I haven't been able to update my blog in quite a bit. I've been spending a lot of time preparing for my upcoming mission trip to Malawi, Africa, and have been doing some video reviews on some outdoor gear I use when hiking.
I wanted to post a quick update to 1.) let you know I'm still alive and 2.) to let you know that I'll have an in-depth D800 camera review coming in the next few weeks.
I've been testing the RAW and JPEGs as well as video. Once I've concluded my testing, I'll put some samples up along with some comparisons between the D800 and the D3s and D700 - sorry, still on the waiting list for the D4. I'll give you my thoughts on how it performs relative to the other cameras with regard to image quality (including metering, WB, color, detail, high ISO performance, etc.) and handling.
As always, I'm not an analyst for DPreview.com or DXO. This is simply a first hand experience as a real-world shooter who will put the camera through its various paces. It will be my opinions only, but I'll try to offer evidence to back up my claims when possible.
The Nikon D4 is here. Because everyone and their brother has an opinion on it and because people far more capable than me have already had a chance to play with it, I'm simply going to make some comments and observations based on what I've seen and know about this camera.
Strategy. Unlike Canon, which seems to have blended their high end line into a single body, Nikon has remained true to form with the D4. It's an upgrade from the D3/s body and nothing more. It adds loads of features for sure, but does nothing to disrupt the hierarchy of bodies which Nikon loyalists have come to understand. No, Nikon will wait and do that with the upcoming D800. More on this later...
When Canon set out with the 1Dx they were looking to try and make something that suited almost everyone. They kept, and in fact, improved on the high speed shooting abilities of the 1D Mark IV, but did so for the first time with a full frame sensor as opposed to the 1.3x APS-H size sensor which was standard on their photojournalist/sports bodies for years.
They met on middle ground with the resolution for this sensor. They bumped it up from the Mark IV's 16 but dropped it down from the 1Ds Mark III's 21, and the result is 18MP. This sentence alone is proof of why so many users might just be happy with the merger - too many Marks to keep up with!
Canon also loaded the camera with twin processors and loads of new video features, etc., which you can read more about in my other post or check out the discussions online. The concept I wanted to briefly discuss was this: That Canon married the 1D and 1Ds lines to produce a hybrid of sorts that would best suite the widest spectrum of needs. It seems that for straight studio work Canon users will stick with the 5D Mark II or the upcoming Mark III upgrade.
Back to Nikon. So, Nikon's approach to the D4 was more streamlined. In fact, it was really just an upgrade to the already excellent D3 line. This is not to say that they didn't add features, but they really didn't change what the line is known for. It's more of a refining than a rebirth.
So, what's under the hood? More resolution. Those who felt they were behind the megapixel curve with a scant 12MP now have 16 at their disposal. So, this is a larger increase in resolution than owners of the 1D Mark IV will see in the new 1Dx, but remember, the Mark IV was already at 16MP. The D3 series has had a full frame sensor, so there's no change there. Nikon's D3x will remain the megapixel leader until the D800 shows up. Again, more on this later.
The Nikon also gets a better buffer, faster frame rates, a new silent shutter mode (limited to 2MP), better AF performance especially in low light and a slightly larger screen (3.2 inches vs. 3 inches) that keeps the same resolution. The 1Dx has3.2" screen as well, but with higher resolution. There are also a few button layout tweaks that, from my perspective, seem to be improvements. Every camera get's these little tweaks. So, what, besides the almighty resolution, does the D4 get? Let's take a look.
Perhaps my favorite new feature on this camera is the illuminated buttons. I shoot in dark environments quite a bit so I can appreciate this upgrade beyond its obviously being cool. Wedding, event, sports and nature photographers are going to love this new feature. It keeps you from having to feel your way around in the dark and from memorizing everything in order to navigate your controls and menu settings. Below is a screen shot from Nikon's promotional video. Click on the image to view the YouTube clip.
PS - if you don't want a D4 yet, the video will make you want one. It shows all of the cool features while playing an Oscar-worthy score of triumph. I think they got Hans Zimmer to do it, but I digress...
Another new feature which has caught the eye of a lot of people is the new XQD memory card slot. The D4 is the world's first camera to feature this new card technology. It is smaller and more durable than current cards and the Compact Flash group says it will be the new standard. It's supposedly outstanding for video and photos because of it's read and write speeds. The camera also features a standard CF slot, so you're not forced into any new tech right out of the gate. Bummer: the double CF card slots were awesome. New owners will not have the luxury of using two of the same storage type like before. It would have been cool if they could have crammed twin CF slots and a new QXD in there, but oh well. You'll lose the ability to double up on your current "film stock" but you'll get the luxury of newer, faster tech if you opt for the new cards which are, thankfully, not significantly more expensive than their current CF counterparts.
The next feature, better ISO performance? I end that statement with a question mark because until we have the ability to compare the results with other models, we have to trust what Nikon says about its sensor. The D3s became a legend because of it's lowlight abilities. Early estimates by Nikon are that the D4 is approximately a stop better in the noise category than the D3s, which, if true, is a significant feat. Why? Well, consider it. Sure, having images at ISO 12,800 out of the D4 that are as clean at shots at ISO 6,400 from the D3s is stellar. But couple that with the bump in resolution and the stop better lowlight AF specs and you've got a real weapon on your hands. We should be seeing some test results within a few weeks, but wait until the Olympics to get a real look at how this stuff excels - or doesn't. The Olympics is an extraordinary testing ground for new state-of-the-art optics and bodies and this year's gathering could prove crucial for both the D4 and 1Dx.
Finally, we have video. The D3s had it, but many hardcore videographers would argue about the genuineness of that statement. It was 720p with full-time manual focus and that's about it. The D4 could be a cinematographer's dream. It's got full HD support with the option for direct output of uncompressed HD footage which is both impressive and problematic. The number of hard drives you'd need to store the footage could require a bigger financial sacrifice than the camera itself, but hey, the feature's there if you need it. Combine the stellar lowlight performance with Nikon's legendary optics and you'll get some astounding video quality. They've also integrated a headphone jack and options for microphone inputs which makes it perhaps the most video ready DSLR out there. However, Canon's new cinema line of bodies shows its dedication to the video industry. I don't see Nikon sharing this path, but the new D4 will easily be the go-to body for production companies who want to best video features Nikon has to offer.
Many users consider video rather out of place in the DSLR, but I disagree. Visual artists - i.e. 98 percent or more of the D4 buyers, etc. - usually welcome this feature. Not because they plan on making feature films or documentaries, but because they can. No one who is in the market for a home video camera is really going to buy the D4. Why? because it's $6000 and you still need storage cards and lenses! It will, however, appeal to documentary groups, wildlife production teams as well as wedding and sports crews. Sure, far less expensive cameras can rock HD video, but with this level of quality, lowlight performance and feature set - it's really in a league of its own. This camera is clearly aimed at the hardcore professional photographer and videographer or the combination of the two. It's also aimed at people who want the latest and greatest and have deep pockets. Nikon will sell this to anyone with a valid credit card.
Worst new feature: battery. The battery life is rated significantly lower than the battery life on the D3s, by more than 1,000 shots! Real world testing is pending, but the estimates are crappy. You'll wanna carry more batteries and, oh yah, they're more expensive. You didn't expect it to be perfect did you? Ha. I suppose it has something to do with environmental standards or something, but I'm for more landfills if I can shoot a few hours longer. I'm kidding - mostly.
So, is it cool? You bet. Do I want one? Of course. Will I get one? Not on my own dime. If the university where I work puts a new budget into play, then I will get this camera. It will be the absolute best solution for what my job requires. I do quite a bit of video production in addition to lowlight sports action, event coverage and studio work. It has excellent resolution for the promotional stuff and just might be the world's best all-in-one system. The 1Dx will certainly be a contender as well.
So, personally, I love the idea of this camera and will be anxious to see how it works in the real world. If I get my hands on one I will do a post about it without question. If I hit the lottery I don't play or inherit a load of cash from my middle income family members, then I might splurge. However, for my personal work the D3s and trusty D700 are still excellent weapons. Though the D4 is theoretically the best solution, it will not change my work in a significant enough way - at least at the moment - for me to go hog wild with the credit cards. I'll update some lenses instead and call it a year. Maybe I'll grab a used one in a few years or get the new D5 in 2017.
Now, about that "Nikon will screw up the hierarchy/functionality comment"... Well, though Nikon left the D3 series alone, it just might have stirred the pot with the next tier down - the D700. The D700 is a brilliant camera. It shares a sensor with the D3 which is a good thing. The D700 was Nikon's first full frame body for enthusiasts and was setup, it would seem to offset the Canon 5D series. However, Nikon through a wrench in that thinking and ultimately produced a unique body that really didn't have any major competition. The D700 offered a respectable 12MP full frame sensor, had excellent lowlight performance for it's class, good build quality and with the optional grip and higher end battery could kick out 8fps! It was sort of like a poor man's D3. Canon's 5D trumped the D700 in the resolution category, but couldn't hold a candle to it with regard to build quality, shooting speed or lowlight ability - at least in the Mark I. And Nikon users ate it up.
So, how did Nikon screw this great thing up? Well, if the rumors hold true, they've essentially killed this category of camera to focus more on a head to head with the Canon 5D. It seems that this class of camera is now all about resolution and video than lowlight and high speed. Early estimates are that the D800 will be around 36MP - which is insane - but will slouch in the frames per second arena and undoubtedly in the lowlight area. There's really too many photo sites that are just too small to make super lowlight all that great, but I could be wrong. I figure clean to maybe 3,200, but not by D3s or D4 standards. No one will wanna shoot it it over that is my prediction. Think studio not sports.
So, my guess is Nikon will convert the D700 to a 5D alternate in the D800. Then, maybe, they'll pick the slack back up with the D400. IF the D400 can be what we all wanted the D800 to be, a budget-friendly high-speed, lowlight performer, then that would be just swell. But it needs to gain the FX sensor to do that. If the D400 is just a D300s upgrade, then we will lose that magical D700 window and it will simply be a 7D combatant. The D700 legend will fade into oblivion.
But maybe the D4, D800 and D400 will make us forget all about it. Maybe the D800 will do what the 5D series is looking to do at Canon and that is whip the ridiculously priced D3x line out of business. Canon quit selling 1Ds bodies when the 5D Mark II came out. People realized they got the same performance for half the price. Maybe the "X" is done at Nikon and now popular at Canon. I don't know. But $8,000 for the D3x is stupid and has been from the onset. If the D800 manages somehow to replace the X series then perhaps it will become a legend in its own way.
We'll see what Nikon does with the D800. I'm guessing it'll be announced in February. I'd love to see the D400 along with it just to clean up the aging lines - but they'll make us wait.
I should clarify the title of this article. I'm not in any way suggesting that photographers and graphic designers don't put their talents to good use every day in the workplace. I simply want to discuss using your talents to help others and doing so on a volunteer basis.
Many photographers are familiar with Help Portrait and similar efforts, but you can use your talents in other ways as well. I often volunteer to shoot and design for local non-profit organizations. I recently designed a few banners for a local Cub Scout pack for their holiday parade float and shoot images for my local church regularly.
Recently, a student-athlete at the university were I work asked me to help with a poster design for an upcoming mission trip. She needs to raise more than $15,000 to sponsor 11 months of work in 11 countries on her World Race. She really just wanted a decent photo and some text next to it so she'd have something to get peoples' attention. Being a person that's either full speed or stop, I couldn't let it just be a boring image. My opinion was simple: even if people don't like the concept, they won't be able to say that no effort was put into it. And away I ran with the idea.
The concept was to mimic the film Book of Eli. I won't spoil the film if you haven't seen it, but the premiss is that a man has been called by God to travel across the American wasteland (post nuclear war) to fulfill a specific mission. Nesya, the student taking the trip, will do much of the same. She will spend nearly a year visiting impoverished countries and communities and working with a variety of people groups on countless aid projects and in teaching ministries. She'll be living out of a backpack the entire time. Again, if you've seen the film, this was a perfect fit for a theme.
Step one was to conceptualize the final piece and how it would be used. We decided that it would be good to have some business cards with her information to send out in letters and to hand out to people she may happen on by chance. We also wanted to make 11x17 posters to present some of the basic information and encourage viewers to find out more about the work.
The concept was an open desert - were much of the Book of Eli film takes place. I didn't have any good images of the desert, despite living in Arizona for several years so, I resorted to stock images which I purchased, retouched and composited. Here are the two images that we decided on:
The above images was chosen as the major background piece. Even the sky would work perfectly for the look we were after, especially after a few tweaks in Photoshop.
The image above would be used for the road only. I had to alter the perspective to work with the horizon line in the top photo and it required lengthening and tapering to gain a vanishing point.
Here is what the background looked like after some composite work in Photoshop.
The film is shot in desaturated tones to convey the drab and desolate world that remains. So, I punched up the drama in the sky, desaturated the setting and boosted the contrast.
Next we had to shoot Nesya. In the film, Mila Kunis' character is dressed in clothing that remains. She has a plaid long sleeve shirt, vest, hip pouch and aviators. At the end of the film, she carries a backpack and inserts a pair of Dr. Dre Beats headphones as she begins her journey. So, we echoed this the best we could with what we had.
I photographed her in the parking lot outside my office so that I could use the sun as a hair light and so I'd have plenty of ambient. I ended up shooting at ISO 400 at 1/200th at f/11 or so, though I did make some changes depending on the pose. I photographed her looking in various directions. We'd check them on the background later and decide which image we felt worked best.
Here is the selected image right out of the camera.
I did a poor job of keeping her in front of the original background which was a light colored building in the distance. We had no clear view of the sky from an angle that would work for the point of view, so we just, well, winged it.
I lit her with a single Alien Bees 800 strobe shot through a 51" translucent PLM umbrella with the Spill Kill fabric installed on the back so, it was basically a brolly box. This threw a broad, but diffused light and the Kill fabric allowed maximum efficiency by forcing all light through the front of the umbrella face. I set it to just under 1/4 power to fill the unlit portion of her face. You can see the reflection in her sunglasses. The PLM was approximately 5 feet off the ground and 5 feet away and powered with a Paul C. Buff Vagabond pack.
The final lighting setup is shown below and is a classic cross-light setup using the sun as the hair light.
After we had the shot, I removed her form the background, removed the light reflection from the sunglasses, did very minor retouching to the skin and then added some contrast and desaturation work to echo the background environment.
Once she was added to the frame it was simply a matter of adding a shadow to the ground behind her, bringing in some gradients to allow the text to stand out and placing the text in the appropriate areas. Here is the final composite.
I hope you found this breakdown helpful, but more importantly, I hope you take away the principle of helping others with your craft. There's no harm in charging for your services, but donating your time is hugely rewarding to those you help, and perhaps more so, for you individually.
Here's another BTS video I shot several weeks ago, but am just now getting to post. This is a look at the setup and shoot for the cover of this year's women's soccer brochure for Faulkner University.
This is perhaps the most minimalistic setup I've ever used for a promotional product piece. It's about as easy as you can get; a Nikon SB-800 with a CTO gel fired remotely on a stand about 45 degrees to camera left.
I used the CTO gel to balance for the setting sun that was already turning orange/gold. I obviously used the sun as the main light and simply added fill from the left with the flash. The flash is set to remote mode and I believe it was set to 50mm zoom with about 1/8th output. I pushed the shutter up to 1/400th and had the ISO at 400 and the aperture parked at f/5.6. I used continuous focus tracking and simply tried to time the shot where I wanted it.
The video doesn't show the cutout process of each player like the football video, but you still get the idea. Feel free to post any comments or questions.
Here is a behind the scenes look at the 2011 Faulkner University football cover shoot. This year the coaches decided to feature a representative from each class. The shooting order in the video is as follows: Matt Enyart, senior defensive end; Isaac Franklin, freshman safety; Josh Hollingsworth, sophomore quarterback; and Matt Nolan, junior offensive lineman.
This video is posted to show the lighting setup used for each of the shots and then the progression in post for each of the selected images. Here is a basic look at the setup used, though the lights were moved around obviously, depending on the subject orientation.
Unfortunately, none of the power settings used were recorded. I typically meter visually and the actual metered output isn't recorded. This will at least give you an idea of where the lights were placed and the effect that each was designed to create.
This was a fun project, as usual, and the guys were great to work with. Hope you enjoy the video and for the photographers out there, I hope you find the setups somewhat helpful. I hope to have the women's soccer shoot up soon.
Since so many people are obviously interested in the iPhone 4s and because Apple is touting the new optics as the "you-can't-believe-it's-on-a-phone camera," I figured why not give it a real world walk around test against an ordinary pocket camera.
Top: Canon PowerShot SX230 HS, below: the iPhone 4s
As much as people like to push comparisons to the max, I find no need whatsoever to compare the iPhone's camera to anything higher up the ladder than a decent consumer level camera. If you want to see still and video samples comparing it to DSLRs which are dedicated image-making machines with sensors a hundred times larger backed by hardcore processors behind state-of-the-art lenses that total thousands of dollars - look elsewhere.
The iPhone is a phone first and foremost, hence the name. It features a camera. Just keep this in mind. The sensor in the iPhone's camera is tiny. This comparison with a point-and-shoot camera isn't even really all that fair because the sensor in the Canon is larger and again, a part of a dedicated product designed to do nothing but make images.
Keeping this in mind as we dive into this comparison will help make things "fair." In addition, this isn't a comparison to prove that one is better or worse than the other. This isn't a test to see if the iPhone can "beat" a "real" camera, but rather to see how well the 4s can hold up as a day-to-day photo device. Basically, I wanted to know, is it worth packing the extra camera for normal shooting or can the 4s serve this purpose.
If I'm doing serious shooting, I'm suing my DSLR. For fun, random, Facebook, Twitter pics, a point and shoot is far easier to work with and less cumbersome to carry. If I can get this same, or very similar, functionality in my phone, that's even better. Taking usable images and video on a device that is constantly connected with social networking and virtually every other communication avenue on earth eliminates the middle man - the computer.
So, how does it stack up?
The devices:
The iPhone 4s has an 8 megapixel sensor, a fixed aperture of f/2.4 and fixed focal length lens and no access to manual controls. The shutter is touch screen or volume button controlled and it has an LED flash. This makes it very much an Auto-only device. It also sports full 1080p video with stabilization and has geotagging built in it's files.
The Canon PowerShot SX230 HS is, by comparison, much more feature-laden. It sports a 14x optical zoom lens, larger size 12 megapixel sensor and provides various levels of manual control including white balance, ISO, aperture and shutter speed settings. The lens has a variable aperture of f/3.1-5.9 and a built in stabilizer. The camera is also one of the newer consumer cameras that does have built in GPS, so geotagging is built in here as well. It has a standard pop-up flash and offers mini HDMI output and shoots 1080p video as well.
So, out of the gate, the Canon is heavily favored has more to offer. Remember, this isn't a battle, rather a comparison.
All images on the Canon were shot in auto mode at a comparable focal length to make things as neutral as possible. This made ISO, aperture and white balance camera selected. All images are unaltered right out of the camera. I just cropped them to the same ratio. No flash was used so that both cameras would have full access to rendering the image with the built-in features of the sensor.
PHOTOGRAPHS
Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/250th, f/4, ISO 250
iPhone 4s chose: 1/320th, f/2.4, ISO 64
In the above leaf images there are some noticeable differences. The Canon image is brighter and offers slightly more detail, but the iPhone's white balance is more accurate and the exposure is closer to reality. As you'll see, the iPhone offers more color saturation, which is nice for the most part, but can get it into some trouble.
Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/800th, f/4, ISO 100
iPhone 4s chose: 1/1500th, f/2.4, ISO 64
It's hard to tell in the smaller images, but the Canon does have a very slight edge in sharpness, but it's pretty close. The blue of the sky is more accurate on the Canon, something I'll mention more about on the iPhone as we go. The iPhone was more accurate again on white balance - with the exception of the blue - and exhibited less purple fringing than the Canon. This was most noticeable int he tree to the left of the frame. These two images are among the closest in the pool.
Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/2000th, f/4, ISO 100
iPhone 4s chose: 1/3200th, f/2.4, ISO 64
Again, the white balance on the iPhone is much more accurate overall. The cream stucco of the building and orange cast of the bricks are spot on in this light. The saturation of the 4s is also very good, but it is a tad strong in the blue of the sky. This saturation does bring some color pixelation/artifacts into play in a lot of sky images, where as the Canon, and most cameras, render it as a smoother tone. Even Apple's sample images on their site reveil this trate to a small degree.
Canon PowerShot SX230 HS close crop of the above image
iPhone 4s close crop of the above image
Here is a close crop of the gymnasium picture from above. I chose an outdoor photo so that ISOs were at their lowest and shutter speeds at their highest to try to maximize image quality. As you can see, the Canon as slightly more resolving power, but it's close. No one would ever go this nuts on crop, but this gives some indication of the quality of image that the iPhone is capable of producing compared to a standard camera.
Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 11250th, f/4, ISO 320
iPhone 4s chose: 1/1151th, f/2.4, ISO 64
No, that's not a typo. The 4s' metadata indicated a bizar 1/1151th of a second shutter speed. That oddity aside these images speak volumes about how each camera rendered this image. In contrast to the building exterior above, these two images are perhaps the most unique interpretations of the same subject. The iPhone, again, was more accurate with white balance and that combined with the color saturation makes for a very good image here in my opinion. I actually had to double check and make sure I didn't label the images backward. This is a great example of how little megapixels can matter. Here, the 8MP at a better white balance and saturation produced a more pleasing image to me than the 12MP sensor.
Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/1600th, f/4, ISO 125
iPhone 4s chose: 1/3000th, f/2.4, ISO 64
Just when you thought the iPhone was going to win was seemingly without many flaws, you get this. This is an example of where a flat lens front and wide aperture can cause problems. Either way you dice it, the 4s is highly prone to lens flare in bright sunlight. This was taken around 1 p.m., so the sun was definitely high, but the Canon had little trouble. Also, without the ability to compose with optical zoom help, this could be an issue in many shooting scenarios. The lens flared in the upper right near the light source and in the lower left at the opposite corner. Without question the Canon did a much better job here, though the white balance on the 4s is still slightly more accurate.
Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/30th, f/3.1, ISO 800
iPhone 4s chose: 1/20th, f/2.4, ISO 250
In this lower light indoor situation, I find the Canon's white balance was more accurate, but I prefer the iPhone's warmer tones. The field is deeper on the 4s, despite the shallower aperture used - I suppose because of sensor size in relation to the aperture. Either way, both did a good job, especially considering the slower shutter speeds. Note that the ISO of 250 here was the highest selected by the iPhone in any test image I had. The same 250 was selected in the paddle image below. I'm not sure what the max is, but this might be close.
Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/30th, f/3.1, ISO 800
iPhone 4s chose: 1/20th, f/2.4, ISO 250
Once again, the iPhone has more accurate and pleasing white balance. The color is more saturated and arguably more pleasing, at least to me. The Canon's higher ISO selection results in a slightly noisier image, but it does render more detail in the shadow areas - note the area between the paddle and the balls.
Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/30th, f/3.1, ISO 160
iPhone 4s chose: 1/25th, f/2.4, ISO 64
Here is an indoor, low light, backlit scenario. Both cameras actually did a really good job considering the circumstances. The iPhone's warm white balance tendencies got sort of strong in the background near the window an did throw a gold cast on the jar. So, the warmth isn't always a plus. The Canon's cooler tendency renders a more accurate image here. The Canon shot is also slightly sharper.
Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/160th, f/4, ISO 200
iPhone 4s chose: 1/552th, f2./4, ISO 64
Again, this is another example of an uncommon shutter speed. The iPhone popped at 1/552th, which is an odd number (well, it's even, but you get my point). This was an interesting shot. I focused on the upper left window pane so that it would throw most of the tones in the dark. The iPhone really surprised me here. The metering did a very good job of rendering for the selected area. There is more detail in the stained glass and the light levels there are very good. As a result the other elements went darker, but that's to be expected. The Canon did a good job as well, but there is less detail in the window pane. Because the camera didn't meter it quite the same, the foreground is rendered much brighter.
HD VIDEO CLIPS
10 second clip from Canon SX230 HS - view on YouTube for full 1080p
10 second clip from iPhone 4s - view on YouTube for full 1080p
The iPhone got a little bit of light creeping in the left side, so it washed the tones out a bit, but overall, I like the way the 4s rendered the scene better. The result is much sharper actually and the color is very accurate. Note that the framing is slightly closer on the iPhone due to the default crop on the camera. Both were shot from a tripod with AF engaged before recording began. Both clips were imported into iMovie and trimmed to 10 seconds. No other alterations were made.
10 second clip from Canon SX230 HS - view on YouTube for full 1080p
10 second clip from iPhone 4s - view on YouTube for full 1080p
Here is a second clip from both cameras. Again, shot from a tripod with similar framing, imported into iMovie and cut to 10 seconds with no other alterations made. Note, I did have to use some optical zoom on the Canon to try and match the framing of the iPhone. Here, the Canon has the edge with resolution and there are less artifacts in the blue of the sky than on the iphone. Both cameras were focused on the flag. The iPhone wasn't quite as sharp at the flag, but rendered more detail in the trees. Both clips here are very similar.
CONCLUSIONS:
In short, the iPhone 4s is a more than worthy go everywhere option and proves that it can hold its own under all but the most extreme conditions. Lens flare is a problem in strong sunlight and the lack of optical zoom can limit composition and, of course, your ability close to your subject if walking forward is prohibited - think sporting events, museums, etc.
The camera in the 4s also seems limited by a somewhat moderate ISO max (my samples capped at 250) and there are no options for manual control. Autofocusing is rather quick and accurate, especially for a phone, and face detection - though not directly tested here - is a nice feature.
White balance is remarkably accurate and significantly better than on the iPhone 4 and even trumps the SX230 HS under most conditions. Colors have a pleasing warm tone and are nicely saturated, though blue skys can come out mildly dark and with some artifacts. Sharpness and and detail are both very good and on par with most point-and-shoot cameras. Noise is even well controlled and aided by the ISO ceiling.
Video is exceptionally good for a phone and produces sharp, color accurate and well exposed clips. Audio is on par with consumer cameras as well.
In a nutshell, the 4s is a noticeable upgrade from the 4 in terms of the camera feature. In fact, the only area where users might notice a negative trait is in the battery life. Though not tested directly, the battery does seem to drain a little faster, but the better results make up for this easily in my view.
Will it replace your current point-and-shoot? Well, that depends. If you take tons of images and battery life for talking, texting, emailing and Facebooking (ya, apparently it's a verb) might become a casualty, then consider carrying an extra imaging device. Also, if you need optical zoom, manual controls, a plethora of gimmicky settings (like night mode, landscape or underwater), HDMI ports, and the like, then you'll also want to look to make your images elsewhere.
If, however, you are wanting a simple, convenient, capable imaging device that you're guaranteed to always have with you, then the iPhone is a talented option. It's capable of producing very good images under most normal conditions and it's ability to post or share images and clips directly from the same device is significantly handy for the social network addicted crowd.
When you consider that the iPhone 4s runs $200-400 (with 2-year contract) and that it is first and foremost a phone and mini computer that features a camera, it's actually an affordable option. The Canon SX230 HS retails for around $330 and is a camera only. In my opinion, the manual controls and versatility of the Canon are strong options that more knowledgable shooters will enjoy, but the speed, convenience, simplicity and all around excellent quality of the 4s camera might appeal to more audiences for every day use. Keep in mind that the Canon doesn't have a monthly fee either.
I've tested both cameras under what I consider real world conditions in how the majority of shooters are going to use these devices. The results speak for themselves. The iPhone can certainly hold it's own as an every day companion and the Canon just might make it's way to eBay just to eliminate one extra gadget.
I hope this review of the iPhone 4s camera was helpful.
Canon announced the new EOS 1D X camera on Tuesday to seemingly mixed reviews. For some, the new system is a departure from the expected take in the 1D line, while for others its a well-thought-out successor in a long line of legendary professional imaging tools.
For those who claim the former, they seem to feel that the rather scant megapixel count doesn't seem all that more advanced than the 1D Mark IV's 16MP sensor. Besides, the IV's sensor carried a peculiar 1.3x crop so gaining the realestate of the X's full frame sensor - Canon's third body to offer this size - would allow for the additional pixels without much perceived effort. But, there's more under the hood here than pixels, and it's those added features that make this a rather significant upgrade.
For starters you've got 12 fps performance out of the box and up to 14 fps in JPEG with proper settings engaged. This is a 25-33% increase in image capture performance. This is made possible by the dual - yes TWO - Digic 5+ image processors built into the body. The double-duty processing power also helps with the ISO performance. The new X touts a max normal ISO of 51,200, up from 12,800 on the IV.
Other notable improvements are the 400,00 actuation rated shutter mechanism, full 1080p video with multiple frame rates including 24 fps and dual CF card support.
There are a host of other changes, but this covers the most significant. It will be available in March for around $7000, which is somewhat competitively priced, though I feel $6000 would be more appropriate.
So, why the mixed reviews?
Well, for one, there are simply too many pixel counters out there. 18MP is plenty for what this camera is designed to shoot - basically everything that's not going to be on the cover of a major magazine; and even then, it's probably enough. It's target audience is going to be the the photojournalists, sports shooters and wedding photographers that are Canon loyal. The body is designed to take a beating and deliver nearly half a million shots before shutter failure. Basically, it's a do-it-all workhorse for professional photographers.
Look, 18MP is plenty of resolution, especially when high ISO performance comes into play. If you need studio quality, medium format-rivaling resolution, pick up a 5D Mark II for less than $3000 and be quiet. Or, better yet, wait for the MIII. Those in this camp should consider the minuscule difference in resolution anyway - keep reading. You're not going to get 30MP with ultra high ISO performance at 10+ fps...at least not yet.
The only direct competition with this camera is the aging Nikon D3 series which boasts 12MP and 10-11 fps. The D3's ISO performance as become legendary and at a price tage of less than $6000 it will remain a force to compete with. Rumors are churning about a D4 that should hit the market around the same time with a possible announcement around the first of the year, perhaps at PMA. This could make for an interesting race if Nikon plays its cards right.
Those that like this announcement get what it is: a slightly overpriced professional go-to body. It attempts, I think, to eliminate the multi-body-depending-on-assignment predicament that some shooters face. For some Canon shooters the question might be: "do I grab my $2400-6000 high resolution full frame camera or my lower resolution high speed work tank?" This attempts to blend the two I think. Remember, the 5D MII and 1Ds MIII are only 21MP. The X then is 2MP up from the 1D MIV and only 3MP down from the 5D and 1Ds and you're gaining full frame coverage in a body that's even faster than the MIV. The problem with this blend is the price. If you have the 1Ds (forget the 5D for a moment) at $7000 and the MIV at $5000 and you're really trying to sort of appeal to BOTH audiences, wouldn't $6000 be a more accurate figure? Make it $5500 and you've got something incredible here.
Would I buy it? If I were back to shooting Canon and I wanted a do-it-all body, then absolutely - but I might wait a bit for the price to drop. I shoot sports and weddings, so it's ideal. It's enough resolution for bridal portraits and promotional materials and enough speed, durability and ISO performance to handle the rest. Several Canon shooters won't be tempted by this, however. Many, who shoot predominantly in one field may elect to remain with their current lineup. Wedding and portrait shooters rave about the 5D series and feel it's more than capable in low light. Action shooters my feel that an extra 2MP and 2fps won't justifiably alter their workflow enough to fork over seven grand.
If nothing else, you'll see the cost of the 1D MIV and 1Ds plummet and hit the used market. So, if you've been wanting one of these, hold on until spring and you can pick up a great camera for a lot less money.
For me, a Nikon shooter, the most interesting thing about this announcement is what it will do to the Nikon line. If there is a D4 coming in the next 6 months, how will it compare? The rumored D800 could be announced next week, but if the rumors are true, it'll be a dream machine for studio and landscape photographers, but the focus on resolution and lack of emphasis on low light and speed performance will jar a lot of loyalists. Most owners are in the D700 camp because it was a cost effective option that offered great low light performance, admirable shooting speeds and acceptable resolution in a cost-effective package. Again, it's a prosumer version of what Canon is trying to push on the professional crowd with the X. One thing's for sure, only time will tell how well the new X will be received and what competitors are cooking up to compete with it.
Today the world lost a truly magical mind. Steve Jobs, co-founder and, until six weeks ago, CEO of Apple, Inc., passed away at the age of 56.
Jobs was behind some of the greatest technological innovations of our time. Believe it or not MP3 players weren't always collectively referred to as iPods and cell phones used to have keypads.
The question used to be, "How do we compete with Microsoft?" Now, the world is trying to keep up with Apple.
He stepped down as CEO a little over a month ago and the company held it's first major product announcement of the post-Jobs era yesterday with the unveiling of the iPhone 4s.
People have questioned how Apple would function with Jobs simply on the sideline. Now the world will watch the company progress without its founder, pioneer and, for lack of a better word, inspiration.
Apple's future will undoubtedly be strong. Jobs has left his mark on the company and industry as a whole. He taught us that it's okay to try new things and to do what others never dreamed possible. To borrow from a former company slogan, he taught all of us to "Think Different."
He gave us products we needed, products we wanted and products he promised we'd want. He revolutionized the music industry, made computers intuitive and fun, and forever changed how we connect with the world around us; and that world is a slightly dimmer place without him.
My prayers are with the Jobs and Apple families. He will be missed.
I've decided to start blogging more, when I get the time, and one of the things I want to try and start doing regularly is posting information and links about great gadgets for the working photographer. These gadgets can range from actual equipment to setups to post production techniques to philosophy. Anything that I have found to be beneficial in my workflow, I'll try to highlight in these posts.
Though often the gadget in question might require a financial investment, I'm going to start things off with a FREE tool that is highly customizable and exceptionally handy in logging your technique with lighting setup and ultimately sharing that idea with others.
Today I'm talking about Kevin Kertz's handy Photoshop file for Studio Lighting Setups. You can download it by clicking here. The linked document is a zipped PSD file that's rather small in size, but robust in features.
The idea is simple, provide photographers with the ability to create a virtual representation of the studio or location lighting setup they've implemented. Here's an example:
Keep in mind that the tools are designed to illustrate an overview of the setup from above. Here is a mockup of how I approach my head shots for the athletic media guides. Once arranged the final product can be saved as a JPEG file and stored for future reference, emailed to a friend or coworker, or posted online.
What makes this PSD file so handy is the variety of tools that Kevin has preloaded. There are two backgrounds to choose from, three cameras (35mm, medium format and large format) subjects both with and without shadows (human and a ball for inanimate subjects) and a buffet of lighting systems and modifiers. You can choose from plain strobes or gridded or gelled or a strobe shooting through a diffusion screen. Select both gridded and non-gridded softboxes and strip boxes, beauty dishes, hair lights, gobos, reflectors, umbrellas and ring flashes. Add or remove a grid and even turn on arrows and note windows for sharing ideas, settings, etc.
Think this is only for studio pros? Think again. Although I didn't find an off camera flash graphic, using a standard strobe and turning the background paper off is a great way to illustrate outdoor shoots as well. Here's a very basic example:
Here is the lighting setup I used for the women's soccer cover shoot that I did on the football field. I used the subject with shadow to indicate the light direction and then picked the strobe with a gel for reference. I was using a Nikon SB-800 on a stand but did have a CTO gel to balance with the setting sun. For some shots I did use a second SB speedlight on a stand at a lower height, but it was only on one of the four sessions so I just left it off.
The note windows and arrows are handy for creating an all-in-one graphic for the setup. Since I typically add discussions with my illustrations and since many setups can be come bogged down with icons, etc., I tend not to use these tools as often. However, for basic reference, you can easily add these elements. Here's the same setup but with notes added followed by an image taken under the illustrated setup:
Amanda Gemmell - Faulkner University Women's Soccer
Here is the same setup, but I added the other "subject" I mentioned previously - the ball with shadow - since it was a soccer shoot. This example shows the settings and approximate distances, etc., that I basically used for the shoot. This is a way to make quick points that are self-contained in the images and require little additional explanation. As you can see the ideas and possibilities are endless.
Overall its an easy and fun tool to use. There are several options to choose from and if something isn't exactly what you wanted, you can just add a note box and explain it. If you are accustomed to using layers in Photoshop, this is an outstanding reference tool and the elements are already made for you.
My only recommendation is that you leave the white background layer on. This layer reveals Kevin's information, etc. and will give him appropriate credit for the design of the layout tools as well as direct others interested in using his tool to his website.
If you shoot portraits or still life with any type of off camera flash this is a superb archiving and learning tool. I find that I throw some ideas together before shoots with lighting setups I want to try. I can use it as a visual strategy and it helps take some guess work out of the equation and it's much easier to read than my sloppy sketches.
Give the PSD a try. It's free, just don't use it for commercial purposes. It should be a reference and learning tool. Thanks Kevin for the hard work and wonderful design.
It has been rumored for some time now that the world could expect a "big" announcement from camera titan Nikon. The public thought that the announcement would come a handful of weeks ago, but only a small release of Coolpix cameras made their debut.
Then rumors started about a new announcement date of Sept. 21 and sure enough, at midnight, an official press release announced Nikon's entry into the mirrorless arena.
Here's the rundown, if you're in the market for a mirrorless system, it's probably worth the wait until late October when the new V1 and J1 offerings from Nikon hit the shelves - or so we hope. The system offers plenty to admire and several things to question. Let's take a quick preliminary look at the Nikon 1 system.
Potentially good:
Size: The 1 system is tiny for an ICL (interchangeable lens) system. In fact, Nikon claims that the V1 is the smallest and lightest in the world with a built in EVF.
Options: The 1 system comes in two flavors, a base J1 body and a bigger brother in the V1. They have the same features, but the V1 offers a 1.4 million dot EVF that's auto activated when you raise it to your eye, has a magnesium alloy body, both an electronic and mechanical shutter and an accessory port for external flash and GPS unit as well as an external mic port.
Lenses: Both bodies will be offered in kit format with a 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 VR lens (more on this in a minute). With a 2.7x crop factor this works out to a 27-81mm equivalent and makes for a good general purpose lens. Other optics that will be available in the beginning include a 30-110mm f/3.8-5.6 VR (81-297mm eqiv.) a 10mm f/2.8 prime (27mm eqiv.) and a full range zoom in the 10-100mm f/4.5-5.6 VR (27-270mm equiv.). This is a decent lens lineup right out of the gate, but Nikon has SIX additional prototype lenses in the pipe that range from fast portrait primes to macro optics to sports zooms.
Accessories: The V1 is compatible with the new SB-N5 external flash for more powerful fill (the J1 has a popup flash built in) and the new GP-N100 GPS unit for geo tagging images, etc. Finally there is the FT-1 which is an optical converter which lets users mount existing F mount lenses on their 1 series bodies.
Specifications: The sensor, though smallish by comparison to other mirrorless systems (more in a minute) offers 10 MP resolution and full 1080p HD video at 30fps or 1080i at 60fps. The bodies incorporate a new hybrid 73-point AF system that uses both contrast and phase detection for optimal autofocus accuracy in a variety of conditions. The shutter speed caps out at 1/4000th on the mechanical shutter (V1) and 1/160000th on the electronic shutter. The camera can capture up to 10 fps in autofocus mode for rapid-fire action-stopping images. The sensor boasts an ISO range of 100-6400 with hi/lo expansion.
Potentially bad:
CX Sensor Size: For most people, this is going to be the kicker. Many, myself included, think the introduction of the CX sensor size is rather odd. Here's why. Nikon's late to the mirrorless game. In fact, the only other camera manufacturer that anyone really cares about that's not in the game now is Canon. So, let's consider the competition. The companies that really started the fad are Olympus and Panasonic with their open format micro 4/3 offerings. Two huge benefits for O and P are: 1. the sensor is roughly TWICE as large as the Nikon CX offering here and 2. the mount is an open standard, making lenses from multiple manufactures simple to use and the selection much broader. Virtually all offering from O and P have slightly higher resolution, but it's rather negligible in therms of numbers, but perhaps not in terms of image output.
Going up the ladder, you have Sony, with its NEX system which offers a standard APS-C sensor on board. It boasts the highest resolution sensor on the market with the new lineup offering 24 MP of larger sensor data. The APS-C sensor is the same size that's in the majority of consumer and enthusiast DSLR bodies and at a resolution few can match at the time of this post.
So what? Well, typically (though not always) larger sensors can handle detail and color better than smaller sensors and this gets exponentially better as the ISO increases. The new image test of choice is how well a sensor/lens combo handles moderate to low light levels with regard to image noise and detail. So with Nikon's CX sensor weighting it at half the size of m4/3 and 1/4 the size of the industry leading NEX sensor, Nikon is going to have it's work cut out if it wants to compete with the industry leaders.
Saving grace - if Nikon has manages to produce images equal to or better in quality than the bulk of it's rivals despite the smaller sensor, it's going to be a game-changer for sure. Right now there's a funky middle ground in the ICL camera market. The mirrorless "advantage" was supposed to be superior quality in a smaller package. Kinda like Blade, the day-walking vampire slayer. Mirrorless was sort of touted as having "all of the strengths (of a DSLR) and none of the weaknesses (bulk, weight, cost)." So, you get a smaller, lighter, capable, flexible system that costs less (potentially) and does virtually the same thing as it's bigger brother. Was mirrorless designed to tempt the avid pro? No. No SI shooter or Vogue photographer is going to shoot anything important on a tiny ICL unless it's for fun. Will they make enticing personal walk-around cameras? Yes. For those of us used to lens choices and manual versatility, yes - as long as we can justifiably afford a completely new auxiliary system!
The problem has been in image quality. So far, normal, every day images have been great out of all but the worst mirrorless systems. In fact, the Panasonic GF line and Olympus Pen cams have been extremely popular with users. However, when the light falls, the images do tend to suffer. Sony has done more in this territory with it's larger sensor, but even it can come up short. In fact, many have indicated that given it's obvious size advantage it should actually do better. All of these offerings trump point-and-shoot images even from the higher end contenders like the Canon G series, which also rivals the mirrorless market in price.
So, if the Nikon 1 system can manage strong image quality, especially in lower light, it will make a run and might just find itself at the top of the pile in the ever-growing mirrorless pool. If, however, the smallish sensor does suffer from weak quality, the entry might just be dead on arrival. It's really going to come down to the sensor. If it performs, Nikon's got a home run. If it fails, the line will fail. They came along simply too late in the game to hope to build a broad fan base on anything but brand loyalists if the images aren't strong.
The provided sample images from Nikon do reveal wonderful color reproduction, good detail and effective low light performance to ISO 800. However, these images are always strongly controlled situations that the average shooter would never mimic and the low light shot is more a moderate ISO boost in subpar light than in a bat cave at 6400. We will see more on this soon.
Lens Selection: It's good that Nikon is offering four lens choices that cover a very respectable focal range. However, many enthusiasts who know what they are looking for will be patiently awaiting those faster prime prototypes that Nikon has put un display - especially with the smaller sensor. Why? Well, theoretically the smaller sensor will offer weaker low light performance, so a faster lens will help in that regard as well as potentially helping with shallow DOF. However, the later is strongly effected by the sensor size as well, so a wider aperture alone won't likely make a massive difference in a blurrier background.
Nikon has been an industry leader in optics for forever, so maybe they have an ultra wide design coming down the line. They do have a wide angle "landscape" prototype, but no focal length numbers are available yet. Right now 27mm is as wide as you're gonna get, which is respectable, but for a lot of users, they're gonna wanna see something approaching the 20mm range or even wider. Panasonic offers a 7-14mm f/4, which with the mere 2x conversion equates to a 14-28mm. Now the lens also costs around $900, but it's available for those who want it and will work on either Olympus or Panasonic bodies.
Advantage - as of now all but the 10mm prime are equipped with VR which makes hand-held work easier.
Hot Shoe: The lack of a hot shoe is not going to phase most people, but more experienced shooters might be turned off by this. It's a similar issue that the early Sony NEX bodies faced as well, though the new NEX flock has the ridiculous proprietary shoe added. Most of the Panasonic and Olympus offerings, including the X series, have a standard shoe. This is helpful if you want to add a larger flash option or a radio trigger system. I know this sounds advanced for such a system, but it's actually super handy. When I traveled with my Olympus E-PL2 system to Hawaii with our softball team, I used the hot shoe countless times. I set my Nikon speedlight on a shelf or on a small stand to the side and triggered it with my handy Alien Bees radio transmitter and receiver. They are both tiny and it makes for a versatile lighting setup. Just for fun I even did some portraits in the studio with the Olympus.
Is it a deal breaker? Probably not, but the little SB-N5 add-on will not compare in versatility or power to a more capable SB speedlight. I suppose if you have an optical slave it'll work, but a popup flash in that situation is just as helpful.
Cost: At $650 to $900 (suggested retail) for a single lens kit it's not cheap, but nicely in line with some of the other offerings. The larger sensor Sony NEX-C3 comes in at $600 and the NEX-5 retails for $650. The NEX-5N has a tag of $700 and the new NEX-7 with 24mp presses on the wallet at $1350 with comparable lens.
The new Olympus E-P3 costs $900 and the new E-PL3 is $700. Panasonic's GF2 runs $500.
The thing to remember is this; a brand new Nikon D3100 DSLR with 18-55mm is only $650 and currently $600 with some instant savings options.
And those add on lenses? Not much cheaper. The 10mm and the 30-110mm will have a suggested retail of about $250 each. A 70-300mm lens can be had for about $170. Keep in mind that that's a 105-450mm equiv. on a DX sensor. It lacks the VR ability, however. And that 27mm 2.8 equivalent? The superb 35mm (50ish mmm equiv.) f/1.8 DX is longer, but faster and costs only $199.
The cost of the optics is not excessive, but it will make consumers considering this as a SECONDARY camera think twice.
Looks: Though it's about as essential as having nice-looking golf clubs, since the camera is a tool and not the end product, people want pretty equipment. I'm less concerned about this since I'll use anything that gets the job done effectively, but the esthetic quality is indeed a bit off, especially in the V1. The EVF hood makes for what appears to be a half-witted effort by a first year industrial design student. Suffice it to say that the designers would be fired if they worked at Apple, but that's not the point. They were obviously trying to keep it clean and simple and to that end I think they might have succeeded though few have had a hands-on experience as of yet.
THE EARLY VERDICT: In my opinion it's an odd, but interesting offering. It's compelling for a few reasons. 1. Nikon's finally in the mirrorless game and could make huge waves if the 1 series is well-received. 2. It's small and light and despite this, seemingly feature laden. 3. The lens choices are good for a startup and the others look like they could bring a lot to the table. 4. It's somewhat pricey, but well within the range of what you'd expect for this type of system. 5. It's a new gadget that a lot of people are gonna wanna play with.
The questionable: 1. I'm concerned about the image quality and overall performance, though as I mentioned earlier, the standard images available right now look fairly strong. 2. Ergonomics, will the system be too smallish for practical use without HAVING to use a neck strap? Some of these smaller cameras can come free easily in your hands.
Overall I think, and certainly hope, this is a strong contender for Nikon. In the point-and-shoot market Nikon is getting spanked by Canon in terms of image quality and they really need this venture to be productive.
The BIGGEST problem with this announcement is the LACK of a new pro DSLR. I know, it has nothing to do with this camera, but the fact that so many were expecting a D700 replacement at least has inadvertently made the early 1 system flavor a bit sour. Perhaps the new higher end camera is still indeed coming soon and perhaps Nikon felt that it would overshadow the 1 announcement if launched together. Who knows? Hind sight is always 20/20, but it seems that at last for US audiences a D700 upgrade today followed by the 1 system next week would have made more sense. It's been forever since any full frame updates have come out of Nikon and users keep seeing the improvements offered by other manufactures - mainly Canon - and are starting to wonder what gives.
Any undo negatives will soon fade from the 1 system facade to make way for any serious negative reactions that are legitimately based on performance once testing is under way.
The 1 system is promising, but only time will tell if it will be a true contender in the mirrorless market.
