mike sisk

One option is this: <a href="http://www.truckvault.com">

http://www.truckvault.com</a>

<p>

I generally just don't worry about it. My gear is insured just in case and most of the time,

especially in National Parks and such, it's just not likely to be a problem.

<p>

The only time I worry a bit is if I have a super-telephoto with me. I was out on the Oregon

coast this weekend shooting with a 400mm f/4 DO and I just hate the way these big white

lenses draw attention. I even had one fellow approach me and ask how much it cost!

<p>

I also drive a Honda Element (which I think is the perfect nature photographer's car) and

find the back windows and deep well in the back do a pretty good job of hiding stuff. I

usually just toss a coat or sleeping bag over my gear and that does a pretty good job --

just glancing in it's hard to tell if there's anything in the back if it's covered with

something dark.

<p>

Another option is to carry your gear in a diaper bag, the cuter the better. No one steals a

diaper bag! And old beat-up cooler in the back works, too.

Pre-digital I used the 100mm macro a lot, not just for macro but as a general short

telephoto.

On a 1.6x crop body I find the 100mm too long for my tastes. I recently switched to a 40D

from the 1-Series and picked up a 60mm EF-S with it. Very nice, lightweight combination.

Very sharp and the perfect focal length -- for me.

I'd say the choice between the two comes down to how much working distance you desire.

Most folks doing bugs, flowers, and other nature macro things perfer the 100mm (or even

the 180mm L) for the greater working distance (which is especially handy if you're using

strobes for lighting).

-Mike

"Photoshop Lightroom Adventure" by Mikel Aaland.

This covers 1.1 and is a book of a different sort -- it shows how you can use Lightroom in

the context of a photo shoot Iceland.

I highly recommend this, but check it out in person first -- it's a bit different compared to the

typical how-to book.

-Mike

Tests of my EF-S 10-22mm vs. my 16-35mm on a 40D at f/8 show them to be almost

identical. I think the 16-35mm is a little sharper overall, but you really gotta pixel peep to

see it.

But the 10-22mm is a little more than half the weight of the 16-35mm. After several

years of lugging a 1D2N/16-35mm combo around the 40D/10-22mm combo is a

welcome relief to my back!

-Mike

I believe it was the movie "Lost in Space" where they used a bunch of 35mm Canon A2s

on Bogen 410 gear heads to do the "bullet time" (or whatever they called it) effects when

the ship went into hyperspace.

I can't remember where I read about it (probably "American Cinematographer") but I recall

the article talking about what they had to do to synchronize 'em.

If you can't find anything with that info, check out sportsshooter.com -- some of the folks

over there work for places like SI and occasionally they need to synchronize a number of

cameras to get sequence shots of Barry Bonds or the Kentucky Derby (for example).

-Mike

Daniel, I think satellite access is your only hope for now.

It's been 5 years since I used it, but overall the Hughes system was certainly acceptable. I

don't think you'll have any problems with uploads since the bandwidth up is limited, but

there may be download caps you could run up against since total bandwidth to and from

the satellite is a fixed and expensive resource. I suspect you'll be ok if you refrain from

downloading pirated movies and such.

You might want to do some online research at places like the forums on dslreports.com

(which isn't limited to DSL like their name suggests) and see what people think of the

satellite offerings nowadays. Just keep in mind that folks having trouble are more vocal

than those who aren't.

Colin, 50-Mbit/sec sounds impressive, but the overall surfing experience isn't much

different that regular 5-Mbit/sec DSL service. The limiting factor becomes the server at

the other end, and a surprising number of hosts still have equipment plugged into 10-

Mbit/sec Ethernet switches and routers. Of course, if I need to download something like a

Linux ISO from a well-connected server it goes pretty darn fast.

I'm not sure what country you're from, but unlike a lot of Europe, here in the US the build-

out of the cell network has been done by multiple corporations with competing and

incompatible networks. So you'll see stupid things like three or four cell phone towers

right next to each other on hilltops and ridges. It's such a waste of not only resources but

of frequency bandwidth since these systems must all have their own frequency bands.

Of course, they say the competition is good and drives prices down. Somehow it hasn't

worked out that way. Most countries have cell service that's much, much better than what

we in the US have at much lower rates.

-Mike

"Do they not have broadband in those parts? I thought modems were all but dead these

days."

Nope, not really.

For those of us that live in cities it's easy for forget that there's technical limitations on the

common types of broadband (cable-modem and DSL) that limit their use in rural areas.

[ I did my time in the country and I'm now a city dweller next to a major Intel campus and

have fiber optic connectivity at 50-Mbit for a fraction of the cost I paid for a 1.5-Mbit T1

in New Hampshire (let's see what's the term I'm looking for? Oh, yeah: w00t!) ]

If you're more than several miles from a telco trunk or outside an area with cable TV

service (that is, most of the rural US), you're screwed when it comes to broadband. More

people than you realize are still stuck on dial-up.

Part of the interest in the recent FCC 700-MHz frequency band auction by folks like

google is that this frequency is ideal for longer-range broadband applications.

And if the cell phone companies could ever get their act together and roll out their

broadband services country-wide we'd all be better off and folks in rural areas could at

least get reasonable connectivity.

-Mike

I had a Hughes setup on an RV awhile back. It worked well enough, but at the time the

upload speed was erratic.

Heavy rain and snow will totally block the signal since these systems work at microwave

frequencies and moisture in the air greatly attenuates the signal. However, in the picture

below the system was still working fine.

Cold won't affect the system at all and may actually help since sub-zero air contains less

water vapor. Cloud cover won't affect it much either, unless it's actively raining.

We had the same problem when we lived out in the boonies. Satellite didn't work for us

since we needed to interactively login to remote servers -- a satellite system bouncing a

signal 4 times to geosynchronous orbit -- 25k miles up -- has a lot of latency. We were

able to get a commercial T1 line strung out to us for just under $1000 a month -- we

needed it for our business but even that isn't available everywhere.

You might look into cell service, too -- if you're lucky you might have access to a tower

with G3-ish internet capabilities that might work just as well as satellite -- that's what I

do when I'm on the road nowadays.

There's some new long-range wireless services available in rural areas where they put

transmitters on grain elevators and such, but I don't know much about 'em except it's line

of site and limited to flat areas.

Oh, random trivia that I just noticed -- in the attached picture that's Philip Greenspun's RV

in the background. He stored it at our place when we lived in New Hampshire.

-Mike<div></div>

Mark, no need to be rude -- it certainly happens that some copies of lenses aren't as good as

others. It's possible to get a bad 50mm f/1.8.

And while a "normal" FOV lens ain't my cup of tea, it fits the needs of many. I bet lots of folks

have decent 50mm zoo pics they could share with us.

-Mike

"...Why can't they just take the tilt-shift of that lens and market it "plain" lens?"

It's not that easy.

First, the TS-E lenses are all manual focus.

Next, since these are designed to shift, the image circle produced by the lens is much

larger than necessary for a non-shifting mount. This makes the lens much larger

and heavier than needed in non-shifty mode.

And, lastly, it's "only" f/2.8, which apparently isn't especially desirable nowadays in a short

focal length prime.

So, Canon could do this, but it'd be large, heavy and probably cost over $1k.

Canon would be better off doing a 45mm from scratch.

Again, it's not a technical question -- they can do it -- it's a business one. While they

might sell "a ton" of cheap fast primes, there's probably more profit in one 16-35mm L

zoom than a hundred 50mm f/1.8 primes.

Welcome to the new business world of photography being a subset of the consumer

electronics industry. ;-(

-Mike

"...I did not see the macro you listed. Great lens, but slow."

An f/2.8 lens is now considered "slow"? Oh, my goodness.

Y'all need to go out and shoot some 8x10 with a 300mm "normal" lens. Load it up with some

Fuji RVP Velvia 50 and you'll learn what slow really is. ;-)

-Mike

"...in the sense that I want Canon to keep the APS sensor, but design some good format-

dedicated glass for it, ..."

Like the EF-S 10-22mm? It's a very sharp high-quality lens that's just as good as the

16-35mm f/2.8L (although not as fast).

Or the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro (a prime!)? Very, very sharp. And, like the 180mm Macro,

it's internal focusing which is very nice on a macro lens.

Or how about the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS? All the reviews I've read rate this lens as good

as or better than any L zoom in this range. Plus, with a 27mm equivalent FOV at f/2.8

*and* 3 stops of IS there's nothing like it in "full frame".

I'd say Canon is doing a pretty good job so far providing us with some high-quality EF-S

format specific glass.

-Mike

<i>"Also be reminded that the going to the sun road closes on sunday night the 16th."</i>

<p>

Man, that suck's -- I was planning on heading that way later in the month. I guess I'll have to

head for Yellowstone or Sequoia instead...

<p>

-Mike

<i>... something like a 5D and 50 f/1.4 combo. Perfect in weight and image quality.</i>

<p>Then you're in luck. A 40D with a 28mm f/1.8 lens will weigh less and cost a *whole

lot* less (like half) than a 5D / 50mm f/1.4 combo.

<p>Image quality between the two is more-or-less the same and you probably won't miss

the 2/3-stop you loose with the 28mm.

<p>Keep in mind a true "normal" lens isn't really possible on a 1.6 crop camera (where

"normal" is defined as a lens with a focal length equal to the diagonal of the sensor and

the

distance from the sensor plane to the rear nodal point of the lens is the focal length).

<p>Let's see, using a 40D for example with a sensor dimension of 22.5mm x 14.8mm we

get a diagonal measurement of 26.93mm: that's the focal length for a "normal" lens on a

40D. All EOS camera's have a lens flange to sensor/film plane measurement of 44mm. The

EF-S mount gives us a little more room to sink the rear nodal point of the lens into the

body, and while I don't have that measurement on hand I'm sure it's less than the

17.07mm

we're short.

<p>That means a "normal" lens on the 40D will require a retrofocus design where the rear

nodal point to sensor plane dimension is greater than the focal length of the lens. This is

more expensive and heavier, unless you want to use molded plastic lens elements like

those oh-so-high-quality kit lenses.

<p>In other words, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for Canon to release a new, cheap,

lightweight, and high-quality EF-S prime of normal focal length for the 1.6x crop cameras.

<p>Just get the 28mm f/1.8 -- it's a good lens, doesn't cost that much, is close to normal

focal length and is "full frame" which is where everyone seems to want to go anyway.

I'm with Ansel Adams on this one:

"In general, I do not find the normal lens especially desirable, functionally or aesthetically.

The angle of view and depth of field characteristics do not seem favorable to me in

interpreting space and scale. In my experience, lenses of shorter or longer focal length are

usually preferable in an aesthetic sense."

Page 57, "The Camera"

Micro-fiber is the way to go.

<p>

I like these from (gasp!) Nikon since they have a storage pouch attached:

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/374562-REG/

Nikon_8072_Micro_Fiber_Lens_Cleaning_Cloth.html">

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/374562-REG/

Nikon_8072_Micro_Fiber_Lens_Cleaning_Cloth.html</a>

Loading a Hasselblad magazine is one of those things hard to describe but easy to do

once you know how.

<p>

I'd suggest finding someone locally to show you how to do it. Otherwise, here's a page on

photo.net that may help:

<a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/hasselblad/501cm-kit-blumenthal">

http://www.photo.net/equipment/hasselblad/501cm-kit-blumenthal</a>

<p>

The book "The Hasselblad Manual" by Ernst Wildi is useful, too, with illustrated

instructions on loading and unloading the magazines.

"How could a 10MP cropped sensor have better image quality than a 13MP FF sensor ?"

The 40D is a generation newer than the 5D. Not so surprising, really. There's more to it

than just megapixels and sensor size.

Improvements in manufacturing and technology can enable newer cameras (even those

with smaller sensors) to outperform older ones.

But you FF folks don't need to worry. When the 5D replacement gets here using the same

generation technology as the 40D you'll be fine.

-Mike

Most event photographers that do this sort of thing use dye-sublimation printers.

The advantage is that they use a ribbon with matching paper so the cost per print is

known exactly. They're also fast (less than a minute for a 4x6) and the glossy continuous

tone print is very much like your typical "drug store" print so folks are happy with them.

They're also water-resistand and smudge proof right out of the machine -- no drying time

needed.

OTOH, the color gamut is small and you're limited in paper size and types.

You might be limited in printers nowadays, too. Kodak was the big player in dye-sub but

them seem to have left the low-end market and look to only sell dye-sub printers in the

$1,000 plus range. Olympus used to have some, too, but I don't see those at B&H

anymore, either.

Canon has a line of little dye-sub printers for the consumer market that I like, but I doubt

they would hold up in a high-volume printing environment and their paper/ribbon cost is

kinda high.

Sony, Fuji, and Hi-Touch make dye-sub printers, but I don't know much about 'em. The

Hi-Touch looks just like the Olympus dye-subs I've seen around so perhaps they just got

spun off or they made 'em OEM for Olympus all along. If so, they have a good reputation

and are affordable.

<blockquote><i>... Why dont somebody take a 40D to a night time sporting event where

90% of its buyers would use it at ...</i></blockquote>

<p>90% of 40D buyers take pictures at night-time sporting events? I'm not so sure about

that.</p>

<p>It's interesting that any criticism of the 5D seems to generate a lot of posts like this. I

wonder why? (seriously)</p>

<blockquote><i>My understanding is the large the individual photo-sites (pixels) the better

quality image it can produce with lower noise. Which means the only way to get big photo-

sites with more of them (more MPs and higher file sizes) is to make the chip

bigger.</i></blockquote>

Exactly. That's why the D30 with it's 10.1 micron pixel size is such a stellar high ISO

performing camera. The 5D with its tiny 8.2 micron pixel just can't compete with that.

Well, I haven't done a whole lot of comparison shooting yet, but here's a quick peek of the

40D's ISO 1600 performance compared to a 1D Mark II N:

<p>

<a href="http://mikesisk.com/tmp/1600-40d-1d2n.jpg">

http://mikesisk.com/tmp/1600-40d-1d2n.jpg

</a>

<p>

Keep in mind these are default setting in-camera jpegs and that the 1D series applies

more sharpening by default.

<p>

Here's the original files:

<p>

40D: <a href="http://mikesisk.com/tmp/IMG_4635.JPG">

http://mikesisk.com/tmp/IMG_4635.JPG</a>

<p>

1D2N: <a href="http://mikesisk.com/tmp/OJ1N4634.JPG">

http://mikesisk.com/tmp/OJ1N4634.JPG</a>

I'll leave comments for desktop Mac recommendations to others.

But as for the Xserve RAID and Xsan software -- basically, if you don't know what they are

you probably don't need 'em.

The Xserve RAID is a storage system that attaches to a Mac Pro, Xserve, or other third

party system with a standards compliant fiber optic interface called Fiber Channel.

Xsan is a software product designed for managing storage setups involving multiple

servers/workstations and multiple Xserve RAIDs on a Fiber Channel network.

I can go into more detail if you want, but it's fairly complicated stuff and quite expensive.

-Mike

There's many, many good books on this subject, but I suggest starting with this one: "Making

Movies" by Sidney Lumet.