• Narrowing down on a backup process

    08Jun
    Categories: Equipment reviews, Geeking Comments: 0

    I finally decided to clean up the disk space that is currently distributed on 3 computers and 3 or 4 external drives.  I have a Mac Pro and a MacBook Pro – and I will use the Pro for performance and as a “home” for my data and software.

    The Mac Pro has 4 bays for disks. The two first bays will be for my two 150G WD VelociRaptors (WD3000HLFS — blackplane ready) for my bootable OS, applications and home directory – I will receive these two disk tomorrow morning from newegg.  The two other bays will be for 2 1T WD’s caviar black disks and they will host images and other media files AND a photoshop scratch disk.  I am considering RAID 0 for these two disks as well, but I am still undecided – maybe it is too risky.

    WDs VelociRaptor 150G SATA disk.

    WD's VelociRaptor 150G SATA disk.

    A Speedy VelociRaptor

    A Speedy VelociRaptor

    My backup will be a three tier process with (1) Time Machine on a Drobo/DroboShare – nightly backup (2) SuperDuper bootable & Media backup weekly – and cycling two external disks and (3) Off-site/backup.   I have three tiers because my main computer will be setup for performance (RAID 0).  Drobo uses a proprietary RAID like system and allows for variable size disks that can be replaced as needed.  The DroboShare allows the DRobo to be treated as network attached storage (with a gentle hack).

    Drobo FW800 & USB 2.0 4 Bay Storage Array with DroboShare

    Drobo FW800 & USB 2.0 4 Bay Storage Array with DroboShare

     

    I will use Shirtpocket’s SuperDuper both to make a weekly bootable copy of my OS and apps and a clone of my media & cycle two disks for each (so a total of 4 disks). I got Other World Computing external firewire 800 disks and also also Western Digital My Book Studio disks to accommodate this cycle.

     

    Shirtpocket

    Click here to get an overview of SuperDuper

     

    For offsite, I am seriously torn (and waiting for suggestions here  and elsewhere). I have a lot of data, close to the terabyte range – and it will continue to grow at a rate of 200-400GB per year. I would like a place that is both reasonably priced and doesn’t take ‘forever’ to transfer the initial copy,  preferable a place that accepts a disk(s) for the initial backup. So far I have looked at, Mozy, Carbonite, Backblaze, Carboncopy and Safecopy. I found this review here via a quick google:

    http://online-storage-service-review.toptenreviews.com/

    Tags: , ,

  • Nikon’s D300, D700, D3, D3x Canon’s 5DII, Sony’s A900 Auto Focus Performance Comparison

    14Feb
    Categories: Equipment reviews, Photo processing, Reviews Comments: 4

    One factor that is important when picking a camera is its auto-focus (AF) performance. Cameras differ on both accuracy and responsiveness (or acquisition) of focus and also tracking or keeping a subject in focus while the subject is moving. Accuracy means that the camera thinks it is in focus but it isn’t really (you end up with out of focus images even if the camera told you that it was in focus). Responsiveness is the lag between being out-of focus to being in-focus.

    It is a challenge to assess a cameras performance as it depends on so many factors such as power from a driving processor or battery, available light and particular lens.  Does the camera have a processor, or two? Does the camera perform in dim light and how does it perform in bright light?  How can you separate the cameras native autofocus capability from that of the capability of the lens? But perhaps lens choice is irrelevant to separate, because you may choose a camera because of its lens anyway – and perhaps one should assess autofocus with  the fastest  lens available.

    I looked at two sites to get insight on autofocus performance of Nikon, Canon and Sony cameras – both resources use scientific rigor when assessing performance  - Popular Photography and Imaging resource and found  conflicting results.

    Popular Photography below (higher better performance) favors the autofocusing systems of the D3X and Sony A900 while imaging resource favors the Canon.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Data Source: [D300] [D700] [D3][D3x] [A900] [5DII]

    Popular photography.. more to come.

     

     

    Based on Imaging Resource Data:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Note that the Imaging Resource data above shows over a 2X difference between the D3 and D700 (D300) for the “Shutterlag, Full AF” numbers while the “pre-focus and shutter” numbers are pretty close between the cameras. We noticed that they use two difference lenses while testing between the D3 and D300/D700, namely the fast focusing 24-70 f/2.8 on the D3 and D3x but the slower focusing lens, the Sigma 70 f/2.8 EX on the D300 and D700. We asked the Imaging resource researchers about this issue but they believe that lens choice should not make a significant difference as they test iteratively or multiple times- so the lens is already in focus in the final measurement. In this manner they claim that they isolate the cameras performance the lens performance, i.e., they measuring the camera’s ability to ‘determine’ focus instead of the lens’ autofocus performance.

    Personally, I challenge that assumption, for two reasons – first the data from popular photography seem to differ and second removing possible variables (such as lens choice and power) in experiments is more fair and it is only one way to eliminate lens choice as a question and that is to not use different lenses.

    The focus engines between cameras (the D3 and D700) are the same, Nikon’s Multi-CAM3500FX system. The real difference is that the D3 has two processors giving it more ‘power’ while the D300 and D700 have only one. So the question is whether the D3 performs true parallel processing or not. Leveling the field between the cameras by adding more power to the D300/D700 or add battery grip with AA.

    I offered imaging resource my equipment for retesting (my camera, lens and battery grip) for further testing – they responding by saying they would get back to me but so far I have not heard an additional response. Possible because of they are busy with the upcoming PMAi.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Review Site Data:

    http://www.popphoto.com/

    http://www.imaging-resource.com/

    http://www.dxomark.com/

    Tags: , , , , ,

  • Nikon D700 and Canon 5D Mark II

    12Jan
    Categories: Equipment reviews Comments: 0

    It is time for an informal review – I had hoped to do a more thorough review but it is not happening.  I am just too busy with work, traveling, mothering and moving part of our household to the left coast (CA) – so this will have to do for now.

    I have tested both cameras – I initially rented the D700 in July/Aug of 2008 when it first came out and a couple a weeks ago I rented the 5D II.   I was considering becoming a bi-shooter, he he he – but that too is not happen.  There are different advantages of each camera (i.e., between a Canon FX and Nikon FX). I think it boils down to a responsive focus engine and resistance to noise [Nikon] OR better resolution and slightly better tonality [Canon].  Both camera manufacturers have great lenses –the 85 f/1.2L is outstanding (and I suspect also the 50 f/1.2L) for Canon, and on the Nikon side the 24-70 f/2.8 is fantastic & the 105 f/2.8 macro is WOW and so is the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 zoom lens.

    So – if you look at just the image quality given perfect focus and exposure, Canon may have a slight edge (in terms of resolution & tonality) BUT in practice, when you have fast moving kids and/or pesky low light, the Nikon gives you an edge with its better ‘hit-rate’ due to its responsive focus engine and seemingly more resistance to noise. I also enjoy Nikon’s built in speed light system (CLS) – (e.g., I have the light weigt and far reaching SU-800 to trigger my off-camera lights (SB-800s). 

    And for me that (the focus engine) sealed the deal so I finally decided to upgrade to the D700 – wohooo (I did say this is an informal review). I do like both cameras, the video capability on the 5DII was nice to have – and I miss that – and I miss the 85 f/1.2 L lens… and the extra resolution was nice so I admit yes I want BOTH but no I don’t think it is worth it. But maybe I should try the D3X. Nikon please send me one.

    IN the end I recommend that anyone considering both should TRY both, maybe via rentals as I am sure it is a personal decision – so stop the suffering in wondering if one is better than the other (like I did).

    For me the D700 is the BEST – YEAH! 

     

    Canon 5D Mark II:
    Green on green

    Canon 5D Mark II:
    Pondering: What do I need for Christmas?

    Canon 5D Mark II (ISO 64,000):
    Just a quick check at ISO 6,400

     

    Nikon D700:
    Retro Swing

    Nikon D700:
    3, 2, 1, Blast Off!

    Nikon D700:
    "Come on in: Best Ribs & Blues on Beale Street"

    Tags: , , ,

  • Nikon’s new nifty fifty, the AF-S 50 f/1.4G

    31Dec
    Categories: Equipment reviews, Reviews Comments: 0

    I just got my Nikkor 50 f/1.4G and I love it. It is fast focusing – but not as much as I had hoped – it may be  slightly slower than the original f/1.4D, and definitely not as fast as my 24-70 f/2.8 which is strange as it is longer/larger lens. The best part of it is the creaminess and beautiful contrast. It reminds me of Canon’s 85 f/1.2L II lens – which I loved! The Nikkor version is way faster focusing though.  In summary, the focus is fast, not blazingly fast, the bokeh is rounded and the out of focus areas are creamy.

     

    Creaminess at 1.4 and sharp where it needs to be:

    Honest

     

    Rounded bubbly bokeh:
    Happy New Year!

    As a comparison, here is the 1.4D at f/3.5 notice the more edgy bokeh:
    Profile of a Daughter

    Tags: , , ,

  • Nikon’s Live View

    24Dec
    Categories: Equipment reviews, Photo processing Comments: 2

    After over a week of fun with a rented 5DII (review upcoming), I played with my almost one year ‘old’ D300.

    Today, I played with the “Live View” mode and setting the white balance. Live view is a great resource to get direct visual feedback on different white balance settings as you can see the scenery change on the LCD in real time.

    Live view is really easy to  use – just turn on live view then while viewing the scenery on the LCD you change the camera settings and get direct feedback of the effect of changing camera on the camera LCD screen/monitor.

    (1) Turn on live view (use the camera dial under the ISO/QUAL/WB buttons – same dial where you set shooting mode – single/remote timers and set it to Live View (Lv).

    (2) Push the shutter release button down once – now live view is activated.

    (3) Look at the LCD screen and compose the image or change setting such as WB and

    (4) push the shutter again and hold the shutter to take the shot.

     

    Turn on Live View by moving this dial to Lv

    Turn on Live View by moving this dial to "Lv"

     

     

    Try it!

    Tags: , , ,

  • The D700 or the D3, which one should I get?

    28Sep
    Categories: Equipment reviews, Reviews Comments: 0

    Nikon D3 at Amazon
    Nikon D700 at Amazon

    The D700 or the D3, which one should I get?

    Image quality wise there are no perceptual differences between the D700 and D3. There are four primary differences between the cameras: (1) length of life (2) processor speed (e.g., impacting frame rate) (3) size/ergonomics and (4) the D700 has an on-board flash.

    The D3 is more of a heavy-duty camera – it is more reliable and has a greater shutter life (150,000 vs. 300,000 actuations) so it will last a lot longer. I can see this as a big seller for pro-photographer, but for amateurs, like myself, probably not as much as we will probably upgrade to a new camera before the camera’s demise. Alongside this pro-advantage – the D3 has dual memory slots. But hey –

     us amateurs can get bigger cards – 32G cards are becoming quit reasonably priced.

    The D3 has a dual processor giving the D3 more power and speed –

     it can achieve a frame rate of up to 9 frames per second. The D700 achieves 5 fps with its single processor, but with the MB-D100 battery grip with AA batteries it offers up to 8 frames per second. The D3 has a slight edge as it goes to 9 fps but in practice this is not really noticeable. With the battery grip the D700 is bulkier, larger and heavier than the D3 and not as ergonomic – again ergonomics is a factor for heavy-duty hardcore shooters.

    Another advantage of the D3 is the 100% viewfinder coverage –

     the D700 only has 95% coverage.

    The D700 edges the D3 on having sensor cleaner and as a smaller & lighter travel camera, it is lighter on your wrist but the trade-off (without the battery grip) is focus acquisition and frame rate.

    In summary the choice boils down to a function of price versus wear, so for the price of one 2008 D3 ($4,540), you may get a 2008 D700 ($3,000 + $240 grip) and a 2010 D800 with newer technology – so the question is within that same time span do you want (need) the D3? But of-course, it is just something about having the best Nikon Camera – and that is of-course the D3 (or perhaps the upcoming the D3x).

    The D3 difference:

    • 300,000 actuations (150,000 for the D700)
    • Dual memory card slots (vs. single on the D700)
    • 100% viewfinder coverage (95% for the D700).
    • No build in flash.
    • Better ergonomics.
    • No sensor cleaner.
    • Choice of a 5:4 image aspect option (D3 only)
    • Better battery life.
    • Frame rate 9 fps (D3), 8 fps (D700 with a battery grip), 8 fps (D300 with a battery grip).
    • Price $4,540 (D3) vs. $3,000 (D700) vs. $1,625 (D300).
    • The MB-D100 battery grip is $240.00.
    • .20 seconds focus and shoot with the D3 (vs. .25 seconds for the D700).

    Resources:

    http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5484/nikon-d700-camera-test.html
     http://www.nikond700.com/nikon-d3-d700-compared/
     http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3664
     http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond700/
     http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3/
     http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3/D3A.HTM
     http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D700/D700A.HTM

    Sample Photos:

    D700

    D700 w/ battery grip: 24-70mm f/2.8G at f/10 & 1/1000, ISO 200

    D700
    D700 w/ battery grip: 24-70mm f/2.8G  at  f/2.8 & 1/500, ISO 400
    D700
    D700 w/ battery grip: 24-70mm f/2.8G at  f/7.1 & 1/500, ISO 1,000
    D3
    D3: 24-70mm f/2.8G at  f/2.8 & 1/1,250, ISO 200
    D3
    D3: 24-70mm f/2.8G at  f/2.8 & 1/160, ISO 200
    D3
    D3: 24-70mm f/2.8G at  f/2.8 & 1/125, ISO 640



    Tags: , ,

  • Camera Obsession: Nikkor 50 mm f/1.4G

    24Sep
    Categories: Equipment reviews Comments: 0

    50mm f/1.4 at Amazon
    Nikon just came out with another nifty fifty [Photokina 2008].

     
    Pros:

    • AF-S: Silent Wave Motor (SWM) for ultra-fast and silent auto focusing.
    • Better looking Bokeh (round aperture diaphragm).
    • Improved chromatic aberations and sagittal coma flare corrections.

    Cons:

    • $439.95
    • No Nano Coating.
    • Need 58mm filters.
    • Not Available until December.

    More details:



    Tags: , , ,

  • Canon 5D II and Sony A900

    17Sep
    Categories: Equipment reviews Comments: 0

    Coming out in November — and I want to try these babies out! I would like to couple the Sony body ($2,999) with the Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 ($1,800).  I think a good match for the Canon will be either the 85 f/1.2L or the 24-70 f/2.8.

    Canon 5D II
    Canon EF 85mm f1.2L USM Mark II
    Canon 24-70/2.8L 

    Sony A900
    Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 24-70 f/2.8 ZA
    Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 135 f/1.8 

    Sony 70-200 f/2.8G SAL
    Zeiss 85 f/1.4 SAL

    But not sure what lenses I should rent for my comparison. Leaning towards the Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 – it got fantastic reviews. I would like something that is comparable to my Nikon lenses. I have the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8, Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 and Nikon 85 f/1.4 for my Nikon comparison. Nikon really needs to update their prime lenses!  Hopefully we will see some more coming out next week at Photokina.  

    Sony A900:
    Pros:

    • Full frame 24.6 megapixel Exmor CMOS sensor.
    • In camera stabilization system that works in practice.
    • Dual Bionz image processors.
    • 3K price tag (which is reasonable for this level of camera)
    • Takes the world class Zeiss lenses.
    • 9-pt dual cross focus centers
    • 5 fps continuous shooting (for up to 13 RAW frames)
    • USB 2.0.

    Cons:

    • Heavy 2.07 pounds (939 g) (but lighter than the Nikon D700)
    • Wish there were more focus points.
    • Noise even at low ISO 200, above 200 it is bothersome ):
    • No flash

    Canon 5D II (available November, 2008)
    Pros:

    • 9 cross-haired AF points – AF system have a slight improvement over the old 5D.
    • 6 non-addressable assist focus points.
    • Live View.
    • 21.1 megapixels CMOS sensor (old 5D was 12.8 megapixels).
      • pixel pitch 6.4 µm (old 5D was 8.4 µm)
      • New RGB color filters with improved transmission rates.
      • Cleaner images.
      • DIGIC 4 processor.
      • Canon claims highest image quality of any EOS digital SLR released to date.
    • Movie mode.
    • $2,699

    Cons:

    • Slow frame rate of 3.9 frames/sec
    • No flash.

    Reviews across the web for the Sony A900:

    http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA900/AA900A.HTM
    http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/09/review-upstart.html
    http://www.photographybay.com/2008/01/13/sony-a900/

    Quote that puts the cameras (Nikon D700, Canon 5D II and Sony A900) into a nice perspective – from Mike Tomkins and Shawn Barnett article over at imaging-resource [cite link here].

    “Each of the sub-$3,000 full-frame digital SLRs offers its own unique strength. The Nikon D700 may “only” be 12.1 megapixels, but it can fire off eight frames per second, and has some very impressive high-ISO performance. The Sony A900 offers astonishingly high resolution, at 24.6 megapixels, and yet still cranks out a respectable five frames per second. And the Canon 5D Mark II has very high resolution of 21.1 megapixels with the added benefit of HD movie capture. Unless you need high speed capture, and a 30fps HD movie is out of the question, the Canon 5D Mark II appears to offer the best of both of its competitors, with high resolution capture and what we expect to be very good high ISO performance. Your needs and your lens collection will help decide which way you lean; the big story is that for the first time you have a choice.“


    Tags: , , ,

  • Photokina Predictions

    16Sep
    Categories: Equipment reviews Comments: 0

    A quickie right now:

    Nikon:

    • Consumer level full frame camera at the D90 level.
    • Pro level Nikon D3x
    • Lenses more primes: 85 f/1.2, 50 f/1.2, zoom: 70-200 f/2.8, 135 f/2

    Canon

    • 5D II

    Fuji update


    Tags: ,

  • Nikon D200 vs Nikon D300 vs Canon 40D

    16Dec
    Categories: Equipment reviews Comments: 0

     
    Canon 40D at Amazon

    Nikon D300 at Amazon

    Nikon D300 at Amazon

    I have wondered for a while if I was missing something by using a Nikon and not a Canon. The Canon cameras have reputation for producing better images (e.g., lower noise and nicer skin tones). So to settle it once and for all (for me), and to decide whether it would be worth it to get a D300, I rented a D300 and a Canon 40D for a week. I’ve been comparing both cameras against my D200.

    Bottom line (for me): The 40D and D300 are both better than the D200, but the D300 is the best of the three.

    Nikon D300 Pros:

    • Fast, accurate focus (so much better than D200 – this is the winning point for me as I got some speedy kiddos that I want to capture) Adjustable focal plane to optimize focus for different lenses (I love having this)
    • Firm handling, weather seals
    • Fast, accurate focus (much better than D200 – and better than the 40D)
    • Best UI (one click button pushes)
    • Lowest noise

    Canon 40D Pros:

    • Lighter, both bodies and lenses
    • Through the viewfinder image looks better
    • Image on the LCD looks better than Nikon
    • More EXIF data in the right places when reviewing in LCD back panel of Camera

    Nikon D200 Pros:

    • Could be best at macro photography (still testing), I like the color D200 produces for macro
    • After post processing recovers fine detail nicely.

    Feel of Focus

    I focused on the feel and focus because I have an issue with shaky hands and focusing (I have invested in monopods and tripods which really help a lot). Both are better and more snappy than the D200 I have.

    Both are great with noise. Handling wise I think the D300 feels more like a sophisticated machine, the Canon feels a bit plasticy and the click sound emphasizes that feel – but the pictures come out amazing despite the instamatic sound. The Nikon has an edge on snappiness and accuracy of focus. One thing that is hard to quantify, but here we go, eyeballs photographed by the Canon come out more glossy while eyeballs on Nikon look more glossy than the D200 but not like the Canon – even on slightly OOF images on the Canon. I can’t help but wonder if Canon does some sort of processing to look for eyes and to adjust them.

    D300 vs D200 focus & handling:

    The most significant difference between the D300 and the D200 (for me) is that the focus is so snappy (just said that above – but this is an important factor for me and is worth repeating). My in focus hit rate is so much higher – that may make me want to streeeeetch my credit card a bit … (: got to wait until after Christmas got to wait until after Christmas, got …. and see *or* maybe not, he he.

    OH and I tried the dynamic, 3D focus tracking and it is fantastic! I could never get AF-C to work right on the D200. I see if I can get an interesting panning image to illustrate – not sure if my kiddos will cooperate.

    Noise:

    I extensively checked noise levels between the D200, D300 and Canon 40D on a still-life. My testing confirms results I have seen elsewhere – In summary — the D200 is the noisiest, the 40D is in the middle and the D300 is the least noisy. I tested using little beastie (i.e., the 24-70mm f/2.8 at f/4) at 35 mm zoom for the Nikons at the 35mm f/1.4 L at f/4 for the Canon. (note that this gives the Canon a slight advantage with the prime lens). The crop factor on the Canon is 1.6 and the Nikon’s 1.4 but I didn’t adjust the zoom – maybe should have.



    Tags: ,

Blogroll:

Meta:

Recent Posts