Shutterfinger

My Experience With the Nikon V1

Here's the Nikon V1 (left) next to a Canon G9 with lens retracted. As you can see, their body sizes are quite similar. So are their weights. The G9, however, has a lot more buttons, dials, and direct controls. It also has a hot shoe that will work with any standard flash unit, which is something the V1 lacks. On the other hand, the V1 is generally much easier and faster to operate and produces much high quality output.

Being the independent thinker I am, I decided to see for myself how well the much-reviled (and equally much-praised) Nikon V1 with its 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 kit zoom would perform as a street and travel camera. As you can see from the comparison photo above, the V1 meets many of the most important qualifications for street and travel: It's small (approximately 113 x 76 x 43.5 mm/4.4 x 3 x 1.7 in. body only), lightweight (383 g/13.5 oz with battery and memory card), durable (magnesium alloy body), and unintimidating.

The question on my mind was whether it offered the speed, flexibility, and image quality that are so lacking in compact digicams and camera phones. I was not expecting it to be as capable or to have the same image quality as larger, heavier, more expensive APS-C and full-frame DSLRs. Those of you who do have that expectation should read no further. What follows is a summary of my discoveries, likes and dislikes, and a few tips for overcoming some of the V1's shortcomings.

Speed

The V1 is ready to shoot as soon as you extend the lens from its fully retracted state--or, in the case of the fixed focal lenth 10mm f/2.8, as soon as you press the On button. Unlike compact cameras with electronic zoom mechanisms linked to a rocker switch, you have direct and immediate mechanical control over focal length, with markings on the lens barrel. The image snaps into focus as soon as you press the shutter button halfway down. The 3" diagonal, 921K-dot LCD display is reasonably visible in bright light, however, when you raise the camera to your eye it automatically switches over to the built-in 1440K-dot electronic viewfinder. 

The Nikon V1 really struts its stuff when it comes to continuous focusing speed. If you use its electronic shutter, the V1 is capable of tracking movement in bright light at 10, 30, or 60 frames-per-second. It also has a 44-frame buffer, even for raw images. This is more useful for sports or wildlife photography than street and travel, but it's nice to have on hand nevertheless.

I asked this gentleman's permission to take his picture, which he graciously granted. The speed element here was the Nikon V1's ability to capture fleeting facial expressions and hand gestures such as this one.

No sooner had I raised the camera to my eye than this teenager turned to glance at me. I focused and released the shutter in no more than a half-second. Even though his face is off-center, the focus is spot-on. The first question out of his mouth was, "Are you a tourist?"

Things slow down when you need to do something other than focus, frame, and shoot. The V1 has very few direct controls. This means that when you want to set options such as ISO, white balance, or exposure mode (PASM), you have to do a bit of menu-diving. These generally aren't things you need to set often, so in my experience the inconvenience is minor.

Exposure compensation, which is something I use often, is directly available by pressing and turning the control dial on back of the camera. Unfortunately, you have to press a Set button for your change to register, which once again slows things down a second or two. (There is no exposure bracketing feature, by the way, but since I never use it I never missed it.)

An added speed-bump is the fact that there is no way to turn off image review, even when you're using the electronic viewfinder. This is no consequence to shooters who like to "chimp" every shot. For those of us who want to keep a constant live view of the subject, it's an annoyance that requires tapping the shutter button after each exposure to return to live view.

Image Quality

The V1's 10MP image sensor is approximately 4X as large in area as those in the average compact digicam while half as large as a four-thirds sensor. Should it come as any surprise that the image quality is significantly better than that of compact digicams and falls short of that of APS-C and full-frame, especially at high ISOs? In this regard shooting with the Nikon V1 is no different from shooting with 35mm vs. medium-format film. All things being equal, of course the larger format will offer a noticable edge in resolution and smoothness. It will also require a larger, heavier camera with larger, heavier, lenses--the sort of kit that a sizable percentage of photographers would rather leave at home than carry everywhere.

In bright light and at its base ISO of 100, the Nikon V1 can produce amazingly sharp and smooth images. And no, I didn't boost the color saturation in post. If anything, I lowered it.

When you look at the Nikon V1 for what it is--a compact yet capable camera--then its technical image quality is quite impressive and more than sufficient for street and travel photography. (Artistic image quality is your responsibility.) It well exceeds anything you'd need for screen resolution on the web. Based on personal experience, it's also good enough for excellent 11x14 prints, even with slightly cropped images shot at ISO 800.

Unobstrusiveness

I find that I'm lot more comfortable pointing a small, nondescript looking camera at people on the street than a large DSLR with a lens the size of a soda can. So are my subjects, at least those who notice me at all. The all-black Nikon V1 simply doesn't attract much attention. The same might not be true of the all-white version, yet even that would be more likely to convey that you're a style-conscious amateur rather than a pro.

Better yet, the V1 offers a choice of two shutters. The mechanical shutter operates with a whisper-quiet "snick." The electronic shutter is dead silent. So are the focus and zoom mechanisms in the lenses. I found it almost eerie how easy it was to photograph someone from only inches away without attracting even so much as a glance. 

Battery Power

Travel photography requires the ability to shoot off and on for hours at a time, as you move from one place to the next. Street photography requires the camera to be on for long periods, ready to snap a picture at a moment's notice. Both can be a heavier than normal drain on battery power.

Fortunately, the V1 uses the same high-capacity 1900mAh EN-EL15 battery Nikon designed for its D7000 DSLR. This battery charges quickly, can easily last through a full day of shooting, and is readily available if you should decide to pack a spare. Don't take this for granted. Many cameras are powered by batteries so weak and hard to find that they become an Achilles heel.

 

 

 

Drawbacks and Remedies

All cameras have limitations and design flaws. The Nikon V1 is no exception. In addition to the ones I've already mentioned, one of the most annoying is the mode dial on the back of the camera. It doesn't cycle you through the standard PASM exposure modes you might expect. You have to menu-dive for that. Instead, the modes are Motion Snapshot, Smart Photo, Still Image, and Movie. Suffice it to say that the mode I used most often was Still Image. The problem is that although the detents on the mode dial seem stiff enough, in practice it's quite easy to accidentally move the dial. I solved this problem by taping the mode dial in place with a piece of black gaffer's tape. This shouldn't be necessary, but at least it's quick, cheap, and effective.

The gaffer's tape solution also came in handy for taping down the small removable plastic cover for the accessory port. Travel photography in particular involves a lot of camera handling, jostling, moving around, and distractions. Anything that can fall off of your camera will, and will probably never be seen again.

The one thing you can't tape over is the slow lens speed typical of kit zooms. You're at f/5.6 before you know it. Even though the zooms have vibration-reduction, you'll still be shooting at speeds below 1/30 and/or high ISOs in low light. This system begs for one or two fast primes with a maximum aperture of at least f/1.8.

Finally, keep in mind that like many digital cameras, the Nikon V1 takes a few seconds to awake once it's gone to sleep. That may not sound like much, but it can often mean the difference between catching or losing a once-in-a-lifetime shot. My solution was to increase the default time-before-sleep from 30 seconds to 5 minutes. This reduced the constant need to re-awaken the camera with only a minor increase in battery drain. You can increase the time-before-sleep even more if you like, just make sure to have a spare battery on hand if you do.

Would I Buy One?

Given the amount of money I have budgeted (less than $1000 for camera plus one or two lenses), the V1 is a strong contender, especially now that Nikon has temporarily knocked $100 off the price here in the U.S. If the price ($800 with 10-30mm kit zoom) still seems high for a camera of this size and specification, keep in mind that the Nikon V1 has a built-in hi-res optical viewfinder. That said, so does the Panasonic Lumix G3, for roughly $200 less, but with considerably less ability to maintain focus on fast moving objects.

If I had more money on hand I'd probably opt for the Olympus E-M5, assuming I was also willing to wait for dealers to have them in stock. I might even consider the Sony NEX-7 if it weren't for the lenses being so large. You'll know what I decided when you see the pictures I upload from my upcoming trip to China. Until then, I hope you enjoy the photos I've taken so far. Feel free to visit my Zenfolio gallery for more examples. If there are any Nikon V1 owners out there who have something constructive to add, please send comments.

 

Canon Wireless File Transmitter Guides Published

This is the cover page of the Step-by-Step Setup Guide for Server Mode on Apple iOS devices such as the iPad. The wireless file transmitter is the thing that looks like a motor drive mounted to the bottom of the EOS 7D.

Canon recently published a series of step-by-step guides on how to set-up their wireless file transmitters for EOS DSLRs. The guides are available for free download on Canon's Digital Learning Center . If you're wondering why I would mention something that benefits such a small subset of Shutterfinger's readership, it's because I wrote every one of them and, even if I do say so myself, I did a good job on what was a challenging project. 

For those who don't know, a wireless file transmitter (WFT for short) enables a camera to connect with a WiFi computer network. You can then use a computer to control the camera remotely, either through a standard web browser or via Canon's EOS Utility application. You can also set up the WFT as an FTP server, in which case it will wireless copy or transfer image files from the camera to a folder on a remote computer. There's even a linked shooting mode that lets you set up one camera as the "master" and the rest as "slaves" (a terminology I'm not particularly fond of). Triggering the master will trigger the slaves, with or without any delays you care to program into them.

Sound complicated? Now consider the fact that how you set things up also depends on whether you're using a Windows PC or a Mac. It should come as no news that PCs are generally more difficult to set-up than Macs. If you're using a Windows PC the setup process further depends on whether you're using Windows XP, Vista, or 7. And let's not forget that there are two different ways to set up a wireless computer network: ad hoc or infrastructure. 

Also keep in mind that the network and computer setup steps happen separately from setting up the WFT itself, which involves scrolling through a long series of menu screens on the back of your camera, twirling the Main Dial, and pressing the Set Button. If all that wasn't complicated enough, how about this: All it takes is one missplaced digit or checkmark along the way and your setup won't work.

Here's an example of what you might see if you were using a server mode setup. The white box in the center is the focusing point. You can probably figure out the rest of the controls simply by looking at the buttons and icons.

The good news is that if you do manage to get everything set up correctly, it's tons of fun to be able to mount your camera + WFT on a tripod and wirelessly control camera settings such as focus, exposure, ISO, and white balance from a remote computer. If your computer is attached to a large, well-calibrated monitor, it's like having a high-definition flat-panel TV as your LCD display. Any photos you take can be saved to your camera, your computer, or both.

Before you get too excited (or too disappointed that your camera system doesn't offer a WFT) here's one last factor to keep in mind: WFTs are pricey ($600-800) and only fit a specific model of camera. I would get one only if I really needed one, and even then I'd want to be sure I had the necessary skills, or knew someone else who had the skills, to set up a computer network. In the meantime, there's no harm in waiting for some enterprising company (Apple perhaps?) to design a camera that makes wireless connectivity so easy that even a photographer can do it.

Traveling Light

In case you're wondering, this 35mm f/2D Nikkor weighs only 7.6 oz (220 grams) with rear cap.

A recent photo enthusiast magazine, which I won't mention by name, recently published its travel photography issue. Amidst its photos of exotic locales, it featured an article on recommended equipment for travel photography. Their list included items such as a Canon EOS 5d Mark II full-frame DSLR, a 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom, and a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS zoom. All three are excellent pieces of equipment. Assuming a reasonable level of skill on your part and a great travel location, you should be able to get excellent photos with this kit, all day, every day.

There are just two problems with this recommendation. First, assuming you could afford such a collection of top-drawer pro equipment to begin with, you'd be committing to taking it all with you on a trip far from home, where you run the risk that unless you carry it with you at all times, it could be stolen from your hotel room, the trunk (boot) of your car, the train you're travelling on, the restaurant you're eating at, etc. In some countries you also run the risk of having your equipment stolen even if it's on your person. Thieves may not know the exact value of your gear, but they will generally assume that big equals expensive. More often than not, they will be right.

The second issue, closely related to the first, is weight. Your interest in security and photography means you'll be carrying your equipment with you practically everywhere you go. That 10 lb. (5 kg) shoulder bag that seemed so manageable when you packed it at home quickly becomes a torturous ball and chain when you have to lug it around at high altitudes, high temperatures, and high humidity. You may soon find yourself begging for some enterprising thief to relieve you of your burdon, or at least share the load.

All of the above factors are compounded if you have travel companions who are non-photographers. They won't understand why you brought so much equipment in the first place, why you're always stopping to take pictures of someone other than them, and why you always look so miserable and distracted.

In short, it's one thing to travel with a lot of heavy and expensive equipment if you're a pro who's either getting paid to lug it or paying someone else to do it. It's quite another when you are the beast of burden.

So what is the perfect travel camera? It all depends on what you consider "perfect" and how much you're willing to compromise. The three factors I consider essential include:

1. Small
   Size is, of course, relative, but the closer your camera and lens combo comes to being something you can carry in a pocket or purse, the better. Small cameras and lenses have the added benefit of looking less intimidating and/or valuable to others.
2. Lightweight
   This too is relative. My limit is a kit that weighs no more than 2.5 lbs (approximately 1kg) including shoulder bag and strap. If I can get away with less weight, so much the better.
3. Fast lens
   I have yet to travel anywhere where the ability to shoot in low light without flash or a tripod hasn't been valuable. VR/IS/SR also help a lot, especially if combined with lens speed. If I have to choose between one or the other though, I'll go with lens speed because it helps keep shutter speeds higher and allows more control over depth-of-field. Unfortunately, fast lenses tend to be large and heavy. I never said this was easy.

Non-essential but nevertheless valuable is a zoom lens. I almost never use zooms when I'm practicing street photography because I find them bulky, slow, and unnecessary. When it comes to travel photography, however, a single wide-to-tele zoom reduces the amount of equipment I have to carry and keep track of. A zoom also reduces or eliminates the need to switch lenses, which in turn reduces how often the sensor is exposed to dust.

Total all of these factors up and you come up with a fairly short list of cameras, most of which are mirrorless and many of which are surprisingly pricey for what they are. I've already settled on one or two I think would be ideal for me. What about you? I'm particularly interested in hearing from any of you who have "been there, done that" and know from experience which camera/lens combos can get the job done with maximum enjoyment and minimum pain.

Why Guitars Are Better Than Cameras

I have a confession to make. Even though I'm a much better photographer than I am a guitarist, I love guitars more than I do cameras. In my defense, I suspect I'm not alone in this, even among photographers. Here's a list of the reasons that come most quickly to mind:

1. Guitars--even electric ones--don't need batteries.
2. You don't need computers or software to play a guitar, just two hands and a heart.
3. You never have to worry about your guitar becoming obsolete. You can buy a guitar today that's built almost exactly like they were 50 years ago--and you would still play it the same way.
4. No one thinks you're odd if you play an 20 year-old guitar or if you give it a name like Lucille or Blackie or Pearly Gates. In fact, if you play well enough, you'll be widely admired.
5. Once you learn to play one type of guitar you know how to play them all.
6. Many of the best guitars in the world are completely designed and built in America. I mention this not to be chauvanistic, but because it's so rare to find high-quality, American-made consumer goods these days.

The one major drawback of guitars is that they aren't much good for photography--unless they're your subject, in which case they can be downright pretty. My question this week is how many of you reading this share my obsession. (I'll bet some of you can even identify the exact model of guitar in the photo above.) You can also earn a few points for loving other instruments, such as piano, viola, or trombone. No banjos, though. Banjos are unforgivable.

 

Getting It Together

This gentleman is actually a very good guitarist. He enjoyed my taking a picture of him and I enjoyed listening to him play.

You might think that after 40-odd years of practicing photography I'd have it all down. I'd never screw up. My camera would bend to my will. All I'd have to do is spy the faintest glimmer of a photo opportunity and I would capture it in less time than it would take lessor mortals to blink.

The fact is that photography for me is often a struggle, the most constant of which is finding the time to practice it. I'm paid to write, you see, not to take pictures. During my "free" time I'm expected to be a good husband and father, not wandering the streets of Philadelphia taking pictures of perfect strangers for no reason other than my own personal gratification. The occasions when my wife and kids are doing something together that doesn't require my presence and participation don't necessarily coincide with good light and sufficient time.

Don't ask me why I like this composition; I just do.

This Saturday I simply set all that aside and made it happen. Despite a heavy overcast and consistent drizzel of rain, I met up with a fellow street photographer who was visiting for the weekend and went searching for a few photos that might justify the effort. I wasn't optimistic. It was a rainy Saturday morning and few people were outside walking around. The heavy overcast meant I wouldn't see of the dramatic shadow patterns I love so much. Worse, it meant I would have to use larger apertures, slower shutter speeds, and higher ISOs than I prefer. "Gordon," I thought to myself, "this morning is going to be a challenge."

To matters even more interesting, the camera I was using, a Nikon D7000 with a 35mm f/2.0 AF Nikkor, decided to be recalcitrant. It refused to reformat the SD card I was using. It took five times longer than normal to flush some shots through the buffer while others passed through in an instant. I took advantage of the fact that the D7000 has two SD card slots and switched cards. Problem solved. Only later, after I removed the original card and thoroughly cleaned the contacts, did it return to normal.

Although I wish this shot had been sharper I'm not sure more sharpness would make any real difference either way.

There were other annoyances as well. For example, the AF system would occasionally balk. I don't mean it would misfocus, it simply wouldn't focus at all. I still remember how to focus manually, but that's not much help when you've already missed the shot. My neckstrap was also pain-in-the-ass. It has a bulk black rubber strip that keeps it from slipping of my shoulder should I decide to use it as a shoulder strap (my preferred carry), but then it gets in the way and prevents me from raising the camera to my eye in a fraction of a second. More missed shots. Oh, and did I mention the less-than-perfect exposures? The shots with less-than-perfect focus? Or image blur caused by camera and/or subject motion?

Sometimes everything works out just right: subject, timing, exposure, composition... Times like this make it all worthwhile.

Fortunately, I've been at this long enough to know that this is just a normal day of street photography. Nothing ever goes exactly as you had hoped or planned. When you've literally got only a second or two to focus, frame, and release the shutter, you're going to miss shots. On the other hand, there will be times when the gods are smiling down on you, the fates align in your favor, and you capture a once-in-a-lifetime shot you would never have imagined and could never have planned. That's the fun of it all, you see. And that's why I keep at. Because one of these days I'll get it right.

 

How Is This For Irony?

A few months ago a marketing rep from one of the large online photo retailers called to sell me on the idea of joining their affiliate program. This would involve me posting a banner ad for his company and providing links to their website whenever I wrote about equipment they sold. I would then get a percentage of any sales this generated. Apparently I've attracted a large enough following that companies like his were seeing an opportunity to profit from my readership.

As wonderful as this sounds in theory, I was reluctant. Other bloggers I know had advised me that any revenue from affiliate links would be minimal, especially because my posts are more about photography than photo equipment. Readers like you are more interested in using the equipment you already have than buying more. You're even less interested in arguing over whether some camera or lens you don't own is better than some other camera or lens you don't own. I also suspected that adding a banner ad to Shutterfinger would generate more brand attention for his store than dollars for me. Although I initially made a half-hearted effort to link a few equipment references to his store, no one bought anything through the links and I eventually stopped doing even that.

So imagine my amusement when I received an e-mail announcement from him two days ago that because the Pennsylvania state legislature had passed a law that would tax them for any affiliate sales in Pennsylvania (I live just outside of Philadelphia), this New York state retailer was cancelling all of its PA affiliate contracts. Gee, I'm sure glad I didn't waste hours of my time trying to scrape pennies out of that program.

Forgive me if this bores you. My main point is simply that you're in no imminent danger of seeing Shutterfinger flooded with affiliate ads and product links. I don't depend on blogging to make ends meet and God help me if I did. Instead, I write for the pleasure it brings and the comments you share. If you're occasionally moved to drop a few bucks in my tip jar to show your appreciation, well, that's just icing on the cake--delightful, but not essential.

The More Things Change...

Mass market retailers such as Target, Best Buy, and Wal-Mart have recently begun complaining to their suppliers that their customers--you and me, that is--have been using their stores as showrooms. We supposedly visit their stores primarily to get a first hand look at the merchandise and then do a price comparison with an online retailer. If the price plus shipping is less than the price plus sales tax, we go with the online retailer. These retailers have asked their suppliers to create products exclusively for them; products you can’t find elsewhere and therefore can’t comparison-shop.

There’s nothing particularly new to this. Back in the day when photo retail chains and shops were common they would offer special kits that would typically include an off-brand lens or two, a camera bag, a strap, a lens filter and so on, all to persuade you that  you were getting a better deal from them than you could get somewhere else. The twist is that the big box stores and the decline in film processing have steadily been putting the smaller photo retailers out of business. These photo retailers were where we used to go to fondle the latest equipment. Now they’re as scarce as hard-core Republicans at an Obama campaign rally.

This doesn’t necessarily mean we photographers now do all our camera shopping at mass market retailers. For one thing, mass market retailers only sell mass market cameras. If you’re looking for something more esoteric, such as a Pentax K-5 or Fuji X100, or more pricey, such as a Leica M9, Nikon D700, or Canon EOS 5D Mark II, you had best look elsewhere. For another thing, the salespeople they employ are poorly trained and, shall we say, “ill-informed.”You’re not likely to get much useful information from them.

So where else do we buy if not at mass market retailers? Increasingly it’s at even larger online retailers such as Amazon, B&H Photo, Adorama, Calumet, and others. Handling the equipment is not an option with online retailers, at least not until you’ve bought it, at which point your options are either to keep it or return it.

I suspect the fact that so many of us have little choice except to buy expensive equipment sight-unseen explains why we scour the Internet for reviews and log onto forums to ask perfect strangers what camera or lens to buy. Others simply embrace the new zeitgeist and buy-to-try. As long as they can use a piece of equipment for a week or two, return it, and pay nothing more than shipping charges and perhaps a small restocking fee then what have they got to lose?

My fear is that as more sales become concentrated into the hands of fewer and larger retailers we will lose the very thing that has caused so much of the shift from large to small: competition. That could mean higher prices and fewer options—until a few retailers and manufacturers with an entrepreneurial spirit broke away from the pack to offer local showrooms stocked with real equipment, face-to-face customer service, expert advice, and reasonable prices. To quote the original French expression, “Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.”

My Perfect Camera

Before the advent of digital photography and before I needed a few more pro features, the Pentax ME was pretty close to my "perfect" camera. The Pentax MX, which had manual shutter speeds rather than full automation would have been even better. Even today I would find a digital equivalent hard to resist.

Every photographer has a different idea of what constitutes their “perfect” camera. Here’s mine, with the features listed in no particular order:

1. It weighs no more than a pound (a half-kilo) without lens.
2. It fits comfortably in my hands, with no more or less gripping area than necessary.
3. Every essential control is right where I expect it to be and functions the way I expect it to.
4. The main controls have the same function no matter what mode I’m in.
5. It features a large, bright, TTL eye-level viewfinder that shows at least 98% of the full frame.
6. Menu-diving is kept to a minimum. Once the camera is set up the way I like I will rarely if ever have to open a menu.
7. It’s whisper-quiet, with virtually non-existent shutter delay or mirror-blackout.
8. Shutter and mirror-vibration are a non-issue.
9. Manual focusing is quick and accurate, should I decide to do so.
10. The exposure meter is consistent and predictable.
11. The rear display (assuming it’s a digital camera) has high pixel resolution and has no obvious color shift.
12. The flash-sync speed is at least 1/125 second.
13. The lenses are small yet fast, sharp, and durable. It can even have a fixed lens if it meets these specifications.
14. Low light performance is respectable up to ISO 1600.

That’s about it. I don’t want video. If I did I'd buy a video camera. I don’t care about high frame rates because I seldom shoot sports. Even when I do, I go for peak moments of action rather than a sequence. I’m not interested in image stabilization, vibration reduction, or whatever because it adds complexity and frankly, because of past experience I don’t completely trust it. I'd rather take my chances with a fast aperture and a reasonably fast shutter speed, or better yet, a tripod.

I have yet to own a digital camera that meets all of these requirements. Every camera I’ve owned, however, has met most of them or I wouldn’t have owned it. For what it's worth, the camera I’m using the most at the moment is a Nikon D7000. I could be equally happy with a Pentax K-5 with the in-body SR off.

Please don’t write to tell me why I should trust IS or VR or to ask why I didn’t include some feature you find essential. This is, after all, my perfect camera. What’s yours and why? (For the sake of brevity you might want to simply add or subtract from my list rather than create an entirely new list of your own.)

Here's the Deal(s)

I've been trying not to get to caught up in the holiday gift buying frenzy. These are tough times. A lot of people are having a tough time buying groceries and paying rent, much less buying a new camera or zoom lens. That's why I've been generally unresponsive to the steady flow of notices from various online retailers who would like me to refer my readers (that would be you) to their shops for your Christmas purchases.

The referrals would be through my posting links. Even though I would get a small percentage of any resulting click-throughs and sales, I haven't posted any of these offers because, quite frankly, I'd rather spend my leisure time on leisure rather than posting new links every few days in an effort to make a couple of bucks with affiliate sales.

Then again, what do I know? I could be doing you a great favor by providing a link to where you can find the latest photo equipment bargains. I could also be doing myself a favor. Maybe I could earn enough in commissions to buy a few more bags of groceries for the homeless shelter. So with no further preliminaries, here is a link to B&H Photo's "deals" page. When you click through you'll see a list of discounted goodies, from tripods to lenses and cameras. If you buy anything as a result of the click-through, you contribute a few bucks to the cause.

If you prefer, instead of buying something you could simply pretend I'm a Salvation Army volunteer standing in front of B&H Photo, holding a bucket and ringing a bell. Drop something into my bucket (tip jar) and I'll reward you with a hearty "Ho, ho, hoooo!"

In all seriousness, the greatest gift you could give me would be your continued readership and the supportive comments you contribute from time to time. Spread the word and keep coming back. It means a lot more to me than you might think.

Dropbox: A Convenient Way to Share Photos

  Here's what your list of folders would look like on the Dropbox site. I've added an arrow that points to the Photos folder. You can also open Dropbox from your desktop or file manager, in which case it would look like any other window with a list of folders and files.

How often has someone asked if you could send them a copy of the photo you've just taken? It doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. After all, all you have to do is e-mail it to them. Except that if you're shooting RAW you'll have to convert it to JPEG first. You might even be tempted to adjust it a bit first so it looks the way you intended. And if you're shooting at anywhere near full resolution, you'll have to resize it so it won't choke their e-mail server. If you're sending several photos, e-mail really isn't an option. Then you're looking at either burning the images onto optical media and sending them the disc or uploading them to a website where they can access and download them.

I personally find uploading to a website to be the most convenient approach. Once I upload the photos, all I have to do is send the requester(s) a link to where to find the photos, then it's up to them to go get 'em. No muss, no fuss, no discs, no postage.

There are a variety of ways to set up such a website. The one I find the quickest and most hassle-free is Dropbox.What is basically is is an amount of disk space that you have reserved on a remote web server. Anything you upload to this server can be available to anyone you want to share it with, including yourself. Sharing with yourself is convenient because it allows access to the same files even if you're using multiple computers in multiple locations. The only "catch" is that because Dropbox is web-based you have to Internet access to access the files.

It costs nothing to sign-up for Dropbox and the first 2GB of space are free. Two gigs can store a hell of a lot of JPEGs, especially when you're just using it as a temporary place to upload files until whoever asked for them has had a chance to view and download them. To do this, you send an e-mail invitation to whomever you want to grant access to a shared folder. Your invitees will only have access to folders you specifically share with them. Anything else is private and visible only to you.

Another convenient aspect to Dropbox is that it resides as a folder on your desktop, taskbar, finder, or wherever else you choose to replicate it. All it takes to move files is to select, drag, and drop--hence the name "Dropbox." It doesn't get much easier than that. And just in case you're wondering, I have no financial or otherwise self-serving interest in recommonding Dropbox. I don't get any money or extra GB of space if you use it or not. I just like using it and think you might too. Another other Dropbox users out there who would like to share your experiences, pro and con, should feel free to leave a comment.