We’re getting a lot of rain and wet snow this winter, so I’m wondering how that will affect my new ultra high-tech digital SLR. Would the camera be damaged by moisture? If so, what should I do if it rains every weekend? I really want to get outside and start experimenting. K.W.

Answer

Well, that depends on the camera – as well as the lens – that you’re using. The vast majority of equipment does need protection from moisture, particularly rain. Some DSLRs and certain lenses are weather-resistant as discussed in the Features chart for such products on the manufacturer’s web site. These include Nikon and Canon’s professional products, the high-end Pentax DSLRs and a few lenses of various brands. No flash unit (including a built-in flash) is weather resistant, however. Even the most hardy, pro equipment should not be used for extended periods in heavy rain, of course.

If you are primarily interested in experimenting with camera features, you might consider shooting from your car; open the window but make sure the camera/lens will not get wet. Dry off any dampness thoroughly with a clean, absorbent cotton cloth; for the lens use a large microfibre cloth. But if you’ll be shooting outdoors, you’ll need a rain cover accessory. Regardless of the one you buy, read the manufacturer’s instructions about correct installation (and any warnings) to get the most effective protection.

You can find inexpensive products – similar to clear plastic bags – such as the Op/Tech or Ewa Marine Rainsleeve (under $6 for two). These may be OK in drizzle but for longer outings in rain you’ll want at least a Kata Elements Cover such as the E-702 for a DSLR with short lens (about $60). Kata also makes accessories for protecting a longer lens and an external shoe-mounted flash unit. Visit B&H or Amazon for information on the Kata products.

Kata's Elements Covers, such as the E702, are the most popular among the affordable accessories. Two sleeves allow access to camera controls and a transparent back allows for viewing the LCD screen and viewfinder.

There are also two brands of high-grade rain covers that use a special eye-piece accessory available for many Nikon and Canon DSLRs. Even if the interior of the cover gets fogged up, you will be able to see through the viewfinder (a necessary extra cost option, $32). The Aqua Tech Sport Shield is available in five sizes to fit cameras with short and long lenses (starting at $190). A clear waterproof Sport Shield can be added for protecting shoe-mounted electronic flash units ($65). For more information and user reviews, see B&H and Amazon.

The Aqua Tech Sport Shields are well designed and rugged, made of a 3-ply breathable waterproof fabric that allows ventilation, and a watertight seal with the lens hood. The flash accessory is also watertight.

The two new products from Think Tank Photo – intended for DSLRs with a 70-200mm f/2.8 or a slightly smaller lens – are more affordable but also quite impressive. The Hydrophobia 70-200 ($139) and the Flash 70-200 ($145) models are identical but the latter is equipped with a clear protector for a hot-shoe mounted flash unit. There’s a larger model too, the Hydrophobia 300-600 ($150) for much longer telephoto lenses. Check out the Hydrophobia at Amazon (it’s not yet listed on B&H).

The Hydrophobia Flash 70-200 cover is relatively affordable and includes protection for an accessory flash unit. Both models feature a clear back window for the LCD screen and controls, oversized/adjustable sleeves and adequate access for changing memory cards with full protection from the elements.

For specifics visit Think Tank Photo or view the illustrative video on Rob Galbraith’s Web site. Note too that the Hydrophobia covers include a built-in waterproof camera strap attachment so you don’t need to cut holes to insert the strap. Although they are priced to attract serious photo enthusiasts, these covers were used in rain and snow by some of the pro’s during the 2010 Olympic Winter Games.

Why I Like Bluehost

Through my work on Photocrati, my personal photography sites, and a number of other websites I own and operate, I’ve personally tried at least 10 different hosting companies, big and small, including HostGator, GoDaddy, HostNexus, Rochen, Rackspace, Mosso, NameCheap and Media Temple.

We could easily choose to partner with any these companies, and all offer various kinds of strategic partnerships and financial incentives. We’ve chosen to partner with Bluehost. Many of the links from this site to Bluehost are affiliate links, which means if you follow them and ultimately decide to host with Bluehost, we receive a commission. That’s one of the ways in which we support this site. We don’t make such a recommendation lightly. We (and I personally) believe Bluehost offers the best hosting service available today.

Bluehost was the first hosting company I ever used and it’s the one I come back to time and time again. In fact, at this point, I don’t even try other hosting companies any more. All my personal sites, as well as sites I’ve created for clients, are on Bluehost. Photocrati is NOT on Bluehost, but that’s only because our traffic and bandwidth are too large (hundreds of thousands of page views) and so it demands a dedicated virtual server or some other large and costly solution. Bluehost doesn’t offer this kind of solution, so we host on Rackspace. I’ve repeatedly told Bluehost that if they ever did decide to offer large solutions, we would move. And although we pay 15 times more for Rackspace than for Bluehost, I think the reliability, service quality, ease-of-use, and just about everything else are actually better at Bluehost. I wish we could move Photocrati to Bluehost.

Seven Good Reasons

So here are the reasons you should stop looking and just host your site with Bluehost (or move your site to Bluehost if it’s already hosted elsewhere):

1) No down time. I’ve experienced less down time or other hosting problems on Bluehost than any other hosting company I’ve worked with, including large solution providers like Rackspace that charge way more and offer, but don’t actually meet, “no down time” guarantees.

2) Service. When I have a question or issue, I can pick up the phone and call the number on Bluehost’s homepage. I’ve called that number at least two dozen times. A real person has answered the phone every time within four rings. Never a message, automated voice, or holding period. Bluehost’s representatives stay on the line with me until the question is answered or the issue is resolved. Most web companies have live chat or support forums, which are fine, but there’s nothing like being able to grab the phone and talk to someone anytime, 24 hours a day.

3) Ease of Use. Bluehost has the simplest and most trouble free interface of any hosting company I’ve used. There are not a lot of distracting bells and whistles. There aren’t efforts to upsell me on new hosting plans. It’s the easiest hosting service to use, hands down.

4) WordPress-friendly. This is important if you have a WordPress-based site. And if you don’t, you should consider it. WordPress is the fastest growing web platform in the world today, and the standard for blogs, both big and small. Photocrati is based on WordPress, as are the the website templates we sell. One of the greatest things about Bluehost is its simple ONE CLICK INSTALLATION OF WORDPRESS. Many hosting companies do not offer this, and others offer a glitchy version that installs an out-of-date version of WordPress or installs it only in certain directories. Bluehost’s WordPress installation is fast, easy, up-to-date, and glitch-free. That’s why we recommend Bluehost to anyone purchasing our WordPress themes.

5) Unlimited domains, website, and space. I have one account on Bluehost for erickdanzer.com. But I actually host at least a dozen websites from that account. Bluehost allows you to add unlimited numbers of new domains. And they offer unlimited storage space. Now, I have no doubt that Bluehost would protest a truly massive website and that’s reasonable. It just wouldn’t work to host Photocrati, much less something like Engadget, on Bluehost, which keeps costs down by using a shared hosting environment. But within reason, their storage is unlimited. This is important for photographers who store a lot of images. At various times, I’ve had more than 3,000 images hosted on my website and on client sites that I host from the same account. Never a problem.

6) Popularity. Bluehost now hosts over 1,000,000 websites. One reason the company can keep prices low is that it serves so many customers. This also means that have the large-scale personnel and resources to keep things running smoothly.

7) Price. I don’t think price is the most important thing in choosing a hosting company. I’m much more concerned about quality, service, and ease of use. That said, Bluehost’s standard $6.95 hosting plan is equal to or less than almost anything else out there. Anything cheaper is scary. And as I’ve mentioned above, Bluehost provides more quality and service for that $6.95 than other hosting companies charging ten times that amount.

-

So in sum, there just no way to make this an easier choice. I’m happy to be associated with Bluehost, and feel 100% comfortable standing behind their services. That’s why we’ve partnered with Bluehost. Whether you get there via our links or some other way, do yourself a favor and save yourself some trouble and just go with Bluehost.

Thanks and best wishes,

Erick Danzer
Editor, Photocrati

I’m a wedding photographer in Tampa Bay, FL and these pictures were taken in Sawgrass Lake Park.

For this shot I used a 70-200mm zoom and a Canon 580EX on a tripod with a shoot-thru umbrella. The first thing I did was set up the camera for the husband in the back. Right away you have to figure that you’ll be shooting at the highest flash sync-speed possible all day, which for the Canon is 250/th of a sec. So, that’s my starting point. Then I bring the exposure up until I am getting a decent exposure of the husband (in this case, f4).

Now, he’s a little blown out, I know, but that’s what I wanted. I wanted the wife to be perfect and him to be a little sun-blasted. Once I had the exposure dialed in for the husband I set my flash power to match. On a bright day, the flash will be at full power most of the time. I fine tune the settings by moving the light closer or farther from the subject. Notice that both husband and bride are being lit from the same side? That’s the benefit of off-camera flash. It looks like they are both standing in the sun when in fact she is in shade and the flash is filling in for sunlight.

The thing to remember about bright days is that “the lighter the light, the darker the dark.” If you can find some shade it will open up dynamic possibilities because there will be such a huge contrast between the dark and light areas of the shot. Because the sky was so bright, I was able to set my camera to f6.3 and 250th of a sec and still have plenty of light in the sky. However, the shade got pitch black with those settings which allowed me to use a flash above the couple and create a cool “spotlight” effect. That’s not Photoshop, that’s the actual light halo from the umbrella.

We were walking towards a bridge for some close-ups when I noticed the setting sun coming through the bushes creating a nice pattern on the sidewalk. I quickly set my off-camera flash to camera-left so that it was on the same axis as the sun coming from behind my couple. Setting the flash directly opposite the sun in this way helps with the fall-off on the ground. The flash is going to cause some spill on the ground, but because it’s in line with the sun, it looks natural. If the flash were camera-right, the ground on the right would be lit. The sun is clearly shining from back-right to front-left. It’s like a big funnel of light coming out from the sun; placing your flash inside the funnel fools the eye into thinking the extra light on the ground is just more sun. Now, it only takes a minute of study to realize that the couple are obviously lit with some sort of light but that doesn’t mean it has to be completely obvious from the get-go.

Bright sun makes for great silhouettes.

The last thing I want to mention is that, although you are often trying to overpower the sun with your flash, it’s also nice to let the sun influence the shot. We moved around on the boardwalk about four times before I found the right spot. I wanted both the faces in shadow so that I could light them with the flash, but at the same time, I wanted the sun to be present in the shot so that it didn’t look too “studio.” Notice the sun on the legs of the couple? It creates some hot spots, sure, but that’s okay because that just furthers the “daylight” look of the shot. The tricky part was finding a spot where the trees blocked the sun from hitting the faces without casting the whole shot in shadow.

Don’t be afraid to shoot on a bright day with deep shadows. With a little thought you can create some great images!

I read a blurb on the Internet about the new Class 10 SDXC cards in several brands. This type of memory card sounds perfect: super fast and tons of capacity at 64 gigabytes. Why would anyone want to use any other kind of SD card, except for the high price of the SDXC card? G.R.

Answer

That was certainly interesting news, and the first Extended Capacity cards will be available sometime this spring: Panasonic’s Gold SDXC and SanDisk’s Ultra SDXC. (Other brands, in various speed classes will follow.)

Do note, however, that the Panasonic cards boast a Class 10 speed rating while the SanDisk SDXC cards are Class 4 rated, or not as fast. The SanDisk 64GB card is less expensive however, approximately $350 versus $600 for the Panasonic product.

The new 64 gigabyte SDXC cards are impressive but the SDHC cards are available in Class 10 speed too (in several brands) and in capacities up to 32 GB, plenty for most photo and video enthusiasts.

Initially, SanDisk will primarily target owners of video camcorders with their SDXC card. Class 4 speed is all that’s required with most such cameras. Panasonic’s Class 10 SDXC product – like SanDisk’s conventional super fast Extreme SDHC Class 10 card – is more suitable for owners of high resolution DSLRs. It will allow for taking a greater number of shots in a very long sequence and the camera will be ready for more quite quickly afterward. Class 10 speed is fine for shooting video too, more than adequate even for the 1080p at 30 frames per second that’s possible with some DSLRs.

A 64 GB card may seem attractive since it will hold thousands of still images or over 60 hours of video. That may be necessary for some pros but you may not want to “put all your eggs in one basket”, so to speak. (And frankly, even SDHC cards are available in 32 GB capacity.)

If you were to lose a 64 GB card – or if it became corrupted – think of the number of images or the video clips that you would never get to use. That’s why it makes more sense to buy several 8 GB cards instead, to get all the capacity you need.

The first DSLR that is SDXC-compliant, the EOS T2i works equally well with SDHC cards. While very high capacity may have some benefits, I recommend using 4 GB or 8 GB cards instead, to minimize the number of images that will be lost in case of a problem.

More importantly, there’s the compatibility issue. An SDXC card looks identical to an SDHC card but it’s formatted to work only with SDXC-compliant cameras. At this time, that includes only the Canon and Panasonic digicams and camcorders announced since Jan. 1, 2010 and the Canon EOS T2i (EOS 550D  in some countries).

Eventually we’ll see a lot more SDXC-compliant equipment. But for the near future, SDHC will remain the card of choice for the vast majority of photo enthusiasts. (Of course some cameras use one of the other formats: CompactFlash or  Memory Stick both available in high capacity versions.)

Aphid and Desert Sunflower. A ground up, rather than eye-level, perspective, was an essential part of making this image pop. © Joe Decker

The week before last we talked about moving: about what a difference moving a foot to the left or right, forward or back can make in a composition. Today we’ll continue along that theme, talking about what a difference moving higher or lower can make.

We often photograph from “eye-level.” It’s a fairly natural tendency, if we make photographs after seeing things that move us, we’ll typically end up finding compositions at eye level. This is a good choice for point of view, photographing from “eye level” often produces images that read very naturally to the viewer.

But “eye level” isn’t always your best choice.

Sometimes shooting from lower perspectives comes naturally. When photographing small desert sunflowers in Joshua Tree National Park a few years back, it never occured to me to photograph from eye level because in many cases the flowers were only a foot or less off the ground. It was and is natural (and effective) to get lower and closer to these flowers. Aphid and Desert Sunflower, however,  took “getting lower” even farther, moving below the level of the flower in order to place it against an overcast sky. Not only does this make for a nice 70s color scheme, but perhaps more importantly, it helps us see from something closer to the aphid’s point of view, connect with the high aspirations that it’s easy to anthropormorphically project onto it.

Low points of view are often useful in creating dramatic near-far compositions—when we really want to emphasize the foreground in a wide-angle composition we’ll need to be close to that foreground, and often eye level is just too far away.

Higher perspectives are a different matter entirely. Sometimes they’ll come naturally, as we look down on a landscape from the top of a mountain or cliff. These very high perspectives can be quite interesting, and sometimes help convey a sense of vastness, as in MacDonald Valley and the Livingstone Range. Often these images end up being peaceful and perhaps a little bit detached, more like we’re flying over the landscape rather than immersing ourselves in it.

But there are other situations in which it is less natural to consider a higher perspective, and yet quite useful. Many photojournalists understand this from experience, if you have a big crowd of people it’s going to be difficult to make a photograph that communicates that from eye level. Instead, if you reach up with your camera and shoot with a wide angle from overhead, you’re more likely to be able to capture both some of the scale of the crowd but also still grab some action from the people surrounding you, this is a classic “show the crowd” shot.

Thule Tent Ring. (outtake) Camera position is probably about 8 feet in the air. Increasing the ISO and opening up to f/9 allowed a fast enough shutter speed to (barely) show some of the arrangement of rocks in the tent circle. © Joe Decker

Moving your camera up isn’t always so obvious, or, for that matter, easy. I recieved an excellent lesson on this point some years back when I had the opportunity to visit East Greenland, a trip that was in part a workshop with National Geographic legend Frans Lanting. We came across some ancient Thule rock circles a few miles inland in within Scoresby Sund, and Lanting poised the question to me of how to bring out the sense that the rocks were in a large circle, most eye-level perspectives reduced the circle to a narrow line.

He pointed out that the circle would be a lot clearer from, say, ten feet above the ground, which left me thinking (and I was a bit slow here), how am I going to get my tripod that high? His answer was simple yet, at the time, completely unexpected. He demonstrated holding his tripod (camera well attached) way over his head, triggering the shutter through use of a 2-second timer), and achieving the right composition with a combination of repititive trial and error, and a little bit of horizon levelling and cropping in post.

Don’t let yourself be limited by the convienence of eye-level, when photographing, keep an eye on the ways in which raising or lowering your camera can bring new perspective and interest to your compositions.

At one point in my life I considered being a furniture maker. I had the woodworking bug. I read books and magazines on the subject. I built really, really bad tables with drawers that didn’t work quite right — all of the things we do when we first start a new endeavor, we screw up. After a close call between my finger and a table saw I rethought things. I’m fine with that. But I still really like good furniture. Having tried to do this myself, I have a great respect for those who do it well. Over the years I’ve had several furniture clients, some of whom make great stuff, others not so much. The clients who make great furniture are still around.

Shooting furniture takes a lot of time and patience and a LOT of space. In general, you need three times the width of a piece on either side to properly light. In other words, if you have a piece that is four feet wide, you should have at least twelve feet of space on each side. As always, when it comes to space, more is better. Also, you need to be able to tightly control your light. This means artificial light (I use studio strobes) with light modifiers such as grids, snoots, barndoors and occasionally softboxes.

Most furniture comes in three varieties, lacquered, painted or upholstered. In general, painted and upholstered furniture is a bit easier to shoot than lacquered since the reflectivity is usually lower. Specular highlights and glare are much less of a problem with painted or upholstered pieces. With painted and upholstered furniture, broad light sources often work well (softboxes, umbrellas, heads bounced off of ceilings, also cloudy daylight). Lacquered furniture is much tougher. Generally we want to see the wood grain clearly through the stain, but we also want to get a sense of the type of lacquer and finish. Is it glossy (like a French polish,) flat (tung oil,) or somewhere in between?  It’s this balance between seeing the sheen of the surface and the color and grain beneath that presents a big challenge.

I treat all of the furniture I shoot as architectural pieces. In other words, I make sure that the lines that are supposed to be straight are straight, level and plumb. This means either using shift lenses (or large format) or being able to fix it in post. Keeping things square and level is a big deal in the furniture making world, don’t screw it up by not having your camera level. In general, I use the longest lens that I can as determined by the space and the piece to be shot. Longer lenses don’t exaggerate perspective the way shorter ones can.

I approach lighting large products, such as furniture, as an exercise in surfaces. Generally, each piece will have three surfaces facing the camera — front, top, side. Each surface will have different needs for lighting and therefore, each gets it’s own lighting setup. Sometimes this can be done all at once, other times it requires using multiple exposures.





First image shows the placement of the first light, in this case a 4 foot softbox to camera left and at about 10 feet high. This provides the primary light for the side of the chair/ottoman as well as overall soft fill.





The next image shows the placement of a grid spot raking the front of the ottoman. This light, placed at about 2 feet high really brings out the texture in the rush weaving under the cushion. This light is also flagged off as to not spill too heavily on the cushion itself.





Third image shows the placement of a front fill to even out some of the shadows. It also provides a highlight along the lower rails of the ottoman. This light is placed camera right. We’re using a 7-inch reflector shooting through a 3×6 light panel.





Final image as delivered to client shows minor tweaking of light output and a small bump in contrast. The client will put a clipping path on this for inclusion in their product catalog.

Shooting furniture is a lot like my other passion, shooting food. It’s technical, slow, methodical, and the subjects don’t get an attitude. It’s a challenge to be sure. The clients I work for spend a lot of time and money developing these products so they need to make sure they show them in their best light. I realize that not everyone has access to the space and equipment I describe here. But there are a number of inexpensive options to studio strobes. A number of third party manufacturers make a wide range of light modifiers for flashguns, but you’ll give up some power and versatility using these systems, as opposed to studio strobes.

But more important than space or gear is time. Take it, go slow, look carefully at the product and the shots. I know that if I knock one of these out in 20 minutes, I’m forgetting something.

Petroglyphs. © Joe Decker

I wish I had a pithy answer for that, but I don’t think there is one. In practice, the right way to approach a new situation comes from intuition and experience, learned by example after example after example. Some of the next few posts in this series, including this one, will take a single image and try and dissect my process, my thinking, when I was creating the image.

I’ll start with a petroglyph image I made in the Eastern Sierra during a visit last month for workshop scouting.

First, let me set the scene: The petroglyph panel in the foreground of this image is nearly horizontal and quite large, with well over one hundred glyphs. It is not well-protected. As such, the ways in which I’m willing to work this panel are strongly constrained by the desire to protect the panel—from vandalism, from damage that might occur if someone were to walk on the panel (scuffing, etc.), and from the damage that even skin oils can do to the “varnish” the glyphs are carved into. This limited my vantage points to places I could get to without damaging the panel, and views that don’t “give away” precisely where the panel is located.

While this is an extreme example, as photographers we are often constrained (by fences, physics, law or ethics) in what compositions we can make. Those constraints are often part of the dance of composition.

Trying to not show a lot of detail (save for distant mountains) beyond the panel meant shooting low, close to the panel. I did want to include the snow-covered mountains, which forced the choice of a particular side of the panel to work from. “Shooting low” suggested a near-far composition, which meant selecting a couple of particularly interesting glyphs (concentric circles, and the square grid) to serve as foreground anchors.

In short, the constraints on taking the photograph suggested a style of composition, and that style led me by the hand to keep in mind a particular guideline (interesting foregrounds are a must for near-far compositions.)

The two diagonal lines that run through the composition were obvious ready-made leading lines, and I first tried working the image so that they’d run from lower-left to upper-right. At the time, I was thinking that I wanted a left-to-right reading direction and felt that viewers would start at the bottom of the composition, so that was a natural thing to try first, but distractions (off-frame on the left) left me not liking that choice. So, I moved so that the diagonal lines would show lower-right to upper-left. The rock at the far end of the panel ended up making a nice echo of one of the mountains from that position; the combination of that and the leading lines clicked into place as “the right point of view.”

The sky was grey and overcast with little detail; I knew that there was a danger that it would form a bright white area in the image that would grab the viewers’ eyes and then proceed to bore people to death. The best solution to this problem would have been to come back in different light, but I wasn’t able to do that on this trip. Instead, I darkened the sky in post with the digital equivalent of an ND grad, and used a vertical composition with only a small slice of sky to minimize the amount of image given over to the sky. It helped, the sky doesn’t pull the eye from the glyphs too badly.

As you can see, external constraints, various compositional theories, and even a little trial and error all came into play as I composed this image, in no predictable order. This wasn’t a purely analytical process, it was an intuitive, “trying to find a good fit” process. Such is the nature of composition.

What kind of a tripod do I need when shooting video clips with my new Nikon D300S? The old tripod that I own is too small and I’m sure I need something better. I’d want one that’s also useful when shooting regular photos but I’d prefer not to pay more than $150. Dawn K.

Answer

That’s a good question, Dawn, but you should also be wondering about the type of tripod head to use. Granted, you may buy a tripod kit that includes a head, but it will probably be a conventional pan/tilt or ball head. Either is perfect for taking still photos but neither is ideal for shooting movies, as I’ll explain in a moment. So, you will probably need two tripod heads; perhaps your old one will be adequate for some purposes.

Start by finding a rigid tripod that is tall enough – without extending the centre post by much – so you don’t need to bend too far down. Extending the centre post too far will really minimize rigidity. Regardless of the size, look for one that is rated for supporting at least 8 lbs. of weight. Your camera/lens and video head will probably weigh less but the higher weight capacity confirms greater stability. There are many multi-purpose tripods that are suitable for people of average height. In the relatively affordable category (without a tripod head), check out models like the Giottos 9371B (about $196), the Slik Pro 700 DX (about $100) and the Manfrotto 055XDB (about $139).

When shooting movies, you’ll definitely want a “fluid” video head. I strongly recommend the Manfrotto 701HDV (about $125) with a capacity of 9.5 lbs. This type of head employs a fluid cartridge – or Teflon pads or a special lubricant – for much smoother pan/tilt effects than a conventional head, to prevent jerkiness in your videos. The most frequent adjustments can be made with the long handle which can be loosened, tightened and locked. If your budget is very tight, consider the Slik 504QF-2 model (about $65); it’s not as well built, but it should provide adequate support.

Check out many tripods and heads in person if you live near a well-stocked photo store. Look for one that’s convenient to operate and very rigid but not excessively heavy. If that’s not practical, start by doing some research at B&H or Amazon. Then read reviews about suitable models in your price range. (Try a Google search to find reviews, using the brand name and/or model number.)

Buy the best that you can afford. Rigid, high-grade accessories should easily last for a decade and they will provide maximum image sharpness whether you’re shooting stills or video clips.

A tripod with bracing struts is often recommended for video because of its extra stability; a geared center column is also a bonus. In an all-purpose tripod however, I recommend one without struts because those components make it impossible to fully splay the legs for low level placement of the camera.

A ball head – like a conventional pan/tilt head – was designed for still photography and works well for that purpose. But when you start shooting movies with a DSLR (or a camcorder), it's worth buying a fluid video head for much smoother results.

Skógafoss Detail

One of the best things about giving “shoot and critique” workshops is that I get the opportunity to see what participants can make out of a given situation. It’s great to see how different and interesting their visions are—I constantly learn things from my students by observing their photographic vision. But it’s also a great environment for me to be able to give knowledgeable feedback. Over the years, one of the most common themes I’ve seen in my feedback, particularly to beginning photographers, is suggesting that the image might have improved if the photographer had moved a little—whether left, right, forward, back, up or down.

Every movement of the camera and photographer changes the “choreography” of the images, some subjects get bigger, some smaller, and the position of the elements involved changes as well. Perhaps some appear — or disappear — around other objects. The positioning of the objects in the frame changes as well, movement is a powerful photographic tool.

Skógafoss Detail II. Moving a couple paces to the left (and adjusting the composition with a little zoom as well), let me abstract this image even more. That doesn't make this one better or worse, but it is pretty significantly different in a way that just zooming wouldn't have accomplished.

Even small changes in position can make a big difference in an image. Hiking to the top of Skógafoss the day before yesterday, I had some soft light that I thought would work well for long time exposures, creating detail shots at the top of the waterfall that juxtaposed the soft blurred water with textured, solid rock. I’ve included two relatively similar images from that hike here, which were taken only a couple paces from each other, but the change in perspective is significant. In one image the rock at the far side of the waterfall is visible and an important element. In the second, a a few seconds and a few paces later, that rock wall is shifted off the left side of the frame, resulting in a significantly more abstract image.

Sunset over Vestmannaeyjar. What a difference twenty kilometers makes!

At the other end of the scale, sometimes it’s possible to make use of much larger movements. Later that same evening, I noticed some interesting rays coming through the clouds in the distance, and several degrees to the side, the Westman Islands (Vestmannaeyjar) at a similar scale.

I honestly wasn’t sure if this would work, that is, if the two were at different enough differences that I could change their relative perspective easily, but over the next few minutes it became clear that by driving (at about 90 kilometers per hour) back west that I could bring the two together. (The clouds were moving as well, but my own movement seemed to be a greater effect.) I was as surprised as anyone when the rays stuck around for the 15 minutes or so that I continued driving. The last few minutes I started looking for a workable foreground element. I eventually got several shots of the elements together, realizing an image that I had started composing perhaps 15 or 20 miles away.

And that’s the heart of the matter. Learning to see that “this is nice, but there’s probably even a better location over there” before you get there an essential photographic skill.

Watch out for “zooming when you should have moved.” I’m as guilty of this as anyone. All too often, with a tripod set up and the camera in position, it seems a little easier to zoom in on a subject rather than to take a step forward or backward. Sometimes that’s the right choice (of course), and sometimes moving isn’t possible (perhaps there’s a wall in the way, or perhaps the best arrangement could only be captured from a position several feet on the wrong side of a cliff. But sometimes it’s helpful to move in or move out (and perhaps zoom) to, in part, compensate—particularly when this lets you eliminate distracting elements, or to get a better proportion of the size of the elements in the image.

Canon EOS 7D—front. The 7D is shown here with built-in flash ready for action, with EF-S 15-85mm lens attached. I hadn’t worked with this lens, but the camera itself should be a model for future EOS designs. Canon photo.

I was all set to begin this review with a diatribe about all the negatives pertaining to movie shooting and Live View, but then thought better of it and opted to take the journey into 7D-dom with a positive foot forward.

When you look at the real meat and potatoes inside this machine, you’ll discover, as I did, that when you peel back the movie capture veneer, the Canon EOS 7D is a very capable DSLR. That’s especially true when it comes to capturing breaking action, owing to a highly responsive, albeit not flawless, AF system coupled with an even more responsive shutter release. There—I took the high road. Too bad Bob Hope isn’t around to do the movie version: “The 7D Road to Bali, the Musical.” I could even write the music and lyrics.

On the Outside

Canon 7D—top. One of my favorite features on Canon DSLRs is the shooting mode dial on the left. It does away with otherwise having to resort to the LCD plus function button. Shown with EF-S 18-135mm lens (not tested). Canon photo.

The interface on the 7D should be familiar to current EOS D-series users, so adding the 7D as a backup to a late-model 5D or 1Ds shouldn’t put you too far back on the learning curve. Although it would benefit you to mate this camera with lenses designed for the Canon APS-C/EF-S mount to get the most from the matched combo in terms of optical performance.

If this is your first foray into Canon EOS-dom, then expect to spend some time with the manual—just so you can trick this baby out to do your bidding. I’ve never really found any Canon EOS to offer any stumbling blocks to immediate use right out of the box. However, I do find myself turning to the manual on occasion to customize some of the functions, particularly to put myself on surer footing. Of course, as with any new camera, don’t stray too far from that little booklet: You may encounter unanticipated situations that require further finessing of the 7D’s parameters.

I do feel that some of the function buttons on the 7D could be more clearly labeled. In point of fact, I prefer the physical interface on my D300, which would be the Nikon counterpart to this camera, if somewhat lower in resolution. I simply prefer the arrangement of buttons and controllers on that camera to what we have on the 7D. But one can easily take the opposing viewpoint if you’ve been working with Canon D-series cams all this time.

Canon 7D—back. Here you can see one of the many menu screens, this one governing the 580EX II flash seated in the hot shoe. Canon photo.

As for the Main Menu, I feel that the Nikon screens on my D300 are easier to navigate. I just find jumping across numerous screens in the 7D to be confusing. But again, that’s a judgment call. You could easily argue that it simplifies navigation, replacing the need to scroll through countless menu options.

The top panel surrounding the data display gives you four function buttons huddled together above the display, plus one more button and a dial behind the shutter release. Except for the data illumination button, the three others above the display are dual-purpose. I gotta tell ya, I’m not a fan of dual-purpose buttons. One dial controls one parameter, the other the alternate parameter.

Problem is trying to decipher which does which. Okay, well maybe there is a logical system here—when you stop to figure it out. The function on the left corresponds to the wheel in front (behind the shutter button); the function to the right goes with the dial in back. Yeah, so it’s not rocket science, but I don’t always carry my pocket-edition “Logic Will Out” by Spock (an entertaining read for all my fellow Star Trek fans, by the way).

The Live View/Movie controls are found to the right of the optical finder, which features a comfy rubber eyecup and dioptre adjustment dial in the upper right. The camera icon signifies Live View for still capture, whereas the movie camera icon to the left obviously represents movie shooting. The Start/Stop button is for movies. One other button you might want to become familiar with is AF-ON, to help you target the subject. But a word of caution: when shooting movies, set focus first. Otherwise the camera searches for a focusing target and totally throws the movie out of whack.

The textured grip is ergonomically designed, with a likewise textured thumb-rest for a surer grasp. Physically, the camera is built to take some punishment, in terms of the elements: It boasts a magnesium body with dust and weather sealants. More importantly, it feels solid and worthy of that $1700 price tag (give or take). The 7D, as Canon’s flagship APS-C model, has almost made me forget the Rebel T1i, although, at less than half the price, that more modest DSLR remains a tempting tidbit.

Rockefeller Center Christmas Tree. A Christmas in New York album would not be complete without a shot of the tree, the largest ever at Rockefeller Center. For this Manual exposure with the 17-55mm IS lens at 17mm, I used an exposure of f/4 and 1/15 sec, handholding the camera—image stabilization engaged. I had to boost highlight levels to bring up the tonality of the ice skating rink. ©Jack Neubart. All rights reserved.

On the Inside

The EOS sports an 18 MP CMOS sensor. Which means it provides ample room for cropping. Granted, it does fall a bit short of the 21.1 MP resolution of the 5D Mark II, its big brother, if you will, but at considerably lower cost.

The camera also boasts dual Digic 4 processors (like the new 1D Mark IV), which places it one step above the 5D Mark II. The 21.1 MP 1Ds Mark III employs Digic 3. The Digic processor is the firmware basically in charge of all that magical mumbo-jumbo that we tech-heads like to go on about. If the CMOS sensor is the heart, then Digic is the brain—both working in tandem.

Out of the box, this camera can reach burst speeds of up to 8 fps and up to 15 continuous RAW captures (126 large/JPEGS) on a UDMA CF card (not bad when you consider that the much higher-priced 1D Mk4 goes to 10 fps, albeit permitting more frames to be shot before filling up the buffer—and way more than the piddling 3.9 fps on the 5D Mk2). In fact, aside from the full-frame sensor benefiting the 5D, that camera appears to be eating the 7D’s dust on numerous levels. By the way, in terms of burst rates, the 7D beats out the Nikon D300S by a nose (up to 7 fps on the Nikon, with standard battery).

The camera uses 19 cross-type focusing points designed to respond to subjects (especially movement) along the horizontal and vertical axes. To optimize focusing at maximum aperture, notably with fast lenses, the AF system includes dual diagonal cross-type sensors. I got further clarification from Canon on what they refer to as dual diagonal cross-type sensors that are also employed: “The center point is a dual cross-type sensor that is sensitive to both vertical and horizontal lines and compatible with both f/5.6 and f/2.8 lenses.” As I understand it, these dual sensors are optimized for fast lenses and thereby are more sensitive to movement and hard-to-focus subjects under varying light conditions.

ISO settings range from 100 to 6400 (expandable to 12,800). Canon has also upped the ante on the metering system incorporated into the 7D. As they explain: “The EOS 7D features a new, 63 zone dual-layer sensor designed to complement the 19-point AF system. By taking into account the color and luminosity surrounding chosen AF points, this new system delivers an entirely new level of accuracy for better results even in difficult lighting situations. Since the metering sensor has a color measurement function, exposure errors and focus errors caused by different light sources are minimized; the EOS 7D gives stable exposure from shot to shot in situations where light changes, such as in a theater or concert hall. This makes the EOS 7D ideal for scenes with extreme difference in brightness such as brightly lit scenes or backlit scenes; the camera balances exposure of the main subject at the background, and exposures are not overly influenced by bright areas in the shot.”

As even further clarification, Canon provided me with this information regarding the dual-layer sensor: “The sensor’s light receiving component has two layers. The upper layer detects the amount of light in the Blue/Green wavelengths and the lower layer detects the amount of light in the Red/Green wavelengths.” Well, that’s the hype. Read on for the rest of the story.

Metering and Shooting Modes. I photographed the Brooklyn Diner and Radio City Music Hall with the 7D in Programmed autoexposure mode, while I captured St. Patrick’s Cathedral by setting the camera to Manual. For the diner I used a +1.33 EV override (f/2.8, 1/20 sec), and +0.67 EV for Radio City (f/2.8, 1/15 sec). Switching to Manual (f/2.8, 1/4 sec) did away with trying to second-guess exposure overrides. Camera was set to ISO 400 for each exposure, with image stabilization on the lens switched on. ©Jack Neubart. All rights reserved.

Movies and Live View

I absolutely refused to get involved with Live View and movie shooting on the Canon EOS 5D Mark II. And perhaps that was a good thing. Because movie shooting was practically my first entanglement with the EOS 7D the moment I stepped out the door with this camera. And that was likely a big mistake, tainting my impression of the 7D at the outset.

What Canon – and everyone out there who buys an EOS camera largely on the merits of movie shooting – fails to realize is that this is not the camera’s strong suit. In fact, it’s the weak link that begs the question: Why even bother with it? I know, you’re going to tell me there’s one person who made a big splash producing a video with an EOS. Whoop-de-do!

If you read the credits, you’ll see it was a major undertaking to squeeze out that quality from these cameras. And if I’m not mistaken, each “scene” was carefully staged to minimize focusing, exposure, and white balance variables. The end result was a highly polished production that does indeed rival anything produced with a commercial digital video camera.

Pro photographers might use movie capture to record sets and lighting. However, for most of us, the movie capture feature is just a way to record special moments with family and friends or snippets of vacations. Shooting your entire vacation with this camera will likely prove a disappointing experience. And you’ll find you’ve burned through your memory cards just when that rare moment happens, as baby takes its first steps.

Much of the woes behind movie shooting reside in Live View capture. It’s just not up to the task, at least where this camera is concerned. Admittedly, some other cameras do a much better job of movie shooting and Live View operation, so I won’t say, don’t buy a still digital for its movie or Live View feature. What am I really saying? Buy a 7D not in hopes of becoming the next Otto Preminger or Steven Spielberg but because you need a high-quality still camera.

Lenses Tested

You might think that Canon is supporting its APS-C lineup with a whole slew of lenses, but when you look more closely you realize that ain’t the case: There’s only a smattering of EF-S lenses, mostly standard zooms, plus one ultra-wide zoom, one telephoto zoom, and a macro. Canon definitely needs to get on track with this series of optics. For this review, Canon sent me the EF-S 17-55mm IS and EF-S 18-200mm IS, as I’d requested—I wanted lenses that would cover a wide range.

EF-S 17-55mm IS lens. Fairly well constructed mechanically, this lens does suffer from lens creep. Optically it receives a passing grade. Canon photo.

EF-S 18-200 IS lens. Despite its serious tendency toward lens creep and a few other shortcomings, this lens did prove itself when confronted with breaking action. Canon photo.

Both lenses tested with the 7D feature Canon’s proprietary Image Stabilization (IS). I didn’t specifically set out to test IS in these lenses, but from shots taken with the shorter zoom, IS wasn’t all that effective: I was lucky to squeeze out an extra two stops before camera shake hit; rarely three stops.

By the way, you should be prepared for the 1.6X sensor factor that internally crops your images. Not a problem (and some see it as a benefit—myself included) when it comes to telephotos, but a serious drawback when working with wide-angles—my old full-frame Canon fisheye purchased just for the 5D has now lost a good deal of its allure.

From a mechanical perspective, the 17-55 is the superior lens. While both suffer from lens creep, the sheer force of gravity grabs hold of the 18-200 lens barrel, preventing it from remaining in a fixed position the moment the lens is tilted downward. It definitely needs a zoom lock, which is absent on both lenses. At least on the 17-55, when the lens barrel is fully retracted, it remains stationary. It’s only when you zoom the lens out that lens creep sets in.

Using the Built-in Flash. I was in Times Square one evening when I came upon this popular cartoon character posing with tourists. I employed the camera’s built-in flash, with the 17-55mm lens and lens shade attached. Note that the lens/shade combo blocks the flash. Exposure made with the camera in Manual mode. ©Jack Neubart. All rights reserved.

My other problem with the 18-200 lens is that it does not come with a lens shade—which is the case with practically all non-L-series Canon lenses. Lens flare can be a serious problem, so watch for bright light sources when shooting.

The slower maximum aperture and DC focusing motor on the longer lens did not appear to impede AF tracking response. Continuous tracking was more important with this lens than with the 17-55, since my primary objective here was sports activities. With the wider lens I focused on more stationary targets, largely architectural and landscape elements. The camera’s native phase-difference detection AF system certainly proved more capable than contrast detection employed by Live View.

As for manual focusing, I had little occasion to use it with either lens. The longer zoom has a very inconveniently positioned, thin focusing ring at the front edge of the lens. When manually focusing this lens, set the switch to M—otherwise you’ll experience considerable resistance, as of gears grating, even though you may see the focus shift as you rotate the ring: The lens does not support manual override during AF operation.

The arrangement of focusing and zooming rings on the 17-55 is just the reverse. This shorter lens features improved manual focus control that works when the lens is set for either M or AF, while employing Canon’s USM (Ultrasonic motor) for quieter and smoother autofocusing. Both lenses feature internal focusing, which means you can use a polarizer without worrying about having to realign the filter after focusing.

Aside from that, both lenses performed fairly well from an optical standpoint, although the 17-55 did impress me as being a tad on the soft side. More to the point, both lenses exhibited fairly noticeable vignetting wide open, but it was less disturbing in everyday shooting (just watch for it in clear skies and monotones).

Inside St. Patrick’s Cathedral. I photographed this NYC landmark shortly before Christmas, with the 7D and 17-55mm lens—handheld, with image stabilization engaged, all at ISO 400. Vertical: available light, f/2.8, 1/15 sec, at 35mm (= 56mm in 35mm equivalent). Verticals with lens tilted upward: here I shot by available light and then flash (apparent by all the brightly lit backs of heads), with the lens at 17mm (= 27mm) and an available-light exposure at 1/10 sec (1/60 with flash). Horizontals: even bounce flash (evident with the bright vaulting arch framing the sculpture) was not an ideal solution, and the existing lighting proved to be a better choice. The flash used was a Canon 580EX. ©Jack Neubart. All rights reserved.

Does It Make the Grade?

The Canon single-digit D-series cameras have always stood for top-of-the-line products. So we can expect nothing less of any other Canon EOS model that bears this moniker.

The Canon EOS 7D is remarkably noise-free, from a practical standpoint. Digital noise is either indiscernible or barely so at ISO levels through ISO 800. Luminosity noise is certainly well-controlled. And you just start to get a feeling of color noise peeking out at you at ISO 1600—but you really have to be looking for it. Color noise starts to become more seriously observable at ISO 3200, and you may find it objectionable at ISO 6400.

Digital Noise. Here you can see noise levels, which are practically non-existent at low ISO levels, but increase exponentially as we hit the highest light sensitivity levels. Color noise in particular is evident at ISO 3200 and most apparent at ISO 6400. These are actual-size cropped sections. ©Jack Neubart. All rights reserved.

However, I’d say it was still within acceptable tolerances, especially for an APS-C sensor. The 7D’s noise levels are higher than those found in the 5D Mk2, notably at the highest ISO levels. I judged noise in the 5D Mk2 at ISO 6400 to be roughly equivalent to that found at ISO 3200 in the 7D. However, I’d still choose this camera over many competitors, were I choosing on the basis of noise levels alone. And considering the 7D’s feature set in general and lower cost, I’d pick it over the 5D Mk2, unless I really needed that camera’s full-frame sensor and those few extra megapixels.

The shutter button on the 7D has a hair-trigger response, which, if I recollect correctly, aligns it closer to the flagship 1Ds than the 5D (but don’t hold me to that—been a while since I worked with either). Either way, it was certainly responsive enough when shooting sports activities—and that’s what counts. Granted, this may not be your first choice for action photography, but it does a commendable job (that’s why they built the 1D Mark IV).

Despite dual Digic chips, I can’t say that I saw a tangible improvement in white balance performance. Camera technology tries to emulate the human neuro-optical system, but it has a long way to go. The same goes for exposure. I found myself making the same judgment calls as with any other camera, overriding auto exposures where necessary and even switching to manual on occasion. There is a further issue with the camera correctly evaluating and capturing contrast—and here we still need to make manual adjustments in post. But the 7D is not alone where any of this is concerned.

I just wanted to show Saks Fifth Avenue and St. Patrick’s Cathedral in relation to each other. You’ll see Saks featured in my Light Show Christmas video on Vimeo. ©Jack Neubart. All rights reserved.

In Conclusion

Canon did lots of things right with this camera. But most importantly, if you think you’re sacrificing a clean noise-free image to save a few bucks, think again. The Canon EOS 7D makes no compromises. In many respects it flies past the 5D Mark II.

The only drawback to the 7D is the range of available Canon lenses, notably at the wide end. Fortunately, third-party manufacturers, namely Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina, are stepping up to the plate and filling in any gaps. And Canon’s own EF-S 10-22 and EF-S 60mm macro are lenses worth owning right out of the gate. As for the lenses, the test sample 17-55 is kind of pricey and proved to be a tad on the soft side.

Mechanically, I found the 18-200 vastly inferior to anything I’d worked with from Canon, but optically it’s more than acceptable. You could argue that because the lens has been around the block a few times (it wasn’t new when I got it), it’s to be expected. I argue just the opposite: The lens should have staying power.

You’ll note I avoided ending with a mention of movie shooting. Oh darn, I went and did it anyway! By the way, just to be fair, I did produce a short movie using clips and stills captured with the 7D. The movie focuses on Christmas in New York City and is available on Vimeo:




I trust you’ll enjoy it. Comments are certainly welcome. Just remember: I didn’t set out to produce something to be entered in the Cannes, Toronto, Tribeca, or Sundance film festival, although feel free to enter it as a nominee.

NEWS FLASH. Canon’s EOS E1 video plug-in for Apple’s Final Cut Pro was just released. According to Canon, “This new plug-in allows simple and easy transfer of video content from Canon’s EOS DSLR cameras directly into Apple Final Cut Pro. The EOS E1 video plug-in takes advantage of Final Cut Pro’s powerful Log and Transfer feature, which allows users to select and mark the video directly while it is still on the camera, add custom metadata and ingest the clips in the background so the editing can begin immediately.”

The EOS E1 video plug-in is a free download available at Apple http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/finalcutstudio/. The plug-in is compatible with Final Cut Pro 6 or higher and currently supports Canon EOS 5D Mark II, EOS 7D and EOS 1D Mark IV cameras.


Verdict: Buy the Canon EOS 7D for its awesome still capture capabilities. This DSLR is hard to beat in an APS-C camera. But, aside from the Canon 10-22 and 60 macro, you might want to look elsewhere for APS-C lenses. I was not blown away by the 17-55 IS and 18-200 IS lenses that I tested—lens creep being a chief concern, especially in the longer lens.

Amateur Football with Continuous Autofocus. I captured this series with the 7D and 18-200mm IS lens with the lens at 200mm (= 320mm) for most shots, except the tackle (lens at 130mm). Note the rapid sequence—do you really need a faster burst rate? I had to adjust white balance for this entire series in particular. ©Jack Neubart. All rights reserved.

Additional Information and Technical Specifications

• For more information, visit: Canon USA

• For technical specifications, visit: Canon EOS 7D

• For prices and user reviews of this camera, check out: Amazon (about $1699) Canon EOS 7D 18 MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera with 3-inch LCD (Body Only); or B&H (about $1699) Canon EOS 7D 18 MP CMOS DSLR

• For prices and user reviews of the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, check out: Amazon (about $1060) Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras; or B&H (about $1060) Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens

• For prices and user reviews of the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, check out: Amazon (about $584) Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras; or B&H (about $595) Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens