Shutterfinger

How Well Do You Really Know Your Camera?

One of the challenges of today's digital age is that you can read your camera's instruction manual six times from cover-to-cover and still not understand how your camera really operates. In some cases its because the manual may tell you how to do something but says little about why you might want to do it or when. In other cases its because certain features aren't fully documented. You have to actually use the camera, try things out, and take careful notice of what it does and doesn't do.

Here's an example from the Canon EOS 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D series cameras: Whatever you set the camera to in Manual mode will stay that way, even if you switch exposure modes. Set the camera to 1/125 at f/16 in M mode and even if you switch to AV, when you later switch back to M, the camera will still be set to 1/125 at f/16. This fact isn't mentioned in the instruction manual, however; I had to discover it on my own.

"So what?" you ask. Well, suppose you were shooting outdoors on a bright sunny day. You could set your camera for the correct exposure in M mode and know that every object lit by direct sunlight would be correctly exposed, even if some of it was in deep shadow. If you went indoors, you could switch to one of the auto modes. When you went back outside you could switch back to M mode and as long as the sun was still shining brightly, you wouldn't have to reset the exposure. (This assumes you didn't also change the ISO, of course.)

I have no idea whether other DSLRs work this way. The point is that unless you take the trouble to develop an intimate knowledge of how your camera operates and how to put these features to good use, then you're really only getting a fraction of its full value. So, what cool but poorly documented features have you discovered about your camera? If you care to share, be sure to mention the camera as well as the feature. I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd love to know how to expand my horizons.

Follow-up to Sigma 30mm f/1.4 Review

Digital Photography Review (aka DP Review) recently posted an image gallery of photos from the new-but-not- yet-available Canon EOS 1000D. What I found interesting was that of the 30 photos in the gallery, 13 were shot with a Sigma 30mm f/1.4. The rest were shot with an assortment of Canon lenses, but overall, photos taken with the Sigma were in the clear majority. If you're the sort of person who prefers to look at real-world photo samples instead of test charts, I suggest you check it out. If you'd prefer to see more examples I shot myself, you'll have to wait a few more days until I can post them to my own web gallery. I'll do my best to post them this weekend. Enjoy!

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM EX--A Short Review

Almost any lens should be able to do a good job rendering an image like this, but here is where the Sigma 30mm f1/.4 excels. Unfortunately, this JPEG doesn't really do it justice. I bet you'd ooh and ahh if you saw the print, though.

I recently returned from a week-long vacation in New England, which allowed me to try out my newest acquisition: a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 prime lens. (When traveling, "light, fast and simple" is my motto.)

With my camera's 1.6X crop factor the effective focal length with this lens worked out to 48mm, which allowed it to perform the same function my 50mm f/1.4 would on a 35mm film camera. The main attraction for me was less the focal length than the fast maximum aperture. Neither the camera nor the lens have image stabilization, so fast apertures and high ISOs allowed me to maintain reasonable shutter speeds in low light. By "reasonable" I mean 1/30 second and above.

 

Hopefully, the gleam of these aluminum deck chairs is so alluring you don't notice the barrel distortion on the railing above.

The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 did not disappoint. I could actually shoot at f/1.4 and expect high resolution and contrast, at least in the center. Corner resolution isn't great at maximum aperture, but then again, all it takes to significantly improve corner resolution is to stop down to f/5.6 or so. Also keep in mind that when you're shooting in low light the corners are often dark or not within the plane of focus anyway.

I was consistently impressed by how little effort it took to produce the types of images I like: sharp foregrounds with creamy, muted backgrounds; flat objects that are sharp from center to edge; high flare resistance, and colors that are nicely saturated but not garish. Other benefits include relatively compact size, sturdy construction, a focus scale, a full-time focusing ring that doesn't rotate during AF, and quick internal focusing. I definitely felt as if I was using a high-quality optic that could deliver the goods, come rain or shine.

I can't very well rave about how a lens reproduces colors and then show only black and white pictures, now can I?

But as with any lens, it's not perfect. Aim it at a strong, direct light source and it's prone to flare. Aim it at rectilinear subjects and you'll see slight barrel distortion. Aim it at evenly lit subjects at apertures wider than f/2.8 and you'll see vignetting. I consider these issues minor and fairly easy to correct; a fair sacrifice in exchange for the types of photos accompanying this review. Whether you feel the same way is, of course, up to you.

Pre-Vacation Mode

I'm in pre-vacation mode at the moment. You're probably familiar with it: You spend large amounts of time planning where you're going to go, how to get there, what you'll be photographing, and what equipment you'll use to do it. If the equipment you own is "inadequate," you'll spend additional time deciding what you need. If you buy something new, you will of course have the foresight to test it before you leave. Murphy's Law is always in full-force during vacation travel.

The fact is that because I've got three small kids, the time I'll have available for solo photography is limited. What I need most is a kit that's reasonably small and lightweight but does well in low-light without a flash. Unfortunately, that rules out most compact digicams. What I'll be taking with me is my Canon EOS 30D, Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and Canon 50mm f/1.4. I'd rather have two primes with fast apertures than one slow zoom with image stabilization. In my experience, with all things otherwise equal, IS is no substitute for a wider aperture and a faster shutter speed.

For what it's worth, I'll be vacationing in Troy, New Hampshire and Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. I've had good luck in both places in  the past, but nevertheless, wish me luck.

Concentrate On the Unquantifiable

The lens I used to take this photograph was slightly decentered and suffers from strong chromatic aberration in the middle apertures. Can you tell? More importantly, do you care?

I love a good lens as much as the next photographer, but I've learned over time not to obsess too much over them. It's easy to spend more time reading reviews, soliciting other people's opinions, and testing lenses than taking real pictures. Fortunately, I've had the experience of having a close look at original photographs by some of the world's best photographers. There were optical flaws aplenty if you know what to look for--but then, what kind of idiot would point to the soft corners in a 24"x30" Ansel Adams print while ignoring the subject in the center? So when I find myself getting too caught up in test results, I remind myself that it's more important to create great photographs than to buy a "perfect" lens.

What Value Do You Add?

Photo courtesy jj8rock at Flickr

Back in the days before camera automation and digital photography, it took a fair amount of skill to create a well-focused, properly exposed image. These days you can do it with the cheapest point-and-shoot digital camera, simply by pushing a single button. You don't even have to have your eyes open (but it might help). Visit a photo sharing site such as Flickr and you'll see this thesis proven tens of thousands of times over.

Given this fact, the question becomes "What value do you add as a photographer?" What is it that you do to make your photographs something more than just a purely mechanical process? Is it your subject matter, your color palette (or lack of it), your lens choice, your framing? What is it that makes your photographs worth looking at, not just for a few seconds, but for months or years at a time? When you start tackling issues like these, you start to realize that the answers aren't in your equipment; they're located somewhere between your ears.

Organizing Your Photos: Step Two

These names on these print boxes reflect the most common themes of my personal photography. The matching negatives are in dust-proof binders with the matching titles. It generally takes me no longer than five minutes to find the negative or slide I'm looking for.

Once you've decided what major groups to sort your images into (slides vs. negatives, Raw vs. JPEG, year, etc.) it's time to decide on sub-categories. Your guiding principle should be the same: To choose sub-categories that aid in filing and retrieval. Here's where working with digital files really comes in handy. You can use a basic digital asset management application (Adobe Bridge for example) to assign metadata tags to your images. To search, you simply enter the tag you're looking for and all images with that tag will appear in your image browser. Your files can otherwise be organized by year, month and day. Date information is automatically appended to digital files in the EXIF data, so if you use a date-based system it's always easy to know what folder an image came from and where it belongs.

Things are a bit more tricky for photographers filing 35mm transparencies. In this case I'd suggest sorting them into pages and folders based on subject matter. The larger the storage unit, the larger the category. For example, if you have hundreds of images of birds they might be stored in a file drawer named "Birds," with separate folders for each major species. On the other hand, if you have only a few hundred photos of animals in general, they could all go into a single folder or binder named "Animals."

The trickiest task is coming up with a system for strips of negatives that have several subjects per strip or per filing page. In this case you're not only setting up a system for filing and retrieving negatives, you need to match negatives with prints and vice versa. In my case I use more than one system. Negatives related to specific jobs, such as portrait shoots, weddings, and locations are filed in separate binders labeled as such. The "keepers" are outlined on the file page with a black Sharpie. My personal work is filed by date, with the older stuff in binders labled "1960s," "1970s" and so on.

Again, there's no one right way for everyone. The most important thing is to come up with a system that works for you. It should be whatever helps you find what you're looking for in as little time as possible, but without being so complex that you never give up on it.

At some point I'm going to write a part three, which will focus more on digital organization and back-up. In the meantime, if you're seriously interested in digital sorting and archiving, you could do a lot worse than to buy a copy of "The DAM Book: Digital Asset Management for Photographers," by Peter Krogh.