The Great Compromise : Canon EOS 60D

The new Canon 60D, pictured with a battery grip.

Since the arrival of the Canon EOS 7D and subsequent release of the T2i / 550D there has been a gap in the Canon lineup. Buying the 50D no longer seemed practical to many advanced amateurs, since it was so outclassed by the features of the T2i, but the price of the 7D put it just beyond the range of what many were willing to spend (and the weight and size beyond what they were willing to tote around). Yet, the advanced amateur still yearned for more features and ease of control, and frankly, more status than is offered by the entry level “Rebel” line.

The Canon EOS 60D, announced about a week ago, is clearly intended to fill this gap. Probably available in September, its expected price of $1099 falls nicely between the Rebel T2i ($799) and the 7D ($1535). Its features, also, are largely intermediate between the two cameras that were already very similar. The controls are similar, but not identical, to the 7D, while the construction is much more in line with the T2i than the 7D (or the 50D, for that matter).

Lets take a quick look at the differences, side-by-side:

	Canon 60D	Canon 7D	Canon Rebel T2i (550D)
Price	$1099	$1599	$799
Body Material	Polycarbonate & Stainless Steel	Magnesium Alloy	Polycarbonate resin & fiberglass with Stainless Steel
LCD Monitor Size	Articulated, 3.0", 1,040,000 pixels, 3:2 aspect ratio	3.0" 920,000 pixels, 4:3 aspect ratio	3.0" 1,040,000 pixels
Sensor	18 Megapixel CMOS	18 Megapixel CMOS	18 Megapixel CMOS
Crop Factor	1.6	1.6	1.6
Sensitivity (ISO Range)	100-6400 +12800	100-6400 +12800	100-6400 +12800
Metering System	63 Zone (point linked) Evaluative 6.5% Partial Metering 2.8% Spot	63 Zone (point linked) Evaluative 9.4% Center Weighted 2.3% Spot	63 Zone (point linked) Evaluative 9% Center Weighted 4% Spot
Focusing Points	9 cross-type points	19-point dual diagonal cross-type	9 Points, 1 cross-type at center
AF Working Range	-.05 EV to 18 EV	-.05 EV to 18 EV	-.05 EV to 18 EV
Still Photo Frame Rate	5.3 frames per second	8 frames per second	3.7 frames per second
Maximum Burst Duration	58 jpg 16 RAW	94 jpg 15 RAW	37 jpg 6 RAW
Exposure Compensation	1/2 or 1/3 stops via thumb-wheel	1/2 or 1/3 stops via thumb-wheel	1/2 or 1/3 stops via dedicated button + dial
Shutter Speeds	30 - 1/8000th sec.	30 - 1/8000th sec.	30 - 1/4000th sec.
Standard Flash Sync Speed	1/250th sec.	1/250th sec.	1/200th sec.
Highest Video Resolution	1080p	1080p	1080p
Max Video Frame Rates	30 fps at 1080p 60 fps at 720p	30 fps at 1080p 60 fps at 720p	30 fps at 1080p 60 fps at 720p
Media Type	SD / SDHC / SDXC	Compact Flash	SD / SDHC / SDXC
Weight	755g	820g	530g
Viewfinder Coverage	96% Frame, .95x magnification	100% 1.0x magnification	95% Frame .87x magnification

Probably the most important change between the 60D and the previous models in its line is that it does NOT have a metal body. Instead, Canon opted for a lighter, less expensive polycarbonate body which, although lighter than the magnesium 7D, still feels quite sturdy.

And perhaps just as significant, Canon has designed the 60D with a fully articulated, 3″ LCD screen for use in “Live” viewing mode and for video… the first ever on an SLR. Since I never use “Live” mode, and rarely use video, it’s hard for me to get excited about this feature, but perhaps for some photographers out there, it’s just what they’ve been waiting for.

The Deciding Factors

All three cameras share the same basic CMOS sensor, providing very similar resolution and high-ISO performance. All three cameras share the same video capabilities. So which should you get?

Buy the Canon 7D ($1535) if :

1. You are a professional or use your camera daily. It is the most robust of the three, with a magnesium alloy body that will stand up to the wear and tear of daily use. This is especially important if you’re a journalist and your camera equipment suffers undue abuse.
2. If you are primarily an action or sports photographer. The dual digic-4 processors of the 7D make it the fastest, and its 19 cross-type point focusing system is the most reliable in difficult situations.
3. Because the 7D has two Digic-4 processors, it is likely to be able to handle high definition video files better than single processor models, though I’d be surprised if there’ll be much of a practical difference.

Buy the Canon 60D ($1099) if:

1. You want the 7D but can’t afford it. The differences are minimal, and a good photographer can easily work around them.
2. You shoot a lot of video and the articulated LCD would be helpful to you.
3. If you’re upgrading from the Rebel line and would like to keep using your SD cards.
4. You shoot a lot of action. The 9 cross-type focusing points are a major improvement over the previous cameras in this series (40D, 50D, etc) and the Rebel series, and will help tremendously when focusing on action or in low contrast situations.
5. You’re looking for a lighter alternative to the 7D.

Buy the Canon Rebel T2i / 550D ($799) if:

1. You’re on a tight budget but still want an awesome 18 megapixel sensor, full features, and 1080p video.
2. If you’re looking for a lightweight camera for travel and will be able to treat it with a bit of care, or a backup for your usual camera.
3. If you primarily shoot portraits or products rather than action, or shoot landscapes/art.

Sunset reflections in a Cannon Beach tide pool, Oregon Coast.

A tugboat crossing Puget Sound on the ferry ride to Port Townsend

I started this trip on a Tuesday, and then again on a Wednesday, due to an early equipment failure… I’ll probably be replacing my dead old Nikon with a Canon, though I’m still deciding which model will best fit the gap. In any case, I drove up to Whidbey Island across Deception Pass, and down to the Keystone Ferry. The crossing to Port Townsend was beautiful: sunny and warm, but with enough clouds in the sky to keep things interesting.

From Port Townsend, I continued along Highway 101, past Lake Crescent and through the forests and Forks, WA (now full of Twilight-related tourist kitsch) and made it to Ruby Beach a few hours before sunset. I had been hoping for some pretty evening light on the sea-stacks there, but about 10 miles from the coast I drove into a bank of low clouds which hung over the area for the rest of the day.  Sometimes low clouds and mist can be interesting too, so I grabbed my tripod and headed down to the beach anyway, but found that the light was so flat that it seemed to such the color out of everything.

A cloudy day at Ruby Beach on the WA coast.

My first thought was simply to start shooting for black and white, and I took a couple of shots that I thought might look good in monochrome, but then I started to search for elements of color that I could highlight against the grey backdrop. A purple starfish seemed like a good place to start, but it’s location didn’t lend itself to a very strong composition with the equipment I was carrying. Then I noticed what appeared to be orange lichen, probably an algae, on some of the nearby rocks, and did what I could with it. As I headed back towards the trail to the beach, I saw that there were several other photographers standing around with tripods, looking disappointed at the light. I waved to a couple of them and headed out to a nearby campsite.

In the morning, I started trekking around the DNR land south of the Olympic National Forest, but didn’t find any particular location that grabbed me. Around noon, I decided to head into the Hoh Rainforest, and started to take a short hike along the main river trail. I bumped into a photographer heading the opposite direction on the trail and recognized him from the previous evening at Ruby Beach, and stopped to chat for a moment. He recommended that I hike to a waterfall about 3 miles up the trail, which was where I was already headed. It was an unusually dry and sunny day in the rainforest. As a result, the colors weren’t as saturated as they would have been after a little rain, and the bright sunlight caused big areas of blown-out highlights in contrast to the darker areas in the shadows of the rainforst canopy… which made exposure tricky. I started bracketing for HDR.

The waterfall itself was typical for the area. It was surrounded by bright green moss and ferns, which is pretty enough if you haven’t spent much time around them… but it reminded me very much of what I found in the woods where I grew up to the East, on the Seattle side of the Puget Sound. I took the standard shots, but was a bit disappointed and decided I’d much rather move on to something a little different. As I drove out of the park, the light of the low sun started to create dramatic lighting in the forests along the road, and I found myself stopping more and more frequently to capture the warm light on a stand of aspens along the river, or highlighting the moss dripping from the forest evergreens.

I spent the night at another nearby campground, and decided in the morning that I’d enjoy a drive down the coast through Oregon. I had intended to reach the Oregon Sand Dunes recreation area at some point during the trip, and it seemed like a good time to head that direction. I took my time driving down the coast, stopping frequently to look at the scenery and poke around. Passed through the wonderfully named town of Humptulips. The drive along Willapa Bay was gorgeous, and I stopped to take numerous photos, but the harshness of the afternoon sun didn’t do me any favors. I thought for a while about stopping and finding a place to stay so that I could wait for the right light, but in the end, I decided to move on. I’ll have to go back, one of these days, and spend a couple of days in the area.

Around 8pm, I found myself passing out of Seaside, OR and into Cannon Beach. It was a beautiful evening, and I thought that I’d just go sit on the beach for a while and relax. I grabbed my camera and tripod as an afterthought, and wandered out onto the beach. As usual, the sunset was beautiful over the ocean, and Haystack Rock is always an interesting element. In this case, though, what really made the difference in the photos was the moon… just a little sliver of a waxing crescent. Unfortunately, I had only brought one lens and a tripod, but no cable release and some of my shots were blurred as a result of camera movement. Still, I was happy with what I did manage to get.

That night, I stayed at a campground down the coast, and drove in the morning to Florence so that I could start exploring the sand dunes. I’d visited the dunes a couple of times previously, and I’d always meant to return and spend some more time. This time, though, the weather didn’t cooperate. It drizzled throughout the day, and the sky was overcast. Good photos of patterns in the dunes really require the strong contrast of direct morning or evening light, so I decided to explore some of the surrounding area. The dune grasses along the coast attracted my attention, with their wind-blown patterns, but they generally worked better in black and white with the flat light.  That evening (Saturday), I spent in a cheap motel in Florence and had the worst night’s sleep of the trip (for all of the reasons you’d expect from a cheap motel)… but I was at least able to charge all of my equipment and use reliable internet service.

[The account of this photo expedition will be continued in a future post.]

The new Nikkor 85mm f1.4 G is expected to be a perfect portrait lens.

Yesterday, Nikon announced the upcoming release of four new Nikkor lenses (available in September), two or three of which are aimed primarily at amateur photographers. However, nestled in among the bunch is a lens that will have broad appear to portrait and wedding photographers: the Nikkor AF-S 85mm f/1.4G . As we all know, the range from 80 to 105mm is classic for portrait work. With today’s Nikon APS-C sensors, the 85mm becomes a 127mm, which is still very close to that range, making this lens suitable for photographers working with full frame or crop sensors.

But what’s so great about this lens in particular? At f1.4, it will give you an extra 2/3rds of an f-stop of extra light over the f1.8 model. Not really a big deal, especially considering the performance of today’s VR lenses (which provide a full 4 stops in many circumstances) and CMOS sensors at high ISOs. No… what today’s photographers are interested in is the shallow depth of field and bokeh (ie, blurred quality of the out-of-focus portion of the image). The lens features 9 rounded aperture blades to keep the background bokeh buttery smooth.

“But wait!” you say. “Doesn’t Nikon already offer an 85mm f1.4 lens with 9 rounded aperture blades?”

Yes, it does indeed. The Nikkor AF 85mm f1.4D has been in production for quite a while. So what does the new lens offer?

• Improved image quality beyond the center of the image. The earlier lens performed very nicely in the center, but the quality quickly fell off quickly at apertures below f2.8. At f1.4 (which is what you’re paying for), the edge resolution was quite poor for a prime lens. Nikon boasts that the new lens has consistent center to edge performance.
• Special Coatings to improve color, contrast, and resolution. SIC and nano-crystal coatings are in use.
• A silent-wave motor makes this lens compatible with all modern Nikon AF cameras, whereas the earlier lens had no integrated motor and relied on the camera body.
• Finally, it offers Manual-Focus priority Auto-focus (in addition to manual focus). This means that you can focus the lens manually while in AF mode to make fine adjustments, without damaging and gears or motors.

With the impressive  image quality of recent Nikon optics, I look forward to seeing how this lens really performs in the field. The only major drawback I see at the moment is the price tag, an estimated $1699 on the street. Currently, the Nikon 85mm f1.8D is quite inexpensive ($433), has much better optical performance than the older f1.4D, and still displays gorgeous bokeh.

The Sigma Counterpart: 85mm f1.4 DG

In comparison, the new Sigma 85mm f1.4 (also expected in September 2010) will cost a mere $899, but shares many of the features of the new Nikon: the latest design and lens coatings, a silent motor, and internal focusing. It remains to be seen how the two will compare optically, but $800 is a considerable difference to overcome. Needless to say, the Sigma will also be available for Canon (and other mounts), where it will have to compete against Canon’s 85mm f1.8 and f1.2L .

Three IPS Panel Monitors: a Viewsonic, an HP DreamColor, and an Eizo with hood and colorimeter.

Is the monitor really that important?

The quick answer: YES, absolutely.

IF YOU CAN’T SEE THE COLOR AND TONAL DIFFERENCES on your monitor, then you can’t make good post-processing decisions and adjustments to your digital negatives. It’s that simple. You can’t adjust your curves to give your print smooth tonal transitions or to distinguish subtle shadow detail if you can’t see those transitions and details to begin with.  In order to make optimal adjustments to your digital negatives, you must be able to see as much of your color gamut as possible and the color must be accurate and reliable.

Monitor Technology : IPS vs. TN

This ASUS is a typical desktop monitor. About $200 for a 24" screen, but it will not have the color response needed for photo editing.

TN stands for Twisted Nematic, which is by far the most popular and wide-spread screen technology. If you have a standard or even higher-end “gaming” LCD monitor for your PC, this is what you have (the same is not true for some Macs). TN screens initially gained popularity because of their low energy consumption, but also because of their quick response time, which is important in reducing ghosting and producing smooth motion for gaming and video. Most TN monitors these days advertise response times of 2-6ms , though they are not always measured in the same way, so comparison is difficult. They are also very bright and are being made with increasingly high resolution, so they appeal to most average consumers. They’re also the cheapest monitors on the market.

More importantly for photographers, though, is that TN monitors use 6-bit color technology, and therefore can’t display the full 24-bit color range (16.7 million colors) that video cards can produce (and that the monitor manufacturers usually claim they can produce). Instead, they attempt to simulate the full range of colors by interpolation of other colors, which they do with limited success. Many TN monitors (non-LED) display less than 30% of the NTSC color gamut, and the color that they do display is only accurate when viewed head-on, so the appearance of color shifts when viewed from and angle is dramatic, and problematic around the edges in any circumstances. Improvements are continually being made in TN technology, but they have a long way to go.

Eizo makes some of the best editing monitors available, using IPS and PVA technology.

IPS panel monitors, on the other hand, have a different set of advantages and disadvantages. IPS stands for In-Plane Switching, although modern IPS panels actually make use of a variety of improved technologies, such as S-IPS,  H-IPS,  AS-IPS, and E-IPS. Engineering details aside, the main advantages to IPS panels is that they are truly 8-bit technology (or 10-bit), with many IPS monitors producing 125% or more of the number of colors in the NTSC gamut. Second, the colors do not shift when viewed from different angles; most remain accurate well past 170 degrees. But of course, there are disadvantages as well, though they are also improving. Initially, the IPS technology was much slower than TN, with response rates of 20-50ms. This made it unusable for video and gaming. S-IPS and a variety of “turbo” technologies have now improved that rate, and 14ms and faster speeds are common, making them very suitable for video, though still somewhat less desirable for gaming.

IPS monitors have been much more expensive as well, though the gap is beginning to narrow.  Even a year ago, the most common IPS monitors (Mac Cinema Displays) cost three times as much as similarly sized TN screens, but now 23″ IPS monitors can be found for as little as $300. Professional graphic arts monitors using IPS and other less common technologies still cost thousands of dollars, though.

S-PVA is another excellent but less common technology. Like IPS, S-PVA panels use at least 8-bit technology, have very good gamut coverage, and colors do not shift when viewed off angle.

Which Monitor Should I Get?

The answer, of course, depends on your budget. You can spend anywhere from $300 to $3000 or more.  In this case, however, it is a safe bet that even the cheapest options will be dramatically better than what you’re currently using (if you’re using a standard TN desktop workstation screen).

The ViewSonic is a great entry level editing monitor, at only $300 for a 23" IPS screen.

On the low end of the price spectrum, Viewsonic has recently begun producing 23″ and 26″ IPS wide-screen monitors that are very competitively priced. The 23″ model (VP2365wb) runs about $299, while the 26″ model (VP2655wb) is about $942. Each maintain consistent color even when viewed from a 178 degree angle. The 23″ model was designated a “best buy” in one of the PC magazines this month due to its great performance and reasonable price, and the larger screen is even better if you can afford it. They don’t provide specific gamut details, but I’ve never seen bad numbers for an IPS monitor, and those who have switched (even from Macs) have been very happy with them.

In about the same price range, the NEC EA231WMi is another good option that uses an eIPS panel. It covers 96% of the sRGB color space, and is well built. Street Price is about $340.

Only a little more expensive is the HP ZR24w, a 24″ display that costs around $399. Reports are that once it is calibrated, it has extremely accurate color… even more accurate than monitors that cost twice as much.

If you can afford to spend a bit more money, the options open up tremendously, and the potential for enhanced performance also increases.

An fine monitor at any price, the Dell U2410 sells for only $540.

The new DELL U2410 is an an impressive monitor for the price. At only $540, it provides 100% sRGB coverage and 96% of AdobeRGB, with 12-bit internal processing… not to mention built in card readers, USB ports, etc.  Early production models of this monitor had some dithering problems that have since been corrected with updated firmware, so they should not be a problem. Because this is a true extended-gamut monitor, operating systems prior to Windows 7 (that don’t manage your color) will make this monitor difficult to use.

A popular option. Slightly less expensive when NOT purchased directly from Apple.

Another very popular option is the Apple 24″ Cinema Display. Apple Cinema Displays have been  standard workhorses of the graphic art trade for years, and they’re one of the reasons that Macs have kept such a strong hold on the industry. They’re more expensive than some similarly performing models (around $880 for a 24″), but have a reputation for quality. Some people have reported problems with reflections on the glossy screen surface.

If high performance is more important to you than sticking to a tight budget, there are a few monitors that fit the bill.

The HP DreamColor LP2480zx is probably the nicest monitor that I’ve ever had the opportunity to use. It is a 10-bit monitor, covering a full 100% of the AdobeRGB color space. The difference between this monitor and the Apple Cinema Display that I’m more familiar with is clear from the first moment that I used it; I could actually see more in photos than I had previously realized was there. This does come at a price, though… about $1850.

Similarly, the Eizo ColorEdge CG241W (and related monitors such as the CG243W, etc.) is a stellar performer. If you’d like to read a full comparison between an older Eizo monitor and an Apple Cinema Display, let me direct your attention to the Luminous Landscape article that first drew my attention to Eizo monitors, here: The Eizo ColorEdge CG301W vs. The Apple 30″ Cinemadisplay. Again, the performance comes at a cost… especially if you opt for the 30 inch versions of these monitors, but even at 24″, the cost is substantial at $1900.

There are, of course, numerous other excellent monitors out there. In fact, I haven’t even mentioned the offerings from major companies like Samsung (though I left them out on purpose) and LaCie. I’ve listed some additional monitors in the table below, but I hope that everyone reading this will add their experience and input as well. I hope that this helps!

[Since there are more monitors than I can reasonably test myself, I've listed monitors with which I've had personal experience, for which I've heard good recommendations from reliable sources, or about which I've read multiple convincingly good reviews. If your favorite monitor has been left out, feel free to email me or reply to this thread with relevant info. -JMG]

Additional Necessities

If you’re going to spend the money to get a good quality display, you’ll also need a color calibration system for it. In fact, this is true no matter what monitor you’re using… but it would be especially wasteful not to calibrate a high quality display. These can be quite inexpensive, and there are a variety of choices. Most high-end monitors are bundled with a colorimeter already. The Spyder models range in price from about $85 to a couple hundred, as do the models from X-rite, like the ColorMunki ($500) and Eye-One LT ($150).

It also makes sense to create color profiles for your camera using something like an X-Rite Color checker. It can dramatically improve the color accuracy of your photos, and is quite simple (see the videos here).

Additionally, you should keep in mind that some of these monitors use 10-bit or higher technology, and require specific graphics cards, and in some cases, the DisplayPort connector must be used rather than the standard digital output or HDMI. If you expect to use 10-bit or higher display technology, check with the monitor manufacturer to see what graphics cards are supported.

Cascade Rain, Mountain Loop Highway

I was a little restless after dinner last evening, having had to delay a long photography trip because of a few different projects that have come up. I could see that the clouds were still dark and heavy over the mountain to the east, but to the west, the sky was clearing, which is a recipe for dramatic evening light. The only question was where to go. Since it was already nearly 7pm, and I knew that sunset would be around 9, my options were limited. I decided to make the drive past Granite Falls and up the Mountain Loop Highway to see what I could find along the way.

As I approached the Verlot Ranger Station, and the trailheads for Mt. Pilchuck, Lake 22, and Heather Lake, it was already clear that I’d made a bit of a mistake. I was in the shadow of the mountain, and would therefore miss the light… and the clouds were still heavy. So I kept moving, heading up towards the Big Four and Ice Caves. Then, it started raining. Rain can be very peaceful, though, especially if you can keep your camera out of it. The rain was light enough that I could stop under large trees and remain completely dry, but the mist defined very pretty layers of trees and rocky crags. I set up my tripod and took a few shots, and then decided to get out of the weather.

At that point, it was already almost 8:30, and there were no signs of the sun breaking through, so I decided to head back to lower elevations. About 5 miles back, the sky was already lighter, and after a couple more miles, the road was dry. It hadn’t been raining. And then, I saw the first rays of golden light burst under the clouds in the west. I looked for a place to pull my car over, grabbed my camera, and slid down the bank of the river onto a big snag of trees and branches in the river. In the time that it took me to get from my car to the edge of the river, the sun had disappeared from most of the nearby treetops, and I knew that  I only had another minute or two of good light. I stopped where I was and set up the tripod, and started shooting.

The semi-floating logs turned out not to be the most stable platform, and unfortunately, the sunlit highlights of my first few photos were blown out. In the few seconds that it took to correct the exposure, I had already missed the best shots, but I kept working for a few more minutes, and came up with a couple of pretty, if less dramatic shots.  But now that I know the spot, all I have to do is watch for the right conditions and head back with a little bit of time to make preparations, and probably, I’ll use auto-bracketing next time.

Ansel Adams' "The Negative"

My Favorite Photography Books

Let me begin this post by acknowledging the fact that it’s absurd to try to pick the 10 best photography books. There are thousands of great books out there, from a variety of different fields of photography, and it would be equally hard to pick the ten best books in any sub-field (like fashion photography, landscape photography, photojournalism, etc).

Instead, take this as 1) a list of books that have been influential to my photography or that I’ve found especially intriguing recently, and 2) an invitation to tell me what books would make your top ten list that are not already covered here. Maybe I’ll add them to the list, and make this a best 100 or 200 or…

My thought on photography books is this: If buying a $30 book can help me get the kind of results that I expect from my $5000 camera, then it would be a waste of money NOT to buy the book. There is nothing that gets me motivated and inspired like a good photography book.

1. The Camera, The Negative & The Print, by Ansel Adams

Yes, my first list item is actually 3 books. Adams, though, is undoubtedly one of the true masters of black and white photography, and this set of three books contain an unmatched wealth of information about large format film photography. Anyone who loves photography really should read these books, and of course, the photos are stunning.

As a sophomore in high school, I saw an Ansel Adams/Edward Weston exhibition at a large gallery at the University of Washington, and it completely changed my perception of what good black and white photography is. I eventually tracked down these three books at a local library, and my photography has never been the same (though I still have a long, long way to go).

2. The Moment it Clicks, by Joe McNally

Joe is one of those photographers who has published photos in just about every reputable magazine that existed in the late 20th Century, and his work is consistently amazing. Not only does this book provide inspiration, it provides technical details and theory to go along with it. The author’s work is primarily location portraiture (in the traditional of staged-journalism), and I can’t think of anyone else who does this style of work as well.

If you’re interested in Off-Camera flash photography (ie, a Strobist), this book is a “must have”.

3. Skin: The Complete Guide to Digitally Lighting, Photographing, and Retouching Faces and Bodies, by Lee Varis

For portrait, fashion, and wedding photographers… well, you probably already have this book. This is the definitive work on the subject of skin tone and texture in modern photography. The book includes everything from camera and digital darkroom calibration to lighting information to Photoshop procedures and presets (and a lot more).

4. The Zone System for 35mm Photographers, by Carson Graves

For those of you who take the time to read and understand the Ansel Adams books mentioned previously, you’ll notice that they’re written with large format view cameras in mind, with sheets of film that can be individually processed, etc. The techniques can be difficult to translate to medium format and 35mm use.

While I was studying at the Ohio University School of Visual Communication, I ran across this book, written by an instructor there (Carson Graves) and featuring photos by some of my other instructors (Terry Eiler) … so I picked up a copy, and I’m glad that I did. This book has made a tremendous difference in my understanding of the Zone system, and how to apply it to 35mm work.

5. Scott Kelby’s 7-Point Sytsem for Adobe Photoshop, by Scott Kelby

There are dozens of Photoshop books out there, but this one grabbed me because it lays out a very nice efficient procedure (or at least, set of procedures) that reliably produce great results. It’s aimed at landscape and fine art photographers more than portrait/fashion shooters.  It’s a few years old, but it’s still pretty applicable to Photoshop CS5.

Scott Kelby, of course, is the founder of KelbyTraining and is the editor in chief of Photoshop magazine and head of the NAPP (National Association of Photoshop Professionals).

6. Mountain Light by Galen Rowell

I grew up in the Rocky Mountains of Montana, the Cascades and Olympics of Washington, and the Alps of Austria. I’ve always had a fascination with the rugged forms and dramatic light found in mountains, and a great respect for the amount of work that it sometimes requires to work in there. I was lucky to find Rowell’s book at my local library while I was in high school, and am still amazed by the images that he was able to capture (in color) before HDR was a possibility and before photos were regularly “enhanced” during digital processing.

I believe that this book is now out of print, but he has several more recent books that are equally worth tracking down, if not more so.

7. Utah by David Muench

When I was 16 years old and an exchange student in Austria, my host family had a copy of this book on their coffee table. I already considered myself a photographer, but I spent hours and hours poring over the pages of this book, amazed by the colors and patterns of the Utah landscape, and how masterfully they were captured by Muench. This was one of the books that taught me how important quality of light is to making a striking photograph, and how beautiful simple curves and forms can be when seen in the proper light.

8. Hot Shoe Diaries, by Joe McNally

This is another necessity for the Strobist. Joe McNally is a master of small flash photography (and large flash for that matter), and the instruction and inspiration that he provides in this book is well worth the modest price.

9. Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson

This is a classic, and rightly so. There are very few authors who can explain the technical details of exposure with such clarity as Bryan, AND create photographs that are beautiful enough that you want to believe him.  If you’re a beginner (at least in the technical aspects of the game) and are looking for a solid foundation to build from, this is the place to start.

10. B&W: Black and White Magazine

Back in the 1990s, when I still had a wet darkroom and Kodak Technical Pan film was still manufactured, there were also numerous sources of inspiration and technique for those of us who love black & white photography. Now that digital has taken over, very few new photographers are working in black and white, and many of my old favorites (Camera & Darkroom) are gone.

B&W Magazine, though, is an oasis in a black and white desert. They regularly publish beautiful new black and white photography, while continuing to pay homage to great artists of the past. If you enjoy black and white as an art form, this magazine is a constant treat; do yourself a favor and subscribe.

Mac or PC? Actually, I don’t believe that it really makes much of a difference, as long as you know what you’re doing with what you have. But that’s not the point of this post. I just ran across a bit of information that struck me as interesting.

According to NetMarketShare, which seems to produce reliable numbers, MAC OS makes up a mere 5.26% of the total market share of operating systems, compared to 91.23% for Windows. That seemed a little bit low to me, so I checked the stats on a couple of websites that I’ve built, and I’ve found that MAC tends to represent about 8-10% of the visits on most of them.

This site, however, is different. This month, so far, 28.5% of the visitors are MAC users, and last month, a full 29.6%. OK, so it’s just confirmation of what we already know… photographers (and other visual artists) disproportionately prefer MAC, although the vast majority are still using PCs. Still, I didn’t expect there to be such a strong showing for Macs on a blog like this, so I thought I’d mention it.

And of course, this post gives everyone a good excuse to tell me how much they love their Mac, as Mac people are so zealous to do I learned Photoshop on Mac originally, but have used a PC most of the time for the past 10 years.

Which is the best Canon SLR for Video Use? How do they differ?

[For non-video related comparisons of these cameras, please see my previous articles : 5D Mark II vs. the 7D and the 7D vs the T2i.]

Currently, the Canon EOS 5D Mark II is unrivaled in the world of SLRs for professional quality video production.  For those of you who watch the FOX medical drama “HOUSE”, you may be interested to learn that the recent season finale (May 2010) was shot entirely with Canon 5D Mark IIs. The 5D’s closest competitors, though, are also Canon SLRs, and less expensive ones at that.  These are the Canon EOS 7D and the Canon T2i / 550D.  There are a few fundamental differences between these cameras and the 5D which may make them more attractive to some film makers, while others may be deterred. I’ll quickly discuss these differences below. As always, additional information and further questions  are welcome!

Depth of Field

The fundamental difference, of course, is the sensor size. The 5D carries a full-frame sensor, while the 7D and T2i use APS-C (ie, 1.6x crop) sensors. For video, however, this creates a completely different set of problems than it does for still photography. Image quality is NOT a significant difference, as 1080p HD video (1920 x 1080 pixels) is only 2 megapixels. In each of these cameras, only about 10% of the data that can be captured by the sensor will be used, so issues of lens resolution (discussed previously regarding the 7D and 50D), diffraction, etc, that plague the world of fine art photography are simply not field-relevant with video; video resolution is too low to reproduce these problems.

The main issue with video is depth of field. Since HD video resolution is so low, comparatively speaking,  most video cameras have very small sensors… many of them less than 1/4 the size of an APS-C sensor. The smaller the sensor, the greater the depth of field… so most consumer grade video cameras produce video in which the backgrounds are relatively sharp in comparison to the subjects, which looks very distinctive and, frankly, cheap. Professional grade video cameras use larger sensors and can use depth of field more creatively, but cost a small fortune. Or a large fortune, in many cases (hundreds of thousands of dollars).

Many professional grade video cameras, costing $100,000 or more, use small 2/3″ sensors. The Sony HDW-F900R CineAlta is a perfect example.

And this is where the Canon SLRs excel. They have large sensors with incredible lenses, and can produce depth of field effects (separation of subjects or subject/background) just as well as film cameras of the past and modern production video cameras. Even APS-C sized sensors (Canon’s are about 22.2 x 14.8mm ) in Cameras such as the 7D are much larger than most video camera sensors (the Red One is an exception, with a sensor about the size of an APS-C, and a camera setup can be had for only about $20,000).

Since the APS-C size sensors of the 7D and T2i are both about the same size as 35mm movie film frames (which are smaller than 35mm still photo frames), they produce a shallow depth of field that is very similar to film-based movie cameras. The 5D Mark II has an even larger sensor, and therefore has a significantly shallower depth of field, at least potentially. Regardless of the camera, the actual depth of field will still depend on the focal length of the lens (ie, 24mm lens vs. 200mm lens) and the aperture at which the lens is used.  Since all of the Canon cameras can be used with the full line of EF lenses, many of which utilize a maximum aperture of f1.4-2.8, there should be little difficulty in achieving very smooth, shallow depth of field, as long as it’s not too bright to use the wide apertures.  Shutter speeds higher than 1/250th of a second can produce a choppy looking effect because each individual frame loses motion blur and becomes too sharp.

Since movie film travels vertically (for typical formats), its widest dimension is actually about the same as the narrow dimension of a full frame still photograph.

Video Features

The three cameras in question are remarkably similar when it comes to video functionality. The following table highlights the many similarities and a few of the differences between the three models.

Firmware

One of the great things about using a camera that is controlled by software is that, in this digital age, it opens the door for the possibility of 3rd party improvements. When the Canon 5D Mark II was introduced, film makers were immediately enchanted by its potential in the industry, but the camera was missing several important features for serious video use. Consequently, a team of clever programmers/film makers got together and created a firm-ware upgrade for the 5D called “Magic Lantern”.

Magic Lantern isn’t a firmware replacement. It is, essentially, a sidecar; a piece of software that runs along side the 5D’s native firmware. Full details about Magic Lantern can be found on their website, but it is a FREE download and can be used by anyone willing to try it.

Currently, Magic Lantern offers the following features for the 5D Mark II:

• On-Screen Audio Meters
• Zebra Stripes
• Disables Audio AGC
• On-Screen Crop Marks for different aspect ratios

Magic Lantern for the 7D is under development, and is expected to be available soon. You can check the progress on the Magic Lantern 7D development website. Although it is technically possible, I have not yet seen any mention of devel0pment for the Rebel T2i / 550D. Since there are so many similarities between the 7D and 550D, it is quite possible that once the firmware for the former is released, it will be modified to work with the latter.

Conclusions

For the moment, the 5D Mark II is the clear winner for true production work, due in large part to Magic Lantern. However, the dedicated video controls of the 7D (and the price tag) make the 7D a very close runner up, and the development of new firmware may push it over the top. The T2i has the advantage of being even less expensive and produces identical video to the 7D, but may not have the firmware available for professional use any time in the near future.  Some people also prefer the fact that it uses SD cards instead of Compact Flash, as they tend to be less expensive and can be locked.

I’ll update this post as more information becomes available, and as I have time to absorb it. Please feel free to submit additional questions, comments, corrections and updates!

Which 70-200 Lens Should I Buy? A Quick Guide

Canon's 70-200 lenses, and a Sigma thrown in for good measure. Not to scale.

With the release of Canon’s latest offering, the EF 70-200 f2.8 USM IS II, Canon has at least 5 pro-quality lenses in the same focal length range. If you include the original EF 80-200 f2.8 from the 1990s (now discontinued, but still available used), the count is up to 6. And then there are the offerings from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, and the other third parties. Tokina’s lens in this range, now over 8 years old, has fallen out of favor, and I’ll leave it out of this comparison. Tamron’s offering is very impressive optically, but does not currently have image stabilization. Sigma has recently announced the addition of a new, image stabilized version of their very popular lens (and we can hope for some minor improvements to image quality that is already very good).

As expected, with the differences in features, the prices run the gamut, from a very reasonable $700 to a very hefty $2500. The chart below should cover many of the details.

The MTF 50 numbers provided are all from independent tests (photozone.de) on similar equipment. I’ve refrained from providing MTF data for the other lenses (which are not currently tested at photozone.de) because MTF numbers are notoriously poor comparatives when testing conditions are not identical. Keep in mind that in each case, higher numbers are better, and the somewhat arbitrary cutoff point between the attribution of “excellent” and “very good” is 1850.

For what it’s worth, tests on the latest Canon lens (the mark II) have produced very impressive results. In addition to the improved IS, the image quality is now remarkably high; so high, in fact, that DPreviews give it a “best in class”, as it outperforms even the latest comparable Nikon lens.

How to Decide?

Determinations on what to buy will most likely come down to three factors. The most important is probably subject matter, followed by output type, and finally, your budget!

All of these lenses are designed for use in low light situations, with either a large maximum aperture, image stabilization, or both. Additionally, all of these lenses are designed for full-frame sensor cameras (such as the Canon 5D MarkII) but will also work on APS-C sensor cameras (like the Canon 7D, T2i, 50D, etc). With the APS-C models, you’ll benefit from the sweet-spot effect and get the least vignetting and most consistent sharpness from center to edge.

You can choose a lens with a slightly smaller aperture (f4) but with IS :

• if you shoot in low light but photograph subjects that are not fast moving. An image stabilized f4 lens will give you the equivalent of 3 times more light (3 f-stops) in a situation for hand-holding, but since your shutter speeds will still be slower you won’t have action stopping power.  If an f2.8 lens were shooting at 1/250th of a second, an f4 would need to shoot at 1/125th. A non-IS 200mm lens should not be hand held below 1/250th sec, whereas an IS lens can safely be held at 1/30th in many cases.
• if you primarily shoot scenics, architecture, etc, or shoot tripod mounted. If you use a tripod, then the matter of image stabilization is moot, and the aperture is much less important.
• if you don’t shoot in low light. Canon’s f4 IS lens has amazing resolution and is relatively inexpensive, so unless you need the single extra f-stop, it’s a great choice.

You can buy a non-image stabilized lens :

• if you primarily shoot from a tripod or monopod, or need to stop action. Sports photographers and wildlife photographers will not benefit as much from image stabilization because they’re required to shoot at high shutter speeds to stop the action, which already reduces the need for IS. Although IS does help sometimes, it can also sometimes make small adjustments in composition slow or otherwise awkward, too.
• if you shoot with flash, or in bright light. If you shoot with flash but want to keep bright lights/windows etc in the background sharp, IS can be handy, though.

You should buy an f2.8 image stabilized lens :

• if you can afford it. They are the most expensive, but give you the most flexibility.
• if you frequently shoot in low light, especially with high ISO, and with relatively slow moving subjects. News and Wedding photography really require this type of flexibility, unless you’re a heavy flash user/strobist.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

What have your experiences been with these lenses? Although I’ve used most of them, I have not tested many of them thoroughly. I’d be interested to hear your stories and recommendations!

An evening cloud break, April 5th, 2010. Under-exposed by 1.5 stops to keep the snow from blowing out. Click on the photo for a larger size, it's worth it!

I am currently very lucky to be living in a house with an astounding view. Every now and then, I take a look out the front windows and find a view that is stunning, and I have to grab my camera and start taking pictures. Individually, these photos are not much more than that: snapshots from the front deck. Together, though, they show the volatility of the landscape in this area between the mountains, Lake Stevens, and the Puget Sound.

A rainy day in Lake Stevens

Rainbow over Lake Stevens

Rain and clouds highlighted by the evening sun, Lake Stevens, WA.

Much of the time, the mountains across the lake are completely obscured by clouds, but on rare occasions, wind will blow the clouds and haze away, leaving the mountains crisp and clear. But even when the sky is full of clouds, it can be breathtaking.

Sunset, more rain in Lake Stevens.