Cameras–Is it time to upgrade?

One funny thing that happens to me a lot is that many people I know outside of work seem to think that I do audio, video, and/or photography for a living.  My job is in software development, but that is apparently less glamorous than multimedia to the general public, so for some reason I'm known better to people in my personal life for the things that I like to do with media rather than creating software.

So one of the questions I often get asked is “which camera should I buy?” Or the same question phrased differently, “should I get a new camera?”

For some reason nearly everyone interested in photography gets stuck on camera technical specifications. For example, the first question people ask me about one of my cameras is “how many megapixels is it?” when in reality that number doesn't really mean much of anything these days, as I'll discuss later.
So in attempt to sort of pacify everyone, here are some general guidelines on what cameras to look at, and whether you should upgrade your existing camera to something newer or more expensive.

Digital SLR

First, advice for people who already have a digital SLR camera and are thinking about upgrading…

You probably don't need to upgrade if…

• Your camera has a resolution of 6-8 megapixels or better, and you do nearly all of your shooting outdoors during the daytime.
• Your camera model was released during or after 2009.

You may want to consider upgrading if…

• Your sensor resolution is less than ten megapixels, you do a lot of cropping on images, and you create large prints.
• You shoot at night or indoors a lot, and for whatever reason don't want to use a flash or a large aperture (f-stop less than 2.0) lens.
• The limitations of your equipment are preventing you from getting the shots you want.

Reasoning…

While most digital SLR cameras released in the last 10 years or so are capable of really good pictures during the daytime, many models released before 2009 struggled to perform well in low-light situations.  Then in 2009 something magical happened, where all of a sudden cameras from all manufacturers were being released with better clarity and low-light sensitivity with much higher usable ISO settings.  If you shoot in low-light (such as indoors or at night) having a 2009-model or newer camera can make a big difference.
If you shoot primarily in daylight, or with a flash, or a large aperture lens, you probably don't need to upgrade.  Even early model cameras going back to 2004-2005 still do really well in these situations, and you wouldn't gain much by moving to a newer camera.

If you really have an itch to buy new camera equipment, lenses are always a much better investment than electronics.  A good quality lens will make a bigger difference in picture quality on an older body than a cheap lens on a newer, more expensive body.  And lenses hold their value really well – oftentimes you can resell a good lens for the same price you originally paid, or take just a minimal loss on it.  The value of anything electronic, especially digital camera bodies, plummets very quickly.

What should I get?

Even the most inexpensive digital SLRs take amazing pictures these days, and most models released since about 2010-2011 shoot pretty spectacular video as well (as long as you are willing to focus manually).  Unless you have a very specific need for a higher-end model, the cheaper (and usually lighter and smaller) bodies make a lot of sense.  I own several SLRs, and when I want to take a camera with me that isn't too big or bulky, I take my 2010-model Canon T2i because it is small, lightweight, and takes fantastic pictures.  I only use my bigger and bulkier SLRs when I need fast control over exposure settings. The bigger, more expensive models really don’t take better pictures than my much cheaper T2i.  They're just faster to navigate and provide professional-level control.  (As for lenses for my T2i, my 10-22mm wide goes with me for indoor shots, 50mm or 85mm for portraits, and the kit 18-55mm, 28-135mm, or 24-105mm for outdoor shots depending on how appropriate a big lens is for the situation.)

I’m primarily a Canon guy, so I really like the Canon T3i, T5i (adds touch screen), 60D (no touch, but adds more buttons for more control; no lens with this link).  All are well under $1000, and are excellent.  Full-frame bodies like the 6D or 5DmkIII are of course amazing, and they give better low-light sensitivity, a wider field of view, and of course much more control, but at much greater cost – $2000 or more, without a lens.  Unless you're shooting professionally it’s hard to justify the price.  The SL1 is also nice because of its tiny size (and it is tiny for an SLR), but it is otherwise essentially the same as the T5i without the flip-out screen at considerably greater expense.

Canon also makes a lower-end model called the T3, which takes good pictures, but difficult to recommend because you can get a lot more camera with a used T2i (sometimes for less), or the T3i for not much more money.  The LCD screen on the T3 is quite poor, and doesn't flip out like the T3i (for easier shooting above or below eye level).  The T2i/T3i is also faster, has a lot more resolution, higher quality video, and much better low-light sensitivity, among other enhancements that to me make it a better buy.  But if the T3 is what you can afford, you're still going to get great pictures.

Nikon also makes great cameras, but I don't follow their lineup closely enough to make specific recommendations.  The one thing to watch out for on Nikon cameras is that the less expensive bodies (< ~$700) don't have the mechanism to autofocus on “AF” series Nikon lenses, and those lenses happen to be the less expensive ones.  So plan on spending considerably more on lenses with Nikon than Canon if you buy a cheap body.  If you get a D90 or more expensive model, the AF lenses will autofocus and the less expensive lenses are fine.

I’d be a little careful about buying other DSLR brands, as the lenses made for those cameras have inconsistent quality and you have to be really careful about what you buy.  If you invest in Canon or Nikon equipment you can be assured that you're always getting something at least very good, if not excellent.  Neither brand makes bad stuff.

If you're just starting out and want to buy your first digital SLR, get the T3i or T5i.  Anything more complicated will be overwhelming because of its complexity, and won't give you better pictures.  The kit lenses included in the box have really good image quality these days, and will be sufficient for new photographers.  Once you begin to understand photography a little better you can step up to a better lens for more control over what you shoot, and you won't have to upgrade your camera.

With that said, everyone with an interest in photography and a digital SLR camera should own a 50mm prime lens.  Canon 50mm f/1.8, Nikon 50mm f/1.8 manual or auto focus (the first link will autofocus on the more expensive Nikon camera bodies, but not on base models).  They have excellent image quality and are very inexpensive. They give you the ability to shoot pictures with a soft, out-of-focus background that you can't get otherwise without spending a lot of money, and as such they make spectacular portrait lenses.  They also allow you to shoot indoors without a flash in moderate lighting.

In the end, though, if you already have a digital SLR and it doesn't have any glaringly horrible problems, you're fine sticking with it rather than upgrading.  Spend the money on a new lens instead.

Point and Shoot

The quality of point-and-shoot cameras is all over the map.  So it is pretty hard to make specific recommendations. 

For the most part you get what you pay for.  If your camera cost you $150 or less and you're thinking about upgrading, I'd just go ahead and do it.  A P&S camera that sells for $250 is always going to be a significant upgrade over anything ever sold for less than $150, and is probably worth the money.

Point-and-shoot cameras have also improved significantly over the years too.  A P&S camera from more than 5 years ago is really going to pale in comparison to something newer. 

So as a general guideline, I’d say that if your camera is more than 3 years old, or cost you less than $150, yeah, you should upgrade if you're considering it. 

What should I get?

Camera manufacturers release new models of their point-and-shoot lines quite often – it isn't unusual for a model to be discontinued and replaced after just 6 months.  So specific models are something that I don't even try to keep up on.  So I won't make specific recommendations.  They'd be out of date rather quickly anyway.

So instead I'll give you one piece of buying advice… ignore the numbers.  Ignore the resolution (megapixels), ISO sensitivity, etc. entirely.  Despite what the difference in numbers might tell you, performance of nearly all cameras in this category are all about the same, given similar lenses. 

The one biggest factor to look at is the size of the lens.  Specifically, the glass in the lens.  The bigger the lens, the more light it collects, which improves image quality.  A small difference in lens size can make a big difference in picture quality.  So I'd recommend buying the camera with the biggest glass within your budget.
The other thing to look at is the optical zoom capability.  Many times manufacturers will try to hide this and give you a digital zoom number.  Digital zoom is useless.  Only look at the optical zoom.  Buy whatever suits your needs.

The other thing I'll mention is Optical Image Stabilization technology.  This compensates for the shake that is inherent in cameras that are being held by hand.  It is especially important in point and shoot cameras because they are tiny (and therefore harder to hold steady) and don't handle low-light as well as SLRs, so they require longer exposures which increases the likelihood of motion blur.  IS technology is very highly recommended unless you shoot on a tripod or only take close pictures in daylight.

As for brands, Canon is the clear winner in this category.  They consistently produce the best images, and are generally quite easy to use, relatively speaking.

Smartphone cameras have gotten much better in the last few years, but they really still pale in comparison to point-and-shoot models.  Not only do P&S produce much better quality pictures, they also have a real zoom capability.  The only smartphone cameras that I've found that does what I would even consider a passable job are the Nokia Lumia 1020, 920, 928, and 925, or the HTC One.  Not even the iPhone 5 or any of the Samsung Galaxy S series are any good unless you're shooting in the noonday sun.

Other Camera Types

There are a few other types of cameras out there, such as mirrorless, and rangefinder, but getting into a discussion about those is well beyond the scope of this blog post.  I'd be happy to answer questions if you're considering one of these other types.

A Final Word about Megapixels

The more megapixels the better, right?  At least that’s what camera manufacturers and salespeople would like you to believe.  But that isn't necessarily the case, especially on small cameras like point and shoot and smartphones.

The trouble with increasing the number of pixels is that in order to add more pixels the pixels themselves have to become smaller.  And smaller pixels means that less light is captured.  Which then in turn creates noisier (less clear) images, and less ability to handle low-light situations like you would find indoors or at night.
Generally speaking, as long as a camera has 6-8 megapixels of resolution, it is sufficient.  In fact, the higher you go above that the more processing has to be done and blurrier your images become to remove the extra noise, especially when shot under conditions other than sunlight in the middle of the day.  An 8-megapixel point and shoot is generally going to be preferable to one with a 13-megapixel sensor, especially on small sensors like those in a cell phone.

Higher resolution pictures also take up more disk space.  Double the number of pixels, double the size of the file.

Always remember that the highest resolution “normal” computer monitors are about 2 megapixels at best.  And 3 megapixels is enough for printing an 8x10.  You only need higher than 3 if you are quite exuberant in your cropping of images (to simulate zoom after-the-fact, for example) or if you are printing at 11x14 or larger.  Any extra resolution is wasted, and taking up extra disk space.  So, with all other things (*cough* lenses *cough*) being equal, choose a camera with the resolution closest to the 6-8 MP range.  Even photography magazines, who are notoriously picky, only require about 5 MP for print.

Wrap-up

Chances are if you already own a digital SLR it is probably fine.  But if you own a point-and-shoot which isn't brand new or didn't cost more than $250 you could benefit from an upgrade.

SLR cameras are more of a long-term investment while point-and-shoot cameras are meant to be more-or-less disposable.  And the lens on a camera makes more difference in picture quality than the camera itself.  And aside from the top-of-the-line models, for the most part you get what you pay for.  Keep those things in mind while shopping and it will be hard to go wrong.

Finally Got a P&S Digital Camera

I finally broke down and got a decent point & shoot digital camera this last weekend.  I’m sure some will be surprised that it took me this long.

I did have one before, but I hated it, so I never used it.  In 4 years I shot a couple hundred pictures on it in total, maybe.  Probably significantly less.

So this time I did a little bit more homework, and decided on the Canon PowerShot SD960 IS. 

I got the pink one.  Just kidding!  They only had silver, and that was fine with me.

I ultimately picked it over other models because it’s small enough to fit in a pocket, has pretty good image quality (though no P&S comes even close to the quality of a DSLR), has a 4x optical zoom, and it does 720p HD video.  It also has a really fast user interface, so I don’t have to wait for it to react to my button presses like some other cameras I played with.  It still has some shutter lag (time between you press the button and when it actually takes the picture), but it’s better than most, and the only way to cure that problem is with, again, a DSLR. It’s also the first P&S from Canon with the widescreen LCD, which is nice, as I prefer wider images over the standard almost-square 4:3 aspect ratio that most cameras use.

So far I like it, though I haven’t really had much of a chance to use it just yet.  I bought it for a concert I was going to go to on Saturday night, but I was late because of an accident on the freeway on the way, and they had stopped selling tickets before I finally arrived, so I missed it.  D’oh. Oh well, I’ll find other occasions for it.

TOTW #12: Free Protection; Zoom, Zoom, Zoom!

Computer Tip: Free Protection

Looking for a free solution for anti-virus and anti-spyware software? You're in luck; there are options available.

Free Anti-Virus #1: AntiVir

AntiVir is very highly rated, and they offer a free version for personal use on a single computer. Personally I like this one better than other free solutions; it feels more polished.

Free Anti-Virus #2: AVG

This is the one that it seems like everyone knows about. It does fairly well at detecting viruses, but it seems to struggle with removing even some of the more common ones. Nevertheless, it is still a decent solution. Also for personal use.

Free Anti-Spyware #1: Microsoft Windows Defender

This is first because you may already have it. It is include with Windows Vista, and is available as a free download for anyone running Windows XP. It isn't the best solution available; it tends to miss some spyware detected by other solutions, but as basic protection it is fine.

Free Anti-Spyware #2: Malwarebytes Anti-Malware

Technically it isn't free; there is a $24.95 registration fee to unlock real-time protection. However, the trial version is fully functional as far as scanning and removal is concerned. it features better detection than many other solutions. Download here.

Noticeably missing

I've see copies of Ad Aware and SpyBot running on a lot of computers as free solutions to spyware problems. I have omitted both here because, while once effective, they both have slipped in their ability to detect a wide variety of spyware infections. If you are running one of these products, it would be best to supplement it with one of the products listed above. You can install multiple anti-spyware solutions (just make sure that no more than one is set to scan in real-time), but I don't recommend installing multiple anti-virus products.

Recommended Commercial Solution

I have been recommending Webroot's Antivirus with AntiSpyware for a while now, and it is holding up quite well. It's Anti-spyware feature is top rated, as is the anti-virus feature. But I especially like it because they offer 3 and 5-computer subscriptions for just a few dollars more than the price of the single computer offering, and if you renew before your subscription expires they give a discount.

Best Solution

The absolute best way to prevent viruses and spyware is to use caution when on the Internet. When visiting a web site you can't fully trust, don't allow it to install anything on your computer. If it pops up a request to install anything, just say no. One of the more common ploys in use today is the request to install a "codec" to install a video. Just don't fall for it.

Along with that, making sure your computer stays up-to-date by checking for and installing Windows updates frequently and automatically. This can go a long way toward avoiding infections in the first place. If you aren't updating as often as you should, it's a good time to start.

Checking for and installing updates also applies to Macs too. Despite what you may hear, there are exploits for problems with OS X in the wild. Macs that are not kept up-to-date can be hacked into faster than Windows Vista, for example.

Personal Experience

Ironic as it might be, I actually don't run my computers with anti-virus and anti-spyware scanners turned on. There hasn't been a need because I just haven't ever had a virus. Spyware, on the other hand, does manage to work its way on to my computers, so I set them to scan once a week. But most of the time all they find are cookies, which actually aren't harmful.

Multimedia Tip: Zoom, Zoom, Zoom!

The most common reason people use the zoom feature of the camera is to attempt to get closer to the subject they are shooting. While zooming does make small objects bigger, it has other effects on an image that aren't immediately obvious. Allow me to explain.

Standing back from an object and zooming in on it produces a very small field of view. If you were to draw a line from the camera to one of the objects at the left edge of the frame, and another line from the camera to the an object at the right side of the frame, this angle would be very small. Objects in this field of view may be large, but they lose any sense of size and depth. The ratio of the size of your subject vs. the size of the background is small. In effect, zooming in compresses space and distance, making objects close to and far away from the camera seem to be at the same distance. As a result, images appear flat, lacking the details that give our eyes a feeling of distance, texture, and reality, and are less exciting visually than those taken with a wide angle lens. (To compensate, make sure your primary light source isn't coming from behind or above you; side lighting helps to re-establish the feeling of depth.)

Stepping forward and zooming out has a different effect altogether. Again, draw an imaginary line from the camera to an object at the left edge of the frame, and another from the camera to an object on the right edge. The angle between the lines is much wider. Objects in the field of view tend to appear smaller than they would if you zoom in, but the sense of distance and space is larger. Zooming out exaggerates space and distance; objects closer the camera feel closer than they really are, and objects farther away feel a lot farther away than they are in reality. If you have ever seen a building, venue or room on TV then seen it later in real life, it usually appears much larger on TV because of the use of wide angle lenses.

So how do you use this when composing a picture? First of all, when taking portraits, stepping in too close and zooming out to compensate will cause distorted features on your subject. Any body part close to the camera will be perceived to be larger than it really is, and conversely any body parts farther away will appear to be smaller than they do in real life. So if making someone's nose or forehead look too big is your goal, step in an zoom out. Otherwise, step back and zoom in. But not too much; we don't want noses to disappear because they have no depth, or ears to appear too close to the face. For SLR cameras, a good guideline is 85mm divided by your camera's focal length multiplier (1.5 on Nikon, resulting in 57mm; or 1.6 on most Canon bodies, for 53mm).

Sometimes we want to convey a message that whatever we are taking a picture of is large, or to make the space between two objects look bigger than it really is. That's when we step forward and zoom out. For the widest views, a wide angle lens is required, however, so you might be limited in just how wide you can go.

Ultimately, however, the Zoom on a camera should be use more like a cropping tool than an attempt to get physically closer to our subject. The vast majority of the time you'll get a more realistic picture if you just step closer and zoom out.

TOTW #6: Windows Vista, Buying a Digital Camera

Computer Tip: Windows Vista

There is a lot of negative press out there about Windows Vista, some of which is deserved, but much of which is not.  In an attempt to quell some of the rumors, here's my take on it.

Myth: Windows Vista crashes more than Windows XP.
Reality: Hardware drivers (the software created by the manufacturers of the cards and peripherals to make them work with Windows) in the early days of Windows Vista were quite buggy, and some did in fact cause the computer to crash.  At this point in time, however, the problem seems to have been resolved, especially with the release of Service Pack 1 for Vista.  For most people Vista will be more stable than XP.

Myth: Windows Vista is slower than Windows XP.
Reality: If you attempt to run Windows Vista on a computer that doesn't meet (or barely meets) the minimum recommended requirements it can be painfully slow to run.  Because Vista has more features and more going on behind the scenes, it does require a faster computer with more memory than Windows XP, so it will feel slower.  Some features are faster, though, such as startup time.  But as long as a computer is relatively new and has sufficient memory and CPU power it will run Windows Vista just fine.  My recommendation: if you are buying a new computer and it will come with Windows Vista, make sure you have at least 2 GB of RAM, and a newer video card.

Myth: My old software won't run on Windows Vista.
Reality: There are some pieces of software that cannot be made to run properly on Windows Vista, especially things like anti-virus and anti-spyware utilities.  Fortunately, though, these are in the minority.  Some applications which appear to misbehave can be made to run perfectly fine by adjusting the Compatibility Mode for that application (right-click the program's shortcut, select Properties, then Compatibility Mode).  As an absolute last resort, running the programs with administrative rights (right-click, select Run as Administrator) goes a long away to making older software work as designed.

Myth: Vista will bug me with Cancel or Allow prompts all of the time. 
Reality: When you are setting up your computer for the first time you will be asked if you want to Cancel or Allow different operations quite a bit.  Once you've got everything setup the way you like it, though, you'll only be given this prompt when you install or update software on your computer.  The reason for this is that Vista is more secure, and programs aren't allowed to make changes that affect the way the computer operates without your explicit permission.  XP didn't require this because most people ran it so that permission wasn't required to make permanent changes.  If you're used to a Mac, the same situations where you're asked to enter your password are the times when you will receive a Cancel/Allow prompt on Vista.

Myth: Vista is harder to use than XP.
Reality: Not really.  For someone sitting down at a computer for the first time it is actually easier than Windows XP to learn.  Features tend to be placed where you would expect them to be for the most part.  It just seems harder because we're all used to the way that XP does things.

Myth: I shouldn't upgrade my computer to Windows Vista.
Reality:  You probably shouldn't.  Vista runs best on new computers.  Computers that came with Windows XP probably won't run Vista very well.  The same was true of XP when it first came out as well, though to a lesser extent.  This is normal for new operating systems.

As for me and my house, I am continuing to run Windows XP on the computers that have been running XP, and am running Vista on the computers that came with Vista.  I have only attempted to upgrade one of my computers, and it worked out okay, but only because it was a blazingly fast XP machine to start with.  Under Vista it is just okay.  I advise against upgrading unless your computer is quite new and has a lot of memory.

Multimedia Tip: Buying a Digital Camera

Some of this will be a repeat of an early post on my blog, but digital cameras are so common, and tend to have such short lives, that people end up buying them fairly frequently.  So here are a few tips.

Unimportant Numbers

Megapixels: Manufacturers throw around megapixel ratings like they are the most important specification on a camera.  My advice: ignore it completely.  Any camera with a 5 megapixel or higher resolution sensor will be more than enough for anything you're likely to do with any of your pictures.  On point and shoot cameras the picture quality actually suffers as the number of pixels on the sensor goes up if the sensor size is the same on two different models.  See my Megapixel Myth post for more info.

ISO Sensitivity: ISO is a measurement of the camera's sensitivity to light.  On some cameras you'll see numbers as high as 6400, and even higher on the newest models.  In truth, on point & shoot digital cameras any ISO setting higher than 400 is going to be totally unusable (even 400 on many models).  Like megapixels, ignore this number.   On digital SLRs, this number starts to take on some meaning, but no purchasing decision should be made on it alone.

Digital Zoom: Optical zoom indicates the zoom ratio of the image as it comes through the lens and is focused on the digital sensor.  Digital zoom, on the other hand, takes the captured image and zooms in, which results in a significant loss in picture detail.  Ignore any "digital zoom" numbers completely, and look for "optical zoom" numbers instead.  Digital zoom is totally worthless.

LCD Size: It doesn't really matter what the size of the LCD on the back of the camera is, it's the LCD's resolution that makes a difference in image quality.  If the screen gets bigger without adding any additional pixels it will look worse than its smaller equivalent resolution screen.

Important Numbers

Unfortunately for camera buyers the most important numbers usually aren't advertised by manufacturers.  If you can find them, though, you'll have a much better idea of just how good a camera really is.

Sensor Size: Usually measured in fractions of an inch. The larger, the better.  But pay close attention to the way the numbers are written, since they are fractions of an inch, so 1/2 is larger than 1/3, for example.  The larger the sensor, the sharper your images will be, and the more sensitive the camera will be in low-light conditions, both of which are very good things.

Lens Size and F-Stop: The f-stop is a measure of how large a lens's iris can be.  It is expressed as a fraction, so f2.8 is larger (and better) than f5.6.  But because it's a fraction based on the focal length of the lens, you also have to take the physical size of the lens into account, so two different size lenses can have the same f-stop range.  Bigger lenses (look at the glass, not the barrel!) let more light in and give a much better image.

Shutter Lag: How long it takes between the time you press the shutter button and when the camera actually takes a picture.  On low quality cameras you might wait a second or more.  On better cameras the picture is captured virtually immediately.  That difference might just be the determining factor between getting and not getting the picture you want.

Useful Features

Among the myriad of features advertised by camera manufacturers, the ones that will actually help you get better pictures are: Custom white balance, face detection, optical image stabilization, boutique brand lenses, predefined scenes, and low ISO (<100).  Most other features are gimmicky, just don't work as advertised, or don't do anything to help you get better pictures.

There you go... happy shopping!

TOTW#3: Laser or Inkjet; White Balance

Computer Tip: Laser or Inkjet

Computer users looking to buy a printer are faced with a decision... should I buy an inkjet printer, or get a laser? Most people seem to go right to the inkjet, but that is probably not the best choice.

Generally I steer people toward laser printers; they are faster, more reliable, and the cost per page is a tiny fraction of what it costs to run an inkjet. But if you need to print photos, a laser won't provide the quality you desire at any price. Here are the advantages and disadvantages of each type of printer.

Laser Printer

Pros: Printing cost is generally about 2 cents per page (B&W), including paper, no matter what you are printing. Color is a little more expensive, but still relatively cheap. Fast, with most printers spitting out 12 pages per minute in the real world. Reliable. Very high quality output for text and graphics. Toner cartridges last for thousands of pages between replacements.
Cons: Even color laser printers do a very poor job with photos. Toner cartridges are expensive because they last so long. Color laser printers require purchasing four separate toner cartridges periodically, and the printers are considerably more expensive than B&W-only models, as they actually contain four printer engines (one for each color) in one unit.
Purchase Price: $100+ for B&W, $300+ for Color.
Recurring costs: Toner cartridges, usually $40+ every 3000-6000 pages.

Inkjet Printer

Pros: Quality color photo printing is not just achievable, but with photo paper you can yield excellent results.
Cons: Very expensive per page, with costs ranging from 10 cents per page for B&W text to up to more than a dollar per page for full page color photos, just for ink. Crisp, rich, accurate printing requires expensive paper. The jets on the print head tend to clog and must be cleaned periodically, wasting ink. Many inks fade over time.
Purchase Price: Usually $80+, though you can find promotional deals frequently.
Recurring costs: Multi-color ink cartridges generally run about $30 and up for a few hundred pages of text, or a few dozen full-page prints; black cartridges are usually cheaper with similar capacities. Printers that utilize separate ink cartridges for each color typically run $15-20 each; for a printer with 6 cartridges the costs really add up quickly.

For me it boils down to this: If you absolutely have to print photos at home, get an inkjet. But for everyone else, invest in a laser printer; the cost might be higher up front, but the laser is actually much cheaper in the long run. And everybody should use an online service or local photo finisher for printing photos; you'll get much better results, much more cheaply than doing it on your own.

Bonus Tip: Many printers sold today are available with network interfaces, either wired or wireless. Having this feature makes dealing with your printer much easier. I recommend spending the extra money to get a printer with this feature.

Mac Users: Make sure before buying a printer that it has a Mac compatible driver available. Of the five printers I own, only one is compatible with the Mac, and it was quite difficult to install a working driver for it.

Multimedia Tip: White Balance

Have you ever noticed that videos shot indoors, or pictures taken in low light without a flash are often very yellow/orange in color, when it didn't look that way at all in real life? It's because of white balance.

Despite what our eyes tell us, different sources of light around us are actually different colors. We perceive them all as white, but they really vary quite widely as to their real color. Noonday sunlight and camera flashes, for example, look very blue when compared to indoor lighting, while indoor lighting looks orange if compared against sunlight. We don't normally see this because our eyes and brains adapt very well to different color lighting without us even being aware of it. (See Wikipedia's article on Color Temperature for more information.)

Video and still cameras aren't quite so smart. While many have Automatic White Balance options, they don't always work the way we'd like. For example, any time you fill the viewfinder with a scene that has little or no "white," or a lot of blue or orange, the camera will attempt to use the wrong white balance setting, and you'll end up with a picture or video that just looks... weird.

The way to fix this is to tell your camera the color of light that is illuminating your image. Most newer video cameras have pre-set white balance settings for Outdoor (sunlight), Indoor (incandescent lighting), in addition to an Auto mode. And many of these also add a Hold setting, which lets you lock in a particular setting so the observed color doesn't shift over time. Still cameras usually add Fluorescent, Shade, and Cloudy on top of the Outdoor and Indoor settings. In either case, if one of these settings matches your lighting, go ahead and use it. But under any conditions you can utilize the Hold or Custom White Balance setting of your camera to make sure that it knows the proper white balance. Place a white piece of paper or neutral gray card in front of the camera while it is in the Auto White Balance setting, zoom in until it nearly fills the screen, then select the Hold or Custom White Balance setting. Consult your camera's manual for full instructions; the full list of steps varies by manufacturer and type of camera.

By taking the time to white balance your camera you'll end up with much more realistically colored pictures. Even when your pictures look fine without adjusting the white balance, you'll usually see a dramatic improvement in colors by manually setting the white balance. It only takes a few seconds to set it up, and you'll end up with drastically better images. No more orange mess!

TOTW #2: Control key shortcuts; Camera Flash

Computer Tip: The Control Key

The Control key on your keyboard is actually quite useful. There are many keyboard shortcuts that utilize the Control key, and while many vary by the software you are using, but there are a few that work in most software. (The Mac uses the Command key instead of Control for the following commands.)

(Windows) Control +	(Mac) Command +	Action Taken
X	X	Cut selected text / image (to clipboard)
C	C	Copy (to clipboard)
V	V	Paste (from clipboard)
Z	Z	Undo last action
Y	(N/A)	Redo last action
N	N	Create new document
A	A	Select all of current document
O	O	Open document
S	S	Save document
Arrows	Option + Arrows	Move cursor forward or backward one word (Left / Right) or paragraph (Up / Down)
Home	Left Arrow	Move to the top of the current document
End	Right Arrow	Move to the end of the current document
(Alt + F4)	Q	Close Current Program
Backspace	(N/A)	Backspace over entire word

Then there are character formatting shortcuts as well on Windows:

Control +	Character Format
B	Bold
I	Italic
U	Underline

There you go! The less time you spend switching between your mouse and keyboard the more productive you'll be. Memorize a few of these keyboard commands and you'll get more done in less time.

Multimedia Tip: Using Camera Flash

I've always believed that natural light usually provides the best looking pictures. But sometimes it needs a little help. That's where the flash comes in.

In fact, I almost always use my flash on my camera, whether I'm taking pictures inside or outside, if there are any people or unwanted shadows in the image. And the reason is simple: to take control over my lighting. Anyone who attended/watched my photography class knows that "control of lighting is everything in photography." Don't just turn your flash on all of the time, though; it takes a while to get a feel for how and when. But here are a few guidelines to help get better pictures.

Whenever there is a large difference in the amount of light hitting your subject and their surroundings (for example, someone's face is in the shade but the background behind them is in the sun), turning on the flash to fill in the darker areas of the picture (i.e. your subject) is essential to capturing a usable image. Yet in the camera's default "automatic" setting cameras will leave the flash off in this situation. So turn on the flash to provide the extra lighting needed to brighten your subject to better match the lighting of the background.

Conversely, if you are taking a picture of a subject that is more than about 20 feet away, turning on the flash will do no good. In fact, it will usually result in a very dark image because the light from your flash just can't reach the subject; it dims as it gets farther from the camera. I always laugh when I see hundreds of camera flashes going off in sports stadiums, because 90+% of the time those pictures won't come out properly because the field is just too far away to reflect back any light from the flash. So when taking a picture of a distant subject, just turn off the flash whether it is night or day. The camera will then know to expose the image longer to record a brighter (and properly exposed) image. Of course, the "20 feet" rule varies based on the output capacity of your flash and the camera's ISO setting, but as a general rule, if your subject is 20 feet or more away, just turn off the flash. And if you are exposing a distant object at night, use a tripod to steady the camera.

If you are trying to capture both a dimly lit subject in the foreground and a distant background at night, you will need to find a mode on your camera that exposes the background properly, but turns on the flash as well. On SLR cameras the Aperture Priority (A or Av) setting usually does this; set to the appropriate aperture for the intended depth-of-field, turn on the flash, and fire away. On point-and-shoot cameras look for a night flash mode (an icon with a flash with the moon), but don't be too surprised if your camera doesn't have it; it isn't very common on inexpensive cameras.

Lastly (for this time), when taking portrait pictures, even outside, I like to turn on the flash to not only fill in any shadows, but also to create a little glint in my subject's eyes. Eyes are the window to the soul, and that glint helps to make them stand out more in the photograph.

If your camera has the ability to adjust how bright the flash is (many do), I recommend playing with it to get better control over lighting. Most of the time you will need to dial down the level of the flash (-1 or -2 EV) to avoid having your pictures look flat and washed out. Look for an icon with a flash symbol and +/- to find this function.

Eye-Fi Wireless Storage Card

Note: This post has been edited since it was originally posted to correct what turned out to be erroneous information.   Additions are noted in [brackets] and are italicized, with incorrect information lightened in gray text and shown with a strike-through tag.

This week I purchased an Eye-Fi memory card for my digital camera.  I'm pretty sure nobody reading this blog knows what that is, but many may be interested, so allow me to explain...  It's an SD memory card for digital cameras that also has an integrated WiFi radio which automatically uploads your pictures to your computer wirelessly.  So you don't have to connect the camera to your computer or remove the card to transfer using a card reader.  It all happens on its own, in the background, automagically whenever the card is in range of your wireless network.  Or at least that's the theory.  In practice things are a little different.

I actually received two cards this week.  The first one arrived on Wednesday afternoon, and it worked for about 2 minutes before it just died.  Fortunately Amazon has a great replacement program, so they shipped one out Next Day Air for free.  Because I didn't report the first one as dead until after their Wednesday shipping cutoff it didn't go out until Thursday, so the replacement arrived Friday afternoon.

Since it's SD and my Canon 40D uses Compact Flash, I decided to try the Eye-Fi card out on my old Nikon Coolpix 5200 camera, which does have an SD memory slot.  So after configuring the card, I popped it in, took a few shots... and nothing... they didn't upload to my computer like they were supposed to.  I transferred the card into a SD-to-CF adapter and then into my Canon 40D [the officially recommended adapter has been ordered and is on its way], and it gave an error message indicating the card wasn't usable.  This is looking all too familiar from my experience on Wednesday.  But before trying to do anything else I called their tech support line and the nice woman on the other end was very helpful.  Together we were able to ascertain that my CoolPix camera doesn't supply power to the card when it isn't actively saving a photo, so no photos can be transferred wirelessly at all with that camera.  No big deal; I almost never use it anyway.

She offered me a few tips on how to get the card to work with my 40D, and we ended the call.  I put the card back into my 40D, no error this time.  So I take some pictures.  And they don't show up on my computer.  So I wait.  And wait some more.  Nope, still not showing up. 

I played with the settings on the card for what seemed like forever, and finally I see the popup on my computer screen showing the picture coming in.  But it only transfers 11% of the first picture before it just quits.  Odd.  So I play with it a while longer, and can't get it to transfer anything.  Format the card, take more pictures, wait for a transfer, nothing happens.  Do the same thing again.  And again.  Still nothing.  Re-configure the card one more time, take some pictures, and the first one starts to transfer.  Hurray!  It's working again.  Until this one gets stuck at 8%.  I give up.  So the card goes back into the computer to be reconfigured yet again, and... boom! all of the pictures transfer.  I guess it's sort of working now?

Anyway, long story short, it's got some significant quirks, and some limitations.  Its two most annoying limitations are (1) that it only transfers JPG picture files, yet I usually shoot my pictures in RAW format, and (2) the wireless network it connects to has to be connected to the Internet, even though the pictures aren't sent over the Internet.  While that may not seem like a huge limitation, my plan was to take my camera, a laptop, and the Eye-Fi card with me when I take pictures for photo directories to have those pictures transfer to the computer automatically while I'm still in the midst of taking them.  But 95% of the time when I'm doing that no Internet connection is going to be available.   Not going to work, not even with my wireless travel router.  So that's out.  [UPDATE: As mentioned in the reply to my post below (which looks like it was made by a company official, BTW), the card does indeed transfer pictures without an Internet connection.  I used it today (Sunday 7/27) to transfer pictures for a photo directory project I'm working on.  The only official restriction is that there must be an Internet connection available to configure the card for each wireless network it is to be used on.  With that said, it would be nice to have support for Ad-hoc wireless networks, and for a way to configure the card if no Internet connection is available.  (2) I still found it somewhat unpredictable as to when it would transfer pictures, waiting for between 1-5 minutes before it would start, and found myself having to remove the card for a few seconds periodically to kick start its transfer function.]

The overall idea has merit; being able to transfer pictures wirelessly from a camera to a computer would be very cool.  But the way that the Eye-Fi card is designed makes it nearly impossible to pull off anywhere but home.  And I don't know about you, but 99.7% of the pictures I take aren't taken at home.  They could have made the card work with any laptop with any wireless connection, irregardless of whether the Internet is accessible on that connection, but they didn't.  And they seemed to have botched the implementation at least to some degree even when the Internet connection requirement is met; getting it to transfer was unpredictable at best.  So I'm pretty [somewhat] disappointed in the product; they had a good idea, but screwed it up in its implementation the implementation could have been a little better.  I guess I'll keep transferring [I will still have to transfer] photos the old fashioned way [because it doesn't support RAW files] and wait for something else similar that actually does it right.  This card might be right for some, but it certainly wasn't designed for someone like me [due to the lack of support for RAW formats].

Starting a Technology Podcast

My friend Brian Westfall and I have technology discussions pretty regularly. We talk about computers, game console games, home theater, among other things. And we talk a lot. Sometimes the discussions actually get pretty deep too.

So recently we decided that we were going to turn some of our conversations into podcasts that others can download and listen to. The result is called "Tech Squawk."

We hurried to record the first episode before Christmas, hoping that some of the stuff we recorded might be of value to someone. It's just a few days before Christmas now, but maybe somebody will find out podcast interesting.

The official web site for the podcast is http://techsquawkpodcast.podshow.com/. For anyone using an RSS aggregator, the feed address is http://www.podshow.com/feeds/techsquawkpodcast.xml.

Like I mentioned, the first episode was rushed, just to get something out there in time for the holidays. Which also means it wasn't edited down to a more concise size. So plan on taking up about 90 minutes if you want to listen to the whole thing.

We'll get to our normal weekly schedule after the first of the year. And future episodes will be much shorter. Hopefully less than 30 minutes, because longer podcasts just get a little dull.

Enjoy! And thanks in advance for any feedback!

Megapixel Myth

Something I have wanted to cover in my Photography Class that I just haven't had time to do is the myth of the megapixel when purchasing cameras. When people ask me about my cameras the first question that inevitably comes up is "How many megapixels" it has. Somehow camera manufacturers have tricked the general public into thinking that more megapixels in a camera equates to a better image. Unfortunately this is far from the truth.

Allow me to describe what is happening in a digital camera so I can explain why "more megapixels" is probably a bad thing. Digital cameras work by focusing an image onto an analog image sensor that converts light into electrical impulses (similar to the way the human eye works) in millions of tiny sites called pixels. These signals are processed by another chip and are converted into a digital image that is stored on a memory card. Unfortunately this process isn't perfect, and has a few problems. One of those problems is electrical noise in the image sensor itself, and that electrical noise shows up as random variations in color and brightness in individual pixels in your final picture.

In my first class we talked about ISO, which in a digital camera is effectively the sensitivity of the image sensor. One might think that more sensitive is better, and in theory this may be true in certain circumstances. However, to accomplish higher sensitivity, the camera uses amplification of the signal coming off of the sensor, and the result is in the random noise I just mentioned. However, the amount of electrical noise in the chip is more or less constant no matter how much light comes into the camera, so by dialing up the sensitivity you get more noise and less signal from the light entering the camera. The ratio of actual signal to electrical noise decreases as you turn up the sensitivity; less signal to a constant amount of noise. High ISO settings result in noisier pictures.

Another way to increase sensitivity of a chip is to make the pixels larger so they can capture more light. Since the electrical noise in the chip remains more or less constant, more light means a cleaner image. But to make larger pixels means you either have to make the chip larger, or cut down on the number of pixels in a given area. But the trend among camera manufacturers is going the other direction… stuffing more pixels into the same size chip (larger chips are considerably more expensive to manufacture and require larger lenses, also very expensive to make). The result? A smaller surface to capture light, which means an increasing amount of noise in the pictures we are getting out of newer cameras. And the higher levels of noise mean that the camera has to do more work to try to remove that noise, and removing noise also means removing real image detail; the camera can't discern between the two. So your final output ends up being a low resolution noisy mess.

More megapixels would be fine if the sizes of the chips and lenses were increasing. But there is another disturbing trend going on there; the lenses and chips that cameras are equipped with is actually decreasing rather than increasing because the cameras themselves are getting smaller and smaller. Not a good thing. The level of noise has gotten so bad that the high ISO settings on most new cameras are basically unusable.

So in terms of raw specifications and the reality of what they mean, the newer digital cameras that are coming out now are actually inferior to their predecessors in more than one way. The Canon 40D that I just bought, for example, though it has a 10.1 megapixel sensor actually produces a visibly noisier image (at high ISOs) than the 20D that it replaces with its 8.2 megapixel sensor. (Fortunately though, because of the large sensor used in both cameras the level of noise is so low, or at low ISOs completely invisible, that I don't mind the tradeoff between additional noise and new features. The same can't be said of compact point-and-shoot digital cameras, however.)

If megapixels aren't the best indicator of the ultimate quality of the image coming out of a camera, what is? Turns out, it's the size of the lens. I'm talking about the glass itself, not the barrel surrounding it. Larger lenses let in more light, and lenses are generally matched to the size of the sensor behind them; larger lens usually means larger sensor. So when comparing two cameras with generally equal specifications, the one with the larger lens is usually going to produce a much better image. (It shouldn't be any surprise, therefore, that cameras with nice big lenses also cost more.)

So when shopping for your next digital camera, don't be swayed by the "megapixel" number on the specification chart of the camera. If you fall for that trap you may end up with subpar pictures and end up paying more money for the privilege.

P.S. One of these days I might discuss how all camera manufacturers are lying to you about the number of megapixels anyway, overestimating by three times the actual number, but I'll save that for another day.

Photography Class!

If you haven't heard, I guess this is your official announcement that I am teaching a photography class. There are 7 classes, I'm teaching one per week, and we started last Thursday (Oct 4^th). To make it most worth my while I'm streaming it online and making the classes available via Google video afterward.

Visit the official class web site:

http://www.maxoutput.com/photoclass

The first class is now available on Google Video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5426515164265217176&hl=en

Hope to see you online or at the class!