Here's a thought: Last year Canon announced both the 40D (prosumer) and the 1Ds mk3 (pro flagship) on the same exact day, August 20th. Historically, August 20-30 has been the time for Canon to announce cameras. (The 5D was announced on Aug. 22nd back in 2005...)

This doesn't bode well for those who are HOPING that Canon comes out with the 5D mk2 some time within the next few weeks. Canon did fine introducing the 40D alongside the 1Ds mk3, so why not introduce the 5D mk2 along side the 50D? Maybe they didn't want to deal with a 5D / 50D name confusion? I doubt it, judging by the smashing success of Nikon's D3 and D300 one-day announcement.

HOWEVER, back in 2004 Canon DID announce the 20D in August and then the 1Ds mk2 about a month later in September, so there IS hope!!!

Here's another thought: The Canon 5D is LITERALLY the absolute oldest camera in Canon's ENTIRE lineup of digital cameras. In fact, the next-youngest camera OVER a year younger, and it's a P&S camera. All other camera models have been discontinued.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/

All in all, it's still a wash with both Canon and Nikon. Will the 50D out-perform the D300 and do it at a lower price? Gosh it sure looks like that could be the case. If they can cram a clean ISO 3200 out of 15 megapixels on a cropped sensor, well then I might just buy one.

But then there's full-frame. If the 50D is so good, what on earth could the 5D mk2 be cooking up? 21 megapixels with ISO 25600 to match the D3? And at what price? I'm still a crop sensor guy because I can get a fully professional DX body for well under $2000, (used D300's are dropping below $1500, by the way, WOW!!!) ...BUT, if Canon's 5D mk2 were to cost $2000-$2500, well how could you NOT buy one? (Although the D700 is starting to show up for as low as $2600, I think!)

So like I said, it's a Nikon and Canon free-for-all right now. I'm definitely going to sit tight, hold onto the gear I own, and see what the next ~12 months bring...

=Matt=

The Nikon D90 is also here, hot on the heels of the Canon 50D.

12 megapixels. (D300 sensor)

4.5 FPS.

ISO 200-3200 (D300 sensor, so ISO 100-6400 via boost)

3" high-res LCD.

Video!

Video!

VIDEO!

Okay, what the heck am I going to do with video capabilities on a DSLR? I dunno. I didn't have a clue what to do with live view either, but I found a use for it eventually. (setting kelvin WB!)

Anyway, a pretty sweet camera. Still has the 11-point AF from the D80 / D200, a system which I've never really enjoyed, but it's still WAY better than the 5-point systems of yester-year, and the center AF point is comparable to equally priced Canons.

Having the D300 sensor in a small, compact body is going to be the key selling point. The D300 sensor, being CMOS instead of CCD, goes wayyyy easier on batteries. And for some reason, the noise technology is better for CMOS, even though CCD's are inherently less noisy...

Anyway, nothing TOO exciting, and I've got a lot of work to do, so peace out.

We're still waiting for the Canon 5D mk2. Honestly Canon, what's up with that? 50D, but no 5D mk2? Laughable...

=Matt=

So, my laptop HD being compromised has brought a very serious problem to my attention: Even though I always keep multiple copies of all my images, and even though I regularly back up my other important data, what effect would a kaput macbook HD have on my actual work schedule? Chances are, I'd be seriously out of commission for quite some time if I were required to fire up my PC and try to recover emails etc. and "get back to work"...

So, I want to talk more about hard drives, and my concept for a fail-safe backup for both desktop and laptop machines. I don't know if I can get along with having a PC desktop and a Mac laptop, so I'll either be getting a Thinkpad W700 eventually, or I'll just get a refurb Mac Pro tower for "cheap" and do my own upgrades.

Either way, I like to be in charge of what hard drives I use, how they are backed up, and how quickly I can be back to work if a hard drive fails, with the least amount of data loss as possible...

What are my options? I've already outlined the standard procedure of having a faster HD for your OS and all your applications and then a more standard, higher-capacity HD (or two) for your data storage. But now I'm more interested in safety, backup etc.

In a desktop, the ultimate luxury would be to have an in-board, fully-bootable backup of the high-speed (OS) HD. (For those of you who are reading along and learning WITH me instead of giving advice, what I mean is this- I'd have two identical drives in the computer, with identical data on them, and if the main hard drive failed all of a sudden, the computer would just think oh, hmm that hard drive isn't responding, let's try this other one! And boom, just a few seconds after a catastrophic failure I am back in business with hardly a single piece of data missing!)

In a laptop, unless I get a Thinkpad I am limited to one hard drive. Backing up this hard drive, well, how to do it? Just use an external hard drive to periodically create a FULL backup? But then there is the potential to lose recent data such as emails, documents, etc. that may have been created since your last backup. I think.

I could stand to lose a days worth of emails or something, I suppose.

And, for the record, I think it is FAR more convenient to do all document work, emailing etc. from my laptop, since I can take the work with me anywhere and never have to say "oh gosh, that document / email is on my desktop, I can't get it for you right now, or I can't work on it right now... etc..."

So, I'd like to continue to use a laptop for most everything. The only real use I have for a desktop is high-powered imaging, and lots of monitor real estate and storage space with which to do so. I don't feel comfortable running around with more than a 120 / 160 gig laptop, just because the potential to NOT have your data backed up is too great. Or even if your original images are backed up, you could still lose a LOT of photoshop work, especially album design, in a crash. So that is very limiting, whereas a desktop hard drive can be 300 gigs for the OS and 500-750 gigs for the data, with room still for two more HD's to back those up.

Alright I've gotta get back to work, so I'll leave this hanging right here and get back to it later.

For now my main consideration is- I'm running out of storage space and it is time to get a larger capacity HD. Either external although I already have an external G-drive, or internal and I'll just swap it with the current HD in my G-drive inclosure. RAID 1 would be a nice thing, (google G-safe) and I know about Drobo but the last I heard it was still USB 2.0...

The prime candidate is currently a Seagate barracuda 500 gig, 32 mb / 7200 / SATA 3.0 etc. But they actually do NOT get good reviews on Newegg, not as good as the WD equivalent. Which is very odd and makes me hesitate to buy...

=Matt=

UPDATE 01:

Just purchased two Seagate Barracudas, a 250 gig (5400, 8, 1.5) laptop drive and a 500 gig. (7200, 16, 3.0) Installed the 500 gig in my PC tower no problem. Seagate software is cheapo, they want me to pay extra for the auto-backup capability. Meh. Oh and I guess the 137 gig limit on FAT 32 is not a problem anymore? (As a cross-platform user, I'm not a fan of NTFS...)

Next I am going to try and upgrade my mac HD by creating a disk image on an external HD, swapping the laptop hard drives, and then creating another disk image on the new laptop HD, ...and seeing if it works haha... I am so ghetto...

On another note, I still dislike Windows.

=Matt=

Wow. Canon just made quite possibly the ULTIMATE crop-sensor camera. They also just b*tch-slapped everyone who recently bought a 40D.

15 megapixels.

ISO 100-3200 (cleanly) with boost to 12800...

6.3 FPS.

3" VGA (high-res) LCD screen

Digic IV processor.

AF fine-tuning.

Full weather sealing. (Not sure yet, actually, probably not as good as 1D-series but better than the 40D...)

I dunno what to say, I'm torn, very torn. Like I said, this is the most absurd, un-necessary move Canon could possibly think of right now.

The 40D was an awesome camera, with more value than the D300 considering the price. (That's hard to explain. I think there is more value in the 40D, but at the same time the D300 is worth the extra money, if you can wrap your mind around that seeming contradiction.

Not only is the 40D awesome and not really in need of replacement, but the 5D REALLY DOES need a replacement. If you ask me, the days of excitement about cropped-sensor bodies is over. With the arrival of the $3000, fully professional D700, Nikon has REALLY put the pressure on the "low-end full-frame" market. With their two new FX f/2.8 pro zooms, they are really taking the market by storm. (We expect f/1.4 pro primes to roll out starting in a few weeks, too...)

If it's true that Canon has pushed back the 5D mk2 to 2009 all I can say is, what a bone-headed move. Completely backwards from what they SHOULD have done. The crowd would have gone WILD if a 5D mk2 were announced this summer. 16-18 megapixels, ISO 25600 equal or better to the D3 / D700, and bam, you have a show-stopper. Then do the 50D on schedule, next year. But instead, "the crowd" is half totally confused and half downright PISSED.

Okay, weirdness aside, let's take this at face value:

MAYBE, and we'll never know unless we infiltrate Canon Corporate and procure the numbers ourselves, ...just MAYBE the 40D was not selling AT ALL. Maybe Canon really DID need to redeem themselves. And MAYBE the 5D, and it's replacement, are NOT big cash cows for Canon, either. This would indeed give reason for making a 50D now and worrying about the 5D mk2 later. Maybe the 5D is still selling fine at $2200, regardless of the AF shortcomings. Maybe this IS a smart move, and Canon knows what they're doing.

The 50D, if it CAN pull off ISO 12800 as decently as the D300 has done ISO 6400, well, that is one hell of a camera. It really kinda makes you sit down and realize: Canon is still on top, and all Nikon can do is "catch up" every now and then. Assuming of course that it costs less than $2000. And also assuming that the 5D mk2 comes out and costs less than $3000.

But, just because it is a good business move doesn't mean it's downright mean to Canon's customers. Advanced amateurs who just bought the 40D (and I DO see tons of them around) are going to be upset, and pros who desperately need an upgrade to the 5D are getting pretty angry by now I think. (Or, they're spending $8000 on a 1Ds mk3, so again- Canon wins, customers lose. Ouch...)

At any rate, this is all pretty exciting! Both Canon and Nikon are making some pretty amazing tools, and for most the differences should only come down to what control layout you prefer...

Take care,
=Matt=

This makes absolutely no sense, (well, actually it does, but in impossible ways; I'll get to that) ...but Canon apparently leaked official specs of a 50D. Successor to the 40D, of course, and arriving just ONE year after the 40D, which is half a year early considering historic trends.

Above the 40D, it has 15 megapixels, AF fine tuning, TWO different sizes of "sRAW", (one a very useful 7 megapixels...) Oh, and did I mention, ISO 100-12800? And also, some sort of high-res 3" LCD. Oh and Digic IV. Last but not least, (on the laugh scale, that is) ...in-body IS? Didn't Canon say this would NEVER come?

Okay, three things. First, this is probably too good to be true. It sounds like someone just took the 40D, added the specs that the Nikon D300 has that make 40D users jealous, plus a couple nearly-impossible specs for good measure. The 15 megapixels crammed into a 1.6x sensor, combined with the 12800 ISO, ...well it just makes me roll my eyes! Also, it is just highly unlikely that they are coming out so quickly with such potentially ground-breaking features like Digic IV and two sRAW sizes. If they had these features in the pipeline, they should have shown up in the cameras released just a year ago...

Alright, secondly, let's just pretend the 50D is indeed true and coming. The first thing that comes to mind is, OUCH 40D users! Just one year ago you jumped on a $1300-$1400 waiting list for the 40D, and already we're getting the 50D at (I assume) the same price... I'd be hating Canon as a company right about now, if I were a Canon shooter. (But like I said, I think the rumor is total BS...) But, let's pretend some more, and let the 50D explain the 40D's recent, sudden price drop. Hmm. It could indeed be that Canon's 40D sales weren't nearly what they expected, thus pushing them to "move" the remaining 40D's and scurry to basically make a "better 40D" and call it a 50D... Hey, it happened before with the 30D. (Bare minimum upgrade from the 20D, hardly anyone who owned the 20D upgraded to the 30D...)

Thirdly, back to it being impossible, or at least being a historic bone-headed move by Canon: The 5D is now 3 years old, and DESPERATELY in need of an upgrade, especially with the D700 on the market now. Seriously Canon, the 5D has an AF mechanism somewhere between the 20D and the 30D. That's ancient! (Read Becker's [b] school blog to hear a real pro's HONEST opinion on the 5D AF, especially if you're considering buying one now that they're "so cheap"...) So anyway. Canon WILL update the 5D, in my opinion. They have to. While the 40D, in my opinion, competes perfectly fine with the D300. It's got all the features that count- on-par image quality, faster speed, and on-par autofocus. For hundreds less. I don't know the 40D sales numbers, but I've always considered the 40D to be a stellar camera with HUGE value, if not more value than the D300 even...

Anyway, like I said I doubt this whole 50D thing is true. But apparently the "leak" came from Canon's own website, so who knows! I guess if Canon is already preparing a 50D web page in secret, the actual announcement must be very near. We'll know for sure by Photokina!

=Matt=

I've totally lost track of which color I'm supposed to use for which headline post, so forget it! I'm just gonna do whatever...

The beastly Sigma 50 1.4 just got reviewed on DPReview. Basically, this sigma lens is easily more than twice as big / heavy as all the other 50mm 1.4 lenses, and roughly twice as expensive at $500.

What it IS is the same size as the Canon 50 1.2, but half the price and (hopefully) equal the image quality at f/1.4...

Well, is it? Ehh, well, umm, err, yeah, you know I had high hopes for this lens... But...

It DOES indeed outperform the Canon and Nikon 50mm 1.4 lenses, as far s sharpness is concerned. But contrast wide-open is, well, flat. I'd say sharpness is on par with the Canon 50 1.2, but contrast is not.

Flare is almost nill when the sun is IN the frame, (none of those annoying little green spheres) and quite well-controlled when the sun is just outside the frame. On par with the Canon 50 1.2 I'd say.

Bokeh is gorgeous. Best combination of bokeh & sharpness on the market considering the aspherical lens element, I'd say... (aspherical elements help sharpness etc. but can harm bokeh...)

On full-frame, the lens totally out-resolves even the 21 megapixel 1Ds mk3, dead center, but the extreme corners are crap. Great corners on DX, though, and corners aren't really important with a lens like this anyway. (And the sample images look pretty darn good, despite the numbers...)

But there's one thing that saddens me- The autofocus speed does not "beat" the Canon 50 1.4, nor the 1.8. I was really hoping that it could be lightning fast, but I guess with all that glass it just doesn't have the muscle. Maybe on the Nikon bodies it can perform better? Who knows...

Will I be buying one? Probably not, especially considering the fact that Nikon has some new f/1.4 primes of it's own on the horizon. I'll wait and see what Nikon does; if they try and release a 50 1.2 at $1000+, I'll probably go for this Sigma. If Nikon does a "pro-grade" 50 1.4, (which would be a first) ...then I'll consider it. For now, I'm just going to stick with renting 85mm primes instead...

=Matt=

PS: Oh and we can expect to see the Canon 5D mk2, starting THIS week. Thursday is a historic favorite for Canon...

Those of you who follow my blog will know that I'm no "macs rule, PC's are a joke" kinda photographer... One of the biggest reasons I bought a macbook was just because it LOOKED nice. And I've often said that Thinkpads are pretty decent...

http://www.dpreview.com

Built-in tablet.

17" widescreen display with a built-in calibration system and 72% of the full Adobe RGB color space.

Up to 8 gigs of RAM, 1 gig of graphics RAM.

Intel Core 2 Quad.

Two, count 'em TWO 200 gig hard drives...

Built-in 7 type memory card reader.

USB 2.0, firewire, AND eSATA.

Blu-Ray.

Holy cow. Apple is going to have to ROCK the next Macbook Pro, (or this thinkpad is going to have some SERIOUS flaws) ...because I really, REALLY like this new thinkpad...

=Matt=

[edit] Okay, on the shop.lenovo.com website I priced out the kind of Thinkpad that would actually make it WORTH getting. (Features that the MBP does not offer) ...$4500+!!! Ouch, and a decked-out 17" MBP goes for $3500, and if I go easy on a very decent 15" MBP I can keep it around $3K.

No dice on a "Thinktab" any time soon!

IN OTHER NEWS, my black macbook has developed a buzzing sound. I suspect that it is coming from the hard drive, and I suspect that the sound is a loose spindle or something; the sound can be heard when rocking the computer like a see-saw, but quiets down to almost nothing when it is sitting still. Sounds like a wobbly spindle to me! Needless to say I backed up ALL my data the moment I heard this sound, and I guess I either need to send in this HD, or just get a new one, or something... (Fujitsu, purchased in Feb, identical to the stock Fujitsu HD other than the capacity and RPM's... I don't even remember if this thing has a warranty... It seems I'm looking at about $65 for a new 160 gig 5400 SATA drive, no matter what brand... Not bad, but I think I spend $70-80 on this presumably dying or compromised Fujitsu. Even if I can get it warrantied, I'll need something to work with in the meantime! Anybody have any quick-and-dirty methods of swapping hard drives and having the new drive be fully bootable? (Identical to the previous drive...)

=Matt=

As I slowly master the D300's JPG output, (just passed 50,000 images the other day!) ...I want to post some "SOOC" images as examples of how it is POSSIBLE to get great, proof-ready shots without spending any time in photoshop. Here goes!

I use spot metering and manual exposure for a few reasons. First, to get the best portraits, the best light is usually the tricky kind. A lot of the time, I go for backlighting, and this involves letting a "rim light" blow out. (within reason) I use manual exposure because my background light changes from shot to shot, but I keep my subjects in relatively consistent light. I don't want to have to worry about a shaded or sunny background causing my subject's faces to be too dark / bright from shot to shot, so I just set up the pose, get the exposure for their faces right, and then I'm free to move around and adjust my background. I use spot metering because having 51 focus points and a DX viewfinder (points are spread out more versus FX) allows me to ALWAYS have a focus point over my subject's faces... (Or any similarly lit skin will do...)

Shooting like this gives me consistent results that don't need constant brightening / darkening in Bridge CS3. If the backlighting was quite strong, I may need to brighten their faces with a burn / dodge in PS, but we're still talking about "proofing", so that's not an issue, yet... My goal is only to get images in my camera good enough that I can show clients right away. Of course when a print is ordered, or an image is going into an album, then I can fully retouch it. But by that point, I'm getting paid specifically to retouch the image.

(As opposed to having to optimize the color and brightness of EVERY image before uploading it because you left the camera in auto-WB and full matrix (evaluative) metering, etc etc... Not to mention doing something crazy like offering a COMPLETE set of fully-retouched images for free, and having to retouch each image even though they may never even print it. They probably won't notice a difference just looking at images on their family's un-calibrated monitor... And I won't even get into shooting RAW! I just don't do it anymore when the shooting conditions are this controlled. Unless I REALLY need dynamic range out of an image, or if the WB is constantly changing back and forth...)

But, back to the lighting being consistent- I also like to lock down my white balance. And again, in the spirit of owning a professional camera and NOT just using it in the built-in settings, I took the time to memorize which lighting conditions correspond with which specific kelvin temperatures. Broad daylight, for example, is 5500K. Every amateur photographer should know that. Then as it gets later in the day, the color temperature climbs up towards 6000K, 6500K, etc. So instead of trying to use the sunny WB preset and then dialing it to some arbitrary +/- compensation as the day gets warmer, I simply start at 5500 K and then I can follow the light all the way up to the end of the day without having to guess at when to switch from sunny WB to shady WB. It also has a LOT to do with WHAT the light is landing on and reflecting off of. Late in the summer in So Cal, I have a lot of warm-colored leaves and grass to work with, so this acts as a natural warm-it-up filter. If I can add REAL warmth in-camera, instead of having to do it in photoshop, awesome!

(Note: This is a LOT easier on Nikon cameras because you can directly change the Kelvin WB without going into a menu. I don't know if this method would work as well on other systems, but you can set the "set" button on Canon DSLRs to bring up an oft-used menu item, maybe set that to WB?)

Okay, moving on. If the contrast is high, (stark sunlight and shade) ...I turn on Nikon's "Active D-lighting" and set it to low or normal, depending on how harsh the contrast is. (the higher I set the D-lighting, the more it helps bring the dynamic range together. For this shot D-lighting was set to normal.

I did blow highlights in the red channel, on the tree trunk and some of the rim light on the subjects, but I kept a close watch on these so that it does not ruin a photo.

As far as the rest of the in-camera processing goes, well first of all I used the AWESOME D2X simulation preset, Mode III. Great for outdoors and bright colors... Of course my in-camera sharpening is always set to ZERO, because I have simply found that in-camera sharpening has NEVER been as good as Bridge CS3, let alone Photoshop CS3... Next, well in-camera contrast and brightness are trumped by Active D-lighting when it is turned on. (If I turn D-lighting off, I usually set in-camera contrast to -1 if it's bright out, +/- 0 if it's average, or +1, +2 or +3 if the lighting is really flat... Moving on then, saturation was set to +1, and Hue was set to +/- 0.

So, there you have it. Oh, and a couple other things related to shooting technique- I've been shooting static subjects in AF-S, (single) cause I like to hear the beep, but I've also been getting really good at flipping to AF-C really quick. (continuous)

Alright take care! If there's anything I missed, please do ask further questions!

=Matt=

The Nikon P6000.

13.5 megapixels.

4x 28-112mm (equivalent) ED VR lens.

2.7" LCD

Flash hotshoe.

ISO 64-1600

RAW (NRW, not NEF, *shrug*...)

BUILT-IN GPS!

All for $500.

Pretty cool, but I dunno, I'm still floored by Olympus' P&SLR camera. I guess it will come down to how big the two cameras actually are, and how much the Olympus "Micro 4/3" system costs...

Take care,
=Matt=

PS: Canon 5D mk2. August 26th. You heard it here first!

Olympus just made the biggest announcement of the year. They took the mirror out of a DSLR and called it "Micro Four-Thirds".

Yes, that's right, a baby DSLR. A point & shoot camera but with interchangeable lenses. A pocket-able camera that delivers DSLR quality and control. A 21st century rangefinder street camera. A go-light adventurer's dream come true.

Yes, it will have an electronic viewfinder, and this will never be as good as an optical viewfinder, but even EVF's have advantages. (on-demand magnified manual focus) The only real drawback will be no traditional autofocus, but Olympus has pioneered the "fly by wire" system for years so if anybody can do it, Oly can...

Finally, I will be able to own a P&S-sized camera, but be able to slap on an f/1.4 prime when I need to, a 1:1 macro when I want to, and so on and so forth. In fact I can't imagine owning a high-end P&S camera anymore. How will they be able to compete, when a micro-4/3 camera can offer ultra-wide lenses, fast-apeture lenses, super-telephoto lenses, all with pro-quality, no-compromises sharpness etc...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0808/08080501microfourthirds.asp

Wow. Nikon's (secret) DX P&S's just got taken to the cleaners! I wonder if Nikon or Canon or anyone else could ever dare compete with this. Nikon and Canon in particular are too busy fighting over the world's TINIEST segment of digital camera sales- full-frame DSLR's.

Olympus just secured their share of a HUGE market... If they make a model with weather-sealing, I'll buy one in a heartbeat!!!

=Matt=