I just watched the 2008 Apple WWDC keynote. The Iphone 3G looks to be the coolest smart phone to hit the market. The question is do you need it ? Even if you can afford it, will you burn more time playing with it than you should?
The Iphone solves the data communication problems of an extremely busy, extremely mobile person and makes the power available to almost every cell phone user. Do we need so much mobile power? Are smart phones an overkill?
Personally, I could list real world problems - then evaluate the Iphone for how it can help, rather than just think about how I could use it (that would be just justifying the purchase!)
First, let's see what I use my powerbook for:
• Reading email
• Sharing photos with family
• Reading news and blogs
• Online shopping
• Catalog and play music
• Driving directions
The Iphone can do the things above but they are certainly easier done on the powerbook if instant access is not required.
What do I use a cell phone for?
• To make or receive calls while I'm out
The real answer for you should depend on:
• How mobile are you? Do you have a long public transport commute?
• How much instant access do you need? If you want to show photos to a friend on a train, it can't be beat.
• How affordable is it for you? If the Iphone was free with the contract, everyone signing up with AT&T would get one.
• Do you carry an Ipod and a phone and have a spare digital camera in the car? It can be all of them.
So, should I get one? Hmm ...
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
DSLR buying advise - March 2008
- The alpha 700 has live preview, which means you can see in the LCD while taking a photo, Nikon D300 has this feature too. But the downside is that If you hold a camera at arm length (so you can see the LCD), then there is more camera shake than holding the camera close to your body or eye. If you can flip the LCD, then you can hold the camera close to your body and avoid shake.
- Today's DSLRs use APS-C sized sensors which are smaller than the 35mm negative, this results in a multiplication factor for the focal length, so a regular 35mm lens becomes a 52mm on a DSLR which makes wide angle expensive. Canon started making full-frame sensor (same size as 35mm negative) cameras (ex- Canon 5D $2000) a couple of years ago and Nikon finally gave in (they insisted APS-C was good enough earlier) and released its own (Nikon D3) this year. This is the most significant change coming to DSLRs and may mean that APS-C DSLRs will be obsolete in a few years and replaced by competitively priced full-frame sensor cameras. That's worth waiting and paying more for.
- D40 is Nikon's entry level DSLR($500). D80 is a fine camera ($800). D300 is really good ($1700) and D3 is full-frame ($5000). They seem to have even introduced a D60 now. D40, D60, D80 use SD or secure-digital which are thin memory cards. D3 and D300 use compact-flash which is bigger and more robust. Incidentally the D80 replaced the D70 I have, but the D70 uses compact flash. That's a cost savings for Nikon hidden there. The Nikon D40 can take great images and seems well priced. A used D70 may be a good buy at $350- $450.
- Canon, Sony have similar models and they must be equally good.
- Canon's image processing yields more dynamic range, Nikon's is more neutral. Personally, I like Canon for flowers and Nikon for people.
- Canon, Nikon, Sony/Minolta, Pentax, Olympus all make great cameras.
- Pay close attention to viewfinder magnification (about 0.9x or higher is good)
- Good lenses are important and expensive. If you don't like flash, make sure to get a bright lens (lower f number)
- DSLRs have much less noise than the tiny sensors in the point and shoots. They also have better depth-of-field control. Evaluate if you want a portable camera. If so, get a good point and shoot. You may take more pictures than with a DSLR. Given a price point, the heavier the point and shoot camera is, the better its built.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Monday, September 18, 2006
Friday, September 08, 2006
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Monday, October 31, 2005
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Photography and Words
I remember reading an interview of William Eggleston in which he said that there is no need to describe a photograph. I think Robert Adams wrote that most photographers are comfortable talking about the circumstances leading to, rather than explaining what they want to show by way of a particular photograph. No amount of words can do justice to a good photograph, which, while incorporating interesting composition and good light, also leaves an inexplicable element that draws us in. It reflects the symmetry and asymmetry we see and the order and disorder we experience in the world around us. A good photograph, itself, tells a story.
Why then, do I like reading about photography? Reading along with looking at scores of photographs has helped realize personal artistic likes/dislikes and can help development of a unique style which is essential for any artist.
What makes a photograph art? Art has to be about life and art has to be original. Toting a camera, lenses and a heavy tripod around the national parks to reproduce the works of Ansel Adams, albeit in color, may not result in art. Although, the photographs can impress a bunch of folks and one might even be able to sell prints, its not necessarily art. Master photographers over the years have developed their own unique styles, which are readily identifiable from their work. While one can and should learn from them, an artist should bring something unique into his/hers photographs.
Resources for reading about photography:
1. Frank Van Riper's Camera Works Column
2. Michael Johnston's Sunday Morning Photographer Column
3. Susan Sontag's book On Photography
4. Robert Adam's book Why People Photograph
5. J.Colberg's Conscientious weblog
6. Auspicious Dragon weblog
7. del.icio.us links I've tagged with photography
Previous | Next
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
