Showing posts with label Not Recommended. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Not Recommended. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 8, 2015

REVIEW: Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 with 4k Video & 14-140mm Lens (Part II of II)

Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 Camera with 14-140mm Lens (Rear View)
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 Camera with 14-140mm Lens (Rear View)

Click here to read Part I of this review.

After more hands on time with this camera, I’ve decided that I’m not very impressed with it beyond the 4k video support. A camera like a Sony a6000 is a bargain competitor that cost less yet significantly outperforms this camera in all but one place – 4k video recording.

Bookshelf Testing


f/5.6 @ 46mm for 1/5 sec at ISO 6400

The more I used this camera I realized that it was really built as a way to tout 4k video, but as a camera there’s nothing that impresses me. In my bookshelf testing I was so underwhelmed that I didn’t even do a complete series of shots.

ISO 6400 was as high as I could comfortably go, but the image quality felt very noisy with details crushed by the internal noise reduction software.

With the use of my preferred vivid mode the colors are very neutral as shown.

Click here to see more bookshelf shots at different ISO’s

Real World Samples

The following images come straight from in-camera JPEG’s using the camera default noise reduction settings. Most camera settings are the default with the exception of RAW+JPEG, a desired White Balance (only Shade or AWB), and a desired focus point.  I chose to use the Vivid Photo Style as I found it to be pleasant and not overly done with i.Dynamic set to Auto and i.Resolution set to standard.

Click here for a full gallery of unedited images.

All images are copyright Ron Martinsen – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. You may not save, print, edit, modify or otherwise use any images featured in this article or the gallery without expressed written permission.

Fireworks


f/4.9 @ 32mm for 1/4 sec at ISO 1250

My wife likes to shoot the fireworks with her iPhone and gets pretty good results, but this year I convinced her to try using the G7 – the net result was as any photographer would expect with someone who didn’t use a tripod for an evening shot – lots of camera shake.

Short of shooting on a tripod, there weren’t any built-in camera features that really helped with this scenario.

Other Shots


f/3.5 @ 14mm for 1/320 sec at ISO 640

I was impressed I could focus on the bubble gun and Kai’s face under tough shooting conditions.


f/5.6 @ 140mm for 1/25 sec at ISO 3200

This image captures much of what I don’t like about this camera
No enough dynamic range to capture the reds of this flower accurately


f/5.4 @ 109mm for 1/125 sec at ISO 3200

Macro shots were tough so I had to stand back and zoom in. I did discover that if you use the Vivid photo style mode it looks so much nicer on your subjects. Below is a flower shot that uses the default photo style.


f/5.4 @ 109mm for 1/125 sec at ISO 3200

The default photo style is neutral to the point of blah!


f/5.6 @ 37mm for 1/2000 sec at ISO 200

I had to shoot full manual to get an exposure that wasn’t completely overblown

Click here to see more real world sample photos.

Conclusion

With so many great cameras (Including cell phone cameras) on the market today, I can’t recommend purchasing this camera – as a still image camera. It does take nice 4k video, if that’s your thing I’d day go for it. For everyone else, I’d say go look at my which camera should I buy? article as the starting point for your research on what’s right for you.

Click here to read Part I of this review.

Where to order

Click here to learn more or order on the B&H web site.

Other articles you may enjoy

If you enjoyed this article, you may also enjoy these:

Disclosure

If you make a purchase using links found in this article, I may make a commission. It doesn’t cost you a penny more, but it does help to support future articles like this.

Sunday, March 22, 2015

REVIEW: Lytro 8GB Light Field Digital Camera

Lytro 8GB Light Field Digital Camera
Lytro 8GB Light Field Digital Camera (Electric Blue)

Ever since I first heard of Lytro, I’ve been wanting to get my hands on this camera. I couldn’t imagine how something so cool could be packed into such a tiny package at such an affordable price. However, 5 minutes with this camera quickly reminded me of a saying my parents always told me – “if it seems too good to be true, it probably is”.

Fortunately I’ve had a chance to review the Lytro Illum, which is a proper camera. However, this thing is the most disappointing product I’ve had in my hands since the Bower SFD926C Digital Flash!

Hands On Experience

Lytro 8GB Light Field Digital Camera (Graphite)
Lytro 8GB Light Field Digital Camera (Graphite)

At first things seemed very promising as the shape is really cool and the rear touch screen seemed pretty neat. My wife loved the form factor and the promise of after the fact focusing made her very interested in testing it out. However, after seeing the images on the computer she quickly quipped that her iPhone takes better photos than that – I agree!

The screen is so tiny and low resolution that it is darn near useless outdoors, and even indoors you need to have perfect vision to see the low res rear screen. Once you do, you are treated to a very tricky user interface, but you eventually get used to it because there’s almost no features that you can control. Simply put, this is a point and shoot that offers very little manual control. If it took great photos that could be refocused after the fact, that’d be great, but a majority of the photos I tested after the fact couldn’t be refocused. In fact, of all the photos I took, only the few ugly ones below were refocusable.

The one positive thing I can say is that it was so easy to use that my 5 year old and 13 year old could easily point and shoot with it – sadly they failed to get more than one photo that was refocusable.

Sample Images

The quality of all the images I took with this camera sucked – big time – but these sucked the least:

Yes, I agree they suck too, but you should have seen the ones I didn't show you - ugh! Now before you blame the photographer, check out my Lytro Illum review. This camera was so bad that I just wasn’t inspired to do much else with it.

Conclusion

While the form factor is very cool, in the history of every product I’ve ever reviewed on this blog, this has to be in the top 2 or 3 of the worst products ever tested. There is no mention of it on the Lytro website anymore, so I suspect they agree that it isn’t worth mentioning either.

There is one good thing to come out of reviewing this product - I can now judge the trustworthiness of other websites and sources by their opinion of this camera. In my opinion, anyone that says it was good is a person I won’t be trusting for an honest opinion in the future. Don’t believe me, try it for yourself but be sure to keep the box in good shape so you can return it.

Where to order

Don’t! I can’t in good faith even put a link for you to order as I would not recommend this product to anyone. Instead, if you are interested in this technology check out the real light field camera – the Lytro Illum.

Other articles you may enjoy

If you enjoyed this article, you may also enjoy these:

Disclosure

If you make a purchase using links found in this article, I may make a commission. It doesn’t cost you a penny more, but it does help to support future articles like this.

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

REVIEW: Google Glass–Part II of II–Not Ready for Prime Time

Google Glass-223
Google Glass with Active Shade attached

I’m a geek and early adopter of cool gadgets, so when I first heard about Glass I thought – WOW, that’s awesome! I couldn’t wait to get my hands on them, but it took quite a while for that to finally happen.

In early March I got my invitation and ordered right away! Without asking they were shipped overnight, but if I lived closer to a Google campus I could pick them up direct at their campus.

Initial Experience

When I took them out of the box I thought WOW, these are awesome! Even though I know I’m supposed to charge devices, I can’t wait so I just tried to turn them on. Most electronics companies these days send their products fully charged, so 99% of the time this works – but not here. My glasses showed me a flashing battery icon so I had to charge them before I could use them. I’d quickly learn that the reason for this is that Glass doesn’t last very long before the battery dies even if you have a full charge! Perhaps this is why they were sent overnight, but due to a signature being required I wasn’t able to get them until the next day.

Once I had a full charge I popped them on and was expecting some major coolness, but what I got was a very dim display with no diopter like you’d typically find on a camera with a viewfinder. Diopters allow you to make basic corrections to help you see a camera viewfinder better, so I was finding myself needing one to help me see the glass display better. Sadly the lack of one meant that I had to resort to prescription glasses which I hadn’t worn in over a year.

Google Glass-237
Google Glass with Active Shade attached
Interior View

Once I had my prescription glasses on the Glass didn’t fit quite right because my glasses interfered with the design. While there is an ordering option to get prescription glasses, I prefer to only use my glasses when necessary so I fall into that grey area for the design. I can add prescription glasses lenses but have to wear them all the time instead of as needed as I do to today, OR I’d have to fight to see the difficult to read display that isn’t much bigger than an average thumb nail.

WiFi Setup and Tethering Required

Determined not to let this bother me, I dealt with the problems – found a dark area and set up my Glass. The setup process wasn’t hard, but I found it odd that I had to manually type my SSID for my wifi network in. Hopefully the final version will include WPS support, or at least a better way to avoid having to type a network name instead of choosing from a list.

Another “oh crap” moment with my Glass was when I discovered that if I wanted to make the most of them when I was out of range of my WiFi that I’d need to have tethering support for my phone. Since I’m with AT&T this is an expensive option, so I don’t have that feature. While I don’t knock Google for this, it was starting to remind me of what it is like to own a iPad without cellular – major suckage! Of course an iPad makes it easy to join wifi networks, and glass doesn’t so once again I found myself very disappointed.

Since I couldn’t read the display very well I had a hard to time with the initial setup, and it wasn’t clear which way I needed to swipe. Sadly I got the swiping right by accident so I couldn’t read what it was telling me and quickly got lost. This resulted in me having to visit the website to learn what I missed and start over again.

Contact Management Sucks

Once I got them setup I was puzzled to see that there contacts that I didn’t recognize, but some that I did. Despite having a lot of contacts on various services and over 4000 friends in my circles, my contacts listed consisted of about 5 strangers and two people that I knew. While there was an app that you could use to add contacts, it wouldn’t let me just add an email or cell phone contact – it wanted to pull from some list that was never explained. Since I’m a iPhone and Office 365 email user, I don’t really use Gmail so my contacts weren’t stored in something that my glasses knew about. As a result, I found the whole contact management experience to be very poor – the worst I’ve used in fact since the pre-smart phone days. If you are a Gmail user this probably won’t be a problem, but honestly it annoyed me.

Camera Usage – Not as cool as expected

20140228_211752_006
My first Google Glass Photo – Whoops!
f/2.5 for 1/15 sec at ISO-954 @ 3mm
Click for full-size original

Something went wrong during my setup so I never got prompted (at first) on doing wink to take a photo. As a result, I found myself pressing the button on the glasses or using verbal commands.

What I quickly noticed was that the little preview area for the photo was much different than what was actually captured, so I often ended up with really bad shots like the one of my empty plate above. The quality was crap too with very interesting values in the EXIF metadata (see above).

I wasn’t sure how to get to my photos so I just wanted to send it to myself. Sadly I ended up accidentally sending it to one of those contacts I didn’t know because my swipe was misinterpreted as a tap when I scrolling my contact list. In fact, 100% of the photos I tried to share with myself or others ended up going to complete strangers!

Eventually I discovered that my photos are stored in my Photos section on Google+ (private to me unless I choose to make them public).

20140304_202218_381
My best Google Glass Photo – Sucks, huh!!!
f/2.5 for 1/15 sec at ISO-2176 @ 3mm

I was so unimpressed after 10 failed attempts of taking photos that I didn’t bother using the camera anymore.

Now What?!!!! – Let’s browse the web!

Frustrated by the camera and contacts I decided it would be cool to browse a web page or play a YouTube video. While I think the kinks will be worked out into something usable eventually, these tasks didn’t work out so well. Since you can’t type a direct URL (at least that I discovered), you have to Google search for what you want. I searched for my blog and my glasses read back to me a bunch of info about my blog. Neat, but not what I wanted.

Eventually I got to my site and they do have a clever mechanism for effectively using your head as the mouse pointer. It sorta works, but takes some getting used to.

Next up I repeated the process to play a YouTube video which at first seemed like it would work. Eventually I got the video to play but big controls covered up half of the video so it was really just a sliver of the video and audio that was played back – with a lot of issues (Bluetooth seemed to be the culprit).

Hum, how about trying out this has a hands free phone device?

With everything failing to impress me I decided to try to use my glasses as a hands free device. I eventually got paired with my phone which meant that my car didn’t want to pair with my phone when the glasses were paired. I resolved this by turning off my glasses, but I think there’s definitely room for some work here.

Using my phone I called some friends and family and everything seemed to work okay. This led me to the conclusion that I effectively had a $1500 Bluetooth headset that was bigger than any thing I’d ever used before.

The Social Experiment

GoogleGlassAtDentist
Glass at the Dentist

Highly unimpressed with my weekend experiment with the glasses I decided to conduct a social experiment and wear my Google Glasses for a day around town and at work.

My day started with a dentist appointment where you get the sunglasses to protect you from the glare. This illustrates the problem I had with my regular glasses where things just don’t pair well.

Surprisingly my hygienist said my glasses didn’t interfere, so I kept them on – and did nothing because the battery was dead. I usually go to bed around 3:00 AM and with a 7:00 AM wake up time for the dentist, that wasn’t enough time to charge my glasses for them to be of any use this day.

For the rest of the day I wore my glasses turned off and just observed what people would do. Fortunately nobody got hostile as I’ve heard has happened to some, but I did have a couple guys ask me about them. For the most part I got lots of stares and double takes with some being more obvious than others. If you are someone who doesn’t like to be looked at then don’t get these because you’ll get stared at sometimes like you’ve got a unicorn horn on your forehead!

Despite being happily married, I suspected I might get a conversation from women about them – but like most gadgets women seemed to ignore them. Even at my high tech company during the day they seemed to be of more interest to guys than gals.

I also noticed that after a couple hours the off balance weight started to be noticeable on my head so despite their light weight, they got a little cumbersome to wear. I took them off for an hour and then used them again and I was fine. Lesson learned – they aren’t really for all day use.

I did have some friends laugh when they saw me wearing them, and my boss’s boss said I looked like a dork. I figured that was better than being called a Glasshole, so I ended my experiment after only a day of field testing. 

In the end I thought they were cool to wear around, but I’m a geek and don’t mind talking about geek toys. However, I can see people thinking it is showing off, which people once did to cell phone users. I’d feel more comfortable if they were mainstream before actually wearing them out in public on a regular basis, but that kinda defeats the purpose of having them right?

Conclusion

In the end it was fun to get a chance to try this product out, but I can’t justify spending $1500 for them. Even if my employer were to reimburse me for them (and they didn’t), it just isn’t worth the hassle of the expense report because I know I won’t use them. They already have sat and collected dust for over a week, so there’s no point in keeping them.

These should be called NASA glasses because I think Google is pushing the envelope in many areas that will result in inventions that become useful in other products (like the space program has done). I can see these being really cool 10 years from now, and if enough people are wearing them then there won’t be the social stigma associated with wearing them.

For about $500 I can get a Galaxy S4 and $30 will get me a decent Bluetooth headset which will give me everything I get in Glass, but in a much better and easier to use manner. I’d still need the phone with Google Glass, so really I’m back to my earlier statement of paying $1500 for the most expensive Bluetooth headset ever!

My advice to my readers who are jonesing for these is to find a friend who has them and borrow theirs for a day. They’ll let you use them because they won’t be doing anything with them, but be sure to get the battery charger – you’ll need it! After a day or two you’ll have your fun and the newness will wear off enough to where you think – why would I want this?!!!

I do think this product has potential and this is a pre-release product, so who knows what they will become with more bake time. As a geek I wanted these to be great and I planned to keep them despite the cost. However, there just wasn’t enough there to keep my attention.

Things I’d Like to See Fixed

If the following issues were addressed I probably would have kept my copy of Google Glass – assuming they were paid for by someone other than me personally:

  • Needs a camera viewfinder-like diopter to better read the display for those who don’t wear glasses, but also don’t have perfect vision.
  • WiFi setup is too cumbersome and not practical when roaming. Needs to behave like a cell phone.
  • Cellular needs to be part of the glasses with a cheap signup option (like iPad’s with cellular offer).
  • Battery life is unacceptable. They should last at least 18 hours on a charge with average usage, and at least 8 under heavy full-time usage.
  • Contact management is poor and no current support from using your existing contacts if you aren’t on the Google platform (i.e., you use iOS, Exchange, etc…).
  • Camera quality is poor, framing is difficult, and accessing them is confusing until you figure it out on your own. If it’s not as good as a cell phone then what’s the point of using it? (unless you’re a perv in which case that’s why some people hate this product)
  • Integration with part-time third party glasses use needs to work better.
  • Weight needs to be better distributed without so much weight on the right ear.
  • Left eye version needed. My left eye has > 20/20 vision and my right is my bad eye, so I’d be better off with a left eye version.
  • It needs to be harder to accidentally get a tap when making a swiping gesture.
  • More durable – I still feel like they are going to break if I don’t baby them

Other articles you may enjoy

If you enjoyed this article, you may also enjoy these:

Disclosure

By day I work for a Google competitor, but my role includes staying abreast of new technology and understanding what makes competing products great. As a result, I tried to be as unbiased as I could in this review and share my honest personal opinions – as a geek – not an employee at a competing company. This article was written with no input from my daytime employer and done at home during personal time using my personal property.

This product was purchased by me personally for ronmartblog.com use with the intent of reviewing this product for my blog. My employer did not order or pay for this product nor was any attempt made to be deceitful in any way. I’ve answered all questions by Google truthfully and tried hard to carefully understand abide by the terms of the sale agreement.

In 2013, Google was my largest blog partners and one of my top sources of income. My partnership mostly with Google ended when they closed the Google Affiliate Network such that my current revenue per month is not enough to keep both my household vehicles fueled for the month. While I hold no ill will against Google for this, I felt it important to disclose this fact.

I do not make a commission or earn any direct revenue by publishing this article or other Google related articles (i.e., Nik Collection by Google products).

Friday, January 25, 2013

REVIEW: Storytellers by Jerod Foster

Storytellers: A Photographer's Guide to Developing Themes and Creating Stories with Pictures

Storytellers: A Photographer's Guide to Developing Themes and Creating Stories with Pictures by Jerod Foster is a book that grabbed my attention from the second I saw the cover. I thought oh, this is going to be a great book! I couldn’t wait to read it, but my busy schedule didn’t allow it until I took a long flight to Asia for vacation this past November. I had a stack of books with my for my long flight, but I started with this one first.

About 10 pages in I started to realize this might not be the book I thought it was going to be. About 20 pages in I started to get sleepy. About 30 pages in I was drooling on the book and hitting my head on the seat in front of me as I struggled to stay awake. After a short nap, I resumed reading and remained disappointed (and napped a few more times) until I got to the end.

What I discovered was that this book wasn’t the book that would teach me more about how to tell better stories with my photographs, but rather a book by a Texan telling stories about his  photographs. His photos weren’t the story – his words about them (sometimes seemingly unrelated to the photo) were the real story.

Most of my family is from Texas so I felt like I was sitting down with a cousin while he was telling me about his photo rather than the photo speaking for itself. I think the intent of the author was to teach, but I didn’t feel that his attempt was effective.

Conclusion

This book was not what I was expecting. The cover photo is great, but much of what follows are dull and uninspiring photos from Texas that don’t really tell much of a story at all. There’s an ineffective attempt at real education on how to tell a story with a photo via the exercises and discussions of themes, colors, gesture, etc… that don’t really work (and yes, I tried the exercises after getting to my destination).

Believe the bad reviews on Amazon – this book fails to inspire or accomplish its objective. If you really think you need to read this book (like I once did), then go for it but don’t say I didn’t warn you.

As an author of three books myself, I know how hard it is to write a book. You put your heart and soul in it, so it’s painful for me to say that my advice is NOT RECOMMENDED. However, this blog is based on telling it like it is, so that’s the advice I’d give a friend so I have to do the same for my readers.

Where to order

Click here to order Storytellers: A Photographer's Guide to Developing Themes and Creating Stories with Pictures by Jerod Foster from Amazon in print or Kindle format.

Other articles you may enjoy

If you enjoyed this article, you may also enjoy these:

Disclosure

If you make a purchase using links found in this article, I may make a commission. It doesn’t cost you a penny more, but it does help to support future articles like this.

Monday, January 14, 2013

REVIEW: Canon EOS M–Taking the Fun Out of Photography


Canon EOS M with 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
Yeah, you’ve got to do this at least once ;-)

Let me just say up front that if you are looking for an article that makes you feel good about wanting an EOS M then you’ve come to the wrong place. While I enjoy reviewing cameras, there’s no camera that I’ve wanted to return faster than this one because I disliked it so much (well, the Nikon 1 V1 was close and previously held that title).

Why I Hate This Camera (Skip this if you don’t care why)

The reason why I hated this camera is because I’m just don’t get who the target audience really is for this camera. In the world I live in I see the need for one to three cameras for most people with the following logic:

  • Cell Phone Camera – This is the camera that’s always with you and hopefully is one that doesn’t suck. For me it’s the iPhone 5 and it gets the shots that are just for me to share with my friends on Facebook and to capture a moment that would otherwise be lost without it (like where my car is parked at the airport – ha, ha). Cell phones like the Nokia 920 even rival the higher end compact cameras! For many people, this is the only camera they really need – but not you if you are reading this.
  • Compact Cameras – This is the camera that you whip out when your cell phone just won’t do, but you don’t want the hassle of the DSLR. You get this camera because you want more control than your cell phone gives you (you know, like being able to control the depth of field, shutter speed to avoid blur or ISO to kill the noise when you can keep your camera stable, etc…). These days these cameras are getting so good that many rival lower end DSLR’s, and some are so fun to use that even photography enthusiasts can enjoy a creative outlet in a compact package. With great cameras like the X20 and RX100 this may be all “real photographers” who shoot for a hobby really need.
  • Interchangeable Lens Cameras – This is for the serious enthusiast or part-time semi-pro photographer who is willing to make a serious investment in their photography to match the right lens to the scene. This is the buyer who wants the best and is willing to pay for it. Now for some the appeal of the micro-four thirds meets their needs and for others it’s a full-blown DSLR. However, for both camps I argue that this is the person who wants full creative control over their shots and wants quick access to the change the focus point, shutter speed, aperture, and ISO as needed.

Of course there’s other categories of cameras and pro shooters have a need for multiple interchangeable lens cameras, but the point is that for much of the photography enthusiast world this pretty much covers what most people will need or want.

Now at first glance one might think that the EOS M falls into the third category since it has a large APS-C sensor like you’d find on a 60D, interchangeable lenses and even a hot shoe. However, this camera fails miserably in the all-important “quick access” feature that I think is critical to serious photography.

The fatal flaw of the EOS M is that it is going for the minimalistic approach of the cell phone camera with serious features buried behind nested touch screen menus. It’s clear from the design this camera is designed for the picture taker (I can’t say photographer) who finds a cell phone about as difficult as they can handle, but they long to look like their friends with DSLR’s.

Now I’m not saying these are stupid people because you have to be well off to afford this nearly $800 camera plus the additional lenses and accessories (like a flash which isn’t included), but it seems that Canon is targeting this to someone who finds a Sony NEX-7 to be just too complex to use.

Despite the strengths of this camera, I just don’t see the point of a camera that has been dumbed down even more than a s110, yet it has no built-in flash and it requires you to read the manual (which many DSLR owners fail to do) just to get out of the cell phone-like automatic modes. Perhaps, if you are an amateur videographer you might find some value in this camera, but even then I’d argue that you’d want more control and features than this camera offers.

What I Do Like About this Camera


f/4 @ 28 mm (24-105mm), 1/320, ISO 100, AWB
Unprocessed In-Camera JPEG – Standard Picture Style

Okay, so now that I got that off my chest I can focus on what’s good about this camera. In practice I found this camera to be very much like a T4i in a nearly touch only body with what seemed to be better ISO performance and dynamic range. This is a good thing, especially with the must have EF/EF-S lens adapter as it means you can get some great shots if you work hard enough at it.

A Real World Lens Comparison

In my sample gallery I have bookshelf shots for those who want to pixel peep three of the lenses I tested with, but here’s a quick real world practical test that illustrates similar behavior I found with other frames. These shots were chosen not to send a religious message but simply because they were good examples under challenging conditions and are similar to high ISO shots of this same subject used in other reviews.


f/2.8 @ 22 mm (kit lens), 1/40, ISO 800
Lack of stabilization and sharpness
made me quickly avoid the 22mm lens

In my testing I found that the included 22m kit lens was disappointing (sample shown above), but the optically darker but stabilized 18-55mm zoom lens was much more practical in everyday use. Here’s an example of the same shot above with the :


The EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Lens performed well for a $299 lens
f/4 @ 26 mm (18-55mm), 1/50, ISO 1600, AWB, No Flash

If you have an investment in EF or EF-S lenses, then the EF/EF-S lens adapter is a must as you can use the best lenses Canon makes to get great results. The downside is that the improved AF performance (and IS when applicable) comes at a cost of draining the battery very quickly. Here’s a sample using my old EF 24-105mm f/4L IS with the adapter which offers edge to edge sharpness improvement at a cost of $799 more for the lens plus another $200 for the adapter:


My EF 24-105mm f/4L IS (with adapter) had better edge sharpness, but it cost $700 more!
f/4 @ 24 mm (
24-105mm), 1/40, ISO 1600, AWB

If you are going to get this camera your takeaway should be to get the adapter if you own existing  Canon lenses, but if you don’t you’ll find the 18-55mm to be a good starter lens in terms of both size and performance (and especially battery life).

Good Lenses + Patience = Sometimes Good Results


When mastered, the EOS M can produce excellent results even with EF-M lenses
f/5.6 @ 44 mm (18-55mm), 1/80, ISO 640, No Flash, AWB
Click for original in-camera JPEG

If you are prepared to read the manual for this camera and learn how to use it properly, it will reward you when you match it to the right lens. It’s also quiet handy to point on the touch screen LCD to quickly pick your AF point (like the T4i offers), but you must be careful as grabbing this small camera body can also result in accidentally relocating the AF point – A LOT.

Bookshelf Test


Bookshelf Testing did include the 70-200mm

If you are frequent reader and are looking for my bookshelf test shots, you can find an assortment with three lenses at http://www.ronmartinsen.com/canon/eosm/e52365dee. As usual for non DSLR’s these are all in-camera JPEG’s all shot the same way. Touch to focus made it hard to get the same level of accuracy as I get with my other cameras tested, and it seemed easy for the meter to want to over expose by 1 stop.

image
In the center the smaller lenses perform well, but it’s at the edges where the expensive lenses show their value. Even at up to 55mm the EF-M lenses were only super sharp in the center.


Using the 70-200mm, here’s the best I got out of this sensor (but it was 1 stop over exposed)
f/5.6 @ 100 mm, 10s, ISO 100, No Flash, Manual Mode, AWB


Using the 70-200mm, here’s the best of the worst ISO 12,800
You MUST view at full size to see compare details
f/5.6 @ 100 mm, 1/13, ISO 12800

Overall I felt that ISO performance up to ISO 1600 was excellent, but even 3200 was good. 6400 under the right conditions was tolerable and 12,800 was usable but not suitable for printing above 4x6 prints.

For those wondering about RAW’s, see my other articles as to why I don’t include them. Yes, I do have the RAW’s and will make them available on demand for personal use only if you give me a free location to drop them. However, the delta of difference is the same in the RAW’s vs JPEG’s.

Video

I’m no videographer, but overall I found that with a good lens and decent light the video quality was very good. This is no camcorder though so expect DSLR like performance. The STM lenses do allow for near silent zooming and auto focus and the built-in audio was on par with DSLR’s.

Real World Sample Shots

Click here to see my full gallery of real world sample shots. These are the in-camera JPEG’s with zero post processing. With exception of the bookcase shots, all were taken handheld and where possible in the automatic modes to test the camera – not the photographer.

Be sure to look at the filenames to see which lens was used. Blurry or focus miss shots were included to point out shortcomings of focusing by touch or using the auto modes.


Bokeh freaks – yes, it’s possible – even here where I was riding at 70mph on a rough road <g>
f/4 @ 58 mm (24-105mm), 1/500, ISO 100, AWB, No Flash


The large APS-C sensor means you can control the depth of field very well
f/5 @ 37 mm (18-55mm), 1/30, ISO 6400, AWB, No Flash


I was impressed with the dynamic range and detail in the images
f/4.5 @ 28mm (18-55mm), 1/50, ISO 250, No Flash, AWB


High ISO performance was good, and seemed superior to the T4i, 60D and 7D
f/4 @ 105mm (24-105mm), 1/50, ISO 6400, AWB, No Flash


This doesn’t appear to be a lame G1X with interchange lenses as color depth seems to be better
f/5 @ 42mm (18-55mm), 1/80, ISO 160, No Flash, AWB


At times like this, I wanted to like this camera
f/4 @ 18mm (18-55mm), 1/30, ISO 3200, No Flash, AWB


Despite its size, this is no point and shoot. Just like a DSLR can burn you, so will this camera.
Sadly, I found it’s slow AF – even with good lenses to be problematic.
Unless you went to Manual mode, I found moving people to be impossible in all AF modes

Mouse over to see before, mouse out to see after
External flash is required, yet painfully difficult to use in all but 0EV ETTL
f/4 @ 25mm (18-55mm), 1/60, ISO 1600,
600EX-RT Flash
Mouse over to see the ISO 4000 no flash version

Mouse over to see before, mouse out to see after
I preferred the Shade White Balance over Vivid Mode (mouse over)
f/4 @ 45 mm (24-105mm), 1/80, ISO 160, No Flash

Conclusion

Putting a 24-105mm lens and a 600EX-RT on this body just feels stupid, and its touch screen makes it so easy to accidentally reposition the focus point that it becomes a real challenge to use this camera. This coupled with the reality that you have to go on a mission to change many camera settings made this a very unenjoyable camera to use, despite it’s decent image quality. This means you are then forced to either live without a flash or use the lame and bulky 90EX Flash and a EOS-M lens which would probably be bashed if that caliber lens were sold for a real DSLR.

In the end, I’d rather have a Sony NEX-7 which offers a built-in flash and superior physical controls as well as almost all of the benefits of the EOS M. I applaud Canon for trying to compete in the new interchangeable lens compact camera segment, but honestly this is almost as bad as the abysmal Nikon 1 V1. Canon and Nikon are the kings of the DSLR’s, but it seems that the small camera makers (i.e., Fujifilm, Panasonic, Sony and Olympus) still own this space.

If you are a parent or pet owner, I DO NOT recommend that you get this camera. It will frustrate you to no end as its too cumbersome to set the camera to the settings you need to get the shot (and even if you do, many settings are lost when the power goes off automatically). The touch to focus is also impossible for a child and the shutter lag makes the face tracking nearly useless (see the blurry photos at Tokyo Steakhouse in my gallery).

Where To Buy

If you are a die hard Canon person who has just gotta have one of these, and you appreciated my honesty then please support this blog by using my links when ordering. Empty your cart and click the links below to give me credit for your referral:

Other articles you might enjoy…

Disclosure

B&H loaned this camera and two lenses to me for the purpose of this review. If you make a purchase using links found in this article, I may make a commission.

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

REVIEW: PocketWizard Plus III–Too Little, Too Late


PocketWizard Plus III

When I first heard about the new PocketWizard Plus III, I thought – woohoo – I can finally get the power of the PocketWizard MultiMax for less than half the price! I also loved the new design, so as the (former) owner of three Canon 580EX II flashes and a ST-E2, I figured that for less than a new 600EX-RT I could radio control all of my flashes. Of course, I wouldn’t have ETTL like the MiniTT1 and FlexTT5  (review), but I appreciated that they wouldn’t be as bulky and hopefully not as problematic.

At first glance, they seem great. In fact, after watching this video I was convinced that they were so good that they’d be worth the hassle of not having ETTL:

Getting to Know the PocketWizard Plus® III with Mark Wallace from PocketWizard on Vimeo.

The video is spot on in that these units feature a great design, very easy to use group features, auto relay, high speed receive, and more. You can go to the Pocket Wizard Plus III Wiki and Mini Site (full of videos and more) to learn all about that. I’m not here to convince you that you need these – I’m hear to do what most web sites are afraid to do – I’m going to give you my real world impression of these.

Real World Testing

A lot of my readers are geeks, so what I’m often asked is how does one product perform versus another on a technical level. The actual act of taking a photo with the flash and getting great light is a function of the flash and the photographer, so the PocketWizard Plus III is little more than a tool to help make sure that the camera and flash can talk to each other in all conditions. As a result, I focused my energy in this review to simply seeing how it performs to some other products I’ve reviewed recently.

Outdoor Range Test

What I really wanted to see was how this trigger compared to the new Canon 600EX RT and ST-E3 flash system to see if I could get away with leveraging these with my 580EX II’s instead of buying the more expensive flashes. Sadly, I wasn’t expecting the results that I observed yesterday.

Here’s what I typically saw when I tried to take a shot from about 80 feet away from my flash with a PocketWizard Plus III in TxRx mode (as well as LX – made NO difference):


About 80 feet was doable but very sporadic
The optical trigger built-in to the 580EX II was more reliable at this range

Yeah, that’s a picture of a flash not firing. While I could reliably tap the test button and get it to fire up to about 90 feet away, using my camera I got about 5 flashes out of 50+ shots at about 80 feet. It seems my face causes interference because if I moved my camera away and shot the ground or something else it would fire with no problem. To my right were some hedges and a fence, but if I went past that barrier to my right then there was no getting the flash to fire – even if it was closer in than 80 feet.

Thinking that it might be my hot shoe, tried removing (and even swapping) the units – but no luck. I had fresh batteries in all my devices and even a Canon CP-E4 Compact Battery Pack with fresh batteries. Finally out of desperation, I just went to the optical trigger of the 580EX II (the built-in system) using another 580EX II to trigger it and I easily and reliably got 80 feet – over and over again.

YES, you read that right – the built-in optical triggers of the 580EX II were more reliable than the PocketWizard Plus III in my testing. However, the range of 580EX II’s were the same as the PocketWizard Plus III’s. The next two shots show the range of the 600EX RT first using another 600EX RT as the trigger and second using a ST-E3 as the trigger:


Max distance with the 600-EX RT was about 115 feet as shown here.
Notice the sewer cover, hydrant and lamp post.


216 feet was the farthest distance that I could reliably shoot with the ST-E3 RT.
FWIW, I’m shooting at 200mm for all of these shots!

I was pretty dejected after my testing because I had such high hopes for these new PocketWizards. I even searched the web, re-read the manual, wiki, and more trying to find out if I was doing something wrong. Heck, I even contacted my photographer mentor thinking that I must have made a mistake. As far as I can tell, I didn’t – but even if I did, the fact remains the only device that has let me down thus far was the PocketWizard Plus III.

Now, some might blame these results on the fact that I was using a 5D Mark III, but everything I’ve read on the PocketWizard web site says that my camera is compatible with these (but it still has issues with the MiniTT1 and FlexTT5). Others may ask about the LR (long-range) mode and using Tx Only and Rx Only, but I tried that and still the results did not change. Finally I even tried a new location thinking that the light pole or hydrant might be causing interference, but I got identical results.

Indoor Testing

Indoors I expected things to get much better, but sadly they didn’t. In my testing the PocketWizard Plus III’s required direct line of sight (which the manual also states) in order to fire. WTF???? – That’s the same limitation of the 580EX II’s optical trigger system, so really using these on my flashes just added bulk and reduced reliability!  Compare this to my Canon 600EX-RT Wireless Real World Test where I reliably shot with my flash complete obscured – ALL of these tests failed with the PocketWizard Plus III!

This is NOT what I was expecting! Of course, if I was close in proximity then they worked very reliable – just like the 580EX II’s themselves.

The only benefits of the PocketWizard Plus III’s found during my testing were:

  • Ability to remote trigger the camera (including half-press wakeup/focus – SWEET)
  • Repeater Mode
  • Much better burst mode (using HSR mode) where the flash fired reliably at 7fps for 49 flashes in a row before I stopped testing.
  • Very nice design for quick access to group selection

Conclusion

Flash technology has improved so much recently that I thought these would just be my answer for remote triggering using my existing flashes. Sure, I’d lose ETTL (which is a big loss), but I can dial back the power and get good results in manual (which I have to do on studio lights anyway). However, these units really let me down. They are dinosaurs in a sexy new suit, but they won’t end up in my studio.

My advice to Canon and Nikon shooters using the previous generation flashes – don’t be envious, what you have already is way better than these. You can try for yourself, but unless my units were defective I think you’ll find that there’s really no point in using these with 580EX II’s or SB-900 or SB-910’s. This is really for the strobist of the world using cheap Vivtars or other knockoffs that don’t have radio or optical triggering.

I do not recommend this product, but if you think I’m full of crap you can click here to buy them here at B&H.

Other Articles You Might Enjoy

Disclosure

If you make a purchase using products featured in my blog, I may make a commission . This means that it is in my best interest to tell you these are great and to buy them, but I can’t in good conscious do that.

My business partner, B&H, was kind enough to loan me two units for this test.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

REVIEW: Velbon GEO E540 4-Section Carbon Fiber Tripod

This is really a mini-review of the Velbon GEO E540 4-Section Carbon Fiber Tripod because quite honestly I’m not a big fan of it.

If you look at the specs this seems like the dream tripod, but when you actually get it in your hands you realize that it’s not nearly as well made as the Induro CT014 yet it cost more – it just doesn’t make sense to me.

Here’s what I DO like about this tripod

Velbon GEO E540 full extended with the rock pouch attached adn a RRS BH-55 head
Fully Extended with Rock Pouch

This is a nice lightweight carbon fiber tripod that is in a small package with a nice batch of extras thrown in. It’s clear that the designers were trying to make the perfect tripod that had everything you’d want in one package, but sadly the design isn’t supported by a quality built product. If it were, my review might be much different.

Velbon GEO E540 Rock Pouch
Rock Pouch

Here’s a few noteworthy features:

  • The center column is in segments and can be quickly lowered or raised. It is a pain to flip, but that’s true of all tripods so that’s no knock here.
  • When extending the legs there are marks to help you set the same exact point on the others legs – this is a great feature that others should copy.
  • The feet have built-in spikes with covers. This sounds great until you use it and then you discover the covers are loose when covering the spikes so its easy to get the spikes to pop out and you worry about loosing the feet.
  • It has a brilliant built-in case / stone pouch that is the best solution I’ve seen to date. Again, I wish others had it, and this is a great design, but I’m not impressed with the materials used and long-term structural integrity.
  • For those that don’t like the pouch it offers a big hook to hang your bag, but it doesn’t stow away nicely (it must be added and removed rather than hiding away like other tripods)

Velbon GEO E540 Hook
A Hook For When The Rock Pouch Won’t Do

Why I’m not a fan of this tripod

As I mentioned in my Induro CT014 review, I hate plastic on tripods and this tripod is chock full of it. In fact, it has the same cheapo plastic leg locks that I despise on Bogen-Manfrotto legs. In addition the head mount would certainly break on its first fall on the concrete, so that’s a big turn off for me.

Velbon GEO E540 Cheap Plastic Base with 1/4" Head Fitting Stud
This base couldn’t survive one international flight I’ve been on

Here’s some noteworthy things that annoyed me about this tripod:

  • It has no reversible stud so most heads that use a standard 3/8” fitting will need to an adapter to accommodate its puny 1/4” head attachment fitting.
  • The foam used around the top of the legs is the cheapo kind that doesn’t hold up well over time.
  • As mentioned previously, the leg locks and head fitting use cheap plastic that isn’t in the same league as my tripod recommendations.
  • The built-in spikes with covers are very poorly designed and cheap

Velbon GEO E540 Leg Markings and Locks
The markings are great, but the leg locks suck

Conclusion

I can not recommend this tripod at all as I do not think it is well made. I’d recommend bargain hunters go with the cheaper Induro CT014  or if you care about quality go with the Gitzo GT1541 that I bought in August 2011 after enjoying them so much during my review.

If you still think you must have this tripod, then please support this blog by purchasing it via this link.

Disclosure

I may make a commission if you purchase any of the products mentioned in this article when you click my links. Thanks for supporting my blog by returning and using my links when you order.

B&H has provided me with this product to review and I have returned it to them when my review was completed.

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Review: Bower SFD926C Digital Shoe Mount Flash for Canon SLR


Bower SFD926C Digital Shoe Mount Flash for Canon SLR

When I got my hands on the Bower SFD926C Digital Shoe Mount Flash for Canon SLR’s I was pretty jazzed when I looked at the specs and saw that this $104 flash (as of the time of this article) was able to support ETTL and act as a off-camera slave. I thought it might be a good flash to recommend to beginners and one I could add to my off-collection collection as you can never have enough off-camera flashes (as Joe McNally proves quite well in his book Hot Shoe Diaries).

Operation


Rear View

This is no high tech device here. You simply mount it to your camera (which can be tricky using the wheel lock it has – careful to get it tight to prevent falling), and turn the switch to on. At that point you’ll get the feeling that you are on a jet as you’ll hear this high pitched whirling sound you haven’t heard from a flash since you were a child (or in the case of many of my younger readers – never in your life).

Using identical batteries between my Canon 580 EX II flash and this one I observed that the flash recycle time for the Canon was under a second and about 4 seconds for this flash. Again, that’s using the same batteries back and forth – with two test iterations.

In the real world this long flash delay during startup and between flashes results in missed shots like the one below (mouse over) versus the nice shot when it actually fires as it should.

Mouse over to see firing before ready, mouse out to see a normal flash
Shot A – 0 Flash Exposure Compensation Flash Fired as Intended (Mouse Out)
Shot B – Same Settings but fired too soon after turning on the flash (Mouse Over)
Both are bounce flash off the ceiling to my rear

During this same session I decide to do a straight on flash to see what would happen and the results were rather shocking. The shots below are at -1 2/3 and –3 flash exposure compensation with TTL turned on, so it is clear to me that in this mode the TTL doesn’t do its job every well – at least not in these conditions:

Mouse over to see before, mouse out to see after
Head On Flash
-1 2/3 Flash Exposure Compensation Shown (Mouse Out)
-3 Flash Exposure Compensation Shown (Mouse Over)

That clearly didn’t work, but here’s how the 580 EX II handled it – same head on flash with no flash exposure compensation and using the same batteries:


Canon 580 EX II fired head on with no exposure compensation
just as I had done with the Bowers in the shots above this one

Moving out into the hall way at a far away subject that was in the dark I tried the same test again. The first is test was done with the Bower flash set at –3 flash exposure compensation (FEV):


Bower Flash – Head On
Even at –3 FEV the LCD blinkies came on as this is a pretty high key shot

The shots below were done with the 580 EX II at 0 flash exposure compensation (Mouse Out) and and –3 (Mouse Over):

Mouse over to see before, mouse out to see after
Canon 580 EX II – Head On
At 0 FEV (Mouse Out) the results were about what I expected
but I would have added some FEV for a real shot

At –3 FEV after the Bower test the Canon did exactly what it should
it produced a very dark shot

Advantage Canon and spending more money – no doubt! Having more light is good – when you can control it, but this is clearly a flash that is out of control with head on shooting. The TTL just doesn’t get it done.

Mouse over to see the Bower SFD926C photo (yes, it is black), mouse out to see the Canon 580 EX II
580 EX II Off Camera (Mouse Out)
vs
SFD926C Off Camera (Mouse Over)

The slave mode switch works in the sense that it does fire a flash, but I failed to ever get it to emit enough light to actually do anything with my shoot through umbrella that was facing down. Hover over the photo above to compare the 580 EX II results (shown) and the 926C’s results (mouse over) – yes, that’s a pure black image – it fired (check the EXIF), but it didn’t emit enough light. I did 10 tests – all the same results. All conditions were equal between the two flashes and they used the same batteries, but the 926C just wasn’t up to the task.


Bounce Flash Card

The bounce card comes up and works fine and the head rotates for bouncing the flash of the walls. I took a series of shots using both techniques and the results were identical. Here’s an unmodified example of bouncing the flash off the ceiling behind me (head rotated the exact opposite of what’s shown in the picture above):


Bounce Flash produces the best results
-1 2/3 Flash Exposure Compensation

This is by far the best way to use this flash and it emits a ton of light so you’ll definitely need some flash exposure compensation. I found –1 2/3 to –3 to be the best during my indoor testing. Doing this results in usable shots, but this photo doesn’t tell the whole story. What it doesn’t show is the 4 seconds between each shot that I needed to wait in order to shoot again which for a child is eternity. The Canon 580 EX II recharged near instantly using the same batteries from the Bower after I tested it.

A Word about the Sample Photos

A picture is worth a thousand words so I’ve included a series of shots taken during my testing (which consisted of about 40 shots before I had all of the data I needed).. All of these shots were taken with a Canon 1D Mark IV in manual mode set to 1/200 sec @ f/4 using ISO 100 or 200 with the Flash white balance preset and the external flash fired. I was using my 24-105mm lens with IS on at a variety of focal lengths. ALL photos are in-camera jpeg’s that have been totally untouched and simply exported from Lightroom at a lower resolution for faster web loading. Even white balance and cropping are unmodified.

Conclusion

If you are doing bounce flashes and you crank the exposure compensation down this flash can produce results that can be tamed with in-camera settings making it obviously better than no flash at all. However, when pointing it directly at your subject or putting it off camera to shoot through an umbrella it simply doesn’t work.

As a business owner for many years I try hard to be respectful of other business owners, so if a product does extremely poorly in a review I usually give that company a call to explain to them why I seriously dislike their product and work with them to offer product improvements. In those situations I may elect to limit my honest opinion about those products to personal conversations, but I don’t review them on the blog as I don’t feel it is appropriate to totally bash a product in an article. This means that if you see a product reviewed on my blog, you can trust that I either liked the product or I gave my honest and unfiltered feedback.

For this product my feedback is very simple – I wouldn’t personally buy or recommend this flash to anyone. Unless my unit was defective, I found the results I experienced to be horrible and completely unacceptable. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that I wouldn’t even give this flash away to a friend for fear of ruining a relationship!

My advice to Bower is to take this product off the market and fix the TTL or market the existing unit as a hot shoe mountable flash light as that how this unit that I evaluated behaved.

Disclaimer

A blog partner provided me with an evaluation unit for the purpose of this review. If you make purchases using the links in this article then I may get a commission. Thanks for supporting this blog!