SIGMA 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM LENS CANON MOUNT

Many people ask me about the Sigma 30mm f1.4 prime lens. I've owned it both in a Canon and a Nikon mount, and I can say both of mine were fantastic. Prime lenses aren't for everybody, but if you're a prime shooter or are just interested in adding more flexibility to your lens line-up, I'd highly recommend you try the Sigma 30mm f1.4.

At f1.4, you'll have to watch your distances and make sure what you want to be in focus will be, but it's a look you're not going to get from a slower lens. I'm talking about that creamy, out of focus background. You just can't get that at f8, or even at f2.8 for that matter.

There have been reports that some samples of this lens aren't sharp. While this may be the case, I can tell you that both of mine were extremely sharp. Bear in mind too, that you're just as likely to get a new Canon lens that isn't sharp (MORE likely with some Canon lenses), as you are with the Sigma 30mm f1.4, so don't let that stop you. Shop at a store that will let you try it out first, and you shouldn't have any problems. I can also tell you that customer service for Sigma is fantastic. I spoke with them at length about another Sigma lens I was considering buying 2nd hand, and they were very helpful.

Did I mention my Sigma 30mm's were sharp...


Sigma 30mm @ f1.4

RadioPopper - the new standard for wireless flash?

RadioPopper is just about ready to start taking orders for their new radio based wireless flash system. For those of you that haven't been following the on-going news of their development, RadioPoppers will be a radio based alternative to wireless flash systems like Pocket Wizards, Nikon's CLS system, and Canon's Wireless Flash system. The big news and HUGE advantage with RadioPoppers is that they are not ine-of-sight systems like the ones I just mentioned.

"RadioPopper addresses the key issue of reliability of the “line of sight” infrared system by essentially “bridging” the infrared light signal over a radio link. This translates to a beautifully simple solution to a very complex problem." (from the RadioPopper website).

I can't wait to try these puppies out! The existing systems, including Pocket Wizards, have serious limitations. A lot of us have learned to work within these limitations, but that doesn't mean we liked it! With the introduction of the RadioPoppers, things will change. If they work as claimed, I think they'll be the new standard for wireless flash.

Bear in mind my small caveat though... "if they work as claimed". These are an entirely new product, not just another version of something that already exists. I'm hoping they work beautifully, but that does remain to be seen. As with any new product, there may be a few bugs to iron out once they hit the mainstream, but that's fine so long as things are handled properly. Suffice to say, I have high hopes for these little beauties.

Backing Up... Hard Drive, DVD, CD ???

Backing up data, specifically photos in our case, is an on-going chore. It's even more complicated depending on what you choose to back up to, and how you do your back-ups. Indeed, what you back up to can be half the head-ache these days with all the information out there about what's more reliable and how long each media will last.

I use a combination of hard drives and DVD's. I download to my working drive, and then use a great little program called Allways Sync to make sure everything from my working drive gets replicated on a duplicate back-up drive. If it's a paid job, or something else that's of high importance, I also then burn a set of DVD's.

Perhaps a little bit of over-kill, but it lets me sleep at night, and that is the key. What will let you sleep at night? Or, in other words, what are you comfortable with? How much or how little redundancy in your back-up plan is enough to give you peace of mind?

I have photographer friends who have eliminated DVD's from their back-up plans altogether. I also have photographer friends who are entirely DVD based in their back-ups.

The facts seem to indicate that DVD's do not have a great life expectancy and are certainly not an archival storage media. This, of course, depends on a few factors such as the brand of DVD, whether you get a good burn (i.e. is your burner still doing it's job 100%), and how you store the DVD's you've burned. All of these factor into how long you can expect your burnt DVD's to be readable.

Of course, some make the argument that with the speed at which technology is moving, the likelihood that DVD's will at least last until the next new media format (i.e. Blu-Ray)is good. I'd have to mostly agree with that, bearing in mind that I hedge my bets and use hard drives too. :) In any event, it's pretty well agreed upon that DVD's are not what you want to be counting on for long-term archival storage.

So, a mix of both hard drives and DVD's, just hard drives, or maybe just DVD's with several copies and a plan to up-date them to the next new media... take your pick. What will let you sleep at night?

Canon EOS 450D Rebel XSi

Canon announced it's new Canon EOS 450D Rebel XSi just prior to PMA 2008. When you consider what it offers for such a low price, it's an impressive camera, to say the least.

Featuring a new "Canon 12.2-megapixel CMOS sensor, DIGIC III Image Processor, 14-bit conversion for smooth tone, gradations, extensive noise reduction technology, and new Auto Optimization for superior highlight-shadow control," the XSi is likely to make a lot of 40D owners a little envious (if not upset).

It's is interesting that Canon would introduce a lower model like the XSi, that trumps it's more expensive, higher-end brother, the 40D, in so many ways. The 40D is fairly new in Canon's line-up, and while a very capable camera, the XSi trumps it in quite a few areas (not the least of which is the sensor) for almost half the price. Indeed, with all the features the XSi offers (not the least of which is the what looks to be the same great AF system that the 40D has), I'd be hard pressed to recommend the 40D over the XSi.

Without pixel-peeping any images, I'm content to say that the XSi will be more than capable of producing top-quality images, likely better than what the 40D is capable of, considering the XSi's new sensor. This leads me back to my earlier comment that a lot of 40D owners might not be too happy upon reading the XSi press release. I don't know why Canon released the 40D so under-spec'd in comparison to the XSi when they obviously knew it was coming, but as a consumer, it doesn't leave me to happy about having spent a lot more money on my 40D's only to have the XSi announced at almost half the price.

Anyway, enough about the 40D. The XSi looks to be a truly amazing camera for the money. The price of DSLR's just keeps dropping, and it amazes me that you can get a camera as fully featured as the XSi for only $899.99 USD.

One of the changes the XSi brings is the move away from Compact Flash to SD cards. While this may be annoying to some (likely pro's who want to use the XSi as a back-up), I doubt the XSi's target market will mind at all. Most consumers are used to SD cards, having used them in their point and shoot cameras, cellphones, GPS units, and other electronic gizmos. The fact that the XSi uses SD will be a plus to them, as they likely already own an SD card or two and are probably more familiar with SD than CF. And for the pros missing the Compact Flash, SD cards are so cheap these days, it's really not a big deal. Buy a couple of 8GB SD cards and be done with it!

The XSi also uses a new "high capacity" Lithium-Ion 1080 mAh battery called an LP-E5. I don't really see the point in this, but then I suppose Canon wants to make money on all the extra batteries it will sell as XSi owners have to buy extras because their XT and XTi batteries don't fit. I'm all for sticking to a limited amount of batteries in a product line. Canon has to be commended for doing this with their 20D, 30D, 40D, and 5D lines. They all use the same BP511 battery which is great! So why did they change up the battery in the XSi? I'm sure they'll quote advantages of longer battery life and such, but my XTi batteries last plenty long. My guess is money. Shake up the battery line and add a new revenue stream.

Due in stores by April of this year, I'm looking forward to getting mine. I love new toys, and this little guy looks like it packs a heck of a punch in a small package!

Does the 40D have AF Super Powers?

I've had my 40D for a couple weeks now, and I'm impressed. The up-grades from the 30D are not just minor tweaks. When the 30D came out, a lot of us were disappointed as it was little more than a 20D with very minor improvements. This is not the case with the 40D. The improvements are significant and very noticeable.

Perhaps the biggest is the new AF system. On paper, it doesn't sound like it would be that much of an improvement over the 30D. In reality, it is a significant improvement over the 30D. In fact, the improvement is so significant that reports are coming in of photographers finding they can use lenses with their 40D that they couldn't previously use with their 30D or 20D due to focus issues.

I don't personally have any lenses that don't work with my 30D or 20D, but a close friend of mine has 5 lenses that had focus issues with his 30D that are now working perfectly with his 40D. Does the 40D have AF Super Powers? Who knows. I can say that it works wonderfully.

My 40D is paired with my Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS pretty much 100% of the time. My 30D, 20D, and XTi usually have a fast prime or longer zoom on them, depending what I'm shooting. The 40D / 17-55 f2.8 IS is a KILLER COMBO! More and more, I'm shooting almost entirely with it. Focus is very fast, images are sharp, and I have virtually no OOF (out of focus) shots.

Even in dim lighting, the 40D & 17-55 just kick butt. I shoot a lot of weddings, and most receptions end up with poor lighting by the time the dances get going (if not before). The 40D & 17-55 have been amazing in these situations. I'm getting shots that the 30D would not have got, and the focus accuracy is greatly improved in comparison to the 30D.

The AF improvements of the 40D are so significant, that I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I originally planned on adding only one 40D to my current camera line-up. After shooting with it for the last couple of weeks, including two weddings, I will be adding a second 40D, if not a third. The 40D is just that damn good!

That said... if anybody is interested in a 20D in excellent condition, send me an email. :-)

Sigma 70-200mm VS Nikon 70-200mm VR

A friend of mine recently asked me what the difference was between the Sigma AF 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM APO DG macro and the Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G IF-ED VR lenses.

I’ve owned and shot with both of these lenses, and aside from having some very different long names, there are some significant differences. First off, I’ll say that they’re both very good and capable lenses.

With that said, the Nikon is the clear winner. VR alone puts it over the edge. I've shot the Nikon at 1/20s at 200mm. Try that with the Sigma. There are so many times when you’ll get the shot because of the VR, and you would’ve missed the shot without it. Advantage Nikon. I can’t stress this enough. Image stabilization, or Vibration Reduction as Nikon calls it, is worth every penny in a zoom lens of this range.

Bear in mind that most DSLR’s these days are crop sensor format, that is to say they are 1.3 (Canon 1D series), 1.5 (most Nikons with the exception of the new D3), or 1.6 (most Canon’s with the exception of the 5D and 1Ds series). Cropped sensors will magnify the hand-holding rules. In other words, the old rule of setting your shutter speed to your lens focal length doesn’t hold true with these sensors. If you want to stay sharp while hand-holding, you’re best to set a higher shutter speed than your lens focal length. For example, when shooting at 50mm, I set my shutter speed to 80s or 60s.

A lot of folks feel that the higher mega pixel sensor adds to this rule yet again. In theory this has something to do with the higher pixel density, and while I’m not a math wizard, my brain can see how this would be. In practice, I have found this to be true, which is all that really matters. Hence, why I would usually set my shutter speed to 80s instead of 60s when shooting with a 50mm lens. Of course, the rules change and you can get away with slower shutter speeds when using flash, but that’s another story.

Back to our lens comparison, the Nikon is also sharper and has better color and contrast than the Sigma. The difference isn't drastic, but it is fairly significant. If you someone who uses teleconverters, you'll appreciate the added resolution you get with the Nikon (and again you’ll appreciate the VR).

Let me go back to what I said at the beginning… both of these lenses are very good and capable lenses. You make excellent photographs with either. The Sigma is significantly cheaper than the Nikon, but the Nikon offers some very significant advantages over the Sigma. You have to decide what your budget is, and if the advantages the Nikon offers are important to you.

I shot with the Sigma, and I made some great photos. I shot with the Nikon, and I made some great photos. Given a choice, I’d take the Nikon. YMMV.

Check out www.photozone.de for the MTF charts and reviews on both the Nikon and the Sigma.

Switching from Canon to Nikon

There has been a lot of talk on the internet from folks considering the switch from Canon to Nikon. Some of them are ex-Nikon shooters looking to come home, and some are Canon shooters intrigued by everything the new Nikon D3 has to offer.

Considering I used to shoot Nikon (switched to Canon in the Spring of 2006), obviously these new Nikons hold an appeal for me. I like my Canon's, and although I've never had any problems with them (touch wood), I don't have the same confidence in Canon QC and reliability as I did with my Nikons.

Case in point: the 30D vs the D200. Image quality aside, when you pick them both up, the 30D feels like a toy in comparison. The D200 is much better built and is much better stacked feature and ergonomic-wise.

That said, there is something missing in Nikon's lens line-up that may stop me from buying a D3 or a D300 (I wouldn’t switch back, but would shoot “bi” if I bought a new Nikon). They have no standard zoom with VR. Big problem! I was really surprised when they announced the 24-70 with no VR. What were they thinking? This would've been a huge thing for Canon and Nikon shooters alike.

Image stabilization (or VR or OS or whatever you want to call it) is something that should be pretty standard now. I like the idea of a body based system like the Pentax K10D or the new Sony A700, but so far these haven't panned out. The K10D doesn't even have pro lenses available yet, and the AF speed is an issue (maybe not once we can get a hold of the new Pentax lenses). The Sony A700 looks good on paper, but it's IS better be better than it's A100 little brother because the A100 wasn't all that. Also, A700 images I’ve seen so far look pretty bad at high ISO.

Then there’s the price. While this isn’t a consideration for some, it is for me. I like to get maximum value and a great bargain. As much as the D3 appeals to me on many levels, it's price tag does not. The D300 is more my speed. I'm not saying the D3's price isn't justified, just that it doesn't fit into my business model. So, the big question is how the D300 will do on image quality.

And of course, Nikon has yet to introduce a standard zoom with VR. Will they? This is something many will want to think about before considering a switch. With Canon you’ve got the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS and the Canon 24-105 f4L IS to choose from. With Nikon, you’ve got nothing in a PRO caliber.

And what if Pentax brings out a successor to the K10D that uses the new 12MP CMOS sensor that the D300 and A700 use? The K10D is one FULLY FEATURED camera! If the new lenses deliver good AF speed, I think I'll be adding a Pentax... not a Nikon.

Ahhh... so much to consider!