Apple launches App Store, mostly exciting...

Today Apple launched the much-anticipated App Store that offers users an iTunes-like venue in which to purchase some current and upcoming application titles. The idea is simple and brilliant - put software in a familiar, intuitive  and downloadable arena and users will flock to the water hole. That seems to be happening, so far.


If you use iTunes, then the App Store layout will be more than familiar with Top Paid and Top Free apps running down the right and side and top new titles in a slideshow-like window at the top. There also New and Noteworthy titles, Staff Favorites, etc.

The new Air, and why I'd love one...

Ok, for the two of you out there who are not Apple users - that's a joke, but seriously, if you're not an Apple user, and especially if you're in any type of visually-driven industry, give them a hard look - this is the new MacBook Air. So, let's start with the obvious. Reason No. 1 why I, and you, want one - look at it. That is reason enough for approximately 40% of future owners of this device. For the remaining 60%, lets take a closer look.

Reason No. 2: Instant on. Because the OS is embedded in the Flash based hard drive (see below) the system boots quickly. Closing the lid sends the computer into hibernate mode, as usual, and opening the unit powers it back up instantly. Much like the iPod/iPad. When not in use it goes dark and then when you need it, it's ready. There is no drive to heat up, and therefore, less moving parts and theoretically fewer drive failures and less lost data. Standby time is rated at 30 days in hibernate mode. Which is excellent considering my current Air is only good for a few days if it's not used at all. On the 11" this promotes 5ish hours of battery life and up to 7 hours on the 13" - both are excellent.

Reason No. 3: Flash based storage. This provides extremely fast and silent operation. Think of it as a built in thumb drive, but considerably faster since it's not communicating through a USB 2.0 interface. As of now, storage options are smaller than traditional laptops, but those looking at this device are likely not going to suffer from storage space as this will probably be a secondary unit or something for college or work in which case most information is saved to an external hard drive - or should be. The lower end 11.6" model sports a somewhat scant 64GB hard drive. Hilarious, given that my $4,000 Gateway (yes, after my Mac LC II, I went to the dark side, but have since repented and returned to the light) desktop that I purchased back in the late 90's had a whopping 10GB arena of storage, and now my iPhone has more than triple that. The only reason that 64GB would become problematic is if you do lots of high resolution digital picture taking and have an iTunes vault rivals that of the Library of Congress. So, if you are a media savvy college student, an engineer packing countless Auto CAD designs, an art director who likes to carry the entire portfolio, or filmmaker with the RAW footage of your next Sundance award-wining masterpiece, consider the MacBook Pro line - or at least the 13" with the larger storage options. For the user looking for the pint-sized 11.6" model, I doubt the 64GB flash storage will be a major deterrent, especially considering that you can double it for $200.

Reason No. 4: Screens and Sizes and everything else. For the first time ever, Apple is offering the Air in both a 13.3" and 11.6" model. This is a superb, and might I say, belated idea. So many users, even Apple lovers, have been looking for something that has Apple reliability, usability, functionality and performance in something along the netbook lines. With netbooks offering screens from 7-10" and units running around 2 lbs, it's easy to see why people on the move would be interested in such a device. Where the netbook line has been crippled, in my opinion, is in the following key areas: screen resolution and size, battery life, durability and feature set. The screens on some, but certainly not all of the models, are simply too small for practical use. Sure, a 7" screen is nice to carry around, but try typing a term paper on it or reading text on the web for long periods of time or even trying to organize and, dare I say, manipulate your digital images. It becomes rather obvious that this screen size sounds good, but for people that actually intend on using their laptop for productivity, it sucks! Then there is the resolution issue. Well, I'll keep it short. With the tolerable exception of a few Lenovos or some HPs and Dells, the resolution on most units leaves much to be desired, color is often poor and the lighting is dim. Next we have battery life. Some units have managed to pull off five hours or so, but usually that's with an extended life battery that is an add-on option. Some of these extended life batteries, especially offerings from Acer and Lenovo are also extended space and add as much as 2 inches to the back of the unit to gain that extra juice. Durability is usually terrible in the PC world overall. The good thing is that the plastic is so tightly restricted due to size that they seem to have better build quality at first glance than their bigger brothers. Companies started trying to disguise the fact that their gear is made out of loosely screwed-together plastic by decorating that plastic with pretty colors and various designs. The offerings from several netbook manufactures look like a Sherwin Williams exploded during the coloring process. This marketing tactic was really spearheaded by Dell. They offer more shell options than hardware configurations which is interesting for a company that is known for it's hardware mix-and-match availability. This is cool in one degree because it offers some variety in an overly crowded and boring market. On the other hand there's still a good chance that you'll run in to someone that has the same "personalized" laptop running the same outdated software. And that brings us to feature set. Lets sort out the first group of plagued netbooks right off the bat - the half-witted Linux-based OS as in the Acer Aspire One. This is a cool, easy to use interface. The problem is, it doesn't do anything. Nothing that you're used to doing on a computer can really be done on such a device. So, enter the Windows based models. Say what you want about Microsoft, I certainly will, but they are a lightyear ahead of the Linux units. They at least feel like a computer and you can install other normal software on them as long as your hardware supports it. So, you just need to figure out if you want Windows XP, XP Home, XP Business, 7 or one of the other 641 variations of the same inadequate OS and let 'er rip! Once you've spent $600-100o on your micro machine, then all you have to do is buy a competent photo manager/editor; a video production kit, if that's your thing; download iTunes because you know you have an iPod (Zune, really?) and then pick up Office - the most practical and, dare I say, quality product in the Microsoft lineup. Or you could go with an Air that has the highest resolution, instant-on super bright LED display on the planet. It also happens to be in the same weight category; is made of super durable aluminum; has a full, single-option OS that is so easy to use you'll be confused as to why you don't get a headache searching for your applications; has all of the best digital productivity software on the market INCLUDED (iPhoto, iTunes, iMovie, Garageband, iWeb and iDVD); has excellent battery life and is backed by the best customer service in the industry. The only serious thing missing is an Office software suite. I love iWork. It's faster and more practical than Microsoft Office and is about half the price. It includes Pages (Word), Numbers (Excel) and Keynote (Powerpoint) and pretty soon it looks like these will be available independently through Apple's upcoming Mac App store which is sure to revolutionize the way we all get and use our desktop applications.

Reason No. 5: New Additions. I have the older generation of the Air and I love it, but these new improvements really push the device over the top and make it a worthy upgrade. Some other new features that the newer generation(s) sport are the addition of a second USB port, which is a huge plus, and in the 13.3" you get an SD card slot which makes importing photos from most consumer cameras a snap and it provides an alternate storage option if you don't want to use the optional Super Drive, an external USB hard drive or a thumb drive. They've also moved all of the connections to the sides of the device instead of in the bay door on the old model which was kinda cool until you had to use them while trying to work with the laptop on a flat surface. The keyboard remains full size and is, in my opinion, the best portable typing surface on the market. When OSX Lion hits, everything is going to get even better.



I love the new Airs. Bang for buck, they still aren't quite same deal as the impressive entry level MacBook Pro 13", but if you're looking for thin, light and very capable, it's the best thing going. Personally, I'd love to upgrade to the new 13.3" with the 128GB drive and bump it to 4GB of RAM for $100. It's got excellent battery life for something with a 13" screen that is so thin, it's whisper quiet, has decent expansion for a thin-and-light, has the SD slot, instant-on and a superb display. It will run $1,400 for that configuration, but I can run all of my most important applications on it with ease and it's an excellent travel companion. It wont fit on an in-flight tray table quite like the 11.6", but I have and iPhone for that. Or better yet, use an iPad! The funny thing is, I don't really see the two devices (Air and iPad) competing. They both really do different things. At the end of the day, I'd side with any of the Airs because of their versatility over the iPad, but I wouldn't hate owning both.

As a professional photographer and journalist of sorts who is on the go quite often, this is the ideal partner - for me. I have screen real estate and power in my office. When I'm covering events, traveling and writing articles on the move I want light, fast and versatile. I can shoot, upload, sort, select, drop, export and deliver the images along with my articles from one spot without any issues. If I'm doing a longer trip, I'll throw an external drive in my bag for storage. I almost never do hardcore editing in the field and always transfer the files to my main system anyway. The Air running iWork and Lightroom is, in my book, the perfect travel device for shooters on the go because it really gives you everything you need and doesn't lack much of what we want. If it had a Firewire 800 port for faster CF card file uploading, then that would be cool, but I'm a practical guy. I also have the Super Drive which is convenient for loading software and burning discs when necessary. You can certainly get more power for your money in a portable package, but if you want something sexy or are just looking to go as fully capable and as light as possible the Air is simply the only option in my book.

Again, all of this is opinion. Take it as such and enjoy.

- R

BTS Look at the 2010 Faulkner Football Poster Shoot

Here is a behind the scenes look at the development of the 2010 Faulkner University football poster. The end result is shown below and the video beneath that shows the photographic process and the compiling of the final product. I hope to have a video showing my work for the 2010 football media guide cover soon, so stay tuned.

Here is the youtube video showing the behind the scenes work...



Enjoy

- R

Nikon introduces a new flash and a host of lenses

Nikon has had two lens releases since my last gear review post and that's both a good and bad thing. It's bad because that means I'm behind on my posts. But it's good considering that usually such releases are only twice a year at best. So, without further delay, here is a quick look at the new flash and lens releases from Nikon.



Nikon SB-700: Think of this puppy as the SB-900's mini-me. It brings in the focusing power, the improved LED display, better build, better head rotation, over-heating tracking, FX/DX auto tracking, filter identification and more are all incorporated in this new body. The unit is not as powerful, of course, as it's big brother, but that's to be expected. The BIG thing that I feel Nikon really overlooked or just deliberately left out is the PC-sync terminal. For $325-350 it really should feature the PC-sync input. This allows for the addition of wireless receivers to trigger the flashes remotely. You can add such receivers via hot shoe adapters, but that is an extra piece of equipment to have to keep up with. Pocketwizard has released new Mini and Flex units that can be placed on the camera and flash to bring that communication in, but at $200-220 each, that's a step you have to really consider taking.

One new feature that the SB-700 inherits from the SB-900 that the SB-600 does not have is the SU-4 mode. This setting allows the flash to use an optical slave to trigger when it sees another flash fire. This is very handy considering the lake of the sync slot, but it might not be suitable for all shooting circumstances and environments.

Bottom line, if you are in need of a flash unit and can get by without the PC-sync terminal, then this is the most well-rounded unit currently in the Nikon lineup. The SB-600 is not quite as feature laden, but it comes in at more than $100 less. The big brother, the SB-900, has more power and features, but will run you $100 more. Flashes have never been, nor will they ever be, inexpensive and at $330 online, it's a good compromise overall.



Updated AF-S 200mm f/2 VR II N: This a beautiful lens that every wedding, event and sports photographer wants in his/her bag. This is one of the best optics on the planet. It provides superb bokeh, rapid AF, excellent VR control and razor sharp results. This is an update to the previous version. This rendition gets the nano crystal coating (N) and the new VR II system (versus VR). At $6,000 though, you might want to rethink things. The current, and equally excellent copy, retails online for $4,800 for the USA copy and $4,000 for the gray market version. The newer one likely has somewhat noticeably better results, but depending you your line of work, they might not be a few thousands dollars better.



NEW Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.4  N: Finally after years of waiting Nikon decided to bring AF-S to one of the best lenses in its lineup. The current AF 85mm f/1.4 is superb, but it focuses slow even on the best bodies and does so with a bit of a grunt. The new nano crystal coating should help with overall image quality and the AF-S feature will allow it to be used in even more environments - like sports. The current AF version runs about $1,250 online and the new N coating and AF-S will bump the price $450 to $1,700. If you don't have this optic and you shoot portraits, weddings, etc. you should definitely consider it. It is my favorite Nikon lens of all time. For me, the ability to use it in the athletic world as well as the portrait world does at the moment justify the extra funds. But this is my take on things. I'm considering selling my AF for the AF-S, but we'll see.



New Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.4 N: Another huge finally.Why? Because there are a handful of 35mm options from Nikon, but none that quite hit the sweet spot. The current 35mm f/1.4 was non-af, making it virtually useless by today's standards. The AF 35mm f/2 was slow and load and despite a lot of great reviews was one of the worst lenses I ever used. I wound up sending mine back to B&H. The newer 35mm is the AF-S f/1.8, but it came in the DX flavor, rendering it pointless for FX sensors. For the money the 1.8 is an excellent optic and should be on every DX Nikon out there, but full frame shooters were stuck with no AF or slow AF with crapy results. Now we have something to consider. But consider it we must. At $1,800 it's the same as the 14-24mm f/2.8 N, a hefty amount more than the 50mm f/1.4 N (of course it's noticeably wider) which rings it at around $475 and is more expensive than the 24-70mm f/2.8 N. These optics are not all in the same category, but depending on what you need, you can see the overall cost. The Canon equivalent is only $1350, but it's a bit older. I'd love to have this lens, but only the 24mm f/1.4 at $2,200 scares me more for versatility for the price.



NEW Nikon AF-S 24-120mm f/4 N VR: Another lens that finally brings competition to the Canon equivalent. This lens offers a relatively wide to moderate telephoto option with a respectable constant aperture of f/4. The VR feature will help control vibration and the fact that it can be used on an FX camera is a big plus and the N coating will improve image results. However, if you can handle an f/3.5-5.6 variation the current version is a lot less expensive at $570 online. The new one rings in at $1,300, but should provide far better results. The reviews that I read on the current version were not so hot, but for $1,300, the older one at sub $600 might be a better option. This one might be more of a shelf-sitter than other new releases.



NEW Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR: This, to me, is a far more exciting introduction than the 24-120. Why? It's faster on the wide end - and is practically as wide - 100mm longer on the long end - and only a stop slower - has VR, is FX ready and is nearly $300 less than the 24-120! This is considered the 18-200mm lens for FX users. Nikon's popular 18-200mm has been an awesome "do all" lens for DX users, but FX bodies have had no such friend...until now. The 28-300 is a very good general "do all" focal range and the variable aperture is more than sufficient for most situations. It has a zoom lock switch so it does not creep open when held downward and is an all round nice little package. At $1,050 it's not for everyone, but considering that it could quite possibly be the only lens necessary for travel and adventure photographers, it's a steal in my book.

If I were going to be doing an international trip, entering a variety of shooting situations, packing an FX body and a few flashes, I would have to strongly consider weather I needed all the extra gear I would normally haul along. My current widest lens is 24mm and my longest without telephoto converter is 200mm. This trumps that and it's ONE lens. If I decided that I really would not need, or could, without penalty, forego apertures of 2.8 or faster, I would take ONLY this lens. If I had to pack something else, it would be my ultra light, inexpensive and fast 50 f/1.8. And I would ONLY use it for depth of field work and extreme low light shooting. My perfect - low weight, low cost travel/mission work/adventure/gone for the day/do it all setup for FX would be: D700 body, SB-800/900, 50 1.8, 28-300, a small transmitter and receiver - DONE. I love my MB-D10 grip and battery, but if I pretty much know I'm not going to be shooting a ton of action, I'd leave it (for pack space and weight) at home. If I had extra room, I'd toss in a clamp and another flash. When you own heavy, fast, expensive glass, you get used to the versatility and results, but many times, that much gear is simply not practical. When I went to Ukraine a few years ago to work with orphans, I decided that my point and shoot option from my previous visit was far too limiting considering that photography is my job and hobby. So, I took my backup body - then a D40 - a 55-200 VR lens, three Nikon flashes, two small light stands, a few collapsible umbrellas and a transmitter and my receivers. I was able to shoot a variety of things and only had the one lens! I set up some small "portrait" shoots outside with the lighting gear and the results were pretty good considering all of my limitations.

Today, I might consider the new Coolpix P7000 for it's quality, size and weight, but for double that price, I could get this excellent lens to pair with my D700.

I'm considering adding this to my kit for future travel use. I think it's a great solution.



NEW Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR DX: This will apply to cropped DX sensors only and is a new "kit type" alternative to the popular 55-200mm VR. When most people pick up a kit purchase it usually features the 18-55mm and if it has a second lens, it's the 55-200mm VR. They are both great lenses for general shooting and the new 55-300mm offering simply sweetens the deal further. The new 55-300 offers the same aperture values as the 55-200, but with 100mm more focal length potential. The lens is also a nice alternative to the excellent 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR. At $80 less than the 70-300 it's wider on the back end and definitely worth a look. At $170ish more than the 55-200 it's a bit of a leap, but it offers more focal length in a very similar package size. The 70-300 still has the advantage of working on FX bodies. Overall I think it's a great new choice for the D300s model and down.

Again, all of these points are my own personal ones and in no way reflect what each unique shooter/buyer will think, want or get. I simply post my ideas to help in your decision to expand or replace your gear.

- R

Nikon releases the D7000

It's been a while since my last post on gear even though Nikon has coughed up a ton of new stuff, predominantly new lens, which is a good thing. They have introduced new entry level items as well as glass that the avid pro has been pining for for some time. If you don't believe me, look at my previous posts and you'll see that a lot of things I, and pros across the board, have been wanting and, in fact, genuinely needing for years. This post will focus on the new D7000 and I will follow up with a look at the new flash and lenses. Again, any recommendations, likes or dislikes are simply that - my opinions given my understanding of the equipment, cost and usability. So, here we go.



Enter the D7000:

So, what is it? Well, it's been dubbed the successor to the D90, which in all fairness, it sort of is. Expect the D90 to dwindle out by the first of the year or a little after.  It might hang around longer, but when you compare the list pros and cons and create your bang-for-buck scenario, I think the vast majority of shooters that are looking at this price point will side with the D7000. Now, the D90 might get a new life if the price continues to drop, but I'm not sure Nikon will continue to output that model once this one is readily available.

Now for the real kicker that many are probably NOT considering. Is the D7000 a D300s killer? We'll take a look at the features and see. Now, I'm obviously not going to talk about all of them, but there are certainly some things to hit on. After each topic I will keep a running "point" total as I see it.

1. Build: It's got a new magnesium alloy frame. This puts it on par with the D300s and a big step up from the D90. This improves body integrity and can contribute to better weather sealing. D7000: 1     D90: 0     D300s 1

2. Sensor: The D7000 gets a bump up to 16MP from 12MP. This is not, of course, the end all, be all of image quality, but it does help. The user should see sharper images with more detail overall with everything being equal between the bodies. This could effect low light shooting results, but only tests will confirm this. I highly doubt that this sensor will suffer more than the current generations when it comes to low light work. Nikon is leading the industry in this area as far as I'm concerned. You still get the cropped DX sensor, but what did you expect? D7000: 2     D90: 0     D300s 1

3. ISO: Another point for the D7000. The D90 and D300s are base 200-3200 with expansion up to 6400. The D7000 knocks that out of the park with a base of  100-6400 with expansion to a ridiculous 25,600. Not as high as the D3s, but more than enough for even non-practical purposes. D7000: 3     D90: 0     D300s 1

4. Movie Mode: This might not even appeal to a lot of shooters, but it's definitely something that would-be indie film makers will love and, honestly, it does expand the creative arena for the photographer. So many photographers are moving into film because of the lower cost of gear - because they already own it! The D90 revolutionized the DSLR world when it became the first body that produced HD video. Then everyone followed. Now the D7000 breaks into a new realm - autofocus in video mode. This is a HUGE step forward because it allows you to use follow focus if you want, but does not make it necessary. It also shoots full resolution 1080 HD at 24 fps. So, even though the D90 does have video, the D7000 blows it away and the point will only go to the new body. D7000: 4     D90: 0     D300s 1

5. AF Sensor: Luckily all three of these cameras will focus even non-AFS lenses. It remains to be seen if the D7000 will be a significant leap in AF speed, but the sensor is a bump from the D90 where it gets 39 points with 9 cross type areas versus the 11 and 1 of the D90. It still isn't on par with the fabulous 51 area/15 cross type of the D300s (and D3 bodies), but it's excellent at this level of camera. But, because we are doing a side by side look, the D300s will get the point. D7000: 4     D90: 0     D300s 2

6. Metering Sensor: The D7000 will win here too as it features a new 2016 pixel sensor versus the 1005 of the D300s and the 403 from the D90. What does this mean? Theoretically it makes the camera more efficient at ganging light levels for proper exposure, white balance, focus tracking and iTTL output. D7000: 5    D90: 0     D300s 2

7. Viewfinder: The D7000, like the D300s gives you 100% coverage at .94x magnification. The D90 gave you 96%. It's a tie with the D300s. D7000: 6    D90: 0     D300s 3

8. Shooting Speed: This might be where the pack gets separated in a major feature for some. The D90 could only output 4.5 fps on a good day. This is not bad for family shooting, but when you compare the D7000 to the D300s and higher, this number will become a factor. The D7000 outputs a maximum 6 fps which is very respectable, but no match for the excellent 8 fps max that the D300s is capable of - although it does require the MB-D10 grip and more battery power. So, if you're a sports shooter looking for either a new rig or a backup, you should consider the lack of frame rate in your purchase. Again, for non-sports shooters, this might not be an issue. D7000: 5    D90: 0     D300s 3

9. Storage: The D7000 keeps the SD slot for its storage type, but does provide a second slot to either provide roll over storage or separated storage or say RAW and JPEG when shot simultaneously. I prefer the Compact Flash option on the D300s, but I think for this class of camera, the SD is a more common storage format and since it accommodates the SDXC cards and there is double the internal capacity, the D7000 gets the point. D7000: 6    D90: 0     D300s 3

10. $: This is tougher to do side by side, because you have to take value into consideration here. For a hands down winner, the D90 finally gets a point coming in at $780 for the body only (as of this post). I expect that price to drop even more as it exits the stage, so if you are a new shooter in the DSLR field or just want a superb backup, grab the D90 or wait for it to drop a little. I see it absolutely bottoming out at $699 new, but I'm not a marketing expert. The D300s has been around for quite a while and is in need of an update, but not more so than the excellent D700. The D300s will cost you about $1,480 new body only. It's at the top of the list and considering that it's only real advantages over the new D7000 are AF points, 2 more fps and a possible preference for the CF card, it seems unlikely that most shoppers will throw out the extra $300. The D7000 also offers some newer metering sensors, the new processing engine and the excellent movie mode. I think the deal breaker here would really just be the shooting speed. The D7000 comes it at a respectable $1,200 and in my opinion is the bang for buck champ of the group. The point for dollar amount goes to the D9o, but the value point goes to the D7000. D7000: 6    D90: 1     D300s 3

11. Value: See point 10. for info. D7000: 7    D90: 1     D300s 3

At the end of the day, camera dimensions and weight are totally subjective, so are not included in the review. I actually prefer a meatier camera so I like the D3s/x bodies, but I shoot with a heavier (when fully loaded) D700. There are also other features that can be talked about, but I think they impact the shooter/buyer less than those points listed above.

If you're a full-frame shooter, just keep waiting for the D700 update or other major D3 advancement. If you're an entry level shooter consider the D3100 or D5000. If you are looking at the middle of the pack consider the D90 for it's excellent price if the features of the D7000 are not necessary for you. If you need speed, still go with the D300s if the D3s is out of your price point. If you want the most for the best value, I'd strongly consider the D7000. Wait for some image and performance reviews from other great sites, but at the end of the day it offers a TON of features that are sure to justify the $1,200 price tag.

- R