Over the past year or two I have gotten pretty darn good, or at least pretty darn lucky, with shooting children's theater jobs in JPG and nailing the white balance. Most stage lights seem to run around 3000 K, of course with a few hotter scenes or colder scenes depending on the mood. So I just shot in Kelvin WB, and since I have a Nikon I don't have to go into the menu to change the color temp, (Like on Canons) ...so I'd just constantly fine-tune the WB for each scene.

Last week I shot in an especially dark theater, in mixed light that had VERY strong blue AND red lights in exactly the same scenes. (One side of their face would be highlighted in warm light, while the shadows would be super-saturated blue...)

When I shoot theater what I usually do is come during the dress rehearsals, snap a few portraits of the kids in costume, and then photograph the rehearsal using my D300 w/ Sigma 50-150 and my D200 w/ Nikon 17-55.

The first rehearsal I shoot is usually just a trial run. I like to sit back and just watch the moments, notice the light level and color, basically just getting ready to not miss a single moment (or fumble a camera setting) when I shoot the next rehearsal.

This time, upon reviewing my images after day 1, I was just NOT happy with the light and color. I knew it would be super tough to try and nail all the moments *AND* keep up with the JPG settings. As it is I'm already spot-metering in aperture priority mode with auto-ISO on, which can be suicide if you're not quick. So I made the executive decision to shoot full RAW the next night.

I think it really paid off, and I think I might continue to shoot RAW for theater in the future. The color is just fantastic, the noise isn't that bad, and the workflow isn't un-bearably increased. With just a couple Kelvin WB adjustments throughout the rehearsal I was able to get images looking pretty acceptable straight out of the camera. And the post-processing is going pretty fast.

I look forward to getting a D700 for theater in the future. IRONICALLY, I actually only look forward to it so that I can use the camera in DX mode and shoot the smaller, ~5 megapixel RAW files.

(For those of you who haven't been reading my blog that long, I originally shot RAW before I shot JPG. In fact when I owned the D70 / D200, I only ever shot RAW, period. The D300's massive 12 megapixel RAW files are what recently interested me in shooting JPG again in situations in which it was possible to nail the exposure and white balance...)

Take care,
=Matt=

Apple never ceases to amaze me with their coolness. They just announced the new 24" LED display, a gorgeous piece of equipment indeed. (I happen to like glossy displays...)

They have marketed it towards macbook pro owners actually, and (here's the pure genius) ...they ship the new LED monitor with a built-in display adapter for all new mac laptops, a built-in USB cable and hub, built-in speakers on the monitor, (in addition to the usual compliment of webcam / mic) ...And, of course, a laptop power cable capable of charging any of the new mac laptops.

NICE.

Ready for the part where you want to slap Steve Jobs across the face?

...You absolutely cannot use this display with ANYTHING ELSE other than the NEW macbooks, macbook pros, and airs. That's right, STILL no LED displays available for your mac pro tower. When you use apple.com to configure a mac pro, the 24" display isn't even an option anymore; only the 20" and 30" displays are options now. Both are LCD of course. Wow. Seriously, Steve? I've never seen pure genius and sheer stupidity in such harmony...

The perfectly good standard mini-DVI port wasn't good enough? Any documented benefits of this new "mini-DisplayPort" anti-standard? I could almost understand making a display that is designed specifically as a desktop station for your laptop, even though it is still a stupid idea to NOT think up a way to allow people to also connect this display to a mac pro tower or as a 2nd display for an iMac. ...But then lastly, locking out EVERY laptop even ONE generation older than the latest line, well that's just downright idiotic.

Yet again, an Apple product I love but absolutely cannot spend money on it because of sheer stupidity on their part.

Our only hope is that eventually they'll come out with adapters and/or new standards for the rest of their products. Sure, at MacWorld next year they'll probably switch all their displays to LED. They'll probably add But it is no secret that Apple likes to intentionally lock old equipment out of an upgrade path. I doubt they'll ever fully resolve the flagrant errors that are inherent in the concept of this particular product...

It is really ironic how close I am to buying any one of Apple's products, yet just cannot bring myself to do so out of principle.

Right now I guess I'm closest to buying a 24" iMac; for $2350 I can get a 3.06 GHZ dual-core, 4 gigs of RAM, NVIDIA 8800 GS 512 DDR3 graphics, a 500 gig 7200 HD, USB 2.0 ports, FW 400 *AND* FW 800 ports.

But I just know that for that much money, I could build a kick-ass and fully upgrade-able PC desktop. The crazy thing is, that $2350 iMac I described is the most bang-for-buck Apple offers. For the $4500+ that a quad-core, 8 gig RAM, etc. etc. mac pro costs, I could maintain a cutting edge PC system for over a decade or two...

Yet again, I postpone upgrading my computer system because of "fatal flaws" in Apples otherwise awesome system, plus my habitual in-decision in general, and the money factor. Oh well, maybe my macbook will completely die on me and cost more to fix than I originally paid for it; that would sure force me to pony up...

=Matt=

I really have to begin this thread by disclaiming that EVERY digital sensor ever to be closely scrutinized has displayed one artifact issue or another. This is in no way a vendetta against Canon or the 5D mk2 in particular. All Nikon sensors have had their issues, in fact Nikon may win the prize for most notorious digital artifacts, with the D70 moire problem and the HUGE D200 banding issue.

ANYWAY, the 5D mk2 has picked it's digital artifact poison. This time the victims are city night photographers. Good luck taking pictures at night with pixel-size street lights or spectral highlights. Especially at high ISOs...

Like I said, no sensor is perfect. You just have to pick your poison... Luckily for most 5D mk2 purchasers, this artifact will never be an issue. Architectural night photographers, however, be warned...

Take care! And fell free to ask me about what artifacts or issues YOUR favorite Nikon / Canon camera might have, it's possible the data is rattling around somewhere in the back of my head. I'm not sure what the D3 / D700's artifact issues are, but I do remember reports of severe banding in "pushed" images at HI+ ISO's...

=Matt=

[EDIT] By the way, I misspoke when I said the D700 has moire. I meant the D70. It had a VERY weak anti-aliasing filter, and therefore certain cloths would generate incredible moire patterns. Google it.

And yes to clarify I am talking about the tiny black dots to the right of all those small lights. They do look like USM / CA artifacts, but neither of these explanations make sense given the direction and the fact that I believe they are RAW images...

Okay whenever a new full-frame camera body comes out, I complain about the "AF point spread". Even the high-end, pro-series flagship models.

And people speculate and wonder about why autofocus points are still so tightly clustered towards the center of the viewfinder...

So I thought I'd blog about it. Actually, Canon recently did an interview surrounding the release of the Canon 5D mk2. I'm too lazy to find it, but I do believe that this point came up, the fact that the 40D / 50D have their focus points so spread out around the viewfinder, while the 5D / 5D mk2 have the same focus point arrangement yet it is considerably more clumped towards the center.

There are two things that we need to understand about this situation.

1.) They're actually using the same physical SIZE autofocus module in the crop / full-frame cameras. It's just that the crop sensors are, duh, cropped, and so the autofocus spread APPEARS wider.

So, when we consider the 40D versus the 5D and the D300 versus the D3, in the viewfinders it LOOKS like this:

So, the size difference is definitely significant. And one of the main reasons why I simply LOVE my D300. (And a reason why all my 40D shooting friends LOVE their cameras...)

2.) The REASON that they don't develop larger autofocus modules for the full-frame appears to be this, based on the Canon interview and response to why the 50D has such good AF point spread versus the 5D mk2:

Basically yeah, it is a technical limitation caused by the angle at which light hits a full-frame sensor. On full-frame at wider angles, light hits the sensor at quite an angle sometimes, and I guess this kills the autofocus accuracy. The crop-sensor lenses however usually receive light at a better (perpendicular) angle, so they can AF correctly even at the apparent edge of the frame, since it's not nearly the edge of the true full frame...

It may have a little to do with the size of the image circle that most full-frame lenses create, but then again DX lenses create a smaller image circle and yet lenses like the 12-24 DX with an equivalent wide end of 18mm still focus perfectly fine at it's outermost AF points.

It probably also has a bit to do with light falloff, or vignetting. On full-frame MANY lenses exhibit

Anyway, the hope is that full-frame camera makers eventually find a way to spread out their AF points a little more. Maybe if we get a more complete line of new high quality lenses like the latest 14-24 and 24-70. The older Nikon 70-200 2.8 for example definitely has a limited image circle, and I dunno how it would work on full-frame with more spread-out focus points. Vignetting being the reason, in this case...

Anyway, still waiting on the D3X official release, but I expect it within the next 24 hours...

Take care,
=Matt=

[EDIT] D3X is announced now, actually. At midnight on the dot, eastern USA time...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0812/081201nikond3x.asp

Specs are as predicted, D3 body with 24.5 MP sensor, ISO 100-1600 native with 50-6400 non-native, 5/7 FPS, and no video recording. Aces, Nikon, aces...

Take care again,
=Matt=

For those of you who are complete idiots and can't already guess that a D3X would be a D3 with a high-res sensor at a reduced frame rate and lowered ISO capability, well, it's as good as official.

The D3X is a D3 body with nothing changed other than a higher resolution sensor, and therefore a slower throughput speed and lessened ISO rating.

24.5 megapixels, some sort of new low-pass filter system for better per-pixel resolution...

ISO 100-1600, with ISO 50 and 6400 expandable.

5 frames per second, with 7 in DX crop mode. (10 megapixels)

Other than that, it's a D3.

I guess really the only thing that most people will complain about is the lack of HD video. Hardly a quibble for me, though. If I wanna shoot video and stills at the same event, I'll get a cheaper camera for the video, thank you very much. No reason to shoot video on your main, flagship body...

Personally, I am sad about three things: 1.) Same rubber grips, apparently. Ugh. 2.) Same AF module which, although stunningly fast, should have it's cross-type AF points more spread out over the frame instead of clumped in the center. 3.) Possible lack of intermediate size RAW capture.

The Canon 5D mk2 on the other hand, well, Canon doesn't have a rubber grip problem, and they DID debut intermediate RAW capture. Still, NO FULL-FRAME CAMERA has good focus point spread, period. So I'll take the Nikon flagship autofocus such as it is and the general body design / quality over the 5D mk2, for most of what I do. If I got into landscape photography full time RIGHT NOW, I'd probably get a 5D mk2 and 17-40 f/4 L + 70-200 f/4 L, a setup Nikon still can't really touch.

But for the work I do right now the Nikon system is my choice, and I know that in the long run Nikon will have a 24 megapixel sensor in a D700 body, or something similar...

Take care all,
=Matt=

http://fwd.five.tv/videos/challenge-blow-up-part-3

I guess it is official, considering the british accent. For 35mm photography, the game is OVER.

=Matt=

The price of (quality, leading brand) CF cards has dropped again. You can now get Sandisk Extreme 3's for less than $30 per 4 gig card or close to $40 per 8 gig card. So yeah, we blew right past $10 per gig and we're headed straight for $5 per gig! WOW. (The super-fast stuff, like Sandisk extreme 4, is rapidly approaching $10 per gig, too. MY PREFERRED MEMORY CARD, the Calumet Pro-spec 305X UDMA, is now $49 per 4 gig card. A 4 gig Delkin 350X (wow!) UDMA is also $49, I might have to try that stuff sometime... When you shoot landscape photos in 14-bit un-compressed 12 megapixel RAW, you need a lot of cards!)

I have also just spotted a used Nikon D3, in mint condition for just under $4000!!! WOW! Grr I want...

Used D300's are down under $1400, too, but I have not seen any used D700's on the market yet. New they can be had for as little as $2700, the price of a (yet unreleased) Canon 5D mk2.

Speaking of Canon, the 5D mk1 can be had for AS LITTLE AS $1370!!! (If you already have batteries + charger and are just looking for a backup body. Or maybe you're getting a 5D mk2 as your workhorse, but need a 2nd body / backup?)

I have to say that is un-precedented. Even the much older, 11 megapixel 1Ds mk1 is still going for $1600. Of course that's a 1-series body that will survive armageddon, but yeah. There must be truck-loads of 5D mk1's hitting the used market right now; making it the perfect time to buy. If you are a studio / landscape photographer who doesn't mind crappy autofocus, You really MUST own one!!!

For sports shooters, Canon 1D mk2's are down to $1700. Highly advisable for anyone who, unlike the studio / landscape photographers, needs speed and accuracy...

For the Canon D-rebel shooters looking to upgrade, (and not considering Nikon / Olympus / Pentax?) ...The 30D is now down to about $600, an awesome buy, and used 40D's (If you just have to have that ridiculously large LCD) are down to $750-ish.

The most affordable, pro-grade full-frame high-res camera body, the 1Ds mk2, (16 megapixels) can be had for $3500 in mint condition or $2900 in "bargain" condition. Not bad, but I'd rather have a D700 I think...

At any rate the verdict is, unless you're one of the poor out-of-luck (or out of a job) folks who are the victims, the substance (the cause?) of this financial / housing economic crisis, it's nothing but good news! Prices are way down all across the board. Used camera prices are down, and gas is hitting record lows so now you can make those road trips to the awesome places you've been meaning to photograph!

=Matt=

Anyone out there looking for a P&S camera that is half-decent at low-light photography?

Anyone out there sick and tired of P&S cameras cramming more and more megapixels into their tiny little sensor?

Anyone out there wish they could just throw their P&S in aperture priority or full manual mode?

Panasonic heard "our" cries and gave us the LX3. I believe I blogged about it a while ago when it was announced; indeed it had some exciting specs: A 24mm equivalent wide zoom end, an f/2.0-2.8 aperture, optical stabilization, full manual control and un-restricted RAW shooting, and then last but not least, they STOPPED at 10 megapixels, unlike Canon and Nikon's latest 14 megapixel P&S cameras...

Well, the test results are in; the LX3 slaughtered the G10 and the P6000...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmclx3/page13.asp

Way to go, Panasonic! I'll be seriously considering the LX3 as a pocket camera. Although ironically the Panasonic G1 ALSO looks very, very tempting as a "pocket-able" camera, and I cant wait to see the full effect of Olympus' new "P&SLR" system.

Nikon and Canon's only hope at competing is to maybe get into the Sigma DP1 / DP2 market, making a P&S camera with a DSLR (crop) sensor...

=Matt=

Adobe has finally, finally, FINALLY begun to address one of the MONSTER issues surrounding RAW image capture and Adobe workflow applications.

Basically, each camera maker has always used their own in-camera settings, their own RAW processing parameters, and the only way you can get back the in-camera settings that you set is to use their proprietary software. This is a huge reason that JPG shooters shoot JPG, period, but also a huge reason that Nikon RAW shooters use Nikon Capture for their RAW processing. Even though the RAW process with Nikon, Canon, and other camera maker's software is sluggish and clunky AT BEST, especially compared to the blazing workflow available in Bridge. (And Lightroom)

It really was true- If you shot a RAW image and then processed it in Adobe Photoshop, Bridge, Lightroom, etc, ....you really had to struggle just to get the image to look just as good as it did on the camera LCD, let alone better and ready for presentation. It took me years and tens of thousands of RAW images to get good at whipping through a RAW workflow in Adobe Bridge CS2 and CS3. I did eventually get to the point where I could quickly get great results that beat any other processing application, but a ton of hard work went into that.

Well, Adobe has just taken a step in the right direction; releasing camera color and tone presets that match the in-camera presets found in the latest Nikon and Canon DSLR's. I can now apply my beloved D2XMODE3 colors and tones to RAW images!

http://www.lightroomkillertips.com/2008/video-camera-profiles-for-lightroom/

As always, to my annoyance, there is almost NO mention that Lightroom's RAW processing engine is absolutely identical to Bridge, and that these presets work perfectly in Bridge as well, other than one or two screenshots that hint so. But trust me, I downloaded and installed the camera profiles and am thoroughly enjoying them. I bet a LOT of people will give Bridge / Lightroom a second chance now! Yeah, you don't get your specific custom fine-tunings back, like +2 contrast and +1 saturation etc. etc. but at least you get the root processing profile, which significantly and positively affects the color and tone of images!!!

Take care,

=Matt=

This is not meant as an attack on any of the pros out there. I respect all of their work, and don't think I'll ever be as good as them.

However at the top-most end of the business, among the pros who are good enough that the likes of Canon / Nikon / Lexar / Apple etc. etc. are working directly with them, ...I strongly dislike the fact that it seems like they're all wearing blinders... (google it)

Time after time after time, after time, I read about top-end professionals getting their hands on the latest gear directly from Canon and / or Nikon. The problem is, most of these professionals have probably been shooting with that brand of camera / memory card / software for so many years that they are out of touch with what the other companies have been doing. So many times you will read about how much better a new camera is, ONLY compared to it's previous generation's incarnation.

If you're curious, what sparked this epiphany for me was a certain professional's comment on how fantastic and amazing the 5D mk2's new LCD screen is, with no mention of the fact that it's actually just now catching up up to Nikon / Sony's high-res LCD that has been implemented for over a year in the D300, D700 and D3.

This is why I can only hope that people will take it upon themselves to subscribe to more widely learned blog opinions such as CameraTalk, or more thorough review sites such as DPReview.com... Maybe some day I could make money at giving my opinion. But could that make me one of THEM? I dunno, but for now I'll just keep giving my opinion in this miniscule little corner of the interwebz...

Now luckily CameraTalk is not very widely read, because this next comment would start something firey: I think tunnel-vision marketing is a little more prevalent in the Canon world than anywhere else, because Canon has such a large concentration of "bandwagon buyers" who only bought into the system because everybody else did... Sure that's just my opinion, but it's still got an element of truth to it...

How's THAT for opinionated?
=Matt=