The Canon 7D has the following key specifications:

• 18 MP (up by 3MP from the 50D) *NEW*
• 8fps (up by 2fps on the 50D) *NEW* – previously only the kind of thing you see in the 1D camera
• ISO 12800 (same with the 50D)
• 19 cross-type AF points (up by 10 points from the 50D) *NEW*
• iFCL metering system (brand new, not in any other Canon camera) *NEW*
• Dual DIGIC IV (two image processing chips, previously only applied to 1Ds and 1D cameras)
• HD Video (equal and trumps the 5D Mk II if only on paper)
• Integrated Speedlite Transmitter (the first Canon to have this, Nikon has had this for eons) *NEW*

So why is this important? Truth is, this is the first time in Canon’s history, that so much new technology is put into a camera that’s not a 1D or 1Ds camera. In fact, in a marked change from the norm, it is also the first Canon camera since the 1D Mark II to have so many genuinely NEW photography-related features.

Look at this way, it has a new Sensor, a new AF Module, a new Metering system, wireless flash transmitter. This is as significant a release as the D300 was for Nikon 2 years back.

I am actually very surprised, and the fact of the matter is, I think this camera was released under severe pressure. The 50D, is by all means a poor excuse for a new camera, doing only damage to Canon as it was a shoddy, rushed job of a DSLR to reply on paper in the face of Nikon’s one year old D300. It was used to buy Canon time to release THIS camera. No offence, the 50D is indeed a good piece of gear, but it could have been so much more, and it really should have been this 7D.

It begs the question. What took them so long? And for me the answer is simple. As I’ve put in my email to Canon about 1.5 years ago, and also in my many rants; Canon is a sleeping giant. They will only do something when they are put under severe pressure, or because they have to. In this case, it was both. The Nikon D300 has been critically such a success and was designed as not a handicapped camera in any way unlike the 40D, 50D and even the 5D Mk II. The sales of the 50D have also been a lot lower than expected in Canon’s books.

Yes, I know I’ll get crap for picking the 5D Mk II as a handicapped camera, but how does it feel now, honestly, all you 5D Mk II owners, to know that Canon had the technology to give you Integrated Speedlite Transmitter (no different to Nikon’s CLS and reduces the need for Pocketwizards and the like), and also a 19 point cross-type AF system, and yet they did not? Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

To me, I believe Canon finally has come up with a camera worthy of their brand and capabilities. It isn’t one purposely stunted to make you want the 1D or 1Ds cameras. It is a camera, that in many gearheads’ views, is genuinely lustworthy. It also begs the question: What if they put all this in the new 5D? And more importantly, shouldn’t they have done so from the start?

I applaud Canon for finally bucking the trend of hand-me-downs and genuinely giving you features worthy of such a camera. But, more importantly I thank Nikon and all its users (by voting with their money and support) for forcing this upon Canon. Even if you’re a fence-sitter, all this is great news, as it means competition, and we, the consumers are the winners in the end.

Last but not least, I’m still glad to have left Canon, because this amazing 7D is just evidence that Canon has been shortchanging its users all this while, and frankly, will continue to do so unless pressured by Nikon and Sony.

5D Mark III anybody?

So in the previous post, I’ve already explained the story about how I came to transition from a Canon to a Nikon, and also the reasons that I inevitably and irrevocably made the switch. Frankly, I do not foresee Canon changing their ways anytime in the near future. And actually, there’s no need for them to do so. Why? Because like it or not, Canon has plenty of good points as well. Just like any good camera company, both Canon and Nikon have both their own pros and cons. Now that I’ve been using a Nikon camera for the past few months, and Canon for more than 2 years prior, let me take a stab at explaining the pros and cons of both these imaging powerhouses.

Canon – The Light Side:

Fantastic Range of Full Frame lenses

Without a doubt, Canon has the widest range of lenses, particularly full-frame compatible ones. It is worth noting that ALL of Canon’s premium L lenses are built for full-frame, and as such can be used for ANY model of Canon camera in the existing lineup, regardless of sensor-size. If I were to pinpoint the greatest strengths of Canon’s lenses, they will be the f/4.0 L lens series (17-40mm, 24-105mm, 70-200mm, 70-200mm IS), and also the L super-fast primes (24mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.2, 135mm f/2). No other camera company (aside from Leica – no Autofocus) makes current production lenses as fast as those exotic primes that Canon has. They inadvertently cost a bomb and a half, but the point is, they exist, and many a photographer find these lenses drool-worthy. The f/4.0 L lens series on the other hand, offers a high quality enthusiast level lens range without breaking the bank (too much). This versatile kind of lens segment does not really exist in Nikon’s full frame camp.

Note that I have omitted the f/2.8 range (professional photojournalists’ and photographers’ bread and butter range) as this is available even on Nikon’s end. Nikon also has arguably the two sharpest f/2.8 lenses in the world today: the 14-24mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8. Some consider these two the new gold-standards in ultra wide angle and normal zooms. The Canon’s equivalents are now slightly more dated and thus, unfortunately pale in direct comparison. Nevertheless Canon also draws strength from the fact that ALL the L lenses and a good number of their pricier non-L lenses actually have USM built in. This feature allows for quiet focusing and also manual focus override. Nikon, on the contrary are absolutely stuck in a previous era as a good majority of their non-pro lenses still do NOT possess AF-S (the Nikon equivalent of USM).

Two lenses that are not full-frame that are also worth noting on Canon’s camp are the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 10-22mm. These two lenses are amazing. I’d go as far as to say, optically, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the BEST APS-C lens to date. Nikon’s pricier 17-55mm DX f/2.8 may have superior build quality but lacks the IS (Image Stabilization), which frankly is a real lifesaver for the working photographer. Up till recently, the 10-22mm of Canon also had no parallel in Nikon’s end for the price range. Having said that, as of 2009, Nikon has released the 10-24mm lens and priced only slightly more than Canon’s equivalent. As such I feel they are now on par in that area, but with a slight advantage to Canon.

APS-C Full Compatibility

Now, also from a lens-related point of view, Canon APS-C cameras also can use ANY lens in Canon’s current lineup without as much of a hitch. There are no compatibility problems. Nikon’s recent low end cameras (D40, D40x, D60, D5000) on the other hand, do not have the same flexibility as they do not have a autofocus motor built in. In fact, the aforementioned cameras can only use AF-S lenses. As such, even though these Nikon cameras are targeted at the lower budget bracket, they will not have access to autofocus for the cheapest must-buy in Nikon or any other camera manufacturer’s lineup – the 50mm f/1.8. This, to me personally, is a big mistake on Nikon’s part. Canon has no such problems.

They do however, have slightly different limitations when it comes to full frame. I’ll cover this when I talk about Nikon’s strengths further below.

Higher Definition Images

I am actually against the whole megapixel race. Firstly, it creates huge files of which I don’t really need. Secondly, packing too many pixels into a same sized sensor often results in ugly noise appearing in photos. Thirdly, the pros who relied on the old 5D created amazing large prints with 12 Megapixels. So how come suddenly 21 Megapixels is REQUIRED?

Having said that, at the risk of contradicting myself, I have to say that higher megapixels does indeed mean something if done right. Canon’s 5D Mark II is one example of doing it right. They managed to nearly match the industry standard for low noise, and yet managed to squeeze 21 Megapixels into the sensor. That is a LOT of detail. If you have a very good L lens to pair with the camera, you can actually see the pores and tiny imperfections of human skin upon zooming in to 100%. Frankly, if I were a macro photography enthusiast, or someone who needs to print large on a regular basis, I’d likely think of Canon as my go-to camera. Nikon’s entire current range is at 12 Megapixels at the moment, and they only have one 24 Megapixel camera in the D3x. This camera, although rated to possess the best DSLR sensor by dxomark.com, is not only priced at an extreme premium (think RM 20,000+), but also not as good as Canon’s 5D Mark II (RM 8000+) sensor at high ISO.

HD Video

Canon is an total imaging solutions company, and as such has a full lineup of video cameras in their portfolio. Therefore if I had to choose between Canon and Nikon when it came to video, I’d put my money on Canon to deliver a superior product. This is because I firmly believe that they can easily leverage on their video division to try and incorporate as many relevant features as possible into their still cameras. In many ways, they have proven this fact as Nikon’s attempts in the D90 and D5000 pale in comparison to Canon’s 5D Mark II and 500D.

Granted, as long as Canon chooses not to shortchange its photographers, you can rest assured that Canon will always have an ace up their sleeve when it comes to being able to implement video into their DSLRs. Nikon will be playing catch up in this area for a while to come.

Superior Customer Service & Support

This is something Nikon clearly takes for granted. In my own personal experience, it is a joy to deal with Canon’s after-sales support. They even have a Canon Professional Service (CPS) membership where they give priority servicing to their professional photographers.

I wish I could say the same for Nikon. Someone clearly needs to look at their support center and find out better ways to deal with the economic downturn than to charge for basic sensor servicing of which Canon, as of press time, still offers for free as long as you’re willing to wait. And that’s only the small stuff. There have been so many horror stories with Nikon’s services, particularly in Malaysia, that you tend to wonder how they are able to keep their existing customers happy.

In line with the excellent marketing of Canon, they are more than capable of knowing how to service their client from start to finish, and maybe even beyond. And as such I have to give it to them on putting emphasis on after-sales support.

That pretty much sums up what I feel Canon’s key strengths are in. They used to be leaders in sensor and low light performance too. However the mantle has been taken away from them by Nikon ever since Canon decided to go megapixel racing rather than improving noise performance. And since we’re on the topic of Nikon, let me tell you the strengths of Nikon.

Nikon – The Dark Side:

Creative Lighting System

This is by far Nikon’s trump card. They are the BEST amongst all DSLR manufacturers when it comes to the flash and lighting department. Firstly, the D80, D90, D300 and D700 all have flash commanders built-in to their cameras. To the uninitiated, this means that you are able to control your Speedlite or external Nikon flash OFF-CAMERA without needing to buy any extra accessories. These camera models, which I mentioned above, are not exactly premium models. In fact the D80 and D90 are priced below that of the Canon semi-pro 40D and 50D. Not a SINGLE Canon camera has this feature. Instead, they make you either buy the ST-E2 (RM800), or a 580EX II flash (RM1600) which you must put ON your camera hotshoe the ENTIRE DURATION in order to get this feature. Nikon gives this useful feature free, and provides for full automatic modes off-camera as well. This means that they can trigger an external Nikon flash out of the box off-camera without any added accessories. For Canon, on the other hand, should you only possess one 580 EX II, you MUST put it on your camera hotshoe regardless of whether or not it is to contribute as a light source to the scene, ie. you need to buy ANOTHER Canon flash to get off-camera capability. As a result of this missing feature, many Canon users resort to third party alternatives such as Pocketwizards, Radiopoppers, Gadget Infinity and Phottix (in order of decreasing price). Up till recently all third party alternatives had to be used in MANUAL mode. However, the latest Pocketwizards and Radiopoppers have solved that problem. Mind you though, these two cost more than RM1000 a pop as well.

So what’s the big deal of having such a feature? Ask anyone in the photography business and they’ll tell you that taking the flash off-camera is one of the sure fire ways of improving a flash-lit photograph. Ever wondered why studio photos always looked so good. The next time you’re involved in one, pay attention to where the light is coming from. Rest assured that it’s only in the rare exception that there will be a light source on the camera itself. The point is, Nikon gives a feature that lets you experiment with external light (the key ingredient in any photograph), without needing you to foot out more money from your hard-earned reserves. The possibilities are endless here, and should you need inspiration on what’s possible, I point you to Joe Mcnally, a talented photographer whom is Nikon’s ambassador for the Nikon CLS system.

Superior Feature Sets and Value Added Items

In comparison to Canon, Nikon’s cameras are often more packed with photographic features that actually matter. For instance, even the current lowest end camera of Nikon, the D5000, has the ability to have manual white balance via Kelvin scale. Canon has purposely omitted this from their xxxD cameras, including the latest 500D. In fact, as a bit of trivia; before the 450D, no xxxD camera even had a real spot meter. Thankfully though, they have since caved in to market pressure and put that into the 450D and 500D. Furthermore, as I’ve mentioned in the previous point, a lot of the Nikon cameras also have the useful flash commander mode function.

One key feature that is also not skimped on, is the autofocus system. Nikon’s latest autofocus system has 51 AF points, and frankly, it works superbly. If someone using Canon tells you that only the Center Focus point is important, it is because they’ve never used the Nikon autofocus system before. The D3x, D3, D700 and D300 sport this system. In fact, even the current D80, D90 and D5000 cameras sport what used to be a semi-pro 11 point D200 AF system. Canon’s very latest semi-pro 5D Mark II and 50D have much less sophisticated systems (the 5D Mark II’s system is 3 years old, and the 50D has 9 points only – albeit the latter is known to be quite good in its own right). How Canon gets away with things like this bemuses me. You may feel free to verify with Nikon users who have one of the aforementioned 51 AF point cameras. Trust me, the latest Nikon system will beat the lights out of the Canon’s system in almost any normal day-to-day circumstance. Canon reserves their best AF system for the 1D and 1Ds range. So to the regular enthusiast like myself, I’ll just have to dream on if I want these in a prosumer Canon DSLR.

One trend you’ll notice is that Nikon does not take away important photographic features as you move down the product line. In fact, to those who analyze the trend, they are more likely to remove performance related ones that are hard to define on paper, ie. you will only feel the difference if you own the camera that’s higher in the food chain – this is Nikon’s market differentiation strategy. Canon, however will enjoy chopping stuff away features to create their market differentiation. Unfortunately, if you’re a Canon user, it works. Hence you will always want the more expensive camera.

Nikon also gives you the lens hood and pouches for all their latest lens releases in the past 2-3 years, regardless of whether consumer or professional level. Furthermore, almost all the consumer end AF-S lenses have in-built silent motors. Canon only reserves these value added features for their premium L lenses and a select few non-L lenses.

This Nikon trait of giving you more value-added stuff, is also applicable to their flagship Speedlites. You get a stand, diffuser, gel holder and color gels with the SB800/900. It also has the ability to be triggered optically by any camera flash (it doesn’t have to be Nikon). Canon’s 580EX II, comes with a stand and… hmm… nothing else. And Canon’s not very friendly. Canon flashes only ‘talk to’ Canon flashes and no one else.

APS-C Lens Innovation

Frankly, when it comes to well performing APS-C lenses, you are spoilt for choice when you’re a Nikon user. With the exception of the 17-55mm f/2.8 (which Canon wins on, ironically on its feature set), the rest of Nikon’s APS-C range is fantastic. They are the ones who were the first to come up with a 18-200mm VR lens. This lens was so successful that Canon caved in and had to make their own version. Furthermore, they have the latest 35mm f/1.8 at a reasonable price. This lens is an equivalent of a ‘normal’ lens that was always missing from the APS-C range from both Canon and Nikon’s lineup. In fact, a third party lens company called Sigma capitalized on this and as thus have their own 30mm f/1.4 which still sells strongly till today. With Nikon’s 35mm f/1.8 now available, Sigma will have easily lost half of their initial market share.

Canon’s APS-C lens range, aside from the 17-55mm f/2.8 and 10-22mm, arguably pales in comparison when it comes to optical performance and value-for-money. The reason for this is that Canon does not want you to stay with APS-C and instead wants you to ‘graduate’ to full frame and their premium L lenses. That is, after all, where the big money is.

Full Frame Camera Compatibility

This is an interesting point. Basically, Nikon’s full frame cameras can use any of the lenses in the entire Nikon lens range including the APS-C ones. And this makes sense because you’d naturally expect the more expensive camera to be able to use more of the entire product lineup. In fact, the way they did this was innovative genius. Canon on the other hand, does not share this glory. Basically, from what is clearly a marketing decision on Canon’s end, all their EF-S or APS-C lenses CANNOT be used on their full frame cameras. If you do attempt to try it, be prepared for a Canon repair bill.

Although one might argue that it is counterintuitive to want to use APS-C glass on full frame, there’s no harm in having the option right? We as human beings love options. So when you’re in the Canon camp, the moment you think of full frame, get ready to sell all your APS-C glass ‘coz they will just instantly be made redundant the moment you make the switch.

Well, that’s the gist of it really. Regardless of which camp you belong to, there’s always going to be pros and cons to any system.

What about other brands? Well, they’re all good as well, but there are reasons why Canon and Nikon remain the two top DSLR companies in the world. To put it bluntly, both Canon and Nikon have decades of heritage, reputation and continuity in their favor. And when you’re a Canon or Nikon user, you are frankly, spoiled for choice when it comes to lenses and accessories. Even reputed third party lens companies such as Sigma, Tamron and Tokina design the Canon and Nikon mounts first before any of the rest. No disrespect to the likes of Panasonic, Sony, Pentax or Olympus, but they have still a lot more work to do. Don’t get me wrong though, I absolutely love the concept of the latest Olympus Pen camera, and I also strongly believe that Sony is fast catching the top two. Furthermore I am a huge fan of Panasonic point and shoot cameras.

Just my 2 cents worth: If you do want to consider any of the other brands aside from Canon and Nikon in this day and time, get them because you’re HAPPY and SATISFIED with whatever products you’re going to buy at the START. These companies actually have even MORE features than Canon and Nikon in their cameras, but the problem is that you won’t be able to grow much into their respective systems for now, as their lens and accessory ranges are severely limited. More importantly, you miss out on the opportunity to share the photographic experience; the higher number of Canon and Nikon means that there is a higher possibility of sharing fellow photographers’ existing same-brand gear. So just keep that point in mind.

At the end of the day, whichever camera brand you choose, just remember to pick the one which has the features and perhaps even the lenses that you aim to get (cameras get updated nearly yearly, lenses only in 5-10 years). And make those decisions on what is available TODAY, not on speculation and hope. If you are only going to make your decision in 6 months time, then base your choice on the features and lenses available in 6 months time. The bottomline is to be HAPPY with what you are going to get NOW. Also, never let whatever you do NOT own YET stop you from progressing further photographically.

The gear is just a means to achieve the final image. The photographer inevitably is the one who makes the difference. Gear is important, brand less critical, but both only show its full weight in gold when it’s in the hands of one who’s capable and knows how to take FULL advantage of what they possess. Apply that, and I believe you would have already surpassed me as a photographer.

Enjoy the light!

The Canon vs. Nikon Conundrum

Part 1 – My Personal Journey’s Backstory
Part 2 – The Feedback Letter
Part 3 – The Marketing Machine
Part 4 – The Grass Is Always Greener

PS: A little bit of useless trivia. The reason why Canon is known as the light side and Nikon the dark side, has nothing to do with one being good and the other being evil. The next time you spot professional photographers carrying their super-huge telephoto lenses, pay attention to the color (of the lens please, not the skin), particularly sports photographers. You will notice that there will be white and black lenses. The white lenses belong to Canon, and black lenses belong to Nikon. Now this is not really universal, as Canon themselves has lots of black lenses, and Nikon has one grey colored lenses. But it is this mild differentiation, and the fact that these colors are only applicable to LONG telephoto lenses, that they are compared to the light sabers of the Star Wars’ Jedi. After all, these lenses do have an affinity to ‘light’ too =P

I ended the previous part of the story with some very strong words. I basically accused Canon of ‘handicapping’ and ‘under-specifying’ their products on purpose. Not only that, I went as far as to call the 5D Mark II and 50D disappointments, and even found a way to discredit the 18-200mm IS. And all this without justification. Oh dear, I might be turning into Jeremy Clarkson.

Now since I’m already on the verge of getting on the nerves of all Canon photographers, I might as well go all out and do this. The following is my explanation:

5D Mark II

It has all the makings of an awesome camera. It even has lineage. In fact, for the record, it is an amazing piece of photographic equipment. However, how can Canon justify the AF system, a 3 year old hand-me-down from the original 5D. Even the 40D and 50D has arguably better AF. You want to know why they didn’t update it? Don’t believe the press release when they say it’s because it’s more reliable. Wrong. It’s usable. But the reason is so that WHEN they finally get to developing a NEW AF system, they can put it in the 1D Mark IV and 1Ds Mark IV and charge you a few more thousand bucks for it.

Also, if you compare this camera to the old 5D, nothing really photographic has changed. Oh yes, there’s ISO 25600 (good job and equals Nikon’s achievements), there’s 21 MP (really, is this absolutely necessary? – think 30MB RAW files), and the fantastic 1080p HD video. But is there really anything else? Not really. There are little bits here and there but it’s very much to match the market standards. So what you are paying for is the extra MP and the HD video in comparison to its competitors. And until recently HD video without manual control.

You know what my theory is on this delay in manual control? Canon was forced to play their hand because the D700 was released. You see, prior to the D700, Canon had the enthusiast full frame market all to itself. No competition. No fight. That’s why the old 5D stayed in the product line for 3 YEARS. That’s a lifetime in the world of technology. If not for the D700, Canon would have gladly waited till 2009 to get the 5D Mark II out. Instead, they released it before the end of 2008. So I believe we have to thank Nikon for this.

50D

Again Canon was being reactive rather than being proactive. Reactive to what, you say? Why, the D300 of course. You see, within a few days of Canon releasing the 40D, Nikon launched the D3 and D300. What shocked the world was that the D300 was essentially a D3 (on par with Canon’s 1D series = costing upwards of RM13,000) with an APS-C sensor. It had all the bells and whistles, a sharper screen, 51 point pro-level AF, the Nikon CLS built in and the list goes on. Basically the kitchen sink. And the asking price? About RM1500 more than the Canon 40D. Now you see, prior to the 40D, the xxD series was on a 1 and a half year cycle. Meaning you’d have to wait 18 months for the 50D. However, this changed in 2008. They cut it to 12 months. That should be a good thing right? Yes and no. Canon did such a rushed job with this camera that all they really wanted was a camera that looked good on PAPER. So what did they do? Okay, 15 MP (Yay, 15MP > 12MP), ISO 12800 (Yay, ISO 12800 > ISO 6400), 3” HD LCD (Yay, 3” HD = 3”LCD). And they made it cheaper than the D300. So hands down victory right? Wrong again. The camera’s ISO 6400 and ISO 12800 are just rubbish.

And seriously, seriously, what’s the big fuss about all the megapixels? It’s like the old days of how PCs were compared for their Megahertz. Now you look at PCs and the top end ones are maybe 2.4 GHz. Wait a minute, I thought they reached 3.0 GHz years ago? Yes they did, but then Intel had to undo all the marketing they did because they had educated the consumers that MHz and GHz was everything, when it actually wasn’t. The same applies for megapixels. It does not equate to a better camera. Ever wondered why the 2 year old 8 megapixel DSLR takes better images than a brand spanking new 12 megapixel point and shoot compact camera? Food for thought.

And the other thing. ISO is just a number unless its usable and NOT noisy. It’s a bit like telling you the Proton Saga can reach a top speed of 250 km/h. But what they don’t tell you is if you reach that speed, your car will rattle itself to bits and the car engine will blow up. Canon’s 50D is absolutely noisy at ISO 12800. But they put it in for marketing purposes. Everything else about the 50D is the 40D in near duplication (which for the record, are both excellent cameras in their own right). How’s that for advancing technology? Again, who do we thank for the 50D? The Nikon D300. Maybe even the D90.

18-200mm IS

Okay, this lens is frankly a little late. But Canon delivered it. Better late than never, right? Yes, but Canon asked for more money for this lens than Nikon, and don’t even give you a lens hood or a lens pouch. Oh, and did I mention the optics are near identical in performance? They didn’t even give you manual focus override, which comes standard with the Nikon. Why? To protect the Canon L lens range. You see, if you’re a Canon user, the only time your lenses will have hoods or pouches is when it’s an L lens. Yes, that awesome 10-22mm UWA and 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens does not come with any nice extras even though they both cost about RM2500 and RM3800 respectively (which by the way, is pricier than some L lenses).

What does this scream? Purposeful market segmentation. Giving you less than the norm so that you will WANT the premium L range. Yes, some may argue that those accessories don’t affect the image. Correct. But is it really so hard to give us these small extras? Heck, Nikon’s giving it without charging extra. Isn’t there a saying which goes, ‘it’s the little things that matter’?

And actually here’s one more theory of mine. Canon didn’t really want to give you this lens. You see, they have this 28-300mm L lens which costs an arm, a leg and then some. Also, they’ve already created the 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS consumer lenses. So why did they cave in? I think by now you can see where I’m headed with this. The answer: Because the 18-200mm VR alone was moving Nikon sales by the bucket loads. And when that happens, it eats into Canon’s market share. What better way to address this than to fight fire with fire, no?

*deep breath*

Yet in spite of all that I’ve said above, we will still continue to buy Canon cameras and lenses. Why? Because they have one of the best marketing in the world of digital imaging. We immediately think of Canon as one of THE brands for cameras. And they’ve earned it. They make excellent end to end imaging solutions, from the time the image is captured, right till the actual print. They also pick better ambassadors to target the consumers (think Canon’s Maria Sharapova over Nikon’s Ashton Kutcher). They are, by far, aside from Sony, geniuses at marketing. I’ll put them as high up as I rate Apple as well (the latter is one case study every marketing student should analyze).

Actually I akin Canon and Nikon to Toyota and Honda respectively. The latest Vios used the same engine as the previous version, and only changed the external looks. The new Honda City went through an entire revamp, from the inside to the outside. This is very much like the 40D -> 50D (Vios) and the D200 -> D300 (City). One other main similarity in the rivalry, albeit in a completely different industry, is that Toyota, like Canon, are the market leaders. So they CAN rest on their laurels. The motto: “If it aint’ broken, don’t fix it” rings like a mantra to market leaders. And frankly, there’s nothing really wrong with that. They earned their right to do so. And trust me, their products have to work and succeed first, before they can earn this right. So kudos to you Toyota and Canon.

But to me, being able to see through all of this product after product, is like knowing your best friend lied to you, and isn’t apologizing for it. Instead he/she keeps covering it up with more and more stories and excuses, in hope you’ll accept that he/she didn’t intend it. And then in the end try and coax you into believing that there wasn’t a lie to begin with. I will even go as far as to say Canon makes you believe that what you have is GOOD ENOUGH, rather than giving you the BEST that you DESERVE.

I believe on that bombshell, I have gotten myself into a fair bit of trouble (please do not throw red paint at me…). But anyway, if you can see past all of what I’ve wrote, and keep your emotions in check (yes, I mean you, all you Canon users and fans), you can tell that I have already got an deeply imbued bias within me. Canon, like an ex-girlfriend, is now a memory I get very emotional about, ie. something I no longer wish to relive even if there were many great times shared. It is PERSONAL. And as such, it is hard to forgive and forget.

So to all the fence-sitters, before you go run out and buy Nikon gear just because I have thrown dirt at Canon, HOLD YOUR HORSES. I want to make this very clear. The grass is always going to be greener on the other side. And in my next part, with the recent few months of experience with Nikon on my side, I will reveal to you how my dark heart feels that Canon, like all great companies, has its strengths. Frankly, there are quite a few that can whip Nikon’s ass.

Now that I’m on the other side, I can tell you what you’ll miss if you join me on the DARK SIDE of the FORCE. Tell you these secrets, I will… hmm…

To be continued…

The Canon vs. Nikon Conundrum

Part 1 – My Personal Journey’s Backstory
Part 2 – The Feedback Letter
Part 3 – The Marketing Machine
Part 4 – The Grass Is Always Greener

PS: For the record I own a Vios, and I was very sore 6 months later when the new City came out. You see, I liked the Honda Civic, but it wasn’t within my budget. And to make matters worse the old City (no offence) is ugly. So I settled for the lesser of the two evils, ie. the dugong a.k.a. flowerhorn a.k.a. mouse. We live, we learn. The Vios is a great car though, just so happens the new City came out 6 months too late. That’s my confession. Smite me.

Now there’s a reason why I started this article with a backstory of my own photographic journey. If you actually do a stock take of the gear I owned before I made the switch, here’s what you’d have come up with:

• Canon 350D camera
• 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
• 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
• 50mm f/1.8
• 85mm f/1.8

The glass themselves are highly rated in the Canon APS-C world. And I’m not even counting the investment in the 580EX II flash, and all kinds of other bibs and bobs I acquired along the way that were Canon specific. So in summary, I had every reason NOT to switch and just get a camera upgrade from Canon. But the fact is, I didn’t and I still switched. Albeit after a painful financial blow, and also a lot of sleep loss.

Why? Why didn’t I take the most obvious route and stick to Canon? I could perhaps consider a 2nd hand 40D, or a brand new 50D? If I wanted full frame I’d be able to choose from the classic and now legendary 3 year old Canon 5D, and also the brand spanking new HD video capable 5D Mark II. And, as popular rule of thumb applies, I’ve already got an investment of glass in Canon, so I should just stick with them. And as we all know by now, I broke that rule. Why?

The answer to that is NOT a simple one.

Now to those of you who know me well enough, I spend too much time on the Internet reading and researching on all things photography. One minute I’m scouring the 2nd hand markets over Malaysian forums, the next I’ll be spending time reading photography related articles from various Internet sources, and even analyzing MTF charts and reviews on popular photography review pages. So much so, I even compiled a whole page of links for the similarly inquisitive as I. Needless to say, I read online on photography a lot more than I photograph, and as a result I’d like to think I’m fairly informed, though I am susceptible to mad spending of my hard earned money on camera gear.

Well, in order to explain my answer, I’ll need to rewind the clock a bit. I started to get rather frustrated with Canon over their new camera releases of late 2007 and the whole of 2008. It was around this time that Nikon had sent shockwaves by announcing the D3 and D300, two fantastic cameras, just weeks after Canon played safe and released an incremental update of the 30D in the form of 40D. Canon’s aging 5D, then nearly 3 years old, was also not updated.

Ever wonder why Canon do things the way they do? I have a theory, and I will share this with you. In short, it’s called MARKETING, and the age-old saying “If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.” There’s really nothing wrong with what they’re doing, since, they are after all the market leaders.

You see, I was in the market to ‘plan’ my camera upgrade. But in a classic case of ‘gearhead-edness’ and not spending enough time doing ACTUAL photography (yes, I am indeed guilty as charged), I got quite frustrated. Frustrated enough that in the middle of 2008, before the announcements of the Canon 50D, Nikon D90, and Canon 5D Mark II and right after the announcement of the Nikon D700, I wrote a LONG email to Canon Malaysia. I even cc-ed a copy to Chuck Westfall, which as of current date was and still is the manager of the Camera Divison Technical Information Dept of Canon U.S.A.

Here is a copy of the exact same email, unedited and unfiltered other than for some typos I only just corrected. Please note that for those whom are not into DSLR photography, or technically inclined, you may want to zoom right past this email. Also Canon lovers,  as I mentioned in my disclaimer, I warn you that this email will sting you.

Dear XXXX,

Below are my honest opinions on the Canon EOS line, and I hope you can spare a few minutes of your time to just have a read through and ponder the validity of some of the points I’m about to make.

I originally intended to send this email to the head of Canon Malaysia but am not sure how to obtain the contact of this individual. As such I have sent a copy of this email to the general email address of Canon Malaysia at Helpdesk, and also another copy to Chuck Westfall, the manager of the Camera Division Technical Information Dept of Canon U.S.A.

First and foremost, I realize that Canon is indeed a marketing giant, and as an EOS user, I can truly analyze and observe the many marketing decisions that Canon makes to ensure they ‘protect’ their own product line.

However, here are my qualms. To begin with, I believe it’s about time that some of the old prime lenses are phased out. There are some which are more than 15 years old already, and are in dire need of updating. Nowadays with digital, the chromatic aberrations are starting to become startling obvious on these lenses.

Furthermore, I do believe there isn’t a real need to have a 1.3x crop sensor that is the 1d Mk # range. There really isn’t much of a market segment that’s being created there. I really do feel that what is really needed is an update of the old 5D, and perhaps a Full Frame camera targeted at the sports photographers market segment. I believe the 1Ds Mk # series on the other hand, can retain its place as there is still a good niche market which demands for high resolutions which are close to that of the medium formats.

I’m also completely agreeable with the decision to come up with the 1000D and 450D. This opens up a new market for budget DSLRs and credit is due to those who decided on this. However I do feel a clear-cut flagship is required in the APS-C format. The 40D is starting to look like a pretender with the likes of the Nikon D300 in the market. For not much more money, there’s just so much more camera in the Nikon D300, and I wouldn’t be surprised to find a lot of Canon loyalists starting to waiver.

I also reckon that it’s time to stop resting on the laurels of the aging 5D. It’s already 3 years old, and is sorely in need of an update. This camera should already be phased out, and the blunder that was the AF problems with the 1D Mk III should perhaps be taken as an indication that it might be time to phase the APS-H line out also. The Nikon D3 easily contests with the 1D Mk III for similar money and a REAL full frame sensor. It’s no wonder that even at a major event like the Tour De France, more sports and action photographers are choosing Nikon. I will not be surprised if the trend reveals itself in full force at the Beijing Olympics 2008.

I feel that there is potential for a new market segment by releasing a TRUE flagship APS-C and also two Full Frame cameras. One a budget option like the 5D in its heyday, and one a higher spec-ed one to target the would be D3-owners. I know it’s easy for me to suggest these things, but I do feel there’s some weight to this argument.

In terms of lenses, I think it’s high time Canon did something about the 50mm range. The f/1.4 lenses sorely needs an update with frequent complaints of extremely soft imagery wide open and a dated non-ring USM. I reckon, even if the price were to be increased on the f/1.4, but a new updated version released, the sales of this lens will really start picking up. The 50mm f/1.2, with its poor track record, might also deserve a second look at.

I am also one of the many thousands of Canon users who just wish that Canon would just release a REAL 18-200 IS. Never mind if the optics aren’t 100% fantastic, or if a plastic lens mount is to be put with no real USM motor. It’s about time it gets released before more potential customers use Nikon just to access the fantastic 18-200 VR. Don’t get me wrong, the idea to have both the 18-55 IS and 55-250mm IS is an inspired one, but really, is it really that difficult for a technological giant like Canon to make one? In fact, if it’s good enough, perhaps even the 17-85mm, which isn’t all that well accepted due to its optical flaws can be phased out slowly.

I do believe also that there’s room for Canon to start pioneering ideas, and perhaps the niche market segment that the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 has created for the APS-C revolution. If Canon were to release their own version, be it an EF-S one, a huge demand would also be created. Perhaps this is against the marketing strategy of Canon (protecting the L lens range or what not), but there clearly is a demand for this lens, the numbers don’t lie. It’s no use trying to rely on the dated and aging 28mm 1.8.

And then there’s the L lenses. I think it’s about time that Canon releases a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS. The pros have been crying for it, and although it would be a premium product, it would be a perfect reply to the double whammy of the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 and the 24-70mm f/2.8 (the latter of which has tested to be a fantastic optic end-to-end). Also with major reviewers commenting on the sharpness (or rather the lack of) on the premium 70-200 f/2.8 IS, I do believe the pro market deserves more attention and an update to what is surely a workhorse lens that will serve to strengthen instead of weakening Canon’s current lineup. I know this is possible, as Canon’s own 70-200 f/4.0 IS is one of their sharpest to date, so what’s stopping the release of a new 70-200 f/2.8 IS?

I really have to stress that the small things that a company like Nikon pays attention to really does make a difference. Take for instance their in camera viewfinder gridlines, and huge viewfinders (on a enthusiast level camera like the D80). It doesn’t cost too much more for small things like those I’m sure, but Canon just refuses to give the photographers the best camera they can get. I do strongly believe that Canon is a technological powerhouse, but that seems like something left in the past. They’re rested on their laurels for too long, and I think the facts speak for themselves, that with the release of Nikon’s pro D3, D300 and now the D700, canon’s professional line will start being massacred. Evidence of the entire USA today staff changing their gear, and major event photographers switching over, should already be enough to prove my point.

I’m sure that there are Canon pros who swear by the 1D and 1Ds range, but from an enthusiast’s point of view, I’d rather swear by the D3. It costs so much less than a 1.3x cropped 1D series camera and a heck lot less than a 1Ds series camera. And again, by winning so much critical acclaim, I do believe the pros are speaking for themselves. That camera is so feature loaded it puts the canon flagships to shame. I for one, feel that high ISO performance is more important than keeping the megapixel count. There’s so much more versatility to a camera capable of High ISO rather than a 24MP one. What’s the use of all those megapixels if one can’t even get the shot in low light to begin with?

Speaking of light, then there is the Flash system. ‘Strobist’ is by far one of the fastest growing online communities in the photography world. And their flash of choice? The Nikon SB800, which is already legendary for its feature set and for less money than the 580EX II. Now with the announcement of the SB900, the 580EX II truly just looks like a glorified smack. I really do feel that a cheaper level featured flash is required below the overpriced 430EX. Perhaps keeping the 430EX in the lineup in spite of the 430EX II might be a good idea to allow Canon users to enjoy flash photography. And truthfully, is it really so difficult to have the SU-4 functionality that the SB800 doesn’t charge a single cent more for?

Although I have credited the decision to have the 1000D and 450D, everything else I’ve mentioned thereafter reveals a severe gap. I strongly believe that after 1 year or so of using those cameras, those camera owners will start feeling the disgruntlement that I am feeling now.

Times are changing. And for the giant that Canon is, they are really reacting too slowly. It’s time for some changes, resting on the laurels of former glory won’t do. The competition waits for nobody. A storm’s brewing, and not all of us (myself included) will want to stand with them to weather it out. So this is my plea, before I make the right decision of a photography enthusiast and leave the Canon EOS line for good.

Passionate for the light, and no longer delighted,
Woody Ang

Now if you actually bother to copy and paste this entire email, it will be nearly 1600 words long and take up 3 whole pages in Microsoft Word. This email for me, about one year ago from today, summed up in a polite and curt way every thing I felt was wrong with Canon. Unfortunately since this email, very little has changed in the world of Canon. Mind you, I gave them credit in this email, and even gave constructive suggestions, in spite of the negative vibes emanating.

Some enthusiasts and photographers in-the-know may say that since the time of my email, there’s been the 50D and 5D Mark II. Not to mention, they’ve also answered one of my requests: a 18-200mm IS lens. But unfortunately, in all my red mist, I can see right through these 3 products. I can break down for you the amazing Canon marketing strategy that actually purposely HANDICAPS cameras and UNDER-SPECIFIES lenses to ensure there is enough segmentation in their lineup. And yes, they applied it to all of the 3 aforementioned products on purpose. Now note again, that I’m sure even Nikon does things to have sufficient market segmentation in their lineup, but I personally feel they are not as blatant as Canon.

Again I stress, that these by no means say that Canon makes poor products. On the contrary, their cameras are capable of amazing things. They have one of the most COMPLETE lens ranges and many a photographer has proven that to me time and time again what fantastic imagery can be captured with any of their cameras. Heck, I owned one for more than 2 years. I should know that.

So why then am I still so disgruntled? And what am I harping about by using the words ‘HANDICAPS’ and ‘UNDER-SPECIFIES’? Curious? I’m just getting to it.

To be continued…

The Canon vs. Nikon Conundrum

Part 1 – My Personal Journey’s Backstory
Part 2 – The Feedback Letter
Part 3 – The Marketing Machine
Part 4 – The Grass Is Always Greener

PS: I do realize a lot of this post will come across as Greek and pure techno-babble. I will try and explain some of it in layman terms if there’s enough interest, else don’t worry, this is a one-off thing… =)

My photographic journey really began when I was given my first digital camera by my parents before I went abroad to commence my Year 3 of Electrical Engineering in Melbourne way back in late 2003. This camera happened to be the Canon Powershot A70. This was a camera I did a lot of research on before buying, and as such, having done my due diligence, knew at the time that for the money, I not only had a simple and easy-to-use camera, but also one which had Program Mode, Aperture Mode, Shutter Mode and also Manual Mode. It was with this camera that I embarked on a journey through photography. The same journey which I’ve mentioned in an earlier post that I am still on.

Now the beauty of having being introduced to a camera with so many functions, was the ability to appreciate the benefits of spot metering, macro, long exposures, high ISO (more like to ‘avoid it’), and also panorama stitching. Back in the day I did not know how to use Photoshop, and I pretty much relied on whatever software Canon provided to make the most of my JPEGs.

Then in late 2006, when I was about to start my first official full time job, I decided to reward myself with a new camera, and this came to be the Canon 350D DSLR camera. The decision to get a Canon back in the day was relatively simple. My dad had owned a Canon film SLR. Also, since my first camera was a Canon, in seemed almost natural to transition within the same family. Not only that, I had a very limited budget, and my only other option at the time was the brand new Nikon D40 (which reviews didn’t speak well of due to the missing AF motor) and also a more expensive Nikon D80 or Canon 400D. Back then, I had yet to meet peer who really did any DSLR photography, so I went pretty much on a whim and bought the camera, along with the 18-55mm kit lens and a 90-300mm telephoto.

And from there I went through Phase 1 of my journey, discovering the limitless potential of DSLR photography, and along the way ‘poisoned’ a number of friends to pick it up as well. Phase 2 came swift and fast, and I bought the plastic fantastic 50mm f/1.8. This was not the end of it though. Within the first year of DSLR photography, I had acquired a 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron lens, and also a 50-150mm f/2.8 Sigma lens, whilst selling the first two lenses my camera had come with. Soon afterwards, I learnt the painful way that Sigma lenses had front focusing problems, and thus after a service, decided to sell the Sigma. In its place came the 85mm f/1.8. In an unfortunate incident, my Tamron lens also suffered a poor fate. After rolling off the bed one day and landing with a loud ‘thud’ on the carpeted floor, I had to send it in for repair due to a serious photographic fault. It came back as good as new, but my confidence was shaken, and so as good as the lens was, I sold it.

What happened next? Well, in the midst of all this lens changing, I went through Phase 3 and covered a wedding along with two buddies of mine whom had also just picked up DSLR photography. I even managed to source a very cheaply priced 2nd hand 10-22mm ultra wide angle lens. Soon after, however, things got a little tricky. I loved the Tamron’s versatility and as such needed a direct replacement. I was left with a simple conundrum, but one which ultimately proved to be another case of learning the hard way. I tried to decide between two shortlisted lenses; the 17-40mm f/4.0 L lens, and the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. I went for the former as I was sold by the possibility of one day moving to full frame. To some enthusiasts, this is considered ‘the dream’. The lens served me well. It even survived the extremities atop Mount Kinabalu, and also the pouring rain in Milford’s Sound in New Zealand.

However, one day in a rain drenched adventure at Franz Josef Glacier on the West Coast of New Zealand, my camera bag got soaked in torrential rain. My camera basically went through a serious malfunction and it refused to switch on. I was at a complete loss. My heart sank and I felt a cold shiver running repeatedly throughout my body. I was in a foreign land, with no camera, and at the time I had yet to even see Milford and Queenstown in South Island, both the photographic highlights of my supposed landscape photography extravaganza. After a heart-wrenching night in front of the fireplace drying the camera out, by a sheer miracle, the camera came back to life. The damage? The orientation sensor no longer worked and thus the camera no longer knew if the image was taken in portrait or landscape format in the review mode. Small matter really compared to the worst case scenario.

After going through a week of landscape nirvana in New Zealand, I felt rejuvenated. But there’s always a problem after seeing ‘heaven’. That problem is that you start comparing with ‘heaven’ and very soon I started to get very deflated, and such Phase 4 happened. Upon my return from New Zealand, I sent my trusty, battle weary 350D (a camera which had seen and gone through so much, which aside from the malfunction in New Zealand, also survived a fall against hard rocks up on the summit of Mount Kinabalu) in for a diagnosis. The prognosis was disturbing. Aside from the orientation sensor which was obviously damaged, Canon also found water damage in various other areas and quoted me a repair bill of more than 1000 RM. With a huge resigned sigh, I decided to take it back unrepaired, as it still functioned as a camera. But as a result of the prognosis, in my mind, the camera’s days were numbered. It did not help that I was finding that my images were mis-focusing every now and then.

Right around this time, I started to ponder an upgrade. However, I was dissatisfied with Canon’s attempts at the 40D and 50D, especially in the face of the Nikon D90 and the D300, the latter two clearly more feature packed cameras for the price brackets. As the cost of switching camps was too high for me to consider at the time, I carried on using my battle scarred 350D. In the midst of this, I also considered the jump to full frame by pondering the venerable Canon 5D. Then in early 2009, I purchased the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens and sold the 17-40mm, as I could no longer resist the addiction to fast glass and also the benefit of IS, which until date, I had not been able to personally experience. I pretty much sealed my fate in the APS-C camp. Or so I thought. As I said in an earlier paragraph, I learnt the hard way.

But as life should have it, Phase 4 would hit me longer and harder than I thought it would. My camera started to mis-focus more frequently, and my self-confidence started to deteriorate tremendously. This was not helped on by the fact that a fellow photographer friend mentioned my images were not looking sharp either. After a lot of thought, and putting some of my closest friends through my fickle mindedness, I did the unthinkable. I sold all my Canon gear with the exception of the camera and the 50mm f/1.8 lens. It would be wrong to sell a faulty camera off, and my conscience would not allow it. I kept the 50mm f/1.8 as I felt it was only fair that I kept one lens to use with the film and also the trusty 350D if I ever felt a sense of nostalgia.

What I did next stunned even more people. I purchased a Nikon D700. A huge leap of faith. Not only did I switch camps but I went from a APS-C sensor to a full frame sensor. The big question people ask is why did I switch camps? Why did I not just stick to Canon? Why full frame? Why not just consider the 5D Mark II?

Well, with the backstory covered, I can now go on to the real meat of the story.

To be continued…

The Canon vs. Nikon Conundrum

Part 1 – My Personal Journey’s Backstory
Part 2 – The Feedback Letter
Part 3 – The Marketing Machine
Part 4 – The Grass Is Always Greener

What tastes good is not necessarily good for you.

Same way what looks great and feels great to own may not be good for you.

Is there such a thing as too much of a good thing?

And finally, in photographic terms, how much bokeh is ‘enough bokeh’?

I think these are the classic questions that arise from a perspective of a camera gearhead. I am without a doubt one of these people.

Alright, here’s a bit of technical hulabaloo which I’ll need to explain. ‘Bokeh’ refers to that blur you see in images coming from the more expensive cameras, particularly DSLRs in most contexts. So as you can see in these two images, there’s a lot of that blur. And believe it or not, gearheads (sometimes photographers, not always), pay a LOT for more BLUR and yet at the same time they want SHARPER.

Make any sense?

You pay MORE, sometimes a LOT MORE than the price of your camera to get this BLUR. So you ask “I thought people want sharp photos?” Well, strange question that. As human beings we’re drawn to this blur or bokeh, and it’s this bokeh that the normal layperson on the street sees in a wedding photography shop or photographer’s portfolio and goes… “Wah, so professional…”

Anyway I digress.

So where am I going with this ramble…

Ah yes, here’s a little fact for the non camera enthusiasts. Blur costs money, most of the time, more money than sharp. How much more?

My equation is simple:
Prime lens (ie. those that cannot zoom) = f/1.8 or lower f/number
Zoom lens (ie. those that CAN zoom) = f/5.6 or lower f/number

Imagine those to be speed limits on an Australian road. Now the faster you go (ie. the LOWER the f/number), the higher the fine you pay. Now here’s the wonderful thing about photography equipment: To get gear that has a lower f/number, be ready to pay a penalty of a minimum of double the price of the one with the ’speed limit’.

What’s the difference? Well lots if you’re a gearhead. Less if you’re a professional photographer. Even less if you love photography for photography itself.

Photography enthusiasts (particularly gearheads) will be able to wax lyrical and tell you the benefits of them. The problem is, just like us flirting with the speed limit, how FAST do you go (ie. how much do you PAY) till it hits you, and your inner conscience screams “Oi, are you freaking mad?”

Oh but speed is intoxicating, so is this thing we call bokeh, and thus we fall into this never-ending deathtrap.

Here’s my confession: I love fast cars, same way I love fast lenses… so OUCH!

The Gearhead Diaries

Part 1 – The Warning Signs
Part 2 – The Photographic Equation
Part 3 – The Need For Speed & Bokeh
Part 4 – To Be Continued

It’s a strange scenario really.

You have in your possession equipment that, in the right hands would be able to create wonderful imagery. Yet, you’re stuck with the notion that you need that professional level lens or camera body to improve your photography. Images not sharp enough, or there’s not enough bokeh… etc.

Granted, yes, the professional level lens and camera will likely give you the two items above, but will it mean your images will look better? Questionable.

I remember some time back a friend of mine came up with a simple formula to calculate how good a shot is based on a variety of factors. I’ve since refined it.

If my memory serves me right, here it is:

Image Quality = 20% Camera Body + 30% Camera Lenses & Accessories + 40% Technique/Skill/Composition + 20% Post Processing Ability

Yes I do realise that my math doesn’t end up to 100%, but it is purposely designed as so. Now what the above equation is meant to illustrate is that even with the most professional camera in the world and the world’s sharpest lenses, you really only come up to:

20% Camera Body (eg. D3/D700/5D Mark II)

+ 30% Camera Lenses & Accessories (eg. 70-200 f/2.8 IS/VR)

= 50% Good Image

Let’s have another look at the equation. So say now you give a point and shoot camera to a professional photographer.

5% Camera Body (eg. Canon Ixus)

+ 10% Camera Lens & Accessories (eg. Simple tripod + appropriate focal length)

+ 40% Skill/Technique/Composition

+ 20% Post Processing Ability

= 75% Good Image

Yes, the image may not be technically the best shot possible. But hey, it beats having the best gear in the world and knowing nuts about things like spot metering, white balance control and +ve/-ve compensation.

I’ve been privileged to be in the company of close friends and fellow photographers who are able to take images that could put people with 3-4x the investment to shame. And the beauty of it is their photographic enthusiasm. They no longer drool over the latest and greatest gear. That my friends, is something I believe I can learn from as well.

Food for thought…

The Gearhead Diaries

Part 1 – The Warning Signs
Part 2 – The Photographic Equation
Part 3 – The Need For Speed & Bokeh
Part 4 – To Be Continued

This is going to be one heck of a long story, but possibly done in parts so that I can bore everyone with my reiteration of the same things.

As a photography enthusiast, it is so easy these days to be seduced by the notion that the better the camera, the better the images. My story begins with the humble Canon Powershot A70 before moving on to a Canon 350D.

The history of my photographic life I might one day ramble about, but for now let’s NOT go into that.
The trouble started with the entry level Canon 350D.

Prior to owning a DSLR, somehow when the images don’t quite come out the way you want it to come out, you could happily blame the camera, and say “Ah well, that’s the best my camera can do…”
However, upon moving into DSLR, suddenly the potential is limitless.

“Darn, can’t shoot wider…” Solution: Get a wider lens or UWA (Ultra Wide Angle)
“I want more of those professional portrait kinda blur (bokeh)….” Solution: Get a prime with a fast aperture (small f/stop number)
“I want to take photos in the dark…” Solution: Get a flash

And the list goes on and on and on…

And even when you’ve gotten yourself a nice UWA, nice prime… suddenly the f/4.0 lens you owned isn’t good enough, and you want the f/2.8 or f/1.8 or even the f/1.2.

Suddenly, the bokeh of the f/1.8 is not enough, you lust over the f/1.4… “It’s so nice… and it’s got USM too… look at what the reviewers say….”

Flickr, I have to say is a double edged sword. By showing the EXIF of images online, you get gearheads like myself, always wanting to know what camera and what lens was used for a shot that caught your eye. And the immediate response in your head when you see an ‘expensive’ lens or camera… “Wah, no wonder la… he/she’s using a *insert expensive camera/lens here*…”

Sound familiar to any of you?

If it does, you might be showing the first clear cut symptom of being a gearhead…

Be afraid, be very afraid… because even if you aren’t, the wallet/purse in your pocket is shivering…

More to come…

The Gearhead Diaries

Part 1 – The Warning Signs
Part 2 – The Photographic Equation
Part 3 – The Need For Speed & Bokeh
Part 4 – To Be Continued