Follow
on TwitterHere’s a picture that succeeds because of lens flare. I rather like this image, though if you don’t it makes little difference to me. Taken with the Canon 5D-IR and the Zeiss ZF 50mm f/1.4 @ f/8.
Orbiting Seagulls
Shovels look pretty interesting when you’ve gotta stick close to the offspring.
Shovel in Sand
The Wall Street Journal ran an article in the Friday September 28 Personal Journal (inside front page) on LED bike lights, including the Lupine Betty (see Sept 10 blog entry). The article is titled “Bright Lights, Big Price Tag”. I’m not pleased with the article, especially since I supplied information based on extensive personal experience, and offered to proof the article for correctness (my offer was declined). Of all the information I supplied, only the least useful item was used, a quote about how people respond to the Wilma (“Is that a car driving sideways?!”). Here are just a few points of clarification:
Gold vs lead —It’s presumptuous to call something “pricey” without any reference to its quality or desirability or applicability. Keep that in mind with any article that renders such value judgments based on zero experience with the actual product (eg the WSJ article).
Heat—the article states that the Lupine Betty “generates so much heat that if the rider isn’t moving fast enough to create wind, the light will automatically start dimming itself”.
That statement misleads. LED lights are extremely efficient, generating a very low amount of waste heat per lumen of light emitted. At 22 watts, there is indeed a significant amount of heat, but it would be far more for an equivalent amount of light from other technologies.
While it’s true that the Betty will reduce power output when its internal temperature rises (to protect the LED lifespan), the Betty has the best temperature regulation and heat dissipation capabilities of any light I’m aware of. Under reasonable conditions the reduction in light output (watts) won’t even be noticed by most users. Yes, if it’s 100°F out and the Betty is left on high (22W) with no ventilation, power might be reduced to as low as 6W. Competing lights might well destroy their LED lifespan under such conditions, and the Betty at 6W will still easily outshine its “competitors”! LED lifespan can be cut by a factor of ten (10) if run excessively hot.
Battery life — the implication that battery life is poor (“some need charging after just about every ride”) suggests that lights like the Betty might be disappointing (and what if the “ride” is 30 minutes vs 3 hours?!). The Betty runs at 22W for over three hours on its standard (and quite small and light) battery, and it can run over six hours on the water bottle battery. It can run for nearly a month on its ultra-low setting. It’s a stunning world-class performance, but you’d never gather that from the article.
Bright enough — The article states that “for many cyclists, purchasing one of these lights might be overkill”, suggesting that a $20 or $30 LED light will be good enough. Sure, and a $5 straw hat is probably good enough instead of a cycling helmet. Overkill? The Betty is not the only option, and it’s not a choice between a $1100 state-of-the-art masterpiece and a $30 toy.
Most important, a tail light (red) is needed to be seen from the rear—a point not mentioned in the article, but one of critical importance for safety. I recommend the PowerFlare. For the front, a helmet or bar-mounted light should be enough to see with; safely riding at night requires being able to see potholes and debris far enough in advance to avoid unpleasant results. A $20 toy light just doesn’t cut it, except for emergency use on moonless nights in a tunnel. I speak from experience, having tried numerous lights and technologies.
Key features— To be of Service to readers, the article should have mentioned all the issues of battery life and weight, beam quality (color and uniformity), versatility (helment, headbelt, etc), durability, wet weather performance, lifespan, upgradability, etc (batteries were mentioned only in a confusing way). The article fails to help readers to make an informed buying decision, and it fails to tell the truth that there are major differences in how the lights on the market actually perform—$1000+ buys you first-rate engineering in multiple areas, even forgetting the light output. But if one has never used or even seen a product (the case here), writing more than pig swill is certainly a challenge.
Liar, liar — The author wanted commuting from work to be the story line, and even after I made it clear (twice) that I do not use the Lupine Betty for commuting (never have), it was of no concern to the author—that was the story line, facts be damned. (I use the Betty for dusk and night-time recreational rides from my home).
State parks — Exactly what connection do LED lights have to illegal riding at night in state parks? Misleading readers, failing to inform, and then topping it off with an outstandingly moronic quote from a park ranger (“I wouldn’t want them (mountain lions) hunting bicycle riders”). I’m truly embarrassed to be mentioned in this article.
It’s disappointing to see fake journalism, and it makes me wonder about the WSJ in general—maybe this is the standard applied to the rest of the paper, too.
Look for a review of the Lupine Betty here at diglloyd.com in the next month or so. In the meantime, read about the Lupine Wilma, which is of the same caliber as Betty, but with 4 LEDs instead of 7.
Mac OS X “Leopard” (10.5) is due to ship sometime in October 2007. This will be another major upgrade of Mac OS X, one that will no doubt bring useful features (like Time Machine) and enabling features (like 64-bit system libraries) but perhaps more useless junk in the spirt of Dashboard, and certainly a few new bugs.
Should you upgrade? Yes, but I’d recommend waiting three months before risking “production” machines (ones you rely on to get work done). It’s also a good idea to upgrade a non-critical machine first, to see how things go.
Leopard can be pre-ordered at amazon.com, which offers a low price guarantee
and free shipping. Some people will want the single-machine
license
I now consider the Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar [datasheet] one of the finest lenses I’ve ever used (perhaps the finest, see my July 30 blog entry). I use the 100mm Makro-Planar on my Canon EOS 1D Mark III with a CameraQuest Nikon-to-Canon adapter.
Zeiss ZF 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar T*
Zeiss states that 100mm Makro-Planar uses the “ARRI/ZEISS Master Prime optics from Hollywood’s movie industry”, though exactly what that means is unclear, since the Master Prime optics are truly exotic and f/1.2, with price tags to match.
ARRI Zeiss Master Prime 100mm (cinematographer’s lens)
The ARRI “Master Prime” lenses are used by cinematographers, where $20K for a lens is pocket change relative to the overall movie budget—but adequate to build world-class, no-holds-barred optics. Interesting reading. To be clear, the 100mm Makro-Planar is not a “master prime” at f/2, but in any case the images it produces are stunning.
You can purchase the Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar through amazon.com
- Adorama
I have added an important note on my recommendation of amazon.com.
Additionally (this was prompted by a reader email), I do not recommend pre-paying for a yet-to-ship product (eg a Canon 1Ds Mark III, Nikon D3, Nikon D300). That’s true of amazon or any other vendor—who’s to say when they can deliver? Hard to get products demand some flexibility; you might find it available at one vendor but not another. I’m on a list for a Nikon D3 at my local dealer which is where I’d prefer to buy it, but if they cannot deliver, then I turn to amazon, B&H Photo, etc.
A number of readers have emailed to ask if I’ll be reviewing the new Nikon D3 and Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III. The answer is yes, but I have to wait “in line” like everyone else to buy the cameras, so I hope that I’m close enough to the top of the list to be able to get started as soon as the cameras ship. My previous blog entries share some thoughts on the new models (see Sept 17 for starters).
In the meantime consider this: 2nd rate lenses or lenses that aren’t perfect optically (build and assembly) are just not going to cut it on these cameras. Start testing your lenses now and make sure there is nothing out of whack if you’re planning on either of the new camera models and/or the D300 and/or the Canon 40D. If you see an issue, get that lens in for service, ideally documenting the problem with a print. That includes focus too.
One of these days I’ll write up how to test for such things (it can be quite demanding to do it well), but for now, find a brick wall or building with detail and look for symmetry of sharpness across the frame, keeping subject-to-camera alignment in mind (shoot wide open).
Search engine ratings are based in part on the number of other sites linking to it. So if you like this site, and there’s an appropriate place on your own web site (or blog or post in an online forum, etc), I ask for your help by adding thoughtful link(s) to this site, be it an article, blog, image, etc.
The small links at the top of this page (“permalinks”) are the appropriate links to use, but substitute the appropriate blog month for “blog.html” (eg 2007-09-blog.html). The easy trick is to click on any other blog month, then click back on the current month (menu at top of page). This will “fix” the URL to include the actual month (blog.html always points to the current blog file). For example, the URL for this entry in the blog is:
./2007-09-blog.html#20070926LikeThisSite
I’m seeing up to 500 unique visitors a day reading my now free D200 vs D2x article, but not a single follow-through purchase of any kind at amazon.com via the links that credit diglloyd.com with a sale. I know other sites have some success with these types of links (a win/win for everyone), so I hope they begin to work. Time will tell whether the free content model is viable with these affiliate links (which cost the buyer nothing), or whether advertising will need to be considered.
Every so often I make another print to hang (I have very limited wall space), and I no longer consider anything but the beautiful canvas prints made for me by Pixel Element in Santa Clara, CA. Read my article Printing on Canvas for why you might want to try this new presentation for images that is so much better than the conventional approach!
Everyone who sees this print loves it on canvas
We only hope that the revised EOS 5D will not use the confusing “Mark II” moniker. I have no inside information on when a revised model will appear (and if I did I could not reveal it). But a number of readers have asked, so here goes—
My guess is that Canon will introduce a new model at PMA in February. I also think there is a good chance that it will remain at 12.8 megapixels (or so), but might go as high as 17 megapixels. Actually I think it would be better if it remains at 12.8 megapixels, but with 14-bit processing, improved noise properties and color rendition, and less of the consumer-grade build quality. That’s much more important than, say, going to 16 megapixels.
Formerly $39.95, D2X vs EOS is now a bargain at $24.95. Really! If you haven’t seen one of my Pro Reviews, you’ll be pleasantly impressed with how much more useful they are than most of what’s available, and how they retain that usefulness even as camera models change.
So you aren’t going to buy an older camera like the Canon EOS 5D or 1Ds Mark II or Nikon D2x? Unlike many camera reviews, D2X vs EOS still has loads of valuable information in it, which will help you think about and discriminate among the new offerings from Canon and Nikon. It’s well worth your while if you’re considering any digital SLR over $1000.
Formerly $23.95, D200 vs D2X is now a bargain at $0.00.
If you find D200 vs D2X useful, please help support this site by using the amazon.com links on the Recommended Products and Recommended Vendors and Clickables pages, which yield a commission for diglloyd.com at no cost to you.
As part of my goal to settle on a business model for this site compatible with free content such as this blog, I’ve revamped my Recommended page and Clickables page. They are both “in progress”. Both pages contain gear (photographic and otherwise) that I recommend, with clickable links to buy through amazon.com. Check it out and see what you think, and remember, buying anything through one of the amazon links helps support this site at no cost to yourself.
One of my favorite trees is the California Buckeye Aesculus californica. The first tree to leaf out (February) and with leaves that brown by June, it appears dead by June/July to the layman, which is perhaps why one rarely sees them planted in yards (or perhaps they’re cut down when they appear to be dead!). The first seasonal storm strips off the browned and crinkled leaves, revealing the compelling natural beauty of the trunk and branches, along with the large and tantalizing nuts. It’s a disappointment to me that the 1.5-3" diameter nuts are poisonous (though they were eaten in starvation years by natives after leaching out the toxin).
California Buckeye
(the outer husk splits in November, revealing a smooth and shiny brown nut)
The image above was taken with the Canon
EOS 1D Mark III [buy
one
Want an in-depth review of the Zeiss 85/1.4 Planar (and others)? Look no further:
I’ve rearranged my Recommended page
Now that fall (autumn) is here, why not try my #1 choice for cycling, hiking and all-around outdoor use: the comfortable and versatile 100% wool IbexWear Shak jersey/top. You can’t go wrong with this top and I’ve tried dozens of alternatives.
Shak jerseys. Women’s full-zip (left), men’s half-zip (right).
I just received my Canon EF 135mm f/2L back from Canon service and indeed Canon acknowledged and fixed an optical problem. Unbelievable really—an “L” lens ought to undergo the highest quality control (see Sept 15 entry). It’s not that the lens was way off, but it was showing astigmatism at the edges and corners, something the MTF curves suggest should not happen.
I’m also suspicious of my Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L, which is showing strong color fringing on one side. I just don’t understand why a $1000 or $1500 lens can’t work well out of the box.
I’ve finally received the Zeiss ZF lenses I ordered: the 35mm f/2 Distagon, the 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar, and the 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar (search this site for more on Zeiss ZF lenses). I’ll be comparing their performance to the loaner copies I have prior to sending the loaners back to Zeiss so as to see if lens-to-lens quality is consistent—a major issue with Canon and Nikon lenses.
Why did I buy manual focus lenses that require an adapter to use on Canon EOS? Find out all the reasons in my forthcoming Zeiss ZF lens review. I’ll also be buying the 28mm f/2 Distagon as soon as it’s available.
I’ll be spending this rainy (!) California day tuning my presentation for this Thursday’s introductory class to digital infrared. If you live in the San Francisco bay area, this is your chance to get a huge head start in digital infrared. Whether you attend or not, get the value-packed diglloyd Guide to Digital Infrared Photography—you’ll save months or years of trial and error.
Click for larger image
Following up on yesterday’s site visitation entry, it’s fascinating to see it by map as well. The image below shows an instantaneous snapshot of visitors at 10:19 am PST.
Instantaneous snapshot of site visitation at 10:19am
Obviously the time of day has a large influence on who’s awake and browsing, but there seems to be at least one insomniac over near Thailand, and someone from perhaps Yellowknife, Canada, perhaps reading my travelogue on the Thelon Wilderness. A 24-hour scatter plot would be really interesting, but that does not seem to be available via the StatsCounter service I’m using.
I only recently became aware of statscounter.com, and it’s yielding useful information, such as the fact that my Mac Pro Memory article gets lots of hits. Too bad Apple silently killed my Apple affiliate links several months ago (not diglloyd.com in particular; the LinkShare affiliate service was dropped by Apple)—I’ve gotten zero revenue from Apple as a result.
The world wide web is an incredibly powerful tool, allowing people all over the world to communicate simultaneously. I’ve finally gotten around to measuring diglloyd.com site statistics, and what impressed me most is the “draw” from all over the world (about 10 hours or so).
diglloyd.com readers in about 10 hours
If I can see this (and more) in a few hours, including specific IP addresses, what about the government? Governments are slowing realizing the value of the web as a strategic weapon and the immense leverage it will offer in ensuring a compliant citizenry, both in terms of control of information, but more usefully, tracking of activity—so easy—merge web and cell phone and web search data and credit cards, what a dossier! Have a nice day!
Reader J.W. emailed regarding Monday’s Raised or Indented? entry below with an excellent example of his own image of sand dunes. It seems that J.W. is an expert at making sand dune images that “flip” the wrong way (“it drives me crazy”). I’d say that’s a worthwhile artistic talent, not a problem! So J.W. posed this question: “Is there something that I can do to make it look right all the time?”. The short answer is “no”, but a mirror (left to right reversal) will work with some images, and turning an image upside down will work with others. But my main advice to J.W. would be to exploit his natural talent, and produce something that will drive others crazy!
Book recommendation: Perception and Imaging, by Richard D. Zakia (about US$27). Excellent stuff. I have the first edition, which is a must-read, so hopefully the 3rd edition is even better. I’ve ordered a copy.
Here’s another example of the effect, this time using tonal inversion (Photoshop “Invert”) to flip the visual effect from raised to indented. Mouse over and out, observing the sand in the foreground as the image flips from normal to inverted—is it flowing down or up? Are the footprints uphill or downhill?!
Are the footprints raised or indented?
(click to see both images side by side)
A human vision oddity results from the way our brains interpret shadows and contrast. Mouse over and out to compare—if they look the same (aside from being flipped 180°), then your brain works very differently from mine!
Are the footprints raised or indented?
If you haven’t already, rule out focus error. Read my Focus Accuracy article and then make sure your tripod is up to snuff—help yourself and support this site at the same time by reading The Sharpest Image.
78 != 80
If only I had a 21 megapixel camera, this image might have worked.
Resolution whorl
Zeiss today announced the 28mm f/2 Distagon [images], to be available by the end of 2007 for US$984. It’s a lens that is very interesting to me, especially if it can perform as well as the 35mm f/2 Distagon (see previous comments). If you’ve been reading this blog, you’ll know that I’m very impressed with several of the Zeiss ZF lenses, a feeling shared by several readers of this blog who emailed me. I’m well along on my review of the Zeiss ZF lens line, and so the 28mm won’t be included in the first version. It’s about a lot more than sharpness, and I’ll be speaking to that in my review.
Zeiss 28mm f/2 Distagon (images courtesy of Zeiss)
In typical Zeiss fashion, the tantalizing description from the German press release (in English) includes such gems as “outstanding properties”, “ideally suited”, and “the performance potential of the lens is also available throughout the entire image field even with professional digital cameras featuring full format sensors”. Please don’t read the latter unless you’re fully sober—it might put your brain into overload.
And did you know that f/2 is “ideally suited for taking pictures in unfavorable lighting conditions” or that “28 mm lenses are primarily used for landscapes...”—surely Zeiss doesn’t really believe that its customers need that explained. And it’s rather silly, since the sensor size could vary wildly between cameras (and hence the field of view). To me, “unfavorable lighting” means strong backlighting or flat light, not necessarily low intensity, hence I just can’t “stay with the crowd” on that one.
There are a few specific details of the 28mm (28.5mm) Distagon. Unlike the ZF 25mm (25.7mm) f/2.8 Distagon, “floating” elements are used. This is really important to make the 28mm perform well at both near and far distances, a limitation of the 25mm f/2.8 Distagon whose strong curvature of field can be exploited, but is not usually desirable. The 28mm Distagon also allows near-macro reproduction ratios (1:5) a feature which extends its versatility.
Zeiss ZF 28mm f/2 Distagon schematic
I just can’t see owning a 25.7mm and a 28.5m lens—2.8mm is significant, but still much too close to justify buying and carrying both. The floating elements and f/2 aperture of the 28mm make it a really easy decision in favor of the 28mm. Zeiss needs a 24.0mm lens to replace the 25mm Distagon. A 24.0mm f/2 would do nicely, along with a 20mm f/2 and a 16mm f/2.8.
The technical specifications including
MTF, distortion and vignetting suggest a generous dollop of Zeiss optical magic, as well it should, at US$984. The MTF
(measured not computed)
looks particularly impressive, keeping in mind that the lines are at 10, 20 and 40 line pairs/mm. (Canon’s charts top
out at 30 line pairs/mm). Note also that on less than full-frame cameras (such as the EOS 1D Mark III [buy
one
MTF of Zeiss ZF 28mm f/2 Distagon at 10, 20, 40 line pairs/mm
MTF of about 50% across most of the field at 40 line pairs/mm @ f/2 is outstanding
Distortion and vignetting are typical of the Zeiss Distagon designs, with distortion being nicely linear across the frame, more easily accepted by the eye than the “moustache” distortion seen with some wide angle zoom designs.
[See my August 23 comments on the Nikon
D3 and my August 19 comments on the Canon
EOS 1D Mark III [buy
one
The yet-to-ship Nikon D3 and Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III are generating tons of speculation around image quality, with plenty of groping in the dark about resolution equating to quality. My speculative opinion based on specifications, sample images and experience with the 14-bit and 10.1-megapixel Canon EOS 1D Mark III is that you can’t go wrong with these new cameras—and that even includes the “low” end of the line, the Nikon D300 and Canon EOS 40D.
Predictions:
Of course, Canon and/or Nikon could flub it with poor execution, chip technology with “issues”, etc—none of that can be anticipated in advance. But there’s a darn good chance they’ll deliver.
Some online denizens seem disappointed that the Nikon D3 has inadequate resolution. That’s a mistake. Exploiting potential sensor resolution demands technical and optical excellence. Pixel quality is now just as important as absolute resolution for making pleasing prints, with limited exceptions for applications that rely mostly on absolute spatial resolution.
Nikon now appears to have what Canon has not yet produced: a full-frame camera with optimal pixel size/quality in a professional caliber body at the right price—attributes that will make it a workhorse of many pros for years to come. It’s the camera I’ve wanted to buy for quite some time, at least on paper. That is not to say that the Canon offerings aren’t also appealing. But I think that Nikon has hit the “sweet spot” in the D3. Let’s hope it performs as good as it promises.
The term “Canon quality” should be interpreted to mean “a suspect level of performance”. Of the 16 or so Canon EF lenses I’ve bought over the years, somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of them have had optical issues right out of the box that require an exchange (if detected early enough), or a trip to Canon service. It’s when I’ve been lax and failed to test a new lens immediately that I regret it.
Many people won’t notice such issues, because they’ll be masked by depth of field. Some readers have sent me test images at f/8 or f/11, seeing “no problems”! That’s hardly surprising, since depth of field at f/11 will mask some issues enough to make them hard to detect. But woe to the user at f/2.8 or f/4.
One must look for symmetric sharpness left-to-right and top-to-bottom (assuming appropriate subject/camera alignment). A lens shot wide open should exhibit the same degree of sharpness at the left edge/corner(s) as on the right. There are other issues too, but that is the most basic test. Stopping down hides issues, as does checking a lens on a cropped-frame camera. Zoom lenses might be fine at one focal length, and be “off” at others.
Abnormal lens—check optical performance!
I just sent in my Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 macro to Canon service because it would not focus to infinity (optical performance at closer distances seems fine). It’s about a $250 lens. Canon’s estimate to repair this lens is about $150, since it is six months or so beyond the one year warranty. I’ve used it a handful of times, and it has never been rolled, banged, dropped, bounced or even looked at crossly. So the problem had to exist from day one, which has been the case with too many Canon optics. I’m furious that Canon expects me to pay for their crappy quality control; parts inside the lens don’t just go bad on their own (the lens is in mint condition).
An exception? Hardly! My 16-35 f/2.8L had focusing problems (Canon replaced the focusing unit). My 100mm f/2.8 macro showed 3 of 4 blurry corners (it just came back and I’ll reshoot it). My 24-70 f/2.8L showed strong color fringing on one side (two trips to Canon service to fix that problem). My first 70-200 f/4L IS was soft on one side (see Brand New Blur), as was my 85mm f/1.8. My 135mm f/2L shows astigmatism in the corners (an expert friend concurs that it is abnormal).
Canon lenses are excellent designs, but quality control is abysmal and therefore real physical lenses vary widely in performance. Don’t assume anything about the performance of a brand new lens—shoot it critically, wide open, and don’t make excuses for it when you suspect a problem—verify the problem (repeat the test), then get a new copy or force Canon to fix it. A resolution chart is good, a brick wall is good, and field shots should confirm both of those. And be very wary of sellers of used lenses looking to dump their “dogs” (I simply won’t sell any lens with a problem; I get it fixed—my reputation is worth a lot more to me than one sale).
While Nikon has delivered misaligned lenses also, at least I’m not stuck paying for it; Nikon offers a five year warranty on most lenses. Canon should stand behind its products. All of which begs the question: do you avoid these issues with Zeiss ZF lenses? Stay tuned.
Driving a simulation (game) is one thing, but let’s just hope Microsoft doesn’t make any inroads into the automobile market!
Windows runs equally well on a variety of hardware!
If you’re in the San Francisco bay area, you might want to attend tomorrow’s talk
by color experts and nature photographers Bill Atkinson and Joseph Holmes, The
Color of Nature.
WHERE: Blue Sky Rental Studios, 2325 Third St, San Francisco, CA 94107. 415.626.7232
WHEN: Tuesday, September 11, 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m (social hour @ 6pm)
COST: ASMP members $5; Students/APA/SFDIG $10; General $15.
Lupine Lighting Systems sent me an evaluation unit*** of Betty, their just-released über light that blows away all other bike lights both in terms of exceptional build quality as well as incredible beam uniformity and brightness. Lupine Lighting Systems is the creator of the outstanding Wilma LED headlamp (see Headlamps and Flashlights and my review of Wilma). If Fred is ever forthcoming, the local S.W.A.T. team members will cower in their boots.
Lupine Lighting Systems Betty lamphead
(battery, charger, head/helmet mount not shown)
The build quality far exceeds anything else available; this is one well-made and beautiful light with a black anodized aluminum housing and titanium front cover. It employs a custom-designed lens system for optimal beam quality, the most efficient electronics in the business, and top-grade LEDs (7 of them). Drawing 22 watts, total output is an astonishing 1400 lumens (real lumens, not the loosy-goosy ones claimed by some bike-light vendors whose products I’ve used). Betty can be programmed for various light levels (including SOS), and can run for two weeks at the 0.25 watt setting.
Few people have seen such a lamp at night in action—it’s stunning, something to experience (but not looking directly into the beam!). More than once with little sister Wilma, I’ve had cars back up on narrow roads, apparently thinking I’m a large truck with one blown headlight. The Betty seems twice as bright, so aiming it will be even more important than with Wilma. (I do take care to avoid aiming the light directly at oncoming traffic, but on narrow and twisty roads that’s life—and no different than headlights on a car).
Betty arrived after I returned from my crepuscular bike ride, so I did not have a chance to evaluate her at dusk. But upon my return, night had fallen (Wilma having guided me home), and virginal Betty was turned on for the first of many times. So what does Betty look like in action?
In a word (I can’t count): unbelievably good. I thought that Wilma was an exceptional light. Betty not only seems twice as bright, the beam pattern is even better, with a spotless moderately-wide core beam of 16° and a pleasing gradient around it. Color rendition is definitely superior to my Wilma, with a color temperature that seems very close to daylight and renders startlingly-natural colors.
I’ll be writing more about Betty once I have more experience with her. See my Recommended page for details on where you can buy Wilma or Betty. (Betty will likely be in short supply for a few months here in the USA).
*** The Betty lamphead was sent to me at no charge directly from Germany for my feedback (I’ve provided Lupine with extensive feedback on their other offerings in the past, no compensation involved). Diglloyd.com maintains a strict policy on photographic equipment: “special” discounts are not accepted, and this really stung recently (see Sept 6 note on the Zeiss lenses). But bike lights are not photographic equipment (excepting incidental use). Also, I have previously purchased multiple Lupine lights with personal funds from Asutsitrail and Gretna Bikes— a “vote with one’s wallet” endorsement that needs no explaining. I’m still thinking through the diglloyd.com policy on non-photographic equipment; applying the same “no discounts” rule to every single personal item that I find interesting might persuade me to avoid writing about them at all, a situation that would deprive readers of otherwise valuable insights. If you have an opinion, let me know. UPDATE (Sept 11): I’ve agreed with Lupine that the Betty lamphead I received will be treated as an exchange for an Edison HID lamphead in need of warranty service. While the Betty costs more, time, effort and mailing costs were incurred, and so the exchange of value is a reasonably close one. This doesn’t address the overall policy issue (in general), I'm still thinking on that one and will formulate and publish a policy on “off topic” non-photographic items such as the Lupine bike lights.
If you haven’t yet signed up, be sure to do so before space fills up. This is your chance to get a huge head start in digital infrared. The class takes place in Palo Alto, CA. If you can’t attend, consider the diglloyd Guide to Digital Infrared Photography instead.
Click for larger image
I recently made some group photos (teachers and students) as my kids began their school year. I have several observations as I look at the photos and make prints.
Image quality of theCanon
EOS 1D Mark III [buy
one
Resolution—though image quality is superb with the EOS 1D Mark III, it’s still a 10.1-megapixel camera; resolution of individual faces becomes a concern with 20+ individuals. My feeling is that for a group of twenty, an 18" print is about the limit for professional-quality detail in an individual’s face—perhaps 24" if the group is optimally-arranged. Often the shot ends up having a wide aspect ratio, leading to even smaller faces. Such situations are one argument for a higher resolution camera such as the 21 megapixel EOS 1Ds Mark III.
Optical quality is also an issue. I used the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II zoomed to about 27mm for my group shot, and I was disappointed to see blurring and color fringing towards the edges. This is especially annoying on the EOS 1D Mark III, since it’s not even a full-frame camera (1.3X crop). The 16-35mm f/2.8L II cannot “hold” depth of field near the edges, something often overlooked when comparing lenses. For group portraits, blurry or red-edged persons at the frame edges does not look fully professional. It’s a good thing that Canon’s Digital Photo Professional will soon offer the ability to eliminate color fringing.
The confounding thing is that resolution charts and many test shots make the 16-35mm f/2.8L II appear to be a stellar performer, but real-world shots show that test charts can be like lies, damn lies and statistics. For this shoot I needed the flexibility of a zoom, but I would have very much liked to see how the Zeiss ZF 25mm f/2.8 performed. My conclusions are reinforced by similar disappointments seen in dozens of other shots taken that day. My lens is freshly back from Canon service, and I’m certain from resolution charts that it is performing to its full potential. It is an excellent lens, but I want more—not perfection, just consistent across-the-frame results.
Choose from one of the following for the next diglloyd paid review (listed according to user preferences so far):
Contact me via email, along with any other thoughts. The Zeiss ZF lens review is already in the works, and will be available in a few weeks.
I would like to review the new 12.1-megapixel full-frame Nikon D3 and the 21.1-megapixel Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III (together with the Canon EOS 1D Mark III I already own). So would everyone else. But by “review” I mean the huge effort (shooting, reviewing images, analyzing, writing) it takes to do one of my Pro Reviews, rather different from an offhand wish to try out cool equipment. But such equipment costs kilobucks, making the ROI (return on investment) questionable. And so perhaps I’m better off focusing on articles that don’t require such a major investment, or perhaps (as one reader suggested), I’ll have to buy and then sell the cameras—but that makes it hard to have ongoing insights.
Diglloyd.com is a business. The Pro Reviews have been the source of 99% of the revenue of this site, and I greatly appreciate the support of those readers who have supported diglloyd.com by buying the reviews. But after nearly 3 years, I need to figure out how to grow revenue such that I can justify it as the part-time job it has become (a job that I greatly enjoy, but working for free tires even diehards like Bjørn Rørslett out!).
Moving forward, I’m considering other business models including:
On a related topic, I recently refused a very generous discount from Zeiss on the ZF lenses, with the net result that I could afford several fewer of the lenses than with the discount. I refused the discount because I feel that objective reviewers cannot accept manufacturer rebates or special favors, even when such things are clearly and repeatedly disclosed. Reader thoughts on this topic are appreciated, but I know that I would be skeptical of a reviewer’s objectivity knowing that a discount was accepted. Can “full disclosure” of a discount be acceptable? I’m quite skeptical that it can be. What if the review is paid vs free? What if the cost without a discount precludes a review from happening at all? Ask the editor at your favorite web site(s) what their policy is, and see if you get an honest and unambiguous answer!
Please contact me via email with your thoughts on any or all of these issue—thank you.
I did not camp overnight to buy one of the first iPhones, but I did get one in late July, and it’s an excellent phone and terrific device. But I do feel slighted that Apple would cut $200 off its price only 6 weeks after I purchased mine, and it’s clear that many other people feel the same way.
The abrupt price 30% cut is a serious public-relations faux-pas, but I think there’s a 50/50 chance that Apple did so on purpose, and will be announcing some special offer or coupon for prior iPhone purchasers so as to raise ire, gain media attention, and then later see gushing praise by the faithful—a masterful stroke of marketing. Certainly it’s not something a company can do very often, but Apple iPhone buyers that are already fawning over Apple and its hip products will sing its praises, making it money well spent for Apple.
I think the stock analysts have it wrong—the iPhone is very attractive at $399 ($599 was too high), and it’s just a short term blip. The point they’re missing is the pissed-off iPhone customers who bought their iPhone(s) in the past 2 weeks—that has the potential to damage Apple’s credibility with new product launches, something far more important for the growth of the company—who wants to be Apple’s latest sucker when a new product is released?
For my part, I’m still unhappy with the AppleTV, a device which continues to warm the interior of my home theater cabinet at the rate of 15 watts 24X7 unless I unplug the damn thing.
Update! Later in the day (after I wrote the above), Steve Jobs responded to this issue, saying among other things:
...Third, even though we are making the right decision to lower the price of iPhone, and even though
the technology road is bumpy, we need to do a better job taking care of our early iPhone customers as we aggressively
go after new ones with a lower price. Our early customers trusted us, and we must live up to that trust with our actions
in moments like these.
Therefore, we have decided to offer every iPhone customer who purchased an iPhone from either Apple or AT&T, and
who is not receiving a rebate or any other consideration, a $100 store credit towards the purchase of any product at
an Apple Retail Store or the Apple Online Store. Details are still being worked out and will be posted on Apple's website
next week. Stay tuned.
Smart guy—$100 (instead of $200) saves Apple $100, but will defuse 95% of the criticism and bring business to the Apple Store (store credit). It was without a doubt the plan to begin with—guys like Steve Jobs love the drama involved—this is the stuff that other marketing-challenged companies can learn from. And meanwhile, Apple keeps $100 X 750,000 from iPhone sales so far. It’s a win/win: $7.5M cash for Apple and great public relations with loads of free press.
