Today we received our first shipment of the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 IIR (2R) MSC lens. We received them in both black and silver. We were curious to see how the lens looked and felt compared to the previous version (II, non-R). So, we decided to place the two lenses next to each other and take a couple pictures. What we quickly discovered is that both lenses are essentially identical in size. After the photo shoot we even gave them a quick weighing and found them to be essentially identical in weight too, both weighing in at approximately 110-112g.
As mentioned, and as you can see, the two lenses are approximately the same height when collapsed. The newer lens (on the left), does appear to be a little bit taller, but this is just an optical illusion. There is actually a cosmetic cap that covers the bayonet mount, where you can add a dedicated lens hood (not included). We like this cap. We think it keeps things looking really clean. The only problem we can foresee is, what do you do with it when you use the dedicated hood? Seems like a piece that can get easily lost…
Here is the lens with that cover removed (don’t lose it!). Just a simple bayonet mount under there.
Even with the lenses fully extended, both are essentially the same size. Here you can see that both lenses are fully extended to 42mm.
Here’s a top view of both lenses next to each other. Everything looks pretty much identical. The new lens still uses a 37mm filter. At this angle you can see how that cover we’ve been talking about really makes the lens look sleek and clean.
You might now be wondering, what does the lens look like on camera? Well, here it is on an E-PL2.
Looks pretty good, but not as good as on the E-P3. The E-P3 and E-PL3 are definitely designed with this lens in mind. The silver of this lens, as you may have already noticed, is different in shade than the silver of the previous version lens. It is a darker shade, and so it doesn’t match the shade of the silver E-PL2 as well.
Finally, it looks nice, but how does it feel? The lens feels good, but you can definitely feel the difference in the gnarling of the grip around the zoom and focus. The grip doesn’t feel as “catchy” as the previous version. Having said that, we didn’t have any problem with our fingers slipping while on the grip. We did notice, to our surprise, a big improvement in the feel of the manual focus. The manual focus ring felt better dampened. Whereas, with the previous version, the manual focus felt loose and airy, the manual focus of the newer version lens feels tighter and more firm.
We have to honest. Any time there is an announcement for a fixed-focal length, fast-aperture lens, we get pretty excited. Actually, that is a lie. We get VERY excited. When Olympus announced the 12mm f/2.0 and the 45mm f/1.8 we were happy for the micro four thirds market. Now that there are some years behind the mFT movement, and there are many individuals who have become entrenched in the system, it is great to see some serious additions from Olympus. That is not to say lenses like the 17mm f/2.8 or the 9-18mm f/4.0-5.6 are not serious, but these lenses simply feel necessary, unlike the 12mm f/2.0, which took a lot of people by surprise with its announcement. In addition, the physical design of the lens looks like more effort was put into thinking about its look, feel, and use.
We have heard some people say differently, but we think the 12mm f/2.0 looks great. The compact, clean, and metallic design complements the PEN cameras brilliantly. In addition, the 12mm f/2.0 is extremely light weight at a mere 130g. Normally we are a little hesitant with light lenses. Typically when you feel a light lens in your hand, it feels cheap. And, in our experience, that is usually the correct assumption. A lot of plastic is substituted where metal should have been used. In the case of the 12mm f/2.0, although it is very light, it does feel very solid. It may use a lot of plastic (we aren’t sure, but we can see the mount is metal), but it certainly does not feel that way.
Metal Mount of Olympus 12mm f/2.0
The dimensions of the lens are compact, which is great for use with a mFT camera. The lens does not protrude too much, and the balance feels great in the hands.
Olympus PEN E-PL2 with 12mm f/2.0
Olympus 12mm f/2.0 Next to a Nickel
One of the really neat things about this lens is the “snap focus” feature. This is one of the reasons why we feel like the 12mm f/2.0 is a more “serious” product for the mFT market, and why we feel like Olympus really put a lot of thought into this lens. In many of the lighter, made-for-digital, and more plastic lenses we have seen, the manual focus is horrible. The manual focus usually feels very loose and “disconnected” from the lens. With the 12mm f/2.0, the focus ring actually snaps from auto to manual focus, just by pulling back (towards the camera) on the focus ring.
Manual Focus Engaged
Once the manual focus is engaged, a distance scale is revealed, and the focus has a well-dampened movement. The dampening is excellent and reminds us of dedicated manual focus lenses, which is exactly the feel Olympus was trying to recreate. In addition, the manual focus with this lens is extremely easy. Easy in the sense that fine focus just seems to “snap” in to place. It is difficult to describe without seeing or feeling. We did create a short video to highlight the manual focus of the 12mm f/2.0, and we hope it gives you a better idea of how it all works.
In talking about the manual focus, we should not let it distract us from the autofocus of this lens. The 12mm f/2.0 autofocus is extremely quick for mFT, and it is also extremely quiet, which Olympus attributes to the MSC (movie-still-compatible) mechanism. MSC essentially eludes to the fact that the quiet autofocus will not ruin videos produced with this lens because of annoying autofocus noises being recorded by the camera’s internal mic. The fast, quiet autofocus is certainly a big advantage for both stills and video.
With the compact size, light weight, solid feel, and fast autofocus, this lens was a treat to hold and use. In looking at and feeling the lens, it seemed like it had everything going for it, so we were anxious to take it out for some sample images. As much as we were pleased with the aspects of the 12mm f/2.0 mentioned above, we were thrilled with the image quality. Shot after shot taken with the lens left us impressed with the results. We found the sharpness to be top-notch, the contrast to be, well, contrasty, but not overly so, the chromatic aberrations were a minimum, the distortion was manageable for a 24mm (in 35mm terms) equivalent, and the color and clarity was superb.
This was a difficult shot for a lens, but from this image you would not necessarily think it so. Just out of frame in the upper, right-hand corner was the sun. There were no clouds covering the sun, so it was directly approaching the front of the lens, although there were some trees to shield some of its power. I was surprised that the image held up as well as it did without any flaring or overall decrease in contrast.
The level of detail retained by this lens is very impressive. You can see how sharp the above image really is from this crop.
We liked really liked and appreciated the overall brilliance, clarity, and color produced by this lens. The colors are pleasing, but still realistic to how we remember the scene.
With this image I took some artistic liberty. When I saw this booth, I thought it would be cool if you could see the back and the front at the same time. So, I decided to do just that, and cropped two images and spliced them into one.
The image of Charlie was taken indoors and so the ISO was higher than some of the other images I took. Although the higher ISO detracts from the overall detail of the image, you can still see that with this lens there is still plenty of detail even when cropped in close.
In this image taken outdoors with a lower ISO, there is a great amount of detail. You can pick up spots of dirt on the towrope attachment. Also, notice the color of the overall image. You can feel the warmth of the evening light, and the blues are great.
Inside the studio, we ran some shots using the 12mm f/2.0 on our lens test chart. We were very impressed with the results. The lens was across the board sharp, from the largest f/2.0 aperture down to the smallest available aperture of f/22.
Lowest Right-Hand Corner f/22
Lowest Right-Hand Corner f/8
Lowest Right-Hand Corner f/2
We displayed the images above in reverse order on purpose. Normally you would expect the corner sharpness of a lens to improve as the aperture diaphragm is stopped down. In this case it almost seems like the opposite is true. For an aperture of f/22 it is expected that the sharpness will not be as good as, say, f/8 due to diffraction, so that is a little unfair on our part. But, it is pretty impressive how sharp the 12mm f/2 is at a wide open aperture of f/2. In addition, you can see that the chromatic aberration is pretty well controlled at the corners.
Distortion for wider angle lenses is typically expected and the 12mm f/2.0 is no exception. The image below shows the barrel distortion caused by this lens.
Notice how the center of the image is closer to the bottom of the frame than either of the edges are.
If you haven’t already concluded, we really like the Olympus 12mm f/2.0 lens designed for the micro four thirds camera system. From its looks, to its usability, to the image quality, this small lens has everything going for it. It does have a price tag that will put it out of reach for some people, and for those who can’t afford it, we suggest saving your pennies (as my mother used to say). If you are interested in purchasing this lens, we offer it in our store or on our website here. If you are looking for a fast aperture, wide-angle fixed focal length lens for the mFT system, we just don’t see how you can go wrong.
When Canon announced the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM lens late last year, we took it as very welcoming news. We could not think of a customer who was not happy with their 70-200mm L lens in terms of performance (whatever version it may be, although the f/4 non-IS is our most popular seller most likely due to the size, weight and price), but many of those 70-200mm owners wished they could have just a little more reach without the heft and weight of the 100-400mm L lens, in addition to the more awkward “push-pull” zoom function (the 70-200mm f/4 L is approx. 1.5 lbs., the 70-300mm L is approx. 2.3 lbs. and the 100-400mm L is just over 3 lbs.). The 70-300mm L lens now fits perfectly in that void of L lenses: a good compromise in size, weight, and focal length.
The non-L 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens has always been a good seller for us. The price is right for the quality and features packed into this lightweight and portable zoom telephoto lens. Our customers on the whole have always been pleased with this lens, although we normally do not market it to the most discerning enthusiasts or professionals. One question that we have been hearing for a little while now is how does this lens compare with the newer L version of the same focal length zoom? In terms of L lenses, the 70-300mm L lens is not necessarily considered expensive, but compared to the non-L 70-300mm lens, it certainly does seem expensive, considering it is close to $1000 more. So, again, customers wonder, how do they compare? Is the L lens really that much better? We decided we had to definitively find out for ourselves, so we got out our old lens test chart from the basement, and had a look. What we found was interesting.
We first tested both L and non-L 70-300mm lenses at the 300mm focal length. Customers purchasing a longer focal length telephoto lens are most likely purchasing it because they are planning on using the longer focal length. So, it only makes sense to start testing the lens at the longer focal length end of the zoom. We decided to try the testing with the Canon 60D, which is currently our most popular selling Canon digital SLR camera body. We set up the camera on a tripod at 26 times the focal length being tested, and shot with the exact same settings, only changing the lens in between shooting through a couple of apertures. We made sure to turn off any in-camera corrections, like Canon’s peripheral illumination correction, noise reduction, etc.. The differences between these two lenses at the 300mm focal length are very, well, different. The L lens, hands-down, wins. Browse through the images below to see for yourself. Each image is a 100% crop of the lowest most right-hand corner of the lens test chart.
non-L @ f/16
L @ f/16
We took a shot at f/16 to see both lenses closed down a bit. Looking at just the non-L image, you would consider that fairly sharp considering it is a 100% crop at the very edge of an image taken with a lens at 300mm. But, when you scroll down to see the image taken with the L lens, you realize the first is really not all that good. The clarity of the image taken with the L lens is phenomenal. The green and red Chromatic Aberrations of the non-L lens are very unsightly and distracting. The L lens holds them in check quite wonderfully.
We then wanted to check the lenses both wide open. At the largest aperture, the optics of a lens are put to the test.
non-L @ f/5.6
L @ f/5.6
As you can see, the non-L lens falls apart and turns to mush while at the largest aperture of f/5.6 for this focal length. Although no longer tac-sharp, the L lens still maintains definition–you can make out what some of the numbers are supposed to be.
We then wanted to see what the images looked like at the shortest focal length of both these lenses–70mm. S0, we moved the tripod closer to the test chart and gave it another go. Here we are including just the image taken with these lenses wide-open, at f/4.
non-L @ f/4
L @ f/4
As you can see, at 70mm, there is not as great a difference between the two lenses as there was at 300mm. Both lenses are very sharp. If you quickly scroll up and down the L 70-300mm appears to have a little bit more clarity. As the aperture was stopped down, the differences between the two became less apparent.
Although we did not have the time (this test was to just quickly see if there was a noticeable difference between the lenses) it would be interesting to try the lenses at other focal lengths to see how they compare. We imagine that most people purchasing a telephoto zoom will be leaning more towards the longer focal length end than the shorter focal length end of the zoom, and in comparing the two lenses at 300mm the L is therefore a much better lens to have in your camera bag. If you are looking for a telephoto zoom that will produce tac-sharp images, the L 70-300mm is an obvious choice. Also, you have to keep in mind that when purchasing this lens, the image quality is not the only part of the equation. The L lens is more solid, and better weather sealed. It just feels more sturdy in the hand. In addition, the speed of the autofocus is phenomenally fast. If you are looking to capture images of wildlife, the L 70-300mm is a great choice for getting quick-moving animals (think birds in flight) in focus and capturing them in a tac-sharp image.
If you are interested in purchasing either of the lenses mentioned here, please visit our retail website by clicking here.
Most major camera equipment manufacturer’s are now making almost all of their digital cameras with Secure Digital (SD) memory for the storage platform. The once popular compactflash card is slowly being pushed aside, and for very good reason–size. Using a smaller storage device allows equipment makers to either decrease the size of their cameras, or to pack more image-crunching electronics inside the same sized body.
Another benefit of SD memory: less breakdowns. As often as once every week we see a customer walk through our doors with a very sour look on their face. The culprit for the poor mood is a bent pin in their camera’s CF card reader. If you have a digital camera that takes CF memory, take a look inside the door where the memory card goes. Inside there you will see two rows of gold-colored pins. If a CF card does not align just right when being inserted into the card reader, you can very easily bend one or more of those pins. Once that happens, lights out, and time to send the camera in for a repair. SD cards have electrical contacts on the back side, and they do not require intrusive pins to transfer data–just other electrical contacts to press up against them.
Hoodman has been making innovative products for a while now, and we like their products and them as a company. Recently they developed a more ruggedized version of the standard SD card. These cards cost a little more than the ordinary card, but for good reason. More care is put in to the manufacturing of these cards, and it means better results and longer life for your precious photographs.
First, these cards meet class 10 specifications, so they are fast. Fast enough for the highest resolution, video-shooting DSLRs currently out there. Second, they are waterproof, so go ahead and forget them in your pants’s pocket and throw them in the wash. If you do a lot of shooting, you most likely know what that is like. Third, the actually memory chip is physically smaller. Why would that matter? The plastic housing has more plastic in it because the memory chip and associated electronics are taking up less room, which makes it more rigid and stronger. Fourth, there is an actual steel plate affixed to the top of the card. Again, more rigidity to help the card from being cracked or ruined. Fifth, and the coolest part, there’s no soldering. These cards have acid-etched circuitry right on board. Less solder means less additional conduits for the data to travel through where noise can be induced in your photographs (and you thought a photograph was just a photograph).
The product manager from Hoodman was recently at our store, and he allowed us to take his sample RAW STEEL memory card apart to photograph the insides. He also had a very well loved traditional SD card already taken apart for us to photograph too.
Here is the top view to showcase the steel plate of the Hoodman RAW STEEL card:
Here is the card taken apart. The part with the gold electrical contacts is the entire memory chip. The rest of the plastic housing where this chip does not sit is filled in with more plastic to be more rigid (32GB memory chip is larger, so this does not apply for that card).
Here is a closer look at the memory component and associated electronics:
Compare that to a traditional card where everything is laid out in the open and not as compact (probably not good if the card becomes water-born):
Due to the larger size of the internal structure the external plastic housing is thin and frail (and as you can see cracks and breaks easily):
If you are serious about your photography and use your equipment hard, you should definitely consider the RAW STEEL cards available by Hoodman. We carry the full line of Hoodman Raw Steel SD memory cards, and they can be found for sale at our website here:
Nikon has been going through some of their most popular lenses and updating them with enhanced features like, but not limited to, SWM (silent wave motor, designated by the AF-S), the addition of an aspheric lens element (to help correct spherical and optical abberations), and full-time manual focus override (allowed by the SWM). The AF-S 85mm f/1.4 and AF-S 50mm f/1.4 are a couple of other lenses that I can quickly think of that have also gone through this type of updating. The latest to this updating is the very popular Nikon 50mm f/1.8. We recently received the new Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G lens, and were curious how it stacked up.
The older version Nikon 50mm f/1.8 was considered a must-have lens, if for no other reason than the $134 price tag. The new AF-S 50mm f/1.8G is over 60% more expensive, but still very reasonably priced at $219. There aren’t many quality lenses out there in this price range. We’ve been seeing a lot of more modern, inexpensively priced lenses being made with plastic lens mounts. Although this will not hinder the image-making performance of the lens, we’ve seen a lot of broken lenses having to go out for repair due to the plastic mounts cracking, snapping, or wearing over time to a state of being loose from mounting and unmounting the lens to camera bodies. The new 50mm f/1.8 to our excitement has a shiny, all-metal mount:
While staying on the topic of build quality, the build quality of this updated lens is great. The focus ring is larger and more burly than the previous version, making for an easy grip for manual focusing, and the overall design and finish of the lens is clean. This lens even has a rubberized gasket around the metal mount to help keep out dust and moisture when mounted to a camera body.
This Father’s Day weekend, I had my nephew’s birthday party to attend, and I thought it would be a good opportunity to take the new 50mm f/1.8 for a stroll. I gave the lens a test drive with the Nikon D7000. I was extremely impressed with the results.
The first thing I noticed with this lens is that it was still very sharp wide open, especially for a lens in its price range, and provided an excellent overall wide-open image quality with the D7000. This lens is compatible with FX cameras (full frame digital and film cameras), and it would be interesting to see how the corners look there. But, on a DX (crop) camera, I was impressed.
Lens set at maximum aperture: f/1.8
Same image with 100% crop on in-focus area
The silent wave motor was fast and silent. I was able to pop off several shots of my 6 year old nephew (who, like any 6 year old, changes his expression every fraction of a moment), and I couldn’t even hear the lens working. Although I did not test the video much, anyone shooting video with the autofocus engaged will appreciate the silence of this lens, instead of hearing the whir-clink-whir-clink-whir-clink of a more noisy, non-SWM lens.
Stopping down the lens to f/5.6 made for some extremely sharp images. In a couple of cases (do I dare say it?), the images were so sharp I felt it detracted from the photograph. Sometimes seeing every nook and cranny is not the most aesthetically pleasing experience for a photograph.
Lens set to f/5.6, 100% crop of portrait
Overall I was very pleased with my experience over the weekend of using this lens. Compact, quick, silent, sharp, overall pleasing bokeh, with minimal aberrations for my lighting conditions, and good build quality…all at an affordable price. Throughout the day I kept looking at my images and thinking, these look really good, which, to me, makes for a worthwhile lens. Please see some more examples below to get a better overall feel for the lens:
For the money, I really don’t see how you could go wrong with this lens. For full-frame users, it might be a different story, if the edges fall completely apart. All of the images shown in this article are unaltered, except for the 100% crops, which were cropped…of course. I didn’t need to apply any unsharp mask, etc., although I was using the D7000 saving to JPG, so there was some sharpening going on there. In conclusion, I would recommend this lens to a friend.
We’ve had the Nikon Coolpix P7000 in the store now since September, but we’ve been so busy we haven’t had time to really try the camera out. Yes, there are always the moments in the store when we have a few minutes between customers and we sneak a chance to play with the latest and greatest, but it wasn’t until this weekend that we really got to try out the new P7000.
For those who are not aware, the Nikon Coolpix P7000 is Nikon’s high-end digital point and shoot. This relatively compact digital camera has a lot of advanced features, and many external buttons for the advanced user who wants quick manual control over their picture taking experience.
The P7000 features a 1/1.7″ 10.1 megapixel CCD image sensor. It also features a very useful 28-200mm (35mm equivalent) zoom lens with a maximum aperture range of 2.8-5.6. Some of the advanced features include a 1/4000 sec. maximum shutter speed and the ability to shoot in RAW. Unfortunately the RAW file type is not the same as Nikon’s D-SLRs (NRW instead of NEF), so Nikon D-SLR users won’t find it a seamless process editing the P7000, and their D-SLR RAW, files. For a full list of specifications, please feel free to visit Nikon’s website, www.nikonusa.com.
This weekend we took a few pictures of a barn being built in Milton, VT, and a couple other shots during a short walk in the woods in Williston, VT. First, we will show you the images, and then we will talk about real world first impressions.
Overall we found the P7000 to be a great, relatively compact digital camera. The image quality is impressive for a point and shoot, and we found the lens to be very sharp. As you can see, we really enjoyed the in-camera black and whites. The camera is extremely light, and especially for how rugged it feels, so carrying it around was a breeze.
The P7000 offers a lot of external buttons, and at first we found this to be a drawback. The number of buttons, and the overall button layout seemed to slow us down during our picture taking. Of course, and as with anything, once we got familiar with the button configuration, handling the camera was a lot more fun. We did find the exposure compensation dial to be one of the most useful external controls, and the camera seemed to react quickly once the exposure compensation was adjusted, and the LCD instantly displayed a preview of what we could expect. The dial on top of the camera that controls ISO and other functions was unlike the exposure compensation. Using this dial felt “laggy”, and changing the ISO seemed to take longer than it really should.
As mentioned above, we found the lens to be impressively sharp. In addition, the zoom range is very useful. We never really found ourselves wanting more, be it wider angle or more telephoto. For a compact, the 28-200mm zoom range seems to hit a sweet, useful spot for us. We did find the autofocus to overall be very quick for a compact camera, but when we were taking a picture of a darker scene, or something without a lot of contrast, the autofocus had a difficult time. In low light or low contrast we often had the camera hunt for focus, stop, and then give us a blank screen with a message that the lens was initializing. We can see how this could be extremely frustrating, especially if something important was waiting to be captured.
When taking digital photographs we usually like to take advantage of the instant feedback at our fingertips. So, we often review our photographs, checking for sharp focus. With the P7000 we did find this to be a slower process. Zooming in during playback was “laggy”, and then zooming back out just doubled that effort. What we saw when we did zoom in made us happy, however; because there we saw accurate, sharp focus.
Overall we really enjoyed the P7000. We really liked its light, rugged feel. Carrying it on us wasn’t a chore, at all. We thought the bulkier size for a point and shoot would be noticeable, but the light weight kept it from being a drag. Our only qualms with it didn’t really have to do with image quality. For a point and shoot, it is definitely at the high-end. We did notice reduced color saturation in dimmer lighting, but this is to be expected. The combination of a longer zoom lens that is also very sharp helped with our creativity. As you can see, we really enjoyed the in-camera black and white functionality of this camera, and thought it made some really dramatic black and whites, which, for us, is the joy of black and white photographs. Many photographers looking for a high-end point and shoot will want this camera to function like an SLR. The reality is that this camera is still a point and shoot, and, therefore, very portable, so it should not be expected to handle like an SLR. For those not expecting it to handle like an SLR, but are still looking for a very high quality, portable camera, we definitely recommend the P7000.
What’s the difference between a dedicated film scanner and some other scanner, like, say, a flatbed scanner?
Many flatbed scanners now offer film holders, which makes scanning film negatives and slides a simple task for the at-home user. It seems like everyday we have customers asking us about scanning, and which scanner or service is best. It is difficult to sit here and explain the differences between the types of scanners when all that really matters is the end result.
In an attempt to showcase the quality of a scan from a dedicated film scanner, and that from a high-quality flatbed scanner that offers film holders for scanning negatives and slides, we scanned some Fujifilm Superia 400 color negative print film. We took one frame and scanned it twice. Once on a dedicated Nikon 4000 ED film scanner and again with an Epson V700 flatbed scanner. The first two images are straight out of the scanners using similar, high-quality settings. And, here are the results:
Scan from Epson V700 Flatbed Scanner
Scan from Nikon 4000 ED Scanner
Now, here is a crop taken from the two images. We think it is a good idea to get in close to see what viewing the images at 100% looks like because this is important when making prints. Especially bigger prints.
Crop of Scan from Epson V700 Scanner
Crop of Scan from Nikon 4000 ED Scanner
As you can see from the above images, using a dedicated film scanner makes a big difference. Looking at the sky, just above the horizon, the Nikon holds color and density, whereas the Epson does not. There is a big difference in the perception of the grass and leaves. The Nikon keeps a more natural green color, and the Epson scan looks like there was a recent drought. Where we really see a big difference, however, is the 100% crop. The Nikon retains a lot of detail in the sweater, and the Epson doesn’t hold any detail.
Finally, here is the high-quality Nikon scan “jazzed” up and ready for a nice print with a little post-processing:
The above timelapse video was shot using a Canon EOS 5D Mark II digital SLR camera with a Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens. It is made up of 99 individual shots that were spaced 5 seconds apart, and sequenced all together to make one timelapse video. The key to the success of making this video was the use of an intervalometer to remotely control the timing of the shots. There are many intervalometers on the market, and most camera manufacturers have their own, but companies like Nikon and Canon charge over $150. We have found, and sell, a cheaper alternative, and they work great. Plus, they only cost $48.50:
Click picture to purchase intervalometer
If you are still wondering how this works, we’ll tell you. The first thing is to set up your camera on a tripod, a table, or anywhere where the camera will not move. Then, figure out the exposure and focus you want using the camera’s manual (M) settings, so that the exposure and focus won’t change as you’re taking the sequence of pictures. Simply plug the intervalometer into the remote control port on the side of your camera. This is the same port that is used for a remote shutter release. Once the intervalometer is plugged into the camera, you can actually start using it as a remote shutter release. Simply press the center button and it will trigger the camera to take a picture.
Now, you could sit there and remotely trigger your camera manually every so many seconds, but that would quickly get old and your timing would probably not be very consistent. Plus, it defeats the purpose of having an intervalometer. So, set up your intervalometer:
Set the initial delay (how many seconds before the first picture is taken)
Set the shutter delay (only necessary if using bulb, controls how many seconds the shutter is open)
Set the interval delay (how many seconds in between shots)
Set the interval number (how many shots to be taken)
Press start and watch the magic happen
Once your intervalometer is going you will probably have to wait for a while, so now would be a good time to get a drink. The above video took a little over 8 minutes to shoot, which actually wasn’t so bad. Really cool timelapse videos will be done over several hours.
Now, once all of the shots have been completed, you aren’t done yet, but almost. The final step is to load all of your timelapse pictures on to your computer so that you may compile them into a single video file. For the above video we used Quicktime Pro, and it made things really simple. With Quicktime Pro you simply go to File > Open Image Sequence . . . and choose the first file of the sequence. As long as the files are numbered consecutively Quicktime will automatically be able to compile them into a single video without any more input from you. Then, from there, watch the video. And, you can export the video file for the web or whatever else you want, so the world can see your hard work. There are also a host of other software available that will be able to do the same thing, so choose whatever you like. The best part about timelapse is trying out different subjects and circumstances, so get creative.
Looking for an intervalometer for your digital SLR camera? Find one here.
Macro lenses are great, and for many reasons. One of the reasons macro lenses are not great, however, is the price. Dedicated macro lenses are typically expensive. Sigma has some very good, very reasonably priced macros, like the 70mm f/2.8, but that lens is still $500. Zeiss makes an incredible macro, the 100mm f/2, but that bad boy is $1800. So, what are you to do if you want to get close but don’t have the budget of a Wall Street banker?
Here’s a good question: Can you afford $9.50? For close-up photography? Of course you can. If you are into photography and are, or are getting, into macro work, you have most likely heard of extension tubes. And, like dedicated macro lenses, there is a lot variety out there for extension tubes. The cheapest ones we have found (that actually work) are $9.50. Yep, that’s right…The price for two gallons of milk. Check it out:
An extension tube works by increasing the distance of the lens to the camera body. Think of a projector. When you are looking at a slide, sorry, digital projector being displayed on a wall, and you move the projector back from the wall, the projected image gets larger. The same idea applies to extension tubes. Move the lens farther from the camera body and the projected image on the camera’s film, sorry, sensor gets larger. This metal-construction extension tube is made into sections, like this:
The different sections screw together and can be used in any combination to increase or decrease magnification. This extension tube is intended for Canon EOS mount lenses and cameras. It is made up of a lens mount, a camera mount, and three sections of varying sizes. Are you wondering if adapter tubes really work? Check it out:
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens, No Extension
Same Lens, Same Focal Length (105mm), Lens and Camera Mount of Extension Tube Only
Same As Above, Smallest Extension Ring Added
Small and Medium Extension Rings
The Entire Extension Tube
So, an extension tube really works. For $9.50, why not? Well, there are a couple of things you should know before jumping both feet in. The first, nothing is auto. Autofocus cannot work, auto modes cannot work, and the metering cannot work. In addition, the aperture cannot be stopped down, so if you have a lens (like Canon EOS) that does not have a manual aperture ring that can stop down the aperture, you are forced to use the lens wide open. And, with macro work, that means your depth-of-field is tiny. Also, extension tubes, because you are increasing the distance of the lens to the camera body, decrease the intensity of light falling on the camera’s film, sorry, sensor. This means slow shutter speeds become a common reality.
All of the above mentioned things will be solved by using a dedicated macro lens. There are also some expensive extension tubes that will solve some of those problems–aperture control, autofocus, etc.. But, for $9.50, or 1/100th of the cost for some dedicated macro lenses, why not?
Even with the lenses fully extended, both are essentially the same size. Here you can see that both lenses are fully extended to 42mm.
Here is the card taken apart. The part with the gold electrical contacts is the entire memory chip. The rest of the plastic housing where this chip does not sit is filled in with more plastic to be more rigid (32GB memory chip is larger, so this does not apply for that card).
Compare that to a traditional card where everything is laid out in the open and not as compact (probably not good if the card becomes water-born):
Due to the larger size of the internal structure the external plastic housing is thin and frail (and as you can see cracks and breaks easily):
