Well, I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing, but it's beginning to happen in earnest.

Cameras are starting to look like iPhones / TV remotes... Generic, shiny, mass-produced electronic devices...

Check out a couple of Fuji's new P&S cameras just announced... Notice the visual design, the new style of buttons, etc...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0902/09021703fujifilmz30.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0902/09021705fujifilmz33.asp

Like I said, I dunno if this is good or bad. They sure look cool. And in reality, you can't complain about trends, because they will ALWAYS change, that's the nature of a trend.

But as a die-hard camera geek, there is a soft spot in me for THIS...

Maybe this means I'm officially over the hill as a camera geek, but I love me my switches, dials, and strong defining lines of design...

I look at all the electronic devices that are out on the market today and they just look so generic. Mass-produced. I much prefer the terms "distinct" and "hand-crafted"...

I guess I can't complain. Nobody's going to come and confiscate my FM2. And the Nikon D300, D700 and hopeful D700X are solid, "dials-and-switches" enough for me to be happy...

And it seems like we're leveling off with P&S cameras at about 10 megapixels. Even though that's still at least 5 megapixels too many, at least we've shown signs of slowing. And more and more P&S cameras are coming out with lenses that go wider than the equivalent of 35mm. There are quite a few 28mm and 24mm P&S cameras on the market now; that's what I complained about last year. And of course, we now have the Panasonic LX3, the first P&S camera to ever include the words "24mm" "f/2.0" and "useable ISO 1600" in it's description...

Alright I'm done. WPPI is here, PMA is coming soon, so big things could be announced any day now. I've got a couple other things to blog about, including a new Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX. (Huh? What the...? Yeah, stay tuned!)

=Matt=

I just had a stroke of genius! Seriously! However, it's going to take a bit of background tech-talk to explain...

Okay, first of all, let's simply state facts:

Nikon SB800's and SB900's have a "Guide Number" mode, when pointed straight forward, in which you can simply dial in the subject's distance and bang, a perfect exposure. Pretty nifty! (Well, for those few who like to shoot manually with their hotshoe flash pointed straight forward all the time...)

Similarly, in fully manual mode you still get distance calculations, except this time you're not dialing the distance, you're dialing the flash power and the distance reads out automatically...

...Now, when you use a flash off-camera and command it wirelessly via CLS, the commander will communicate to the remote through an IR signal that tells the flash how the camera is doing exposure-wise...

The commander can "ask" remotes to be automatic or fully manual.

You can dial +/- compensation into a remote that is in TTL mode, so the IR signal must be pretty high-tech...

I don't know how this works exactly, but I know that at least the camera, if not also the wireless flash remote, knows which aperture, shutter speed and ISO is used.

The SB800 is at least capable of understanding aperture and ISO, because it uses them to calculate a guide number / flash distance...

WHAT IF, and this is a huge what if, ...you could remotely command a flash distance?

Here's how it would work. You'd set up your remote flash however you like, and take note of its distance from the subject.

Then you go onto the back of your on-camera commander, and input that distance for the correct remote group...

The IR signal from the commander says "expose for 10 feet at ISO 200 & f/4, please"

The IR remote thinks "okay, with my flash zoom head set to 50mm, that will be 1/8 power considering that I am an SB800 and my default GN is 125..." *pop*

Seriously, that would take a LOT of the guess-work out of my off-camera flash use.

TTL just doesn't cut it when I'm doing an elaborate environmental portrait with intentional dark shadows and off-center subjects.

So, I use manual power a lot of the time. And when you're shooting manual off-camera flash, it's really a shot in the dark, pun intented. You know that you're not going to be at full power because TTL was probably blowing things out as usual, so you start guessing at maybe 1/4 power. But if that is also blown out, there is no immediate solution apparent. Is it 2 stops blown out? Is it 3 stops? 4? 5? I have no idea. So I dial it down in one stop increments, until I get a proper exposure. Then the next time, I get fed up wasting time so I guess in 2-stop increments to begin with, and blow past the correct exposure, have to go back, and end up taking just as long. This doesn't actually take TOO long and is easier than shooting film and calculating a GN by hand, but it's still annoying.

AND, geeky solutions turn me on.

I know it might be a complicated IR signal to send. But the camera itself should be able to do most of the work, since it knows the aperture and ISO already. It can already spit out a flash distance if I input full manual 1/1 power, and I can already wirelessly command a manual flash power. So we're at least VERY close to achieving this.

So, Nikon, why not?

Alright, maybe I just gave a way a brilliant concept that I should have quietly gone to a patent attorney for. Most likely though, this has already been contemplated many times over, and is either impossible to implement or is already on the way...

Either way it was exciting to conceptualize, and yet I'll live without it. I'm just gonna work harder on being able to calculate a GN in my head. What's that dang formula again? F stop = GN x ISO / distance... GN = F stop x distance / ISO... Eww...

=Matt=

Inspired by a DPReview topic, I'm going to list what I'd like to see from Nikon in 2009. What I hope / predict we'll see, actually. ...IF Nikon wants to move ahead in the game, and round off its lineup!

First of all, Nikon has successfully ROCKED most of the f/2.8 zoom world and definitely has no lack of variable aperture lenses, especially DX.

What Nikon desperately needs are:

* A 17-40 f/4 equivalent, for landscape shooters, with threads so they can use GND filters etc. The 14-24 is stunning, but way too bulky and impractical for many kinds of outdoor photos. LIKELIHOOD: I hope there is a high likelihood that we'll see this lens, but my gut instinct tells me that a lens like this is not high on Nikon's list, they're probably still basking in the glory of their 14-24 f/2.8 accomplishment... MEDIUM LIKELIHOOD...

* A 24-120 f/4 or equivalent, like the current 24-120 but more rugged and sharper. (I actually don't care if it's f/4 or f/3.5-5.6, since I'd be shooting at f/16 the whole time. Nor do I care if it goes to 120mm or just 105mm. Just as long as they make it weather sealed and sharp enough for 24 megapixels...) LIKELIHOOD: HIGH, I hope. VERY HIGH, if we also see a D700X later this year...

* A 70-200 f/4 VR. Canon puts Nikon to shame in this category; with a 70-200 lens that is as small and affordable (the non-IS version) as my Sigma 50-150 DC. Nikon's lack of this lens, in addition to their lack of f/1.4 primes, is mainly what deters me from adding FX to my bag. I have said it many times before- I have come to love and appreciate the size and weight of my Sigma 50-150 2.8, and I don't think I could ever put up with the 70-200's size and weight again. LIKELIHOOD: Considering that the 70-300 VR is a pretty decent lens and widely popular, I don't know how quick Nikon will be to make a constant f/4 70-200. In fact for landscape photography, I'd almost opt for the 70-300 myself. I just want the 70-200 f/4 for event photography, and I think that MOST people are willing to tote around the 70-200 f/2.8 so I'm probably quite alone on this wish. LOW LIKELIHOOD...

It can be argued that Nikon really needs to re-do the 70-200 2.8 VR as well, but I honestly think that an f/4 version is far more needed. The 2.8 shooters who use the 70-200 at 2.8 will hardly ever be shooting in conditions where the vignetted / soft corners are an issue. The landscape shooters who stop way down and DO need corner sharpness + illumination can simply use an f/4 70-200.

* Lastly we really need an update for the 80-400 VR. I don't care if it's a constant f/4 or if it's f/4-5.6, in fact I'd rather have it zoom to f/5.6 to keep the weight down. The 200-400 f/4 VR is already a monster! LIKELIHOOD: VERY HIGH! (It's probably not very high, but I'm hoping for the sake of all those out there who really want it...)

...Then we need f/1.4 primes. We already have the new 50, so we need a wide and a tele. The 85 1.4, although old and arguably sub-par, is a lot less of a dire situation compared to the mythical 28 1.4. We desperately need a fast wide angle lens. I don't care if it's 24mm or 28mm, or if it's 1.4 or 1.8, just so long as they make it. I think the best option would be three lenses like Canon has: a pro-grade 35mm f/1.4 AFS, and then a 24mm and a 28mm, one pro-grade and f/1.4, the other semi-pro grade and f/1.8. (Don't care which, and either way I'd probably buy the semi-pro grade one unless the pro-grade one cost $1000 or less...)

* Then maybe if they still have time left at the end of the year, they can re-do the 85 1.4 with AFS and whatever lens coatings they deem necessary.

* Personally, especially for FX, I'd rather have a 105 f/1.8 VR actually, or an 135 f/2 VR. Something like THAT would rock...

* I'm sure some people are holding out for an f/1.2 prime, or wide / mid-range VR primes, but I'm not in that boat. I like the middle ground that f/1.4 offers, and I don't care whether or not Nikon puts VR in any lens wider than 100mm or faster than f/4.

* Also in the prime department, but not in the fast aperture department, we could use some slower telephoto lenses. I'm not really into these kinds of lenses so I don't know what exactly is most popular, but I think people are really hoping for a 300mm f/4 VR, or a 400mm f/5.6 VR, stuff like that.

* Or hey, how about a new 200mm f/4 macro! There's another legendary lens that could use updating...

* Last but not least, a few words on DX: Some may be waiting for a pro-grade 16-55 f/2.8 DX, or maybe for a 50-135 f/2.8 DX VR, or a 12-24 f/2.8 DX. I used to hope for these lenses, and I still think they OUGHT to be made, but I have kinda lost faith that Nikon will make them. I also used to really wish for some f/1.4 DX primes, but again I've begun to doubt. It's just not likely that we'll ever see a 17mm f/1.4 DX for example, and if we did I don't know if it would perform that well.

Too bad! But that's not to say that I don't still consider DX as a professional's choice for certain kinds of photography. I actually would *rather* have a D300 for landscape photography, considering the size and weight (and cost) of for example the D300 + 12-24 DX versus the D700 + 17-35... In my very humble opinion the D300 does just as good of a job as the D700 at ISO 200, and the small + light 12-24 is much more suited for "adventure" photography than the bulky 17-35...

So, there you have it, that's 2009 for Nikon! Other than lenses, I'm not expecting much excitement in the way of camera bodies or other things.

* There are rumors that we'll see an update to the SB600 flash, so it would be an SB700 or something. Nothing that interests me, unless it introduces some new leap in IR wireless technology and makes a better, more sensitive remote than the current SB800 / SB900.

* There ought to be one or two beginner DSLR's; the D40 is getting kinda old and could use live view / video etc.

* The D300, surprisingly enough, would be "on schedule" to get updated late in 2009 or early in 2010, but I'm not holding my breath because they'll probably do like Canon and increase the megapixels above 12, and in my opinion there are just so many other, BETTER things Nikon could do with their resources than simply stuffing more megapixels into a slightly re-designed body.

In semi-pro and pro camera bodies I'd much rather see a re-design of the 51 point autofocus system, or a re-thinking of the rubber grips altogether, or something like that. Until Nikon changes those kinds of BIG things, I'm not interested in buying a new DSLR other than a used D700 in maybe another year or so when I can get one for $2000 in good condition...

Alright, take care!

=Matt=

PS: In other news, I am officially convinced that the optical drive in my Macbook is toast. (Pun intended, for all you apple users out there...)

The dang thing is just screwing everything up. Can't burn a data CD / DVD at least 50-75% of the time, and has serious issues reading data discs as well as movies.

Methinks it's time to get on Ebay and bid on scrap parts! Who says apple isn't a DIY thing?

YET AGAIN, the latest Apple product is incredibly innovative while at the same time daringly suicidal. They are bound to make some enemies on this one...

The new 17" Macbook Pro is out, and the biggest RAVE surrounds the 8 hour battery life. Apple gurus go on and on about how they engineered the battery to set new standards and rock the world...

...Then they artfully slip in the fact that, like the iPhone etc, this new laptop's battery is sealed inside the notebook shell. Gotta take it in to get it replaced!

I'm at a loss for words. Do you jump for joy because this new battery lasts 8 hours, and can be charged up to 1000 cycles, thus being capable of living ~5 years? Or did Apple just shoot themselves in the foot again? Is their brilliant technology just an evil ploy to force you back into their store every time your battery has a problem, not to mention putting you completely out of luck as the battery life starts to decay around year 4 or 5?

I can't decide how I feel just yet. I hardly even need a $2800, 17" laptop anyway... I think I'm still pissed that Apple left firewire out of the new 13" macbook altogether instead of ADVANCING to FW 800 like they should have. At this point I'm really left with no option other than to get a 15" macbook pro. And I don't have $2200 in my business budget for equipment this year, so I guess I'm going to continue plugging away on my 1st-gen Intel Macbook that badly needs a new optical drive... 2.0 GHZ and 2.0 GB RAM ain't bad, but the 64 MB shared graphics is laughable...

Oh, how I love and hate Apple!
=Matt=

That's right, ladies and gentlemen who speak fluent nerd. The SD memory card format has just made the jump to light speed. (And indeed, I'm sure it wasn't anything like dusting crops...)

Geeky details:

2,000 GB capacity,

104 MB/sec transfer speed by end of 2009,
300 MB/sec transfer speed possible in future.

Can store 480 hours of HD movies, or,
136,000 high-res JPG images, or,
4,000 high-res RAW images...

Uses Microsoft's exFAT file system and NAND flash memory technology.

...Can I just say, WOW!

Here we were, thinking that 32 GB and 300X compact flash cards were huge. (300X = ~40 MB/sec?)

So, a few things:

1.) The iPhone / G-phone had BETTER start coming with an SD card slot, or I absolutely do not see one in my future at all... (But this blog is about cameras!!!)

2.) This totally changes the game for photographers, especially professionals who shoot with dual-card slot cameras like the Canon 1-series flagships. Imagine leaving one memory card in your camera for an entire year, knowing that every single photo you take is backed up in the purest original form in case your other memory cards, or computer / DVD archive system fails. Or, even if you don't have dual card slots in your camera, imagine simply carrying around an SD card in your pocket on a keychain that has a backup of your entire year's work. And if the price is right, you could have multiple copies all over the place...

3.) Speaking of "if the price is right"... What if the per-gigabyte cost was affordable enough to consider permanent archival? I dunno how much space 2 TB worth of DVD's would take up, but I'd hate to find out... I already have 100-200 GB worth of DVD's sitting here and it's already a major pain to find stuff... Imagine archiving years / decades worth of images in, well, a memory wallet... However, a 2 TB SDXC card won't be cheap, I presume. Only time will tell, though! (And maybe, just maybe, we'll see a CF card that goes to 1 PB, eh?)

=Matt=

Canon released a firmware to hopefully correct the issues with little black dots and plaid banding.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0901/090108025d2firmware.asp

Lemme know if it works, all you 5D mk2 shooters out there!!!

(In other news, I've heard almost nothing but good things about the 5D mk2's performance in general. As we know the big debate was between Canon and Nikon's tactics of leaving out or putting in fully professional features. The D700 for example sporting the full 51 point AF system and flagship-grade weather sealing, in addition to almost completely identical ergonomic controls. But like I said, the verdict is in- For wedding and portrait photography at least, and obviously for landscape photography, the 5D mk2 is working well.

I'd say at this point you can safely consider buying one if you are a Canon user on the fence. Of course I still maintain that if you're a Nikon user there's almost zero reason to switch, and if you're not tied to any brand ywr then you really owe it to yourself to take both Nikon and Canon for a spin. Depending on your lens / flash needs, Nikon or Canon could be a no-brainer choice...

(I'll blog again soon about how ridiculously amazing the D3X is turning out to be, and how soon we MIGHT see a D3X sensor in a D700 body...)

=Matt=

Every Nikon shooter knows the new 50mm f/1.4 AFS G is here. We all know it's probably better than the previous AF-D lens. But how much better? And can it compete with the new Sigma 50 1.4 with it's aspherical and specially coated elements, not to mention the f/1.2 caliber design overall?

Or, the quality that is by definition the most difficult-to-quantify, the lens' bokeh.

So far, it's not looking good.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=30420165

Just a sample of how bad it COULD be if you have anti-bokeh stuff in the background? I hope. Here's a sample that shows some CREAMY bokeh coming from the new Nikon 50, from my b-school friend and NPS member Jan Oscarsson. Check out the 4th image in this blog post, the bokeh is just buttery!

http://www.oscarsson.dk/blog/?p=69

Overall, I'm still skeptical as to which will out-perform the other for bokeh and sharpness, the Sigma or the Nikon. I suspect that the Sigma will prove slightly better for both, but the Nikon being less glass will inherently be a bit faster to autofocus, and being a Nikon name-brand AFS, it might be a tad more acccurate, Sigma HSM can be finnicky sometimes...

So, it's still a toss-up unfortunately. I think I'll go on Ebay and check to see if there are any used Sigma 50 1.4's floating around...

=Matt=

Okay, I can see how the black dot issue might never worry someone; it is a very specific problem that only manifests itself in very few conditions and it is difficult to notice anyways.

But THIS, well, *this* is downright suicide... "They've gone PLAID!" (Sorry, couldn't resist...)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=30334285

I really hope this is 1.) A complete collaborative hoax, or 2.) Just a fluke in a small handful of first-batch cameras, or 3.) Something Canon can very easily correct.

I hope it is a QC issue and they'll fix it right away... Cause this almost takes the cake as the worst digital image artifact in DSLR history...

=Matt=

I'm serious, you reeeeeeeaaallly don't want to watch this if you are sensitive about hitler / nazis.

But this is quite possibly the most hilarious skit of fake subtitles I have ever seen. And it's about the Nikon D3X, which, in case you didn't notice, debuted at $8000 just a while ago and has generated much wrath from Nikon "fans" everywhere who were hoping for a 5D mk2 or Sony A900 competitor...

After the humor wears off, you can read about the movie "Downfall" where this was stolen from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downfall_(film)

Whoa. Talk about dark. What an evil, sad chapter in human existence...

=Matt=

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=