They’re Here

The cameras arrived today… Some first impressions… The 10D is big. I have one of the larger ‘point-and-shoot’ models that Fuji makes. But this thing is way bigger. It felt kind of awkward carrying it around. It’s not uncomfortable to hold or anything of the sort, it’s just big. It’s also pretty heavy. The 300D is considerably smaller and lighter. Between the silver color, the light weight, and the fact that something rattles, it feels much cheaper, though.

It just feels like a ‘real’ camera. You take a picture and the shutter sound is actually the shutter, not a cheesy sound effect that only plays when I forget to mute it. With a ‘real’ sensor size, I’m not cursed to always having everything in focus. (Which sounds desirable, but tell me you’ve never wished the background was blurred.) Using the preset modes, the camera seems predisposed towards popping up the flash when I least expect it, but it’s usually necessary.

I haven’t yet figured out how to change ISO settings. The 10D officially goes to ISO 1600, but allows an ‘expanded’ ISO setting of 3200. It’s pretty clean at that point, too. Most cameras get extremely noisy/grainy. The 300D goes to ISO1600; I played with it briefly there and it’s kind of noisy but still decent. Staples had a 1GB CompactFlash card for $13, before a $5 rebate, that I picked up this morning.

The lens it shipped with (used, not standard) is a 35-80mm f/4-5.6 lens. It’s halfway decent. The thing is that both of the cameras are the ‘APS-C’ sized sensors, which aren’t full frame, so they only capture the center of what’s coming through the lens. Therefore, there’s a 1.6x ‘crop factor.’ In layman’s terms, you’re ‘zoomed in’ an extra 60%. So the 35-80mm lens becomes a 56-128mm lens. I’d prefer something wider for general use, but it’s a free lens, so I won’t complain too much yet. I took it off to move it to the other camera, and noticed that it’s extremely light. Which, at least in lenses, isn’t really a good thing.

What would a camera ‘review’ be without pictures?!

title=”Photo Sharing”>First 10D Image

It’s a really lame picture, but it’s the first one so it’s obligatory to include it. Note the overexposed portions as the flash popped up.

title=”Photo Sharing”>Shallow DOF

This isn’t a remarkable picture either. But it shows one thing that I’m already loving: the shallow depth of field. (Of course you can use smaller apertures to overcome this.) I can’t tell you how many times I’ve wanted to take a picture and have the busy background be thrown out of focus. I was resigned to shooting in macro mode which kind of did it. Now it’s the real deal.

title=”Photo Sharing”>Macro-ish

Getting better, though it’s still nothing I’d frame. This one was testing something else: macro mode. (Actually, I hadn’t yet discovered that the camera had a macro setting. I just wanted to see how close I could focus.) I can’t get half an inch away, but this is plenty close for most sane things.

title=”Photo Sharing”>Neat Bike

I thought that bike was kind of neat. This wasn’t necessarily meant to showcase any special features, although I will note that nothing seems lost in the shadows. (I’ll also note that these photos are straight out of the camera: most people, regardless of camera, will do some tweaking first. I just put them straight up. So they could all be even better.)

Oh, and if you’re in the market… I’ve got an extra. 🙂

Long Shot

If I were to offer a used Canon Rebel 300D digital camera, with battery but no lens, for $250, would anyone bite? (Review of the model here.) I don’t currently have it, but I’d guarantee it to be in working order. (In other words, I’d be taking the liability on purchasing it.) Or $275 with lens.

The reason I ask is that this is a very good deal, but I only want the 10D. I’d love to let someone else benefit from the good deal along with me.

N.B.: This is not a binding offer, just a solicitation of interest. I may very well not purchase this, and the auction ends in 3.5 hours.

N.B. 2: This offer really only applies to people I know…

My Room

Continuing the tradition of illustrated posts, here’s a few photos of where I’m living this year. I’m in Falcone, which is located at the foot of all the academic buildings. Freshman year I walked 96 steps to get to class. (I counted, trust me.) And that was just if it were on the ground floor. I’d have to go up as many as four more stories. This year I have to climb six steps and I’m there.

Here’s the view out my window:

title=”Photo Sharing”>View out my window

The brick building on the left is Jennison, one of the busier academic buildings. Also visible is the library’s clocktower.

Here’s a quick interior shot, of mediocre quality:

title=”Photo Sharing”>My room

And, facing the other way:

title=”Photo Sharing”>My room

I also took a few shots the other day, on a very clear day, using my relatively-new polarizing filter on my camera. The effect is a little too much, I think…

title=”Photo Sharing”>Library

I think this one might become my new wallpaper:

title=”Photo Sharing”>Bentley's Clocktower

And illustrating a polarizer taken to the extreme… Straight out of the camera, rotating being the only post-processing done:

title=”Photo Sharing”>Library Clocktower

phototool

If I had more time right now, and was more familiar with how to parse EXIF data in shell scripts, I’d write a script that could parse a directory (or set of directories) and:

  • Weed out duplicates. (MD5 hashes would be fine.)
  • Adjust (based on manually-inputted corrections) timestamps on photos for a given camera. Mine was a day off. Someone else had the right date but set the year as 2008. This is just what a shell script is for, no?
  • Optionally, sort photos by:
    • Date (imagine 4,820 photos from about five people, being sorted into 14 folders, one for each day.)
    • Camera (indirectly, person)
  • Resize photos

Imagine if one command could transform these 4,820 photos into a set of 14 folders, one for each day, and resize them all to 1600×1200.

I come across needs like this often enough that I might just have to look into writing this…

Digital SLRs

I went out to dinner with my dad, and we stopped by Staples for a few minutes. While he looked at real stuff, I wandered down the camera aisle and was pleasantly surprised to find, for the first time ever, a Canon digital SLR that didn’t have dead batteries.

It had no storage medium, but allowed you to shoot and review images. So here are my first impressions:

  • My current camera is big. This is bigger. However, it’s hard to get a good feel for it because it has an enormous metal anti-theft thing and it’s chained down on top of that.
  • It has an 18-55mm lens. Nothing extraordinary, but 18mm, even on a non-full-frame camera, is awfully wide. 55mm isn’t exactly the 370mm (equivalent) mine goes out to, but it’s still good reach.
  • You get great tactile feedback. You half-press the shutter and the AF sensors being used are illuminated. You press it down the rest of the way and hear a real click from the camera, as opposed to it playing an obnoxious ‘film advance’ sound effect.
  • Since it’s got a real lens on a real sensor, you can play with depth of field. With a nice wide aperture, I took a shot of another camera on the display, and was pleased that everything but what I focused on was blurred.
  • Zooming via lens ring is far, far more intuitive than zooming via W/T buttons.
  • It goes up to ISO 1600, which would be quite handy in low-light situations. I didn’t have time, nor good resources, to see how the images looked at that setting.
  • The flash is ‘intelligent.’ I didn’t pay it much attention at first, but I noticed that it was flipped up after a few well-illuminated shots. It was firing at very low strength for a nice fill-light. It wasn’t a blinding flash that leaves the foreground blown out and the background black as I’ve come to expect from cameras. But then again, $900 of camera had better have a decent flash…

I’m not at a point where I can justify spending $900 on a camera (not including the few grand I’d want to sink into additional, longer lenses), but I can say with certainty that if I did have $900 to sink into a camera, I would have bought it on the spot. (Actually I would have found it cheaper online. But that’s not the point.)