Lotus Blossom Study

While in California last week, we went to the Getty Villa with my in-laws. While we were there, a pond with Lotus flowers caught my eye.

Sony's NEX VG10 might fill the gap... for now.

[col-sect][column]I don't own a camcorder. I shoot video on a Canon 5D Mark 2 which is actually a DSLR. It's a little more complicated in the audio department, but the image quality is astounding and the form factor is familiar. There's nothing else that shoots as wide as my 5D, and low light footage is great even at 3lux. Nothing else can do that. It's always felt like the perfect field camera

That being said, every once in a while I find myself wishing I had something in a camcorder form factor. Something a little smaller, more streamlined. I look at my budget, figure out how much I would have to save up, and start looking around at what's out there. But, after looking around I find that I'm comparing it all to my 5D. Can it get really wide? Does it have full XLR inputs? How's the low light performance? Eventually, I give up because it's not close enough to my 5D, until something else comes up where I wish I had something more streamlined and I find myself looking again.

I think I'm done looking... for now.



Today, Sony introduced the NEX VG10. It's an interchange lens HD camcorder with a 14mp Exmor APS-C HD CMOS chip-the same size as super-35mm movie film. It shoots 1080/60i(50i) in a 24mbps AVCHD format to SD. The "E-Mount" lens mount got the photo community excited earlier this year when they released the NEX-5. The E mount has such a narrow flange back (the distance between the chip and the lens mount) you can adapt any lens to it. I'm finally seeing Leica M Lenses in video's future.

If you already shoot Sony Alpha, you might like to know that Sony sells an adapter to allow you to shoot with your alpha lenses. but it sounds like you will only be able to shoot with them wide open The $199 adapter allows full aperture and AE control but only manual focus, so that's not bad for access to great Ziess zoom lenses.

[/column]

[column]The other interesting feature is the built in stereo mic. To quote Sony, the "Quad Capsule Spatial Array Stereo Microphone uses advanced processing algorithms to combine signals from four separate omnidirectional microphone capsules. The result is exceptionally clear stereo audio with a highly directional response: this allows videographers to capture more sound from the subject they’re shooting, and less of distracting sounds around them." Looking at the picture bellow, it looks like it's a combination of an M/S pattern and a dual mono pattern. If the processing is done right it should sound really good for a built in mic. Might be usable for close up work. It will clearly need a deadcat though.



Other than that, the VG10's specs read a lot like my old Sony VX2000: Prosumer. No XLR inputs, but a 1/8" unbalanced mic in with no phantom power. VU meter on screen. A Headphone out. LCD display and eye piece-Sony usually does very well with their LCDs. Full manual exposure, audio, and white balance. And it takes the same batteries as the VX2000! I love that Sony has not moved away from the L series battery. Thank you for that Sony. It makes up for your days of proprietary card mediums.



So what's my big hang up? I'm not a huge fan of AVCHD, 60i, or compressed/unbalanced audio. XCAM35, 24p/60p, and just ONE XLR input would have made it a deal maker for me. But we'll see. For $2000 I'm not sure there's a better product to fill the gap in my field work flow. For now. There is lots of noise that Canon will be introducing a similar product this fall, which is when Sony will start shipping the NEX VG10.

Big DPreview write up here
Press Release here

[/column][/col-sect]

Zen and the Art of Collaboration

I recently co-produced two pieces for Ushahidi regarding their work in Haiti shortly after the earthquake. I helped concept the stories with Sara George, Ushahidi's producer, and then we brought in Andrew Berends to direct. Andrew was already in Haiti shooting for Frontlines and had a great sense of the ground. You come into these types of projects with a particular idea of what is going to happen. You see the arch in your head. You hears the character's voices... and then you get the actual footage back from the Videographer. Andrew did an amazing job when you consider that he really had about 36 hours to pull both stories together. We got a lot of great B-roll and decent interviews.

In this sort of situation the largest hurdle to overcome is one of expectations. Sarah and I had individual ideas about how the stories should go. Andrew had his own understanding of our expectations plus an understand of how realistic those expectations where (which I will never really know). I know he had his own expectations for the projects as he sent the footage back to me, where I tried to let go of my original ideas about the story so I could find the amazing stuff Andrew found.

Lesson learned: your mind can't really be big enough in Non-Fiction story telling.

Canon's great equalizer: the 35mm f2

[col-sect][column]Concerning the Canon 35mm f2

OK, I was wrong.

In a previous review concerning the Sigma 50mm f1.4, I shot off a quick laundry list of problems I was having with the Canon 35mm f2 which I picked up at around the same time. After lots of testing, retesting and even some practical shooting, I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong about the 35mm f2.

When I first started testing this lens I was shooting under very bright, mid-day lighting conditions in central Florida. To give you an idea, this time of year the UV index is usually somewhere around, “You will get skin cancer in five minutes.” So of course the contrast was ridiculous, the color awful, and I was generally unhappy with my photos.

But after a few weeks with the lens, I have to say I was wrong. It’s sharp…really sharp. The highlights hold and it’s tiny! For the money, I’m not sure there’s a better lens in the Canon lineup.



There are a few caveats; almost all lens designs are a compromise between speed, size, sharpness, contrast, color rendition, bokeh, light fall-off, and manufacturing complexity. At the $300 price point, you are going to be dealing with more compromises than you would with say a $1400 lens like the Canon 35 f1.4 L.


Me by the wife (which is why it's sharp) click for full size

The 35 f2 is one of Canon’s original EOS offerings. It showed up in 1990 and it hasn’t changed in 20 years. The seven element design is a bit of a departure from the earlier ten element Canon FD design. As a general rule, fewer elements make for a sharper lens. More elements afford a designer the ability to control light fall-off and color/contrast better, but this can be at the expense of overall sharpness (especially wide open). Note that the 35 f1.4 L has four more elements than its f2 counterpart.[/column]

[column] Can you see where this is going?

From an overall lens-characteristics standpoint the lens is very sharp. It does, however, vignette heavily from f2 to about f3.5, after which it effectively goes away. It is fairly contrasty and the color rendition is a little cooler than other Canon offerings.


1/160@f2


1/80@f2.8

Despite the older design, the auto-focus is quite snappy and the little arc-motor is not nearly as noisy as some make it out to be. It may not be as quiet as a USM, but it’s really not a big issue. I think you’ll find that it’s quite acceptable for all but the most insecure photographer.

The great thing about the 35mm f2 is that it’s really small and light weight. The barrel is all plastic with a metal mount, but it doesn’t feel chintzy like those awful 28-80 kit lenses Canon used to include with their consumer bodies.

Who is this for?

If you’re looking for a “standard” lens equivalent (in terms of FOV) for your crop sensor camera, I would look at the Sigma 30mm f1.4 first; not just for the extra stop, but because a 35mm lens will have a 56mm FOV on your camera and that’s a little long for a standard lens (at least for me). Further, while the 35mm f2 is sharp, the bokeh is nothing spectacular. You’re not going to be super happy with it if you’re using it to mimic the kind of photography you’d normally get using a 50mm f1.4 on a full-frame body.



Light, small, sharp and fast makes the 35mm f2 the perfect walk-about lens for your 5D, 1Ds Mark II, or that EOS 1V you just picked up off eBay.[/column][/col-sect]

[col-sect][column]
Regarding 35mm Lenses in General

Paul Meyers, a photography instructor I had, once told me a story about an exchange he observed at the Eddie Adams Workshop. A student was rifling through the lens-cabinet and pulled out a 20mm (this was during a time when super wides were just becoming cool in photojournalism). His team coach caught the student before he made it out the door, pulled him back to the cabinet, took the 20mm from his hands and swapped it for a 35 f2. “When you can fill the frame with this,” his coach said, pointing to the 35 f2, “then you can check out the 20.”

The 35mm focal length on full frame cameras represents an important perspective for a photographer, especially a photojournalist or documentary photographer. It allows you to photograph what your eye sees naturally…everything your eye sees.
[/column]
[column]







James Whitlow Delano has this to say about the 35mm focal length:

“If a person in my photograph fills the frame, that means I was physically right next to them. I have to respect their culture and not anger them by my intrusion. I’m so close they could reach out and pop me in the nose…”

This makes it a challenging prime because there is only one way to fill the frame – you’ve got to get close to your subject, really close. But it’s a great departure from super-wides. It’s a refreshing lens to use and a great focal length with which to challenge yourself and create space.[/column][/col-sect]

The Complicated Relationship: The Sigma 50mm 1.4 reviewed

[col-sect][column]I think it's fair to say that most of us try to "upgrade" when we move from one relationship to another. Usually, we compile a mental list of "never agains" as we are ejected from the previous situation: "Never again will I date a guy who is clinically depressed." "Never again will I marry a woman with an eating disorder." "Never again will I work for a Big Box Chain." Most of the time, this doesn't actually help us find healthy, fulfilling relationships the next time around; just unhealthy relationships without the particular idiosyncrasies we were most upset about as we left our last relationship. We humans have a way of focusing on the emendate problem to the detriment of understanding how and why we got in the situation in the first place.

I bought the Sigma EX 50mm f1.4 HSM after a having my heart broken by Canon's 50/1.4 USM one too many times. There are other articles that can get into it better than I'm willing to, but basically the elements on the Canon are too heavy for the light weigh clutch on the USM auto focus motor and so, eventually, it fails. The first time it failed, I had it rebuilt by Canon, then 18 months later it died again and I gave up. So as I was trying to recover from my frustration, my "Never Again" list for a 50mm lens looked like this:

• 1–Never again will I buy a lens with an auto focus system that can't deal with heavy use.


• 2–Never again will I buy a lens with heavy flair when it's wide open.


• 3–Never again will I buy a lens that can't seem to render detail wide open.


• 4–Never again will I buy a lens who's max performance doesn't show up tell f8 but goes away by f16 (I never seem to be at f8.)


• 5–Never again will I buy a lens with a composite barrel.

So that basically left me with the Canon 50/1.2 or the Sigma (I shoot journalism for a living so I didn't see the Zeiss as on option.) I went with the Sigma because I could almost buy three 50/1.2s for the price of the Simga and because I've LOVED my Sigma 24/1.8.

How is it? It's complicated. It's probably the best SLR 50/1.4 I've ever shot with one Giant Caveat: There are serious sharpness issues wide open at close distances.  It's not a simple lens.

On one hand:

1–It's HUGE: 77mm front filter.

2–It's heavy: with a 2.7" barrel filled with glass, it comes in just over a pound!

3–The AF isn't quite as snappy as the Canon 50/1.4 (but what is?)

On the other hand:

1–It has great contrast all the way through the aperture range.

2–It has wonderful color.

3–It's well built.

4–By f2 it's is sharp at any distance.

5–The AF is accurate and built on a more robust technology than Canon's consumer USM.

6–It's really sharp at f1.4 at most middle distances.

7–The Boken is really smooth and pretty.

The Possible Deal Breaker

The close focus thing is a huge disappointment to be sure.  Basically it means that if you are shooting a vertical head shot, you are going to have to be at f/2 unless you like wedding photography from the 1970s... which I don't.  It's not that it's hazy, just that there is no micro detail.  It's like a painting.  Once you stop down to f/2 the problem is gone, along with most of the vignetting.


(Canon 5D Mark ii 50mm ISO-100, 1/80, f/1.4) click for full res


(Canon 5D Mark ii 50mm ISO-400, 1/80, f/2.8) click for full res

What's fascinating is if you take just a few steps back (two or three feet) the whole problem goes away and it's really sharp at 1.4 again!  I have zero idea as to what is happening or why, but there it is.  The one flaw in this lens. For about $500, you aren't going to get goddess, but you are going to get something you can live with for the rest of your life.


(Canon 5D Mark ii 50mm ISO-100, 1/80, f/1.4) click for full res[/column]

[column]If you've shot with something like the Canon 50/1.2 L or the Leica f/1.0 Noctilux then you know that most high performing lenses have these really strong weak spots simply because you can't get a lens to do everything all the time with out it costing as much as a new car.  The f/1.0 Noctilux has sharpness issues at certain distances–and horrible vignetting as well–while the Canon 50L can't hold onto detail at f/16 for some reason.

Now that we've gotten the deal breaker out of the way, let's go over the rest of the lenses performance.

Like a lot of fast lenses, it's widest aperture doesn't really let it as much light as you might expect wide open because the vignetting is so pronounced that it effects most of the image. I found that for the Sigma, stoping down to just f/1.6 and pulling back my shutter by 1/3rd gave me back most of my exposure.  By f/2 it's mostly gone and at f2.8 it's gone from a practical stand point.  It's sharp enough in the corners by f/2 and technically sharp in the corners two stops later. All this puts in just about on par with the Canon 50 L for about 1/3rd of the cost.


(f/1.4)


(f/2)


(f/2.8)

Flaire

With it's enormous front element, I expected the Sigma to be really vulnerable to flare, but what I found was that it holds it's own as well as anything else in it's class.  It has a nice shape to flare at f/16 and at it's not out of control wide open.

(F/16)





(F/1.4)



[/column][/col-sect]