RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘Dead’

DSLRs Aren’t Dead Just Yet!

07 Jan

The post DSLRs Aren’t Dead Just Yet! appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Simon Ringsmuth.

dslrs-arent-dead-just-yet

In the past few years, traditional DSLR cameras have started to cede significant market share to mirrorless cameras. This newer style of camera has risen from obscurity to mainstream in the last decade. Recent trends indicate that this is no mere blip on the radar. Sony, Fuji, and now Canon and Nikon have all jumped into the mirrorless market with a growing collection of cameras and lenses that show no sign of slowing down. However, just because many think mirrorless is the way of the future doesn’t mean the end of DSLRs. Contrary to what you might think, DSLRs aren’t dead!

DSLRs aren't dead

Nikon D750, 85mm, f/2, ISO 2000, 1/350 second

The mirrorless vs. DSLR debate has been going for years, but thinking of the situation in binary terms is a bit misguided. It doesn’t have to be an either/or dichotomy. In fact, there is plenty of room in the photography community for both types of cameras.

In the same way that film offers some advantages over digital, traditional DSLRs have a few tricks up their sleeves that make them uniquely relevant even in this age of modern mirrorless models.

Before I get too deep into the content of this piece, I want to make one thing clear: I’m not advocating that one type of camera is better than the other. Both types of cameras have strengths and weaknesses.

Just because you might prefer one or the other does not make you a good or bad photographer! Cameras are tools to get a job done. All I’m saying here is that DSLRs aren’t dead and still have plenty of advantages to offer.

DSLRs aren't dead

Mirrorless cameras like this Fuji X100F have a lot of advantages. but sometimes a DSLR is the right tool for the job. Nikon D750, 85mm, f/2, ISO 640, 1/200 second.

Optical viewfinder

Mirrorless cameras have electronic viewfinders, which give them the ability to do things you simply can’t get with an optical viewfinder. That doesn’t mean that optical viewfinders, which are found on all DSLRs, have nothing to offer by comparison. Far from it! Optical viewfinders might not show you the exposure of your image in realtime, but they do give you a perfectly clear view of the scene you are shooting.

DSLRs aren't dead

Nikon D7100, 85mm, f/2.8, ISO 100, 1/1000 second

Electronic viewfinders are composed of individual dots, or pixels, just like the images captured by all digital cameras. They are like looking at a very tiny, very high-resolution TV screen. As a result, they share some of the same limitations as those screens.

Pixel density, refresh rates, color accuracy, and dynamic range are still issues in a lot of mirrorless cameras. These are getting better, but all electronic viewfinders show a digital representation of the real world which does have some limitations.

Optical viewfinders have none of these issues. They show the real world without translating it to pixels. The display won’t slow down or get choppy depending on lighting conditions or how fast you pan the camera. You don’t need to worry about color accuracy with an optical viewfinder because what you see is exactly what the world looks like.

DSLRs aren't dead

Power consumption is always going to be better with optical viewfinders because they consume no power at all. This means you can compose your shots without even turning your camera on. While mirrorless cameras have dramatically improved in this regard, DSLRs aren’t dead and still have an advantage in this area.

Lens selection

Companies like Sony and Fuji have a solid lineup of mirrorless cameras and lenses that they have been building for several years. Canon and Nikon will get there too with their mirrorless R and Z lenses. But in the meantime, traditional DSLRs are still the king of this particular hill.

Again, that’s not to say they are better! Just that DSLRs aren’t dead and well worth considering for many photographers today.

DSLRs aren't dead

Nikon D750, 85mm, f/2.9, ISO 100, 1/1500 second

Canon and Nikon both have decades of lenses for their DSLR cameras, with Nikon’s reaching all the way back to 1959 when the first F-mount camera was released. Pentax, Canon, and others have massive lens catalogs as well, which means that if you buy a DSLR today, you immediately have access to a massive array of lenses. Older ones might lack autofocus or stabilization, but they are a lot cheaper and a great way to expand your photographic horizons.

All mirrorless cameras can use older lenses with adapters. It’s not as though a Sony A7IV or Canon Eos R is limited to a paltry selection of just the most recent lenses. But adapters are one more thing to buy and carry around, and sometimes features like autofocus are limited when working with adapters. If you want access to the widest array of native glass possible, DSLRs are still the way to go.

Size

Mirrorless cameras, by their very definition, are smaller in size than DSLRs because they don’t need to accommodate a flip-up mirror. That means they can be a lot slimmer and more compact, which a lot of people like.

On the flip side, one of the reasons DSLRs aren’t dead yet is because they appeal to people who like a bigger, chunkier camera.

DSLRs aren't dead

The Nikon D750. EXIF: Canon Rebel Ti, 22mm, f/2.5, ISO 100, 1/250 second

The larger size of DSLRs means they often have bigger buttons, larger hand grips, and feel more substantial when shooting with them. None of this affects picture quality, but these traits do matter to many people who prefer a more robust, tactile approach when they shoot photos. Some actually prefer the larger size of a traditional DSLR, especially with a battery grip attached, because they feel more solid and substantial in the hand.

The size of traditional DSLRs is particularly important if you shoot with larger lenses, like a 70-200 f/2.8. Or even a walkaround zoom lens like an 18-270mm. The added camera weight serves to balance out the heavy lens and make the shooting experience a little easier than a small mirrorless camera.

Legacy

It’s easy to get caught up in the internet chatter about mirrorless cameras. There’s no doubt they are the way of the future. Also, seemingly, every photography-based blog and YouTube channel is filled with discussion about the latest mirrorless camera technology. It’s enough to make you think that if you prefer a DSLR you must be some kind of out-of-touch caveman.

DSLRs aren't dead

The Nikon D750. Exif: Canon Rebel Ti, 21mm, f/5.6, ISO 100, 1/100 second

One of the big selling points of a traditional DSLR is precisely the opposite: they have been around for decades.

This means that, in addition to lenses, there are all kinds of resources for people who want to learn more about using this style of camera. A brand-new Canon or Nikon DSLR shares most of its buttons, menus, and controls with their counterparts from years or even decades ago.

DSLRs aren't dead

Canon Rebel Ti, 10mm, f/5.6, ISO 100, 1/500 second

If you are new to photography and want to learn how to use a DSLR, there’s a good chance someone you know will have a similar model, perhaps even an older version of the same camera. This is a huge reason that DSLRs aren’t dead yet and a big help for people who want to make the most of their more traditional camera gear.

This isn’t to say that mirrorless cameras don’t have legacy support either. Some, like Fuji, model their dials and controls after cameras that were popular several decades ago. But just because they share similar controls doesn’t mean they have the same degree of support.

DSLRs aren't dead

Nikon D200, 50mm, f/1.8, ISO 400, 1/320 second

You are more likely to know people who can help you learn to use a DSLR because they also have one. Plus, the sheer number of websites and online tutorials for DSLRs is greater simply because they have been around longer. Of course, mirrorless cameras will catch up, but for now, the message is clear: DSLRs aren’t dead. Moreover, there are still plenty of reasons to consider buying one.

What about you? Are you a traditional DSLR shooter or have you gone over to mirrorless? Or are you like me, and use both types of cameras? I’m curious to hear your thoughts in the comments below. If you have other reasons that DSLRs aren’t dead please feel free to share them.

The post DSLRs Aren’t Dead Just Yet! appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Simon Ringsmuth.


Digital Photography School

 
Comments Off on DSLRs Aren’t Dead Just Yet!

Posted in Photography

 

Are Micro-Four-Thirds Cameras Dead, or Do They Still Have Their Place?

18 Dec

The post Are Micro-Four-Thirds Cameras Dead, or Do They Still Have Their Place? appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Mark C Hughes.

are-micro-four-thirds-cameras-dead

In this article, we are going to look at whether micro-four-thirds cameras still have a place in today’s marketplace.

In the course of the last year, there have been changes to the photography landscape with the introduction of several mirrorless full-frame camera models, particularly from the big two manufacturers: Canon and Nikon. After a long delay, they finally entered the mirrorless camera market in a big way with higher-end full-frame (FF) cameras.

Beyond the big two, Panasonic (in conjunction with Sigma and Leica) also introduced a new mirrorless FF camera system and mount. This represents a sudden increase in competition in the mirrorless market for interchangeable lens cameras (ILC) and may indicate that the traditional DSLR is on its way out.

Image: The new Full-Frame Canon EOS R mirrorless camera from Canon (image from Canon promotional mat...

The new Full-Frame Canon EOS R mirrorless camera from Canon (image from Canon promotional material from canon.ca website)

Previously, the mirrorless camera landscape was dominated by Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, and Olympus. Sony produced FF and cropped-sensor cameras while Fuji has produced medium format and crop-sensor cameras. Meanwhile, Panasonic and Olympus were only producing micro-four-thirds cameras with the smallest sensor of the bunch.

Although Canon and Nikon were also in the mix with some cropped-sensor bodies, these cameras were half-hearted efforts and certainly not an area of emphasis for either company.

Now, with Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Panasonic jumping in with both feet into the FF mirrorless market, is there still a market for micro-four-thirds cameras? Or, is the smaller sensor, micro-four-thirds camera systems basically dead?

Image: Are MFT cameras dead? The Pen-F Micro 4/3s from Olympus

Are MFT cameras dead? The Pen-F Micro 4/3s from Olympus

Change in the micro-four-thirds camera landscape

Some have postulated that Panasonic, one of the major manufacturers of micro-four-thirds (MFT) cameras, is moving out of these smaller sensor cameras.  YouTube photography celebrities such as Tony Northup and other Podcasters have made this very assertion: that MFT as a format is dead.  Is there any truth to this or is this just social media clickbait?

Image: YouTube video bloggers have been suggesting that MFT is a dead format

YouTube video bloggers have been suggesting that MFT is a dead format

There are a few assumptions embedded in the idea that MFT as a format is dead, assumptions that have been neglected or overlooked in the chase for likes by social media pundits.

Assumption: Panasonic must be moving out of micro-four-thirds cameras

Panasonic recently released its new S-series cameras that are all FF mirrorless cameras. Observers take this as evidence that Panasonic is leaving the MFT system behind.

Before jumping to conclusions, remember, Panasonic has released a lot of cameras and lenses over the years, all of which are MFT. In particular, the GH5 was clearly a game-changer for video. Compact and video intensive, it became the video standard for many vloggers and internet video shooters.

Reality Check #1

Most of the camera imaging revenue for Panasonic is from its large range of products in MFT formats, supporting existing Panasonic customers. In comparison, the new S-series format (there are three models) currently has only a limited number of native lenses as of November 2019. 

To be fair, this new format will have offerings from Sigma lenses, and the new mount is compatible with Leica L-mount lenses. The Leica lenses, although available, are generally significantly more expensive than many other similar lenses. 

This means that the S-series for Panasonic is a new territory and will not represent significant revenue until it becomes established. Until then, the base is in MFT. This imbalance between the two formats will likely remain that way for an extended period.

Image: The new Panasonic S1R, FF mirrorless camera (from Panasonic promotional material from panason...

The new Panasonic S1R, FF mirrorless camera (from Panasonic promotional material from panasonic.ca website)

Reality Check #2

Users have been slow to adopt the new Panasonic format. While the new Panasonic cameras have some fantastic build qualities and features, it’s sensor design does not incorporate phase-detect autofocus. Instead, Panasonic designers chose to continue to use only contrast-detect and depth from defocusing DFD, the same system previously used on all their MFT cameras.

Consequently, the Panasonic autofocus system (both MFT and FF), while fast and great for still photography, has not been seen as good at continuous autofocusing (important for sports, wildlife and video) when compared to some of its competitors. This means that the move by Panasonic designers to retain this type of autofocus system into their new format FF cameras may cause some purchasers to think twice about a jump to their system.

It remains to be seen if this will eventually be a successful format for Panasonic.

Reality Check #3

Since the announcement of the Panasonic S-series, Panasonic has also released two new cameras and three new lenses for MFT. Clearly, the move to full-frame mirrorless cameras by Panasonic is part of a larger strategy. It is not the only product line that Panasonic is focusing on.

Image: The new G95 MFT camera body from Panasonic, released after the announcement of the S-series f...

The new G95 MFT camera body from Panasonic, released after the announcement of the S-series from Panasonic (from panasonic.ca website)

 

Assumption: Panasonic and Olympus are the only micro-four-thirds camera manufacturers

The assumption goes something like this…

Panasonic and Olympus are the two major manufacturers behind the MFT Consortium. If Panasonic stops producing or developing MFT equipment, there would only be one major manufacturer left supporting the format.

Reality check #1

MFT as a format was originally developed by a consortium of manufacturers that sought to provide an alternative product to what was being produced by the bigger manufacturers (Canon and Nikon at the time).

This is an open-source approach to manufacturing, one that is contrary to how most other manufacturers have approached sensor and lens mount formats. Most camera manufacturers have generally created proprietary lens mounts so that their cameras only accept their lenses.

Image: The Laowa 17mm lens is specifically designed for micro-four-thirds cameras

The Laowa 17mm lens is specifically designed for micro-four-thirds cameras

Reality check #2

When Panasonic and Olympus formed the basis of the original MFT consortium, it was to create an interchangeable open-source standard so that lenses on one brand could be used on the other, effectively doubling their manufacturing efficiency.

This was revolutionary at the time and still remains a successful strategy, allowing manufacturers to create lenses that fit on more than one brand of camera.

Reality check #3

While it is difficult to find out the stats on how many people are actively using any particular format of camera, there is an extensive base of MFT cameras. In Japan, Olympus has remained in the top 5 for sales of ILC systems for many years.

For video, the GH5 is still seen as an incredibly capable camera and a go-to camera for videography with fewer limitations than some of the newer larger-format cameras.

Over the last 10 years, companies developed a large base of MFT cameras and lenses (over 100 including manual lenses).

Reality check #4

Beyond the two founding companies (Panasonic and Olympus), there are a lot of other manufacturers committed to the MFT system. These include:

  • Cosina Voigtlander
  • Carl Zeiss
  • Jos Schneider Optische Werke GmbH
  • Komamura Corporation
  • Sigma Corporation
  • Tamron
  • Astrodesign
  • Yasuhara
  • Blackmagic
  • SVS Vistek GmbH
  • Venus Optics
  • Kodak (through JK Imaging)
  • DJI
  • Sharp
  • JVC
  • Z cam
  • Xiaomi (the YI)

They may not have the same type of brand name recognition, but this list represents many companies.

Assumption: Formats disappear fast, so micro-four-thirds will disappear fast

As companies change, so do consumers. If no-one produces new micro-four-thirds cameras, then the format would no longer appeal and disappear. We live in a disposable age, so if manufacturers stop producing new cameras and lenses, no one will continue to use the old technology.

Reality check #1

Both Olympus and Panasonic have recently released new MFT bodies and lenses.  So for now, the format is still very much alive.

Image: The new Olympus EM5 Mark III was recently announced (from Olympus promotional material at get...

The new Olympus EM5 Mark III was recently announced (from Olympus promotional material at getolympus.ca)

Reality check #2

While formats do die out, they can often take a very long time to die out.

Unlike some types of technology, for example, cellphones or some computers, cameras tend to have a relatively long shelf life. They are often still sold as-new long after they have been discontinued.

Beyond that, camera systems, particularly interchangeable lens camera (ILC) systems, have installed bases and lots of lenses/accessories to support these bodies and formats. So, the end of the base format doesn’t mean there isn’t a demand for the accessories to support the bodies.

Even after the main camera body stops production, third party manufacturers will often still produce lenses for them

Reality check #3

Although formats for any technology can disappear and change, there are still markets for those formats long after announcing a discontinuance.

Some formats achieve an almost Zombie state (look dead for all intents and purposes but still moving) because, while they have not been discontinued, no new products are released for the old technology by the base manufacturer.

Image: The Sony A99 rii is a formidable camera but likely the last A-mount camera (from Sony promoti...

The Sony A99 rii is a formidable camera but likely the last A-mount camera (from Sony promotional material at Sony.ca)

An example of a Zombie format is the Sony A-mount system. This system is still available for sale as new, but the last camera released was the a99ii in February of 2017. It is still an extremely capable camera, but almost 3 years later, it is getting a little long in the tooth.

Sony produced around 46 lenses for the A-mount (formerly a Minolta mount), but the last Sony released A-mount lens was in April of 2015.

Prior to the a99ii, the last camera body announced was the a68SLT a year-and-a-half earlier.

Assumption: Full frame mirrorless cameras are the only type of cameras that anyone wants

Because there has been a lot of interest in FF mirrorless cameras, these are the only cameras that anyone is interested in.  No one would be interested in any other type of format.

Reality check #1

There are many camera types, sensors, and styles out there that will be with us for a while. There is currently a rush into the mirrorless FF market. This is really just a segment of the market and not a true representation of the entire photography market.

Other than point-and-shoot cameras, which are difficult to find anymore, other formats fill other niches. There has been a range of sensors and camera bodies for some time, with no real indication that will change soon.

Image: You can use a number of MFT cameras in harsh environments due to their weather sealing.

You can use a number of MFT cameras in harsh environments due to their weather sealing.

Reality check #2

Beyond high-end cameras, most manufacturers produce a range of cameras from consumer-grade to professional-grade with a bunch in the middle.

This is not just capabilities, but price-point too. Consumer-grade choices are mostly based upon price-point, whereas the professional-grade cameras are all about high-end features.

To be successful, any brand needs to have a range of choices. All MFT camera manufacturers provide products that cover the entire spectrum. In contrast, mirrorless offerings from some manufacturers, notably Canon and Nikon, still have limitations as far as product range and lens selection.

FF mirrorless cameras provide pretty high-end features for many consumers and tend to be more camera than the average consumer is looking for.

Image: Everyone likes a cat portrait.  This MFT image was taken using studio lighting

Everyone likes a cat portrait.  This MFT image was taken using studio lighting

Assumption: The Camera market is growing because of mirrorless

The surge in FF mirrorless cameras gives the appearance that the camera market is growing. The marketing would suggest that there are new and great things coming.

Reality check #1

The market for new cameras has contracted significantly of late and has for some time. Camera sales spiked around 2010 with massive numbers that were truly unprecedented – partially caused by the growth in social media, and relatively poor image quality of cell phones at that time.

As well, digital imaging was really just starting to take off. Since then, smartphone cameras have really improved (and pretty much wiped out point-and-shoot cameras), and camera sales have actually been shrinking significantly. Prior to the mid-1990s, camera sales never exceeded 30 million units, and in 2010, there were over 121 million cameras sold. Last year the total number was under 20 million units.

These stats do not include smartphones and point-and-shoot cameras (a format of camera that has mostly disappeared).

Image: You can achieve shallow depth of field with very fast lenses.

You can achieve shallow depth of field with very fast lenses.

Reality check #2

Mirrorless cameras are also declining in sales but not at the same rate as other types of cameras with interchangeable lenses. Also, as there are lots of newer mirrorless options, their growth in this market will slow.

Assumption: People will move away from micro-four-thirds cameras because of the small sensor

Micro-four-thirds cameras are a format that has been around since 2007. More recently, because it has a smaller sensor, many have criticized the format as inferior simply because of the size.

Image: You can still achieve a shallow depth of field with micro-four-thirds cameras – it is just ha...

You can still achieve a shallow depth of field with micro-four-thirds cameras – it is just harder to do.

Reality check #1

The two main weaknesses of micro-four-thirds cameras are low light performance and depth of field. Their strengths, however, are size, lens selection, build quality, and features.

Although micro-four-thirds cameras do not perform as well under lower light conditions as some FF cameras, it doesn’t mean you can’t use them for this purpose.

There are lots of excellent examples of low light and night time photography taken with micro-four-thirds cameras, and shallow depth of field is only useful for a specific type of portrait image that is not for everyone.

You can spend a lot of money chasing a shallow depth of field.

Image: MFT can be used for portraits

MFT can be used for portraits

Reality check #2

There have always been gear snobs in photography. Most people think their format is better than the other guy’s just as a way to justify their own purchases. We all do it to some extent, looking for reinforcement for the decisions we make.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that the other systems are inferior; they just might be different.

Reality check #3

Realistically, further improvements are not going to be in sensor development (except maybe global shutters). Instead, it will be in things like the incorporation of computational photography into camera bodies like those used in on smartphones and improved connectivity to social media and the internet.

Assumption: The Costs are the same, so why choose micro-four-thirds?

Micro-four-thirds cameras are expensive so with the cost the same, why not just shoot FF?

Reality check #1

Micro-four-thirds camera systems do not have the same cost base as a FF system and cost significantly less. It is difficult to compare different format/brand systems. However, earlier this year, an interesting attempt was made.

Terrance Lam of British Columbia, Canada, put together pricing for comparable pro systems to see how each system compared to have a complete set. You can look at the summary of his results here.

The bottom line is that you can get the equivalent pro line of cameras and lenses but that the least expensive systems were from Pentax (FF), Fujifilm (APS-C), and Panasonic/Olympus (MFT).

The Fujifilm and MFT cameras are crop sensors. These systems were roughly two-thirds the cost of similar systems from the other manufacturers. They won’t all perform exactly the same, but from a cost comparison, these less expensive systems deliver similar pro-grade equipment at a lower cost.

Image: Fall leaf

Fall leaf

Reality check #2

Many MFT users are actually looking for smaller cameras. The smaller sensor means smaller lenses and better portability.

Some people think that mirrorless means small, but that is only for the bodies. Not all mirrorless cameras are small. You can’t cheat the optics, and a FF lens is large regardless of whether it is on a DSLR or a mirrorless body.

Using MFT also means that that you can get longer lenses that are significantly smaller and less expensive (less glass).

Conclusion

Does this mean that micro-four-thirds cameras are dead?  Maybe, but certainly not for a long while.  MFT is a long-established format with lots of manufacturer options, lenses and established users.

Will it be the next great thing? Probably not. But it does serve a particular niche that is not well-served by some of the other manufacturers.  Specifically, a smaller form factor ILC that is better for travel or harsh environments.

Until there are other options, there will still be a market for this type of product.

Image: You can use Micro-four-thirds cameras for all of the same purposes as FF cameras.

You can use Micro-four-thirds cameras for all of the same purposes as FF cameras.

More importantly, if you look beyond the rumors and the hype, the underlying circumstances are a little more complex than the superficial answer that micro-four-thirds cameras are dead.

I do not think micro-four-thirds cameras will be dead for some time. Facts still matter in this post-truth era.

What are your thoughts? Do you think there is still a place for micro-four-thirds cameras, or do you think the format is dead? Share with us in the comments!

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post’s poll.

The post Are Micro-Four-Thirds Cameras Dead, or Do They Still Have Their Place? appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Mark C Hughes.


Digital Photography School

 
Comments Off on Are Micro-Four-Thirds Cameras Dead, or Do They Still Have Their Place?

Posted in Photography

 

This dead Polaroid SX-70 was rebuilt as a fully functional digital camera

27 Jun

Josh Gross, a managing partner at design and development studio Planetary, has published a writeup detailing the conversion of an old defunct Polaroid SX-70 into a fully functional digital camera. The finished product retains the same external design as the original, but the innards have been heavily modified to include a Raspberry Pi Zero W and CCD sensor.

Gross details the rebuild in a blog post on his website, where he explains the project’s trickiest aspect was fitting the CCD and lens camera assembly into the Polaroid’s head. The original focus wheel and exposure wheels stayed intact, as well as most external components.

Moving on from the lens assembly, Gross says he removed the Polaroid camera’s Fresnel mirror and replaced it with a small 6.3cm (2.5in) screen in order to provide a live image preview. The screen assembly and battery were mounted within the camera’s film storage area, and the rest of the components were added.

One of the final images captured with the finished product.

Gross used OpenCV and Python on the software side for processing and displaying images. Size constraints required the use of a fisheye lens, so Gross used software to remove the fisheye effect for more authentic final images. Overall, he explains the project took 8 months of ‘on-and-off’ work to complete. Below is a full gallery of images shared with permission from Gross:

$ (document).ready(function() { SampleGalleryV2({“containerId”:”embeddedSampleGallery_7288793382″,”galleryId”:”7288793382″,”isEmbeddedWidget”:true,”selectedImageIndex”:0,”isMobile”:false}) });

‘Was there a point to it? Absolutely not,’ Gross says in his writeup. ‘Was it fun? Hell yeah.’

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on This dead Polaroid SX-70 was rebuilt as a fully functional digital camera

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Lensrentals found a dead fly inside a Canon 70-200mm, tested how it affects image quality

12 Apr
A backlit photo of a dead fly trapped inside the inner elements of a Canon 70-200mm F2.8 lens, photos kindly provided by Lensrentals.

Thanks to ever-increasing reliance on firmware, the latest lenses can sometimes have bugs, but the bug Roger Cicala and his team at Lensrentals recently came across inside a 70-200mm F2.8L IS II lens wasn’t about to be fixed with the latest firmware update from Canon. That’s because it wasn’t a bug in the programming they encountered, it was a fly that managed to trap itself inside the optical elements of the lens.

Time for its close-up!

Somehow, a sneaky fly found its way into the deepest parts of a 70-200mm F2.8 lens, where it remained until its untimely demise. Naturally, Roger and his team wanted to remove the little critter, but not before they used it as an opportunity to see just how much a fly in the lens affected the performance of a lens and share the results (and process) with the world. In Roger’s own words, the blog post was written up for two reasons:

‘1) [To shot that] this big-ass fly had almost no effect on image quality, so that little dust speck you’re frantic about sure doesn’t, and 2) getting flies (or dust) out of a lens is a lengthy and difficult process that takes a long time.’

Just how well did the lens perform with the fly stuck inside of it? ‘Pretty well, actually,’ according to Roger. The Lensrentals team took the time to run a complete set of MTF tests and stopped down the lens across all focal lengths.

What the fly looked like stopped down to F13.

As noted in the blog post, there was no sign of the fly until the lens was stopped down to F13, but even then all that was visible was a shadow in the image. Stopped down to F22 and zoomed out to 70mm showed a much more prominent black spot, but even then it only took up a fraction of the frame.

What the fly looked like when stopped down to F22 at 70mm.

The remainder of the post details the teardown process and shows just how much effort goes into thoroughly cleaning out the inner-elements of a lens, especially a zoom lens as intricate as a 70-200mm IS lens. For all of the nitty-gritty details of the teardown process and more photos, head over to Lensrentals’ blog post.

Finally, the fly is discovered.

Roger’s takeaway message from the image tests with the fly-laden lens is ‘if your dust spec is smaller than a fly (about 4mm by 1.5mm) it’s not showing up in your images.’ He goes on to say in the ‘Final Thoughts’ section:

I think this does serve as a good demonstration of how little effect even a very large object inside the lens has. It would have a more dramatic effect, probably, if it had been located closer to the rear element. It’s also a really good demonstration on why we (nor anyone else who’s qualified) won’t clean the dust out of your lens for $ 50. Sure, a lot of lenses are easier to do than this one, but it’s still time-consuming and often technically difficult.

As for how the fly got into the lens, Roger deduces that it likely made its way into the lens through the small gap that’s made in the rear of the lens that can open up during the zooming process. The lens had been in Lensrentals’ rotation for 15 months, so he believes it found its way inside the lens after it left the factory. However, Roger admits he’s not a bug expert, so he’s not against hearing other possibilities.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Lensrentals found a dead fly inside a Canon 70-200mm, tested how it affects image quality

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Ross Lowell, founder of Lowel-Light and the creator of gaffer tape, dead at 92

22 Feb

Photographer, cinematographer, Lowel-Light founder and creator of gaffer tape Ross Lowell died on February 15 at the age of 92, according to PDN. Lowell lived in Pound Ridge, New York, at the time of his passing, leaving behind his wife Marilyn Shapiro-Lowell and four children. Above is a video he participated in wherein he talks about various lighting tools and techniques.

Over the course of his long career, Lowell pioneered numerous lighting solutions for photography and cinematography, ultimately registering more than 25 patents, founding lighting company Lowel-Light and publishing the book Matter of Light & Depth. Among Lowell’s inventions is gaffer tape, a type of cotton cloth tape popularly used during production and staging work.

From the mid-1960s through 1985, Lowell also shot, directed, wrote and produced multiple documentaries and short films, including Oscar-nominated Oh Brother, My Brother. Lowell received multiple awards during his career, including a Technical Achievement Academy Award, the John Grierson Gold Medal and Lightfair Technical Innovation Award.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Ross Lowell, founder of Lowel-Light and the creator of gaffer tape, dead at 92

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Is HDR dead? Some dPS Writer’s Thoughts on this Controversial Topic

02 Jun

HDR (High Dynamic Range) photography has been around for quite a few years now. It is a technique that allows you as a photographer to use bracketed images, to capture as much of the dynamic range in a given scene as possible. Dynamic range is the measurable difference between the brightest highlights, and darkest shadows, in a scene that you are photographing.

Lions Gate Bridge Vancouver - HDR image

Lions Gate Bridge Vancouver – HDR from three bracketed images.

HDR became a very useful tool a few years ago as digital cameras were initially really bad at exposing the highlights in a scene correctly. Many photographers (myself included) would expose for the highlights in the scene and then pull back detail in the shadows in Photoshop or Lightroom. This technique caused other problems. When editing afterwards in Photoshop, the shadow areas that had been lightened were really noisy, and looked gritty and low quality. HDR came along and solved some of these issues.

HDR was able to blend the highlights in the scene correctly and show details in the shadows. This was great news, and almost overnight, there were many top photographers singing the praises of this new technique. It was really a huge step forward in the digital photography world. There were a few glitches though. If you wanted to do HDR images, you needed to purchase a third party piece of software, Photoshop did not have an HDR tool at first. Secondly, you had to shoot between three and five bracketed shots to get all the detail into the final image. If you did both those things, and you did them well, you were rewarded with a unique looking image.

The other challenge was that the HDR software often made images look overdone. While the dynamic range in the HDR image was good, there were often halos and artifacting in the image. Sometimes the saturation was erratic and the images looked just a little weird. For a time, this HDR look became quite trendy. Trey Ratcliff became one of the leading voices on HDR, and was a proponent of using HDR wherever possible and on any image. He gathered a strong following and HDR became the new thing to do to your images.

A somewhat overdone HDR image

A somewhat overdone HDR image

Fast forward to today. In recent years, the new camera sensors have improved on their dynamic range ability significantly. Also, improvements in RAW editors and quality means that cameras are now able to capture a lot more information that they did even five years ago, and a good RAW editor can bring back significant detail in the shadows and highlights.

So, the big question is this, is HDR dead or will it make a comeback? To add some insight to this, a few weeks ago, we posed this question to our own dPS writers and here are some of their responses:

What dPS writers have to say about HDR

All I know is, when I shoot my D750 at base ISO I can get more colors, and pull more from the shadows than I ever could on my D7100 with 5 stops of bracketed shots. So yeah…maybe the whole idea of bracketing to get HDR is going the way of the dodo bird. – Simon Ringsmuth

Sun rays wash over Kathmandu, Nepal (HDR by Peter West Carey)

Sun rays wash over Kathmandu, Nepal (HDR by Peter West Carey)

I think the technique has reached a more comfortable point, in that most people can recognize the truly horrible overcooked stuff now, and shy away from it….and more and more photographers are being responsible with it, merely pulling some dynamic range in their images with positive results. Lightroom doesn’t do a great job with the HDR merge, but the one thing it does is limit the super hot, overcooked messes 3rd party software can create. Personally, if I’m bracketing, I use LR to do a very subtle tonal merge. So I think LR will take a bit more of that market, especially as they update and improve the merge tool. So it’s not dead, in my humble opinion, it’s not even reborn. It’s just morphed into something a bit more pleasing, and still relevant. But it’s also true that these sensors are allowing for some really amazing single-file stuff. – Tim Gilbreath

The over processed, halo skies, over saturated look are popular on Instagram! But that’s about it now. HDR has been declining in popularity (at least amongst pro’s) for a while now…medium format users have always had an advantage, though! – Daniel Smith

HDR by Leanne Cole

HDR by Leanne Cole

HDR might not be dead, but the newer DSLR (especially the newer full frames) wider dynamic range makes it needed less. I only do HDR when I can’t get the range I am looking to achieve in the final image. LR’s merge to HDR has made creating HDR much easier. I like the natural look to HDR, and not the overcooked look that some are using. Since switching to full frame I don’t do nearly as many HDR images as I once did. – Bruce Wunderlich

It’s becoming less and less important, and in 5 years it won’t be needed, in that dynamic range and presentation out of camera will be the same as what the human eye sees. Beyond some artistic renderings, once you pass what the eye and brain are used to, it jolts people out of the natural experience and into something else, another form of art. I don’t like having to use HDR techniques and am happy that LR’s version works just fine for most of my uses. I just WYSIWIG straight out of the camera. As a side note, the in-camera HDR in the Canon 7D Mark II is not that usable, and I’d rather do it in post-processing. – Peter West Carey

HDR by Peter West Carey

HDR by Peter West Carey

Cameras will continue to improve. We saw the megapixel war, and the ISO range war, and now maybe there will be a dynamic range war. In regards to software I think we’ve seen both simplified solutions (i.e., Lightroom’s built-in option) and more complex solutions (Trey’s Ratcliffs new software – Aurora HDR) try and tackle the job. In the long run, simplified wins in my mind, especially as cameras become more capable. HDR as a style though, may still persist. I’d argue that overall it will continue to mature as a style, and as a result the over processed, over saturated photos, will become fewer and fewer – but there will still be those that enjoy that type of work – so it could still persist. – John Davenport

I really think the HDR war is going to be the new frontier, at least for the next few years. Even on mobile phones it’s going to be all about how much light you can capture (i.e. shooting at high ISO values, or making lenses with wider apertures) but ultimately the focus is going to be on coaxing as much data out of the image as possible. Whether through automated in-camera software processes, which we already see quite a bit, or using software like Lightroom or Aurora HDR, we’re going to see a lot of emphasis not on how many pixels the image has, but what software can do with those pixels to make the best possible image. – Simon Ringsmuth

I rarely do HDR now, but I still love it for night photography. – Leanne Cole

leannecole-Is HDR dead article-1

HDR by Leanne Cole

When we were browsing real estate listings the other day, the listings were FULL of HDR photos of things like…people’s living rooms. We’re not talking million dollar homes, or spectacular views. We’re talking Joe Plumber’s 1000 sq. ft. starter home HDR’ed to high heavens. It looked so absurd! – Meredith Clark

I have the D750 and its dynamic range is phenomenal! However, I have never been a fan of the over processed HDR effect that seemed popular at one time…or maybe still is! – Sarah Hipwell

HDR processing still has its place. While today’s cameras capture a higher dynamic range than older cameras, there are still situations when blending exposures results in greater detail throughout the range. To avoid the “overcooked” look, which thankfully was a fad, I tend to blend my exposures manually rather than use a plugin. – Anne McKinnell

HDR-dead-dps717px-01

HDR of 6 bracketed images, merged and processed in LR – image by Darlene

HDR isn’t new, it’s decades old. Ansel Adams did it with his Zone System and dodging and burning in the darkroom were also a form of HDR (tone control for more detail). Somewhere along the way it became more about a particular style. To me, HDR simply means what the letters stand for – High Dynamic Range – which represents a scene that your camera is unable to capture the entire tonal range due to high contrast. How that is dealt with that is up to each photographer. Do you bracket and blend exposures, do you use layer masking or luminosity masks to open up detail, or do you just let it all fall where it may and go realist? I’ve gone through all the stages of an HDR photographer and now I tend to lean towards more natural, and using LR’s merge to HDR works for me. – dPS Managing Editor Darlene Hildebrandt

What has changed?

With all the new sensors and updated software (Lightroom, Photoshop and standalone products like Aurora HDR and Photomatix) there are plenty of options to create truly amazing HDR images. The other option is to create a well balanced, and well edited photo, from just one image. This requires a bit of know-how with your chosen image editing suite. But with a bit of practice, you can create some amazing images that have just as much detail as any HDR image. Also, your images will look more realistic, and sometimes that may be necessary (for example, you may be shooting for a client who does not like the HDR look).

Below you will see an example where I have compiled an HDR image from 3 bracketed images. The next image is the best shot edited alone in Photoshop CC.

This image was 3 shots processed in HDR software

This image was 3 shots processed in 3rd party HDR software

This image was a one stop underexposed shot, edited in Photoshop CC

This image was a one stop underexposed shot, edited in Photoshop CC

Depending on what your goal is with HDR, you can achieve a lot with the right editing tool. The single image above, that was edited was done from one image, was shot on a Nikon D800 and edited in Photoshop CC. The details on this image are fantastic and you can see it’s pretty close to the HDR image style-wise. The result is not as random as the HDR image, and for the most part, when I use HDR software, I would edit to get the most realistic results, not a punchy, psychedelic look.

The next two images are of Vancouver Convention Centre at blue hour. It shows how much detail can be pulled out of a single image. The first image is the unedited version, the second image is the final shot. The details are pretty close to what you could get with HDR, but without some of the punchy tones.

Unedited image shot in Vancouver

Unedited image shot in Vancouver

Vancouver-after

Edited image, notice how much detail can be pulled out of one shot

So, what do you think? Is HDR dying? do you still use it or do you use it less? When do you use it?

Let us know what your comments and ideas are, we are curious to know.


Editor’s Note: This is one of a series of articles this week that are Open for Discussion. We want to get the conversation going, hear your voice and opinions, and talk about some possibly controversial topics in photography.

Let’s get it started here – do you agree or disagree with the points in the article above? Do you have any others to add? Give us your thoughts below, and watch for more discussion topics each day this week.

See all the recent discussion topics here:

  • 7 Commonly Accepted Photography Beliefs Debunked

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 Is HDR dead? Some dPS Writer’s Thoughts on this Controversial Topic by Barry J Brady appeared first on Digital Photography School.


Digital Photography School

 
Comments Off on Is HDR dead? Some dPS Writer’s Thoughts on this Controversial Topic

Posted in Photography

 

Living with the Dead: 12 Cemeteries with Surprising Alternate Uses

10 May

[ By Steph in Culture & History & Travel. ]

multipurpose cemeteries manila 4

The living play karaoke among headstones, hang their laundry from mausoleums, put on plays in crypts and golf right on top of graves in multipurpose cemeteries around the world, where the dead are integrated into modern life instead of remaining in solemn roped-off spaces. In some cases, it’s happening due to sprawl, like the family graveyard in a Walmart parking lot in Georgia, but in others, it’s more deliberate. As we grapple with population growth and urbanization, alternate ideas for the burial of our dead are coming into focus, all seemingly sending the same message: life goes on.

Habitable Cemeteries: Living with the Dead in the Philippines
multipurpose cemeteries manila 2

multipurpose cemeteries manila 5

Screen Shot 2016-05-09 at 9.10.38 AM

Screen Shot 2016-05-09 at 9.11.14 AM

Within the walls of Manila’s largest cemetery, 6,000 living residents thrive, going about their lives right on top of gravestone after gravestone, sometimes living in mausoleums alongside the tombs of their dead. The residents of North Cemetery are typically extremely poor, creating makeshift domiciles and living surprisingly normal lives. Within their cemetery city, they’ve created systems of public transit and schools.

multipurpose cemeteries manila 1

multipurpose cemeteries manila 4

multipurpose cemeteries manila 3

beverly hills of the dead

A second cemetery in the Philippines, the Chinese Cemetery, is nicknamed the ‘Beverly Hills of the Dead’ for the spacious, luxurious tombs that are fancier and more comfortable than most homes of the living. These houses of the dead have fully-functioning kitchens, bathrooms and bedrooms where relatives can sleep alongside their deceased loved ones, and sometimes live there full-time.

New Lucky Graveside Restaurant, India
multipurpose cemeteries new lucky 1

multipurpose cemeteries new lucky 2

multipurpose cemeteries new lucky 3

The patrons of New Lucky Restaurant in Ahmadabad, India don’t seem to mind dining right next to coffins from an old Muslim cemetery, which may belong to the followers of a 16th century Sufi saint. The owner decided to leave the coffins in place when building his establishment, and says the proximity to death hasn’t put a dent in business, which is brisk. In fact, he believes that it brings good luck, hence the restaurant’s name. Each morning, the servers pay their respects to the graves, wiping them, covering them with cloth and decorating them with fresh flowers.

Solar Power in Santa Coloma de Gramanet, Spain

multipurpose cemeteries solar power spain
With so much of the rest of the land too hilly and shaded to be of use, the town of Santa Coloma de Gramanet outside Barcelona found the one location that would be viable for its solar energy program. It just happens to be a cemetery. The densely-built town packs 124,000 residents into 1.5 square miles, so they have to make creative use of every inch. Now, 462 solar panels provide enough energy to power 60 homes each year. The panels are perched above ground level, so there’s no notable change to the feel of the sacred spaces below. “The best tribute we can pay to our ancestors, whatever your religion may be, is to generate clean energy for new generations, says the director of Const-Live Energy, which runs the cemetery.

Next Page – Click Below to Read More:
Living With The Dead 12 Cemeteries With Surprising Alternate Uses

Share on Facebook





[ By Steph in Culture & History & Travel. ]

[ WebUrbanist | Archives | Galleries | Privacy | TOS ]


WebUrbanist

 
Comments Off on Living with the Dead: 12 Cemeteries with Surprising Alternate Uses

Posted in Creativity

 

Dead Drops: Hidden USB Sticks Offer Anonymous File Sharing

07 Feb

[ By Steph in Gaming & Computing & Technology. ]

usb dead drop

If you happened to notice a USB stick poking out of a brick wall in an urban space, would you be brave enough to connect your computer to it just to see what it might contain? Will it dump a bunch of malicious software onto your machine, or reveal something amazing? You just never know. The Dead Drops offline peer-to-peer file sharing project has been called “the nerd equivalent to glory holes,” bringing the sense of anonymity provided by the internet into the real world in a way that feels conspicuously sketchy.

dead drops 4

dead drops 5

Berlin-based artist Aram Bartholl took inspiration from the methods spies used to transfer information in a secret location. The process of accessing or distributing files on these networks is anonymous, you can share anything you want, and actually plugging your laptop or tablet into the drive sometimes requires bending at awkward angles or doing something that looks vaguely suspicious.

dead drops 2

dead drops 6

Bartholl notes that the ‘danger’ of participating in the project is no different from that of sharing files on the internet. People typically share photographs, art, poetry and videos. The drives range from 64 megabytes to a whopping 120 gigabytes. To install one of your own, just find or create a hole in a wall or other urban surface, remove the thumb drive’s plastic case and wrap the memory board with waterproof tape, place it in the hole with just the port exposed and cement it in with fast-setting concrete.

dead drops 7

The project started in 2010 and has since grown to thousands of locations worldwide, according to a database that tracks where they’ve been installed. Some can be found in the busiest areas of cities like New York, while others are in abandoned buildings off the beaten track. You can find out whether there are any near you, or create one of your own using the Dead Drops site’s instructions.

Share on Facebook





[ By Steph in Gaming & Computing & Technology. ]

[ WebUrbanist | Archives | Galleries | Privacy | TOS ]


WebUrbanist

 
Comments Off on Dead Drops: Hidden USB Sticks Offer Anonymous File Sharing

Posted in Creativity

 

From the Dead: Businessman Resurrecting Canadian Ghost Town

24 Dec

[ By WebUrbanist in Abandoned Places & Architecture. ]

ghost town resurrection

Built in the late 1970s, this mining village housed 1,200 people at its peak and was left effectively intact for over twenty years before being sold as a whole for $ 5,000,000 to an entrepreneur in 2004 who has worked on bring it back to life in the decade since. He has, however, had to adjust his plans to the market along the way – his latest endeavor: to revive it to fit its original purpose once more (image above by Andrea B).

ghost town street

kitsault abandoned mall hall

Located in northern British Columbia, Kitsault boasts a remarkable lack of decay, its infrastructure still mostly intact. It has over 100 houses and apartment buildings as well as a movie theater, hospital, shopping mall, recreation center and swimming pool.

kitsault resort town drawings

Krishnan Suthanthiran purchased the town with visions of turning it into a rural retreat for the creative class and has already spent over $ 10,000,000 repairing landscapes and fixing buildings.

kisault deserted mining area

kitsault swimming pool area

Still, much more work would have been required had the relocation of its previous occupants not been so hasty – they were moved almost overnight in the early 1980s, leaving almost everything intact behind them. Indeed, many of the spaces come complete with vintage furniture and decor dating back to the abandonment of the town.

kitsault deserted library room

kitsault abandoned library stacks

The idea has evolved over time, however, as commodities markets have rebounded – this time liquid natural gas may be the key to the area’s success. In the end, Kitsault could once again become what it was to begin with: a mining town.

Share on Facebook





[ By WebUrbanist in Abandoned Places & Architecture. ]

[ WebUrbanist | Archives | Galleries | Privacy | TOS ]


WebUrbanist

 
Comments Off on From the Dead: Businessman Resurrecting Canadian Ghost Town

Posted in Creativity

 

Not dead yet: Sony announces three A-mount lenses

28 Nov

Among all of the excitement around the a7 II, Sony quietly announced a new A-mount lens last week. The 70-300mm F4.5 – F5.6 G SSM II lens for A-mount offers faster AF tracking, a new Nano AR coating, and weatherproofing, and will be available in February for $ 1150. The company also announced the development of Vario-Sonnar T* 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM II and 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM II A-mount lenses, which will arrive next Spring with similar improvements. Read more

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Not dead yet: Sony announces three A-mount lenses

Posted in Uncategorized