RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘Compared’

Flagships compared: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II versus Nikon D5

31 Jul

Flagships compared: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II versus Nikon D5

2016 is an Olympics year, and while Brazil may be scrambling to get everything ready, Canon and Nikon are fully prepared. Both manufacturers launched brand new flagship DSLRs this spring, just in time for the world’s sports and action photographers to learn how to use them ahead of the games, which start next month.

Having two major DSLRs launched into the same marketplace aimed at the same kind of photographers at the same time is a good opportunity to see how they compare. We’ve recently published full, detailed reviews of both the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II and Nikon D5, but in this article we’ll be highlighting the major differences between the two models.  

Dynamic range

The Canon EOS-1D X Mark II offers greater dynamic range at base ISO than the Nikon D5 – and than any previous Canon DSLR. Source: Bill Claff


On the face of it, the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II and Nikon D5 offer a very similar sensor specification. And at 20 and 21MP respectively, their output resolution is indeed almost identical, but there are differences.

Unusually, in the contest between Canon and Nikon, the EOS-1D X Mark II’s sensor has the wider dynamic range at base ISO, which represents a major step forward for Canon’s pro lineup. Although not a match for the best-in-class performance offered by Sony’s current full-frame sensors, the 1D X Mark II bests the D5 by around one stop. Oddly, in terms of dynamic range, the D5 has moved backwards compared to its predecessor, the D4S.

The practical upshot of this is that the EOS-1D X Mark II is much more suitable for the sort of ‘expose for the highlights and pull the shadows up later’ approach to photography that makes sense in tricky lighting conditions. With the D5, you have to chose. Expose for highlight detail and color and lose definition in midtones and shadows, or expose for midtones and say goodbye to the brighter areas. With the EOS-1D X Mark II, while not best-in-class, Raw files are much more flexible.

High ISO performance

Even at ISO 64,000 the Nikon D5’s image quality is superb, and the AF system is capable of 3D Tracking in near darkness.


Of course, not everyone requires super-wide dynamic range from Raw files. For some photographers (and we suspect most photojournalists) high ISO Raw, and particularly JPEG, image quality will be more important. In this respect the D5 offers marginally superior performance to the EOS-1D X Mark II, although the difference isn’t that great within what any sensible photographer would consider a ‘normal’ ISO sensitivity span.

The D5 yields better quality JPEGs at ISO 409,600 (the EOS-1D X Mark II’s maximum setting) but above this, its additional ISO sensitivity settings (all the way up to 3.28 million) become progressively less useable. More useful is the D5’s backlighting of major controls, which is a huge benefit when changing settings at night.

Autofocus

The Nikon D5’s 153-point AF system is the most capable that we have ever seen.


As flagship sports and action cameras, the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II and Nikon D5 incorporate the best autofocus systems that their respective manufacturers know how to make.

In Canon’s case that’s a 61-point AF system, supported by a 360,000-pixel metering sensor to aid with subject tracking (‘iTR’ in Canon-speak) and face detection. Of the full 61 points, 41 are cross-type and the center point is sensitive down to -3EV in single-shot AF mode. Additionally, the 5 central points are dual-cross type, containing a long base-line x sensor in addition to the and + cross sensor for enhanced AF precision with F2.8 and faster lenses. Indeed, we’ve found these 5 points to have nearly mirrorless (contrast-detect) levels of precision, important for shallow depth-of-field photography.

The D5’s AF system features 153 points, 99 of which are cross-type, and of which 55 can be directly manually selected. The entire AF array is sensitive down to a rated -3EV, and the center point can still be used at -4EV. The D5’s metering sensor features 180,000 pixels, and works with the autofocus to create a ‘3D AF tracking’ system with face detection.

While the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II’s autofocus is very good, and leagues ahead of earlier-generation professional Canon cameras, the D5 leaves it in the dust. The D5’s AF system is without question the most capable of any camera that we have ever seen. The almost spooky reliability of 3D AF tracking, despite a lower resolution metering sensor for subject analysis, is a game-changer for all kinds of photography – not just fast action. 

Easy to miss in the D5 (partly because Nikon hides it so well) is automatic AF point calibration. This is a massive time-saver when calibrating fast lenses for accurate focus, and a major selling point over the EOS-1D X Mark II (and earlier Nikon cameras).

Video

Both the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II and Nikon D5 offer 4K video, but the Canon is the better video camera. Its 1.34X crop in 4K mode is less aggressive and Dual Pixel AF transforms performance.


Again, in terms of video specification the EOS-1D X Mark II and D5 might appear to offer a very similar set of features. Both can shoot high-definition video, and both also boast 4K recording. But the exact breakdown of features – and how they are implemented – is quite different.

Of the two cameras, the EOS-1D X Mark II is unequivocally the better choice for video. Canon has been producing high-end video cameras for a long time (although in the DSLR market, Nikon got there first – just – with the D90) and the company’s experience in this field really shows. The EOS-1D X Mark II can shoot HD footage up to 120fps, which is great for slow-motion capture, and 4K at up to 60p. The D5 tops out at 60p and 30p respectively.

The EOS-1D X Mark II also imposes a less aggressive crop factor in 4K video mode: 1.34X as opposed to ~1.5X. This isn’t a huge difference, but it does mean that it’s easier to shoot wide-angle footage on the 1D X II. In addition, the EOS-1D X Mark II’s Dual Pixel AF system works brilliantly well in video mode, both in terms of speed and accuracy of AF acquisition, and also tracking. The combination of DPAF and touch-to-focus makes for a very refined shooting experience, and even swift and accurate AF for static subjects in stills. The D5’s contrast-detection AF system in live view and video is primitive by comparison.

There are a couple of points in Nikon’s favor though – unlike the EOS-1D X Mark II the D5 can offer zebra striping for highlight monitoring, and it can output clean 4K footage over HDMI to an external recorder. In addition, the D5’s entire ISO sensitivity span is available in 4K video recording, whereas by default, the EOS-1D X Mark II caps ISO at 12,800 (expandable to 204,800 with a custom function).

Rear LCD

The Nikon D5’s rear LCD screen offers 2.36-million dot resolution, color calibration, and a broad range of touch-sensitivity features.


The rear screens on the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II and Nikon D5 are the same size, but the D5’s display offers significantly higher resolution, at 2.36 million dots (to the 1.62 million dots of the 1D X II). Although the Canon’s screen is very sharp and detailed, the D5’s is noticeably better when compared side by side.

It’s not all about resolution though, and the D5 has a couple of extra tricks up its sleeve. If you find that how pictures look on the back of the camera is different to how they appear on a profiled computer, the D5’s rear LCD can be calibrated using a blue-amber, magenta-green color wheel.

And while the screens on the back of both cameras are touch-sensitive, the implementation of touch features on the Nikon D5 is much broader. In the EOS-1D X Mark II, pretty much the only thing you can do by touch is to set AF point in live view. In combination with Dual Pixel AF this works brilliantly, but touch-sensitivity is much more deeply integrated into the Nikon D5’s ergonomics. Move to the next slide to read more.

Operation and Handling

The Nikon D5’s touch-sensitive feature set is much more useful than the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II. In review mode, images can be scrolled or ‘scrubbed’ through and focus can be checked with a double-tap.


In terms of handling, as always when comparing cameras from different manufacturers, the question of which is ‘better’ is largely subjective. But that’s not to say that there aren’t some measurable differences between the Canon EOS-1D X II and the Nikon D5. For starters, there’s that rear LCD screen.

Canon is determined that no unwary professional photographer should ever do anything by accident. That was the logic behind the original EOS-1D’s ’press button A, press button A again, scroll, stand on your head then press button B’ control logic, and it remains a Canon obsession to this day. As such, the company has basically deactivated the EOS-1D X Mark II’s touch-sensitivity feature except for one action – AF point selection in live view. 

Nikon isn’t as stingy in this regard, and on the D5, you can perform several operations by touch – possibly the most useful being scrolling through and zooming (by pinch or double tap) quickly into images in image review mode.

In terms of customization, both of these cameras are highly configurable, but the D5 is a level up from the EOS-1D X Mark II. Nearly every custom button on the D5 gets a comprehensive list of assignable functions, much more generous than that offered by the EOS-1D X II. Furthermore, nearly every custom button can be assigned to activate and initiate any AF mode – uniquely allowing for things like momentary disabling of subject tracking, or the ability to switch between tracking a subject you specify vs. one the camera automatically chooses. This makes it easy to adapt to changing scenarios, or instantly try a different AF mode when one doesn’t work.

Shooting speed

The Canon EOS-1D X Mark II can shoot at up to 14fps with autofocus. This comes in very handy for capturing fast and erratic action like this rodeo rider.


Both the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II and Nikon D5 are – probably – approaching the limit of how fast DSLRs can be made to take pictures before shaking themselves to bits. The EOS-1D X Mark II is the quicker of the two cameras, topping out at 16 fps in live view mode, while the D5 lags a little behind at 14 fps. With autofocus and autoexposure, the Canon can shoot at up to 14 fps, while the D5 maxes out at 12 fps. It’s worth noting the Canon can shoot at 16 fps and still display a review image between each shot – allowing you to follow your subject – while the screen on the Nikon stays blacked-out when firing at its 14 fps maximum frame rate. 

Furthermore, the 4K frame grab feature on the EOS-1D X Mark II effectively allows for a 60 fps silent shooting – with AF. Rolling shutter is minimal, so this is actually a usable way of capturing the decisive moment when it comes to very fast action. The D5 can shoot silently at 30 fps for 5s, but you only get 5MP stills out of it in this mode.

On the numbers alone, the EOS-1D X Mark II has the edge in terms of speed – just. But frames per second is only one part of the equation when it comes to action photography. Remember what we said about the two cameras’ AF systems…

Memory cards

Both the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II and Nikon D5 support CompactFlash media, but the EOS-1D X Mark II offers an additional slot for faster CFast media. The Nikon D5 is available in two versions – one with twin CompactFlash slots, and one with twin XQD slots.


Here’s a funny thing – there are actually two Nikon D5s on the market. There’s one with twin CompactFlash slots, and another one with twin XQD card slots. There’s only one version of the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II, and it comes fitted with one CompactFlash slot, and one CFast slot. Confusingly, CF and CFast cards are not mechanically cross-compatible, but the slots for both media – and the cards themselves – look almost identical at a glance.

So the risk of accidentally jamming the wrong card into the wrong slot is certainly higher in the EOS-1D X Mark II than the D5, but which media choice is better?

Currently available XQD and CFast 2.0 cards provide roughly similar performance (400-500mb/s max read speed). The biggest practical difference right now is price: a high-speed (510mb/s read) 128GB CFast 2.0 card costs about twice as much as a 440mb/s XQD card of the same capacity.

Of course if you don’t shoot high frame-rate bursts in Raw mode and don’t want to record 4K video, all of this is academic. Just stick with good old trusty CompactFlash.

Battery life

The Nikon D5’s incredible battery life means that it can shoot for thousands of frames per charge – a huge selling point for action photographers and anyone working in remote conditions.


It goes without saying that the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II and Nikon D5 are tough, durable cameras. Maybe one is tougher than the other, but to be honest we don’t have the time (or the necessary credit limit) to test them to destruction. But there’s more to durability than just physical toughness. A major consideration when using a camera in rough conditions – especially in remote or primitive locations – is battery life.

The Canon EOS-1D X II’s battery life is CIPA rated at 1210 shots per charge. Not bad. But the D5 is rated at an incredible 3780 shots – almost three times as many pictures per charge.

Now, CIPA ratings should be taken with a pinch of salt, since they’re based on a series of use-case tests meant to approximate ‘normal’ use and in our experience, actual battery life is almost always better than the rating. We’ve shot well over 2000 frames per charge on the EOS-1D X Mark II without coming near to running its battery flat. But the Nikon D5’s endurance in normal use really is quite extraordinary. Unless they’re shooting a lot of 4K video, we suspect that most D5 shooters will never need to carry a spare battery.

How do they compare?

Obviously, very few (if any) photographers out there are seriously asking ‘which of these two cameras should I buy?’ For one thing, we suspect that a large portion of of eventual EOS-1D X Mark II and D5 shooters will have had their gear purchased by an agency or publication. Meanwhile, those who pay for their own gear have most likely been locked into one or other system for so long that a comparison between the two flagships is of academic interest only.

But that’s not the point of this article. In examining the two flagship DSLRs from the two biggest camera manufacturers, we’re effectively looking at the state of the art for DSLRs at this point in time. So in the final summing up, how do they compare?

It’s not a huge surprise that overall, both cameras perform very well indeed. Their identical scores and gold awards testify to that. The Canon EOS-1D X Mark II is slightly faster when shooting stills, and significantly better as a video camera. Meanwhile, the Nikon D5 offers a market-leading AF system (for stills, at least) and a much more satisfying touch-screen implementation, with more extensive customization options.

The D5’s extraordinary battery life means also that it can keep shooting for much longer between charges, and it can capture full-color images in conditions literally too dark for the human eye to discern anything. On the other hand, at base ISO in daylight, the EOS-1D X II’s extra Raw dynamic range makes it more useful for shooting in brighter, more contrasty conditions. 

Ultimately, on the understanding that the question ‘which should you buy?’ is largely hypothetical in this case, we’d certainly recommend the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II for landscape photography and 4K video. If you need the world’s best AF system, and a camera that can shoot forever and literally see in the dark, then the D5 is the better option.

  • Read our full Canon EOS-1D X Mark II review
  • Read our full Nikon D5 review

Did we miss anything? Let us know in the comments.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Flagships compared: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II versus Nikon D5

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Camera Showdown: the Nikon D5500 and D3300, Canon 70D and Sony a6000 Compared

05 Jul

With so many cameras on the market now it’s hard to know which one to buy if you’re just getting into digital photography. Should you get a full on DSLR or go for the more streamlined mirrorless ones?

4 Popular cameras compared

In this video Tony Northrup and his partner Chelsea do a comparison of four different cameras in roughly the same price range (under $ 1000) including:

  • The relatively new Nikon D5500 – $ 747 body only
  • Nikon D3300 – $ 497 with 18-55mm lens
  • Canon’s 70D – $ 949 body only
  • Sony’s a6000 – $ 548 body only

Watch as they put all four cameras through their paces doing a portrait in studio, outdoor landscape photography, and a sports simulation (action photography).

Each camera has pros and cons, so there is no one perfect choice. It’s about knowing what your needs are and selecting the one that is right for you.

googletag.cmd.push(function() {
tablet_slots.push( googletag.defineSlot( “/1005424/_dPSv4_tab-all-article-bottom_(300×250)”, [300, 250], “pb-ad-78623” ).addService( googletag.pubads() ) ); } );

googletag.cmd.push(function() {
mobile_slots.push( googletag.defineSlot( “/1005424/_dPSv4_mob-all-article-bottom_(300×250)”, [300, 250], “pb-ad-78158” ).addService( googletag.pubads() ) ); } );

The post Camera Showdown: the Nikon D5500 and D3300, Canon 70D and Sony a6000 Compared by Darlene Hildebrandt appeared first on Digital Photography School.


Digital Photography School

 
Comments Off on Camera Showdown: the Nikon D5500 and D3300, Canon 70D and Sony a6000 Compared

Posted in Photography

 

Post-processing RAW Files – ACR Compared to Some Free Software Options

07 Mar

What is RAW?

Title-imageA RAW file is really the digital negative, which means that all the data is stored waiting to be unleashed via a RAW Editor. Unlike a jpeg file which has been edited in-camera (or in post-processing) and is a compressed 8-bit file.

Why shoot RAW?

The main benefit to shooting RAW is simply to have as much information as possible in the file. When you upload a RAW file onto your computer the white balance, and tonal corrections have to be set manually. More detail can be retrieved from the highlights and shadows. It is then saved as a jpeg or some other format. The RAW file always remains in its original state.

Shooting RAW has become more commonplace as cameras have the option, built-in and RAW editing software is more widely available on both Mac and PC. In this article, I will be testing out two RAW editors which are free to download. Yes, no purchase necessary. The main RAW editor that I will go into more detail on is Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), which comes with Photoshop and is my primary go-to RAW editing software.

As a side note, this article is by no means a complete in-depth review of the pros and cons of each of the the three RAW editors. I merely wanted to test Photoshop’s ACR against some of the RAW editors that are available to download for free, such as GIMP and RawTherapee.

A few years back, I was using ViewNX (now ViewNX2), which is Nikon’s RAW free editing software. Canon (DPP) and other major camera manufacturers have their own RAW proprietary software. But I found ACR just got better with each new release. I usually bring my images into Photoshop when I’ve done the initial edits in ACR. It means my workflow is quite efficient as I’m using ACR and Photoshop side-by-side.

The Basics

When you open ACR or any RAW editor, the user interface can be a bit daunting for the uninitiated. The range of adjustments and all the features of ACR would require several articles alone.

So, let’s look at the basic adjustments where I begin the editing process of my RAW files. These adjustments are fundamental to any RAW editor. Similar adjustments can also be found in the Develop module of Lightroom and in Photoshop Elements 12 and 13. Let’s begin with Adobe Camera Raw, otherwise known as ACR.

Adobe Camera Raw (ACR)

ACR-UI

The interface when a RAW file is opened in ACR

When I open a RAW file in ACR, White Balance is my first port of call. This is about the color temperature of the image depending on the light source. If the white balance is incorrect, then a color cast will occur on your image. It may look slightly blue, orange or green.

The 3 important focus points in the Basic panel in ACR

The three important focus points in the Basic panel in ACR

In ACR, there are three ways to adjust White Balance.

3-ways-to-edit-WB

Three ways to edit White Balance in ACR:
1. White Balance Tool
2. Presets
3. Temperature and Tint Sliders

  1. The White Balance Tool is my least favourite. The idea being that you click anywhere on the image that is suppose to be gray. I find this tool hit and miss.
  2. There are number of presets that are worth experimenting with, if you are new to RAW editing. Try Auto which is a good place to start.
  3. You can then adjust the Temperature and Tint sliders for finer tweaking and control. I favour these two sliders the most in my workflow.

Just above the Temperature and Tint sliders, you have the histogram panel. Click on the the two black triangles. These indicate the highlight (left) and shadow (right) areas that have been clipped (see photo below). As you can see in this image, the areas highlighted in red indicate where the clipping has taken place in the whites. Similar to the shadows, blue indicates where the shadow areas have been clipped.

Highlights-shadows-clipping

Highlights-shadows-clipping in the Histogram.

When adjusting the White and Black sliders keep an eye on the black triangles in the Histogram chart. These triangles turn green when clipping occurs. Alternatively, you can hold down the Alt key while dragging the Blacks slider across to the left until the darkest area of the image starts to appear. Similar for the Whites slider, hold down the Alt key and drag the slider to the right until the brightest part of the image begins to show.

I tend to leave the Exposure slider until after I have adjusted the Highlights and Shadow sliders.

Exposure-contrast

Exposure and Contrast sliders.

The Contrast slider gives your image that final punch but go lightly.

edited-image

Final edited image from the basic adjustments in ACR

All edits done in ACR are non-destructive. Editing RAW files can be easily done in one pass, especially if you have captured the image that you want in-camera. However, there are no layers in ACR or Lightroom, so if you need further editing where layers are required you will need to use Photoshop or GIMP.

GIMP

So this brings us to the next RAW editor, UFRaw. This comes pre-installed in GIMP, version 2.8. I’ve never used GIMP before now and I was really curious and enthusiastic to try it out. It has the reputation of being as powerful as Photoshop for editing – and the fact that it is free, is a bonus.

I presumed that by opening a RAW file that the UFRaw editor would launch automatically. It didn’t. After a quick research online. I found a solution. I had to go to File>Open>Select file. I then had to Select File Type and scroll down to the bottom of a list and click on ‘raw image’. Once I opened the image in question. It did not resemble anything like the image I had taken on the day. Normally when I launch a RAW file in ACR, it would be similar to the jpeg version.

Opening-RAW-file-in-GIMP

The UFRaw editor does not launch automatically. A few clicks gets you there.

The interface was completely alien to me, and I didn’t find it particularly user friendly. I played around with the sliders for awhile but I couldn’t get the image to look right at all. I tried adjusting the White Balance but I couldn’t get rid of a green/grey color cast on the image. By not having the familiar sliders in ACR, I was a bit lost to be honest. I really wanted to like UFRaw, as it is a free software for Mac and PC. To be fair, this was my first attempt at using the software, so I’ll put the mea culpa (blame) on me as opposed to the software.

RAW-file-opened-in-GIMP

The UFRaw editor UI in GIMP

RawTherapee

Now onto RawTherapee. I love the name. I wasn’t expecting much after trying out GIMP’s UFRaw but I was completely surprised and impressed. RawTherapee is available in 64 and 32 bit forms for Mac OS X and Windows. It also supports a huge range of supported cameras and manufacturer filetypes.

RawTherapee-UI

RawTherapee interface

This RAW editor is quite rich in features. Even so I found the user interface very intuitive, and after a few minutes I felt right at home. I quickly adapted to the menu system and found it very easy to navigate around. The editing panels are on the right.

RawTherapee-adjustment-sliders

Highlighted adjustment sliders that are similar to the ones in ACR.

Summary

If you haven’t edited a RAW file before, I would highly recommend that you try it out. The options are varied whether you decide to purchase Lightroom, or choose to pick from the many RAW editors that are free to download. The choice is really up to you. Another free RAW editor that has just been launched is Affinity Photo and it looks really promising (currently in beta for Mac only).

googletag.cmd.push(function() {
tablet_slots.push( googletag.defineSlot( “/1005424/_dPSv4_tab-all-article-bottom_(300×250)”, [300, 250], “pb-ad-78623” ).addService( googletag.pubads() ) ); } );

googletag.cmd.push(function() {
mobile_slots.push( googletag.defineSlot( “/1005424/_dPSv4_mob-all-article-bottom_(300×250)”, [300, 250], “pb-ad-78158” ).addService( googletag.pubads() ) ); } );

The post Post-processing RAW Files – ACR Compared to Some Free Software Options by Sarah Hipwell appeared first on Digital Photography School.


Digital Photography School

 
Comments Off on Post-processing RAW Files – ACR Compared to Some Free Software Options

Posted in Photography

 

Mobile Triggers Compared to Help You Choose the Right One

25 Sep

When it comes to mobile triggers or cable releases photographers often have multiple responses:

  • I got the knock-off brand and it doesn’t work when I need it
  • I got the basic button kind and have to count the time on my own
  • The intervalometer is way too expensive
  • I could save money and build a DIY release but that’s too much effort
Triggertrap

Image from Triggertrap site

Image from the Triggertrap website.

I hear comments like that on almost a daily basis. In my previous article on long exposure photography accessories I mentioned Triggertrap and Trigger Happy. In this article I’m going to discuss both of those (with a bonus tip at the end) and also discuss some other options that are available to you.

This article is not a review of the products but rather just an overview of what each offers. It is worth noting that I do own each of the products and will share my personal recommendation at the end of the article. So if you don’t care so much about the comparison then please skip down to the bonus tip and my recommendation.

However, if you’re considering a mobile trigger for your camera, but haven’t purchased one yet, then please continue reading.

Triggertrap

Triggertrap started as a Kickstarter project, and really set the bar high for its standards and features. The Triggertrap software is open source and can be found on Github. The quality of the physical cables is top notch, very durable, and they’re also attractive.

The mobile kits are available for Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Sony, Olympus, Samsung, Panasonic, Pentax, Sigma, Leica, Lytro, Hasselblad, Contax, Konica Minolta and Kodak.

A mobile kit is available for nearly every camera you could possibly want. It connects to the headphone jack of your phone and then the cable release part of your camera. The mobile kits start at $ 37.46 USD.

Triggertrap 1

The mobile app (iOS and Android) has a variety of trigger options that can go way beyond just pushing the button. Here is a list of all the trigger options:

  • Sound sensor
  • Vibration sensor
  • Motion sensor
  • Facial recognition
  • Time-lapse
  • TimeWarp
  • DistanceLapse
  • Bramping
  • Star Trail
  • Long Exposure HDR
  • Long Exposure HDR time-lapse
  • Press and Hold
  • Timed Exposures
  • Simple Cable Release
  • Wifi Trigger
  • Triggertrap also includes a neutral density filter calculator, which is convenient. Although I prefer Slower Shutter, it is convenient having a calculator in the same place as the trigger. The app also includes local sunrise and sunset times which is very convenient.

It is worth noting two more things about Triggertrap. First, all the features of the apps are not available on both iOS and Android. Second, that is likely to change quick because Triggertrap is always working on improvements and new features.

The apps are free so while you are paying for the mobile kits, you are not paying for the software side.

Trigger Happy

Trigger Happy also began as a Kickstarter project and was successfully funded. It works the same way at Triggertrap, using the headphone jack of your mobile device.

NOTE: Since writing this article, TriggerHappy has closed for business, but some of the products are still available. They decided to open their software up to the world and made it Open Source available on GitHub.  They are also recommending people to check out Triggertrap.

Triggerhappy

The kits are available for Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Sony only and retail at $ 29-49 USD. The apps are limited to the most basic features including the following trigger options:

  • Simple camera trigger
  • Bulb
  • Time-lapse mode / Intervalometer
  • HDR mode
  • Bramping

This system was the first I owned, via the Kickstarter project; it’s changed since then but even the original still works very well. The apps are also free, so while you are paying for the kit you are not paying for the software side.

SmartShutter

SmartShutter is from a company called Zesty Accessories in Japan, and is different than the other mobile releases as it uses Bluetooth to trigger instead of a wired release. Cool, right? The product sells for between $ 39.99 and $ 64.99 direct or through Amazon.

It works very well, but the app is extremely limited. I do have some issues with the design of the Nikon version, but instead of re-stating it here you can see to my full review and video of the product here.

Zesty

I mentioned that the product uses Bluetooth, but you should know that it relies on your camera’s battery for power. That means if you’re using a camera like the Sony A7, which has poor battery life, then this device will drain your camera battery faster. But if you have a camera like the Nikon D810 your battery life will continue performing well.

The devices are available for Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus, Pentax, Konica Minolta, Contax, Fuji, Sigma, Hasselblad and Samsung.

The free app allows for a quick trigger of the camera or a timed exposure. But the timed exposure allows for intervals, a delayed start, and even the number of photos to capture. In addition, the app has the ability to geotag your photographs using your phone’s GPS as well. The app is only available for iOS and is also free.

ioShutterPro

ioShutter is made by enlighten photo, the people who created Orbis and other amazing products for photographers. ioShutter is also the priciest of each of the triggers coming in at $ 69.99 for the cable kit. They do have a limited number available right now at 50% off due to what seems to be damaged packaging.

It comes in a nice package and includes a pouch to hold the cable when not in use. The design is actually very similar to the Triggertrap where there is a module with a cable that connects the module to the camera. That way if one part breaks only half of the cable needs to be replaced.

IoShutter

Photo from enlighten photo website

ioShutter is available for Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Pentax, Samsung and Hasselblad. But the mobile app(s) are only available for iOS at the time I’m writing this. Yes, I used plural because the ioShutter app comes in two versions: Lite which is free and Pro, which is an additional $ 5.99.

ioShutter Lite gives you the standard shutter release function you’d expect to find in a cable release. However the Pro version comes with other trigger options:

  • Timed exposure
  • Time-lapse
  • ClapToSnap
  • ShakeToTake

You can also stack features like creating a time-lapse with timed exposures.

Bonus Time

There are two quick things I want to mention before moving on to my recommended product.

The first is for Lifeproof case users. Your case comes with a headphone adapter. I leave mine connected to my earbuds all the time. So I picked up a second adapter, which connects, to my mobile kits.

The second tip is if you already own one of the cables mentioned above, but you want to try another app. I started with Trigger Happy but do not use their app anymore because I now use my favorite of them all, Triggertrap. Before I got my hands on a Triggertrap mobile kit I was using my Trigger Happy cable with the Triggertrap app. So it’s worth knowing that your cable kits should work fine with other apps. I also tested the Trigger Happy cable with ioShutter so I know it works there as well.

Suggested Product

My favorite mobile trigger is Triggertrap for two reasons. For one the app is amazing and contains so many useful features that shouldn’t and can’t be ignored. The team at Triggertrap is also looking for more ways to innovate in the industry, and they’re working on amazing things. For the price of the mobile kits, and the quality of the product itself, on top of the incredible mobile apps, the product is truly a winner.

So there you go – a simple comparison of your options, some tips and my recommendation. Feel free to comment with questions and comments as I’m sure you have your own preferences.

The post Mobile Triggers Compared to Help You Choose the Right One by Scott Wyden Kivowitz appeared first on Digital Photography School.


Digital Photography School

 
Comments Off on Mobile Triggers Compared to Help You Choose the Right One

Posted in Photography

 

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 compared to Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10

02 Jul

When it was introduced last year, the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 was peerless. It was the first superzoom to offer a 1″-type sensor, much larger than the 1/2.3″-type chips commonly found in that class. It paired that with an impressive F2.8 constant 24-200mm equivalent zoom. Now the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 has joined the RX10 in this newly-minted category, boasting almost certainly the same sensor and a 25-400mm equivalent F2.8-4 lens. They line up nicely for a head-to-head comparison – and that’s exactly what we’ve done. Read more

related news: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 compared to Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10

Posted in Uncategorized

 

High ISO Compared: Sony A7S vs. A7R vs. Canon EOS 5D III

30 Jun

The A7S is Sony’s newest entry in its full-frame mirrorless lineup. But where the ‘R’ in A7R stood for resolution, the ‘S’ in the 12MP A7S stands for sensitivity. We’ve recently received a Sony A7S and wasted no time putting it up against the A7R and Canon EOS 5D Mark III to see how it compares.
related news: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on High ISO Compared: Sony A7S vs. A7R vs. Canon EOS 5D III

Posted in Uncategorized

 

High ISO Compared: Sony A7S v. A7R v. Canon EOS 5D III

30 Jun

The A7S is Sony’s newest entry in its full-frame mirrorless lineup. But where the ‘R’ in A7R stood for resolution, the ‘S’ in the 12MP A7S stands for sensitivity, topping out at an impressive maximum ISO sensitivity setting equivalent to ISO 409,600. We’ve had an A7S for a couple of days – just long enough to create a real-world comparison of high ISO stills from the camera against the 36MP A7R and Canon’s EOS 5D Mark III. Click through to see the results.

related news: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on High ISO Compared: Sony A7S v. A7R v. Canon EOS 5D III

Posted in Uncategorized

 

High ISO Compared: Sony A7S v. A7R v. Canon EOS 5D III

22 Jun

A7S_seattle.jpg

The A7S is Sony’s newest entry in its full-frame mirrorless lineup. But where the ‘R’ in A7R stood for resolution, the ‘S’ in the 12MP A7S stands for sensitivity, topping out at an impressive maximum ISO sensitivity setting equivalent to ISO 409,600. We’ve had an A7S for a couple of days – just long enough to create a real-world comparison of high ISO stills from the camera against the 36MP A7R and Canon’s EOS 5D Mark III. Click through to see the results.

News: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on High ISO Compared: Sony A7S v. A7R v. Canon EOS 5D III

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Nokia’s 808 and 1020 compared in our studio test scene

27 Oct

Lumia1020_808comparison2.jpg

Nokia’s ‘Pureview’ technology is still making headlines along with the announcement of the manufacturer’s first ‘phablet’, the Lumia 1520. We felt the timing was perfect for taking a closer look at Pureview by testing the original Nokia 808 in our newly revamped studio test scene, and putting it up against this year’s version of the tech found in the 41MP Nokia Lumia 1020. See how the two compare on connect.dpreview.com.

News: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Nokia’s 808 and 1020 compared in our studio test scene

Posted in Uncategorized

 

iPhone 5s compared in our new studio test scene

21 Sep

iphone5s.jpg

We lined up for the new Apple iPhone 5S this morning, and Dpreview’s Studio Manager Kelcey Smith wasted no time in getting it into our studio, to take a critical look at how its new camera performs. We’re taking the smartphone out for the weekend to gather shots for a gallery planned for this Monday, but in the meantime, you can take a look at how the iPhone 5s compares to the competition in our new studio widget. Click through to check it out.

News: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on iPhone 5s compared in our new studio test scene

Posted in Uncategorized