Gadgets and situational problem solving

I love gadgets. I admit it. I love it when I find a gadget that solves a valid problem in my daily life or in my photography career. Solving issues out in the field is something a field photographer has to deal with, using any and all tools available. Sometimes tools and gadgets aren't available, and that is when you need to have your McGyver hat on.

I came across a very funny page on Wikipedia, and thought it should have a place on my blog. MacGyver lives on.

List of problems solved by McGyver

The new Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 II

I have been playing around with the new Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 II, and I will be doing some testing with it over the coming days. My initial impression is that not much has changed, unless you sweat the minute details. Probably the biggest change has been the filter size, as it moved from a 'standard' 77mm to 82mm. Since I rarely use any filter on wide angle lenses, this isn't much of a consideration for me. For example, polarizers at 16 to about 28mm or 30mm has very distinct polarized areas and non polarized areas in the same scene. I am not a fan of using UV filters on my lenses, unless I am headed to Namibia to photograph in extreme sandy environments.

Another change, albeit small, is that the autofocus on/off switch on the side of the lens is now much easier to switch on and off. If you have the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS lens, you will recognize the new switch, as it has grooves that grab on to your finger. A huge plus if you are shooting with gloves on.

Here is a great review that has already been published on the lens.

Is the upgrade worth it? I have no idea. But I have a hard time believing this new lens is worse than my 16-35mm series 1 that it is replacing. I will be giving it a spin on board our Galapagos motor yacht later this week, though.

The Leica M8

So I have been shooting with a borrowed Leica M8 for the past few days, and I have a few thoughts on the camera. The thought of a digital rangefinder has always seemd attractive to me, as the whole system tends to be smaller and more compact than a comparable SLR system. If I were to purchase a rangefinder system, the Leica M8 would certainly be at the top of my list.

I have been using the Leica M8 with the 28mm f/2.0 Summichron lens, and all I have to say is WOW. Fantastic lens, and there is something unique about these images that is hard to explain. That is, when I get the focusing correct. I need to first say that I do not have any experience with rangefinder cameras, and some of my thoughts on the M8 can be attributed to rangefinders as a whole. I took on the M8 has sort of a 'day-in-the-life' project of my family (no pictures of me, as is usually the case), so please excuse my lack of having horns, spots, tusks or stripes in my photos.

The M8 is a gorgeous piece of equipment. The quality of craftmanship is second to none. When you hold the M8 in your hands, you know that the best materials were use in its construction, and people paid attention to its being built at all stages. I have been using the optional Handgrip for the M8, which is a must-have accessory if you are going to own the M8. Without the grip the M8 tended to slip out of my hands, and didn't feel as stable. With the Handgrip in place, I felt that I could hold on a little tighter, as well as shoot with slower shutter speeds.

The majority of my photography either happens from a tripod or Land Rover in Africa, but I also shoot tons of photographs of daily life here at home. Inside the house. Ambient light. High ISO shots. 1 year old child scurrying about. 2 greyhounds. You get the picture. Absolute chaos. If you were to call me during the day, I am sure you would hear all of the chaos in the background.

This is an important point, because I might not be the perfect candidate for M8 ownership. When I think of shooting my family, I think of an f/2.0 or f/2.8 lens on a full frame Canon camera at ISO 1000 to 1600. While my experience with the Canon 5D, 1DMkII and 1DsMkII has been stellar in the higher ISO department, I wish I could say the same for the M8. The ISO range of the M8 starts at 160, and increases in 1 stop increments to 1250. So you have 160, 320, 640 and 1250. ISO 320 on the M8 is a sweet spot, becase anything over that I haven't been happy with, and anything lower might cause me to have to open up my lens, often showing my poor focusing techniques.

ISO 640 can certainly be used, but 1250 doesn't evoke that Leica quality that we often associate to the brand. So I decided to start using the Leica SF 24D flash unit. I learned that once you start using this flash, the camera system starts to get bulky. The flash sits nice and high above the camera, which is a great thing, but it also feels unbalanced to me. The M8 just feels best without a flash. The SF 24D worked great for me, but the metering system needs some getting used to for best results (just like any camera/flash system).

Leica has a wonderful battery charger, as you plug the unit directly into the wall. There are no cords to have to deal with, and Leica has created a charger with interchangable power tips, making it very easy to travel to foreign countries with different eletrical plugs. Well done. I only wish they could have figured out a way to accommodate 2 batteries instead of 1.

 

I have to admit that I have had issues with focusing on this camera, and I think that would go away with practice. Leica makes it very easy to figure out your depth of field at a given aperture, as they have this clearly marked on all of their lenses. I often like to shoot near wide open on any lens, and this is very difficult on a rangefinder camera with a subject that is close. David Alan Harvey, you are the man, as you have obviously figured out rangefinder focusing.

At the end of the day, I will not be purchasing the M8, mostly due to what I want out of a camera. If I was a hard core travel photographer in urban areas, I would likely purchase the M8. Instead, I am a wildlife and landscape photographer, and I have different tools to suit my own style and needs. I don't look forward to sending the M8 back, but I probably have another few days to get it out of my system for a while. If my needs change, I will go back and take a hard look at the M8 again.

Camera bags, and more camera bags

I think I have done it. I mean actually done it. I think I have actually managed to collect as many camera bags as my wife has pairs of shoes. I am dead serious. Even though I have sold off a few bags over the past year, I have still managed to fill an entire closet worth of nothing but camera bags. Shoulder bags. Bacpacks. Fanny packs. You name it. This is insane. I am at step number 1, and I only have 11 more to go. My name is Andy Biggs, and I am a recovering.....

 

Oops. Wrong speech.

 

The problem with the camera bag industry is that nobody makes a bag that will suit my needs. I like to think that I have needs that are common to all photographers who travel with our camera equipment.

I want a camera backpack that is sensitive to weight, built extremely well, and is FAA airline legal. That's it. Pretty simple. We are currently bombarded with changing airline regulations that tell us we cannot lock our checked luggage. Ok. So that means we carry on our camera gear personally onto the plane. But many international airlines are limiting our carryon allowances to 1, maybe 2 bags, and are often limited to 15 to 22 pounds for our main carryon bag.

Let me set a scenario here. I am an African wildlife photographer. This means I use a large lens, like a 500mm f/4 lens, and it weighs 8.5 pounds. The typical camera backpack that can hold this lens, in addition to a few cameras and some more lenses, weighs around 9 to 10 pounds. Simple math tells me that I am already over the British Airways allowance of 6 kilos (14 pounds), and am almost to the limit for KLM's restriction of 10 kilos (22 pounds). The only bag that is airline legal in size, and can accommodate my equipment is a total and utter piece of junk. This product will be unnamed in this blog, as I don't want this blog to be personal in nature.

 

I take many people to Africa each year on safari, so I see plenty of camera bags come into my Land Rovers. To give up some weight, one assumes that one has to give up on features and padding. I don't think this is the case at all. There are two ways of reducing weight on a bag: reduce features or spend your way out of it with lightweight, expensive materials. Why won't somebody make a high end, lightweight camera backpack? Why do I have to give up on either padding or features to have a lightweight bag? I don't, do I?

Lightroom versus Aperture

Well, I am now diving into Lightroom 1.0, and I will be importing, managing, processing and outputting my images from my most recent safari on both Lightroom 1.0 and Aperture. I think this will be a great exercise for me, as I will be able to make a decision once and for all regarding my platform going forward. I was very happy that Lightroom 1.0 ships with a spot/dust removal tool, as well as a basic 'stacks' functionality (I thought Apple owns the patent to that?). Since I have a new Mac Pro desktop with dual 2.5ghz dual core CPUs, as well as 5GB of RAM, performance in my environment should be about as real as real can be. No hypothetical statements like 'if had a faster computer' will make it into my final analysis.

Other than preparing from my upcoming Galapagos workshop (1 last spot is available if you are interested), my main goal will be importing and categorizing my entire library over the next few months. I also need to get my Photoshelter library up to speed with ecommerce capabilities, which shouldn't be a big task once my images are organized.

Canon EOS-1D MkIII Announced

Well, the hammer dropped today and Canon announced their latest offering in their professional 1-series camera line. The EOS-1D Mk III was announced, and you can read more details at the link below.

The Canon Japan EOS-1D MK III web page

There are some nice highlights that sound enticing for my wildlife photography needs:

• High-capacity, lightweight and compact lithium-ion battery with estimated battery life display. New, smaller charger (yeah!)
  


• 10 frames per second (wow)


• 10.1 megapixels


• Joystick autofocus selection (about time)


• Integrated Cleaning System (This is huge for me)
  


• 14-bit A/D conversion for smoother transitions. Less banding, perhaps?


• ISO 100-3200


• Large and bright 3.0-inch LCD monitor (Not that big of a deal for me)
  


• Maximum burst of up to 30 raw shots


• flash sync speed of 1/300sec (I do wish for 1/500 from what I used to have with the original 1D)

Will I purchase this new camera? Perhaps. My hesitation comes in two forms. I will need to support yet another battery type, as my 1DsMkII uses the older batteries, as well as the camera's interface will be different from my 1DsMkII. That can potentially mess me up when working quickly out on safari.

Epson 3800 initial thoughts

My Epson 3800 arrived last week, and I have a few dozen prints off of the printer that look fantastic. The Epson 3800 arrived in a very small box, delivered by UPS. The box isn't much larger than most 13" wide printers, which will be great for sales for Epson. Being able to deliver via UPS/FedEx/USPS over a freight company is a major benefit for Epson, as they will definitely sell more units this way.

I set up the printer in about 15 minutes, and it took a number of minutes to charge the lines with the ink. The ink carts are 80ml, which is respectable, and after a few dozen prints I have not seen any significant decrease in ink volumes. You can hook up the 3800 via USB or ethernet, and I chose USB as to get that first print out much quicker. I will switch over to ethernet at some point in the future.

You have three choices for paper paths on the 3800: The upper paper 'tray', the rear paper path, and the front paper path. This is where my enthusiasm for the 3800 starts to waver. Coming from the Pro 4000, I am used to much better paper handling, as the Pro 4000 uses a front paper cassette that can accommodate not only a ton of sheets, but these sheets can be thick art papers. On the 3800 you are relegated to using the rear paper path, which can only be fed one sheet at a time. What a pain. Additionally, the prints from the top paper tray have had ink blotches on the edges of the print. I need to spend some time looking into the source of the problem, but it has been discussed in online forums. Some attribute these ink blotches to the lack of having a vacuum system to keep the paper flat. I just don't know, but it is frustrating.

Out of the box the 3800 makes absolutely gorgeous color and black and white prints. Yes, out of the box the 3800 makes wonderful black and white prints. The supplied profiles are the best I have ever seen from any printer, and my desire to create custom profiles for Epson papers is non existent. I primarily use Moab Entrada as my paper of choice, and I have already created custom profiles for all of the Moab Paper line. The profiles have been posted here.

The 3800 has both photo black and matte black inks installed the same time, but the print head can only use one of those inks at a time. This means that if you switch from photo black to matte black the print head needs to purge the photo black out of the print head to make room for the matte black. It has been reported that you lose about 1.5ml in the process, and the process takes less than a minute. Why not develop a print head that accommodates 9 inks and not 8? This is why I have not upgraded my Pro 4000 to the Pro 4800, as I am not interested in losing ink when I switch back and forth. The 3800 is much much better in this regard, but it still is not optimal.

Overall I feel that Epson has a printer that they will sell a ton of. I love the output, but am not impressed with the paper handling. I suspect the paper handling components came straight out of their 2400 model. I have been a huge Epson fan in the past, but I am starting to feel that they are getting lazy. Yes, the 3800 is $700 less expensive than the Pro 4800, and you have to remove features to get the cost down. Will I keep the 3800? Perhaps. Perhaps not. What is my perfect printer? I know that my perfect printer is not out there yet, but I would like to have a 24" carriage, pigment inks, excellent paper handling for roll paper and cut sheets, including a front loading cassette (you read that right, a cassette feeder on a 24" printer), gloss optimizer, and no switching of black inks.

For a 17" printer the Canon IPF5000 might be the best solution at the moment. I would expect HP to have a solution before too long. For a 24" printer I would take a hard look at the HP Z3100 series of printers.

Am I needy? You bet. At least I know what I want. I am here at the PPA Imaging USA show in San Antonio right now, so maybe I should go pitch my ideas to HP, Canon and Epson. I am sure they would make a product just for me! ha ha.

New Epson 3800

I have an Epson 3800 on its way to my door, and I thought I would jot down a few thoughts related to this purchase.

I currently have an Epson 4000 as my main printer, and I have been looking for an upgrade in print quality for a few months now. I was all enthusiastic about purchasing either a 24" or 44" wide printer, but after careful size calculations I cannot find a place for a larger printer. So 17" wide it is, at least for now. My options were to upgrade to the Epson 4800, Canon IPF5000 or the new Epson 3800.

I passed on the 4800 for a few reasons. I print on different types of papers, mixing between matte papers and semigloss/luster papers. This would require switching out the photo black and matte black cartridges often, which is both an expensive and time consuming endeavor. If you have ever primed the lines in a 4000/4800 printer, you know exactly how much time it takes to lift up and down the levers over a 20 or 30 minute period. Huge pain in my side. I would gain better out-of-the-box black and white printing, but that is about it. The minuses are more than the pluses.

 

Drive-in Theater, 2003

The Canon IPF5000 caught my eyes, but between Canon's poor documentation, software driver communication issues, and a smaller community of users, I chose to pass on this printer as well. I passed mostly because of usability issues, not print quality. I have seen wonderful output from all of the 17" or wider pigment printers on the market, and I have to say that there aren't many differences between all of the offerings.

So then there is the Epson 3800. It is crippled in a few ways from its more robust brother, the 4800, but there are some improvements in there at the same time.

Pros:

• Lightweight compared to the 4000/4800 printers. UPS or Fedex can deliver. No shipping pallette required.


• Better for out of the box black and white printing, when compared to my Epson 4000.


• Auto photo black / matte black switching


• Built in ethernet port. This is a requirement for me, as my printing stand is stored inside of a closet on the other side of my study.

Cons:

• Cannot use roll paper with the 3800. Not a big deal, because I never use roll paper to begin with.


• Build quality is not as robust as the other pro level Epson models


• 80ml cartridges are slightly more expensive per ml than the 110ml carts. More details below.

When I need to print larger prints for print shows, I will outsource the printing to somebody local that has a larger printer. I will have to work with the printer on the black and white prints, as I am very picky about the quality, and will want to be a part of the process.

I did some research on the cost per ml of competing printers, and here are some ink cost numbers.
$1.35 / ml for HP B9180 ink cartridges
$0.95 / ml for Epson R2400 ink cartridges
$0.75 / ml for Epson 3800 ink cartridges
$0.65 / ml for Epson 110 ml ink cartridges used in 4800/7800/9800
$0.58 / ml for Canon iPF5000 ink cartridges
$0.51 / ml for Epson 220 ml ink cartridges used in 4800/7800/9800

Interesting data. I am not one to count pennies on the cost per print, but I had always made the assumption that a printer like the R2400 would have been more expensive than that. Or that using 110ml cartridges would have been much more cost effective. Very interesting.

I will be posting my experiences on the Epson 3800 in the coming weeks. I am not sure I will have much to write about, as I anticipate the 3800 won't be all that different than other Epson printers I have used. I will focus on differences and surprises, rather than rehashing what it is like to print with an Epson Pro Stylus printer.