm probably better off going for the more versatile 14-24mm and saving $300.

Both are great releases and appeal to specific markets. I'm (and the rest of the Nikon world) waiting for the AF-S 85mm f/1.4 VR and I wouldn't mind seeing an AF-S 135mm f/2 VR either. Rumors also suggest an AF-S 35mm f/1.4 as well. The first is a pro staple and the second is a lovely option that many of us would love to see hit the shelves. If they do decide to offer a pro grade high speed 35mm, that too will be news for Nikon. They have promised a surprising release year for 2010, so we'll see.

Until next time, be safe and happy shooting.

- R

Thoughts on the new Apple iPad

2010-02-03T00:30:00.001-06:00

I'm psyched about the new Apple iPad and the upcoming iBook Store. The reason I'm not completely bent out of shape about the new device centers on the fact that it does what it is supposed to do and that's it.

"It doesn't multitask!" So what? About the only thing I would likely really want to multitask would be iTunes and maybe something like Pages or Keynote. The big thing is a lot of Apps, especially the games, now allow you to pull your audio over and run it in the App. Problem solved. Seriously, if I wanted to do major multitasking on the fly I'd pack a laptop.

Remember, this thing is not going to run major third party Apps like Photoshop or Office. So having several things open at once is not a major concern for most users. At work I often have Final Cut Pro, LiveType, iTunes, Safari, Photoshop and Indesign all running in different Spaces simultaneously. But that's on an 8-core system with 16GB of Ram and a heck of a graphics engine. When I want to do major manipulation to photos, video or even extensive work with something like Keynote, it's going to happen on the desktop.

The main things that I would see myself using it for are as follows: Sharing my portfolio. Apple pushes the idea of sharing your vacation and family albums from iPhoto with friends and family on the run. It also works nicely as a digital photo frame when charging on the optional dock. But what Apple failed to hit on is the possibilities this device offers working graphics, photography and video professionals. It just might be the best portable device for sharing your work with potential clients.

It's a sleek and sophisticated device and perfect for the mobile professional. I'd use it to display wedding portfolio images, slideshows, marketing graphics and even film to clients and potential partners. I often meet clients in a relaxed atmosphere like a coffee shop. Pulling this small, light and highly capable device out of a portable sleeve would make the presentation both beautiful and unique. Tons of multimedia professionals are going to pocket (almost literally) these things as tools of their trade.

It is obviously going to be an excellent iTunes video playback device for road trips. For someone who travels often to cover sporting events throughout the southeast and internationally to work with orphans and communities in need, this could prove an ideal travel companion.Checking email, surfing the web, sharing photos and using Apps can all be done with supposedly excellent battery life in a light weight and small profile tablet. The optional photographic accessors which include an SD card reader and USB connection hub should prove valuable to photographers of every style. Ideally either Apple or a third party should create a Compact Flash device since all professional cameras use these media cards. I don't see pros using it as a proofing system for immediate image feedback, but it would be a useful tool on the go as long as it is used within the limits of the devices storage capabilities. For travel and vacation work it should be an exceptionally good tool. If Apple ever rebuilds a full or scaled down version of iPhoto for the device like they did for the iWork suite that would just up the ante for such purposes.

Using the apparently incredible calendar, contacts and notes applications. Without personal experience with these apps it's tough to say exactly how good they can be, but everything points to a far better experience than even the iPhone can deliver. For someone who has to keep up with the schedules of ten athletics teams, my personal work assignments, social activities and my freelance photography and videography work, the calendar application would prove invaluable. I'm also a fan of the Notes app on the iPhone and using it on a larger display could also prove helpful.

The Pages, Numbers and Keynote applications will appeal to a lot of people. For me, Pages would be a definite yes with Keynote coming in a close second. I don't do a lot with Keynote in my line of work, but for $10, you never know. I do use it for teaching photography class and I use it as a large preview/remote device for those presentations. Pages would prove a great productivity application for writing articles on the fly, logging field notes and keeping a travel journal.

And finally, iBooks. This could be cool. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of reading on the Kindle or the Sony Reader. I really like the technology, especially in bright light, but they did such a good job of making the displays look like pages, that, well, it's just like a page. Maybe I'm an odd duck, but I really like reading articles on my iPhone even though the screen is small. It's backlit and easy to read in the dark. And, oddly enough, it's easier on my eyes than the previously mentioned devices. So, regardless of your screen type preference, the interface on the iPad is exceptional. Not only can you change the font size and the font, the interactivity of the book and pages is just play cool and natural. With books being able to embed not only photos, but videos, it brings new life to a once stagnant medium. Now, how could they make this better. Well, if I were smart enough to design my own App that could add usability to the iBooks application, I would add highlighting and the ability to embed notes. The major reason why I have not left the paper book world for the digital counterpart ,even though I love the Green appeal, is because I highlight text and write notes in the margins. If Apple or someone were to add these two features to iBooks then I'd be far more likely to buy the titles of interest in the iBook Store. The features seem rather easy to implement. Just have an opaque color option in the menu bar that you can apply with the touch of a finger. You could simply use the same feature that Apple uses to Copy on the iPhone. Simply tap and hold and then drag the bars where you want them to start and stop and then fill it with the desired color. Adding a note could be simple too. Adding a toggle or pin that when tapped would expand into a note window for making notations about the text, responses or ideas would further enhance the usability of iBooks. It would also likely help promote the addition of college and professional text books to the iBook Store. The last thing, and perhaps the main thing that users are most potential buyers are likely curious about is what titles will be available. When the iTunes store first launched it was difficult to get older tracks and many new releases. That has been improved greatly over the years. With the popularity of iTunes it is likely that publishers will catch on and fast. We will see in the coming months just how many titles - other than major best sellers which will undoubtedly be available - will make their way into the iBook Store.

My final thoughts? I will probably get one. I will, for a time, use it in place of a laptop since I have plenty of power on my desk. Personal use always reveals the strengths and weaknesses that we either didn't know existed or under or overestimated in our preliminary thoughts about the item. Only time will tell, but I'm looking forward to getting one and putting it through the paces. If I had to predict now, it will likely be one of my favorite devices for both productivity and entertainment. The only question now is to 3G or not to 3G. For complete versatility and resale value (just in case) the 3G build is the way to go. But the extra $130 plus the monthly data plan does leave room to question this. But, hey, we have 60-90 days to ponder it. Until we all get our hands on one, we can only wait and hope that it's as well executed as we've been led to believe.

Apple Magic Mouse review

2009-12-03T10:36:00.000-06:00

After waiting over a week for the Apple Magic Mouse to arrive, I finally received it over the weekend and had the opportunity to start working with it a few days ago. And in that time I've concluded that for the non-gamer it just might be the best mouse ever designed.

What makes the Magic Mouse so much better than its predecessor, the Mighty Mouse, is, well, everything.

In the previous rendition Apple added sensitivity to the click "buttons" and eliminated the actual need for an independent button for each side of the mouse.

That same philosophy carries over to the Magic Mouse with the entire device being really a single clicking button. The sensitive technology is still built in and though there are a few little hiccups that do carry over from its Mighty brother, the device overall is much better built and with a significantly more redefined sensitivity system.

Let's talk about the little issues that do carry over from the first generation all white mouse. For starters, as I've mentioned, there is only a single clicking surface. The mouse uses touch sensitivity to identify the intended task, e.g. the left or right click function. The one drawback of this - if it can be defined as such - is that for right-handed users you must raise your index finger in order to right click with your middle finger. If you don't the unit cannot distinguish your command and if anything will usually default to the standard left button click.

The mouse is ambidextrous programmable and because of its symmetrical design it is identical in use for both the left and right and, just tell the program (under system preferences) your desired orientation.

The mouse loses the twin side click surfaces found on the previous mouse. My opinion on that is - Thanks! They always activated undesirable features of the OS because I would accidentally grab them while working on a project or surfing the web. I finally deactivated those controls in the preferences menu. If you liked that feature, more power to you, but if you want the Magic you have to sacrifice that feature of the Mighty.

Though the most notable feature of the new mouse is the touch sensitivity, which I will discuss in a moment, one of the best features that I think new users will notice is the improved bottom design. The bottom is now almost entirely aluminum and smaller. The on off switch is very simple and the green light gives a clear indication of the connection - or lack there of. All of these nice design features out of the way however, and you'll notice what I think is one of the best features of this mouse - the sled base.

The previous base glided, and sometimes stuck, on a glossy plastic ring that ran the circumference of the mouse base. This would easily get covered in dirt and grime and you'd have to scrape it of with you nail or other hard instrument. Even then it never really "glided" to me.

The magic mouse rests on a pair of sled-like skis. These provide much smoother motion in my opinion and are better suited for extended use.

I have not idea if Apple redesigned the optical guide or not, but it seem more accurate and responsive.

Finally, we come to the touch sensitivity feature and the best feature not on the Magic mouse at all. The most improved feature of the mouse is without question the track ball. The previous version did let you do 360 degree navigation, but the ball would easily become dirty over time and it was virtually impossible to clean because Apple didn't make it user cleanable. I had both a wired and Blutooth version of the Mighty Mouse and both of them ran into this problem. One of them - the wired version - finally quit scrolling up all together.

The Magic Mouse eliminates this problem by incorporating Apple's touch technology to the mouse surface. Just like an iPhone or iPod Touch or the newer track pads on the MacBooks, the surface can respond to finger gestures. The sensitivity works effortlessly and is superb in both internet browsing and visual applications like iPhoto and Photoshop.

You will likely use it most often for scrolling up and down internet pages and for browsing through photos (left and right flicks), but you can also navigate around a large page or photo by simply directing your finger along the top of the surface. In addition, you can two finger flick to progress forward and back through pages in a single navigation window (i.e. you can two finger flick from right to left to view the previous page instead of clicking the "Back" button). You can also use the two finger gesture in other applications, but I find it really unnecessary at this time. Also, depending on your finger dexterity, you might actually find this task slightly complicated. Unlike a laptop track pad that stays still, allowing you to raise and lower your hand as a whole, you have to hold the mouse while doing it. I typically control the mouse with my thumb and little finger with my ring finger resting. When I try to two-finger flick, it is not exactly comfortable and the results can be interesting - depending on use - if you're not great at it like me.

So, if your a hand gymnast then you'll love this feature, but the two-finger flick is not my favorite part of the mouse and I rarely use it. Overall though, the scroll functionality is awesome, though sensitive and can cause unwanted moving in Photoshop at full screen or on the web.

In summary, the Magic Mouse is a more than worthy upgrade from the often problematic Mighty Mouse. The setup and functionality are very easy and the touch interface is incredibly useful and leave no more worry about dirt getting in the guide toggle. If you prefer more of an organic design with a higher rise to rest your palm or are a gamer who wants lots of buttons or a massive track ball, then look elsewhere. If you want a simple, elegant and well designed mouse that is likely to be maintanance free then the Apple Magic Mouse just might be for you.

Wacom Intuos4 review

2009-12-02T21:50:00.001-06:00

I have been using a Wacom Intuos3 medium size graphics tablet for several years now. I have long been a fan of the benefits that the tablet provides, namely the pen/paper ergonomics for a more natural editing approach that a mouse, or worse, a track pad simply cannot duplicate.

The new Intuos4 offers more sensitivity, an elegant charcoal gray finish, illuminated task button indicators, a navigation wheel and convenient ambidextrous layout, an improved pen holder with multiple tips housed within and a thinner overall footprint.

The most notable improvement is the button layout and indicator lights. Previously, you had to remember which button did what and there were only four really. There where eight total, but only four could be used by the free hand on the appropriate side of the tablet while the other hand did the pen work. The new model offers eight buttons all on the same side of the device and the blue lit LEDs to the right of each button tell you what that button is designated for - a very helpful feature. The illumination can be adjusted to four different levels of brightness ranging from off to fully bright - also a great feature.

Images are from Wacom. Click on any image to go to the Wacom website.

The other thing missing from the previous generation is the touch sensitive slide groove that zoomed in and out of images and up and down pages and the like. It has been replaced by a rotary dial with a center select wheel. This not only zooms in and out of images, but also acts as a jog dial when accessing extended options with some of the other button sets. For example, in Photoshop CS4, when you select the first of the four jog indicator lights (there are four), the scroll wheel zooms in and out of the image. When you select the last jog dial indicator light, the scroll wheel rotates the image. The wheel is touch sensitive and does not actually move. The wheel also scrolls up and down on web pages. Each of the settings is fully customizable as is the touch sensitivity and speed.

I use the default settings, but the buttons are customizable to a wide variety of settings. The default are a question mark which gives you a heads up display on the computer monitor of the button configurations. The second button down brings up a virtual navigation menu on the monitor that features options for "command," "www", "media" and "e-mail". These will give you quick access to some of the most used sources on your computer. The latter three are pretty straight forward, but the Command feature might not be. It basically gives you quick access to features like save, cut, paste, undo, etc. Personally I don't use this button. I prefer keyboard shortcuts, well, on the keyboard.

The next button down is "Precision Mode" followed by "Display Toggle". The former, when activated, makes for more precise and less figity movements on-screen. This can help tremendously when drawing or outlining in a graphics program as it slows down the pointer for more control. This function only works while holding down the button and is not designed for prolonged use - it would tremendously slow down your work flow.

The later is a toggle that can be used when using multiple displays. This is hugely beneficial. If you have ever worked with multiple displays you know that the Wacom mapping stretches both screens by default. So, if you are working on a large display for example and want to move over to a palate on another screen, you could drag all the way back and forth. This can cause problems because you effectively change the range of motion when you spread the mapping over two monitors. The Toggle button can jump your mapping between screens and eliminates this problem. working on one display and want to access tools on another, just hit the button and the mapping jumps over to the other monitor. Press it again to jump back. The previous version might have offered something a little similar, but I never used it and it certainly was not this simple.

Below the wheel is another set of four function buttons that default to your most used options: shift, option, command (Apple) and move (hand). I leave my tablet to the default setting (but increased the brightness of the LEDs all the way up) and I have no problems with the standard setup. If you are used to the previous version the button layout will take a little getting used to, but will be better - I think you'll find - in the long run.

Other differences are in the actual sensitivity area. The surface is more of a matte finish and less smooth and glossy than the previous version - which I really liked. It might take some getting used to and I'd recommend trying all of the different pen tips to figure out which is best for you. I found that the standard black tip works best for me. You get on in the pen itself and five replacements. It also comes with three gray tips, one spring-loaded white tip and a slightly rubberized tip. They fit conveniently in the base of the pen holder so they wont get lost and the tip removal tool is there as well.

The pen is excellent and is over an inch shorter than the previous pen. The grip is not as slick as the version 3 pen and provides a more secure fit. The pen is fully customizable as well when it comes to the buttons and the grip cover. The Intuos4 also comes with a variety of ring colors that can be added to the tip area of the pen. This not only gives a color splash, but if you purchase additional pens and keep each supplied with a different tip, then you could color code which pen is which. Just a thought.

The unit also includes a mouse, but I never use it. It functions much like a normal mouse on the Wacom surface. I prefer just using the pen for everything or using my Apple Magic Mouse. I put mine back in the box.

Moving back to the tablet, there are a few other features that many users will really like. For one, the USB cord is REMOVABLE! On the Intuos three, you could not do this and had to wrap the cord around the tablet when you wanted to transport it. The new version is completely separate and you plug it in when you need it. Another great feature is the ability to choose your USB connection port. The tablet has two separate USB outlets that are selected by sliding a trap door up or down to reveal the appropriate port. This is excellent since right and left-handed users can now have the SAME tablet set up. For example, right-handed users will place the buttons and scroll wheel to the left and select the upper right USB port and choose the right-handed option in the system preferences menu. For left-handed users it's the opposite. The buttons are to the right and switching the trap door now allows the USB cord to be at the top on the left side of the unit. Selecting left-handed use from the preferences menu will tell the tablet to flip the LED icons properly.

Overall this is an exceptional tablet and superior in every way to the Intuos3. Does that make the previous version obsolete? Absolutely not. But it does make jumping to the newer version more worth the investment. At $350-400 for the medium size unit, the Wacom tablets are by no means cheap, but if you've never used one and do any type of photographic retouching or graphics work, you'll quickly wonder how you every worked without one. If you have an aging Intuos3 and are considering the upgrade, it is, in my opinion very much worth the cost. If you have no issues with your current unit and don't need the increase sensitivity or the increase button layout, then stick with what you have.

Conclusion: This is a wonderful accessory that is simply a must-have for professional photographers and graphic designers. It's feature set is the most complete of any tablet I've ever worked with and there are no drawbacks to mention save the slight difference in surface texture - which you get used to. The medium version is the perfect size for most users and the unit quickly pays for itself through precise selections and time saved. I wholeheartedly recommend the Wacom Intuos4 series graphics tablet.