Photographs, Photographers and Photography

March 13, 2010

iPhone Explorer

Filed under: Software — Thomas Pindelski @ 11:28 am

An interesting app.

Yesterday I speculated about using the iPad as a storage device for pictures taken on the road. Let’s assume for a moment that the iPad version of iPhoto supports Panasonic G1 RAW or whatever your choice of RAW format happens to be.

It should then be a simple matter to connect the iPad to your home computer and, using iTunes, sync the devices in the same way as you do with the iPhone.

Meanwhile, until the iPad becomes available and some experimentation is done, I came across a free application named iPhone Explorer which permits files to be moved between the iPhone and your desktop.

Here’s a screen shot:

What you are seeing is a Finder-like directory of the iPhone – mine is the 2.5G original, by the way. The file named _1050431.RW2 is a RAW file I dragged and dropped from my SDHC card, inserted in my desktop, onto the iPhone. I then tried drag and dropping that same file onto the hard drive in my desktop and it worked perfectly. So if this application works with iPad (and there’s a chance it will or that an update will be crafted) you can use the iPad as a storage device in lieu of external drives when travelling with your camera. Where am I going with this? Simple. The less you have to carry on a trip the more likely you are to focus on taking pictures.

The only change I made to iPhone Explorer was to set the minimum file size it will accept on the iPhone at 14mB – slightly larger than the largest RAW file size produced by the Panasonic G1.

As you can see my iPhone only has 2gB of space, or enough for some 180 RAW files but this does prove that if you can get the RAW file into the iPhone (or iPad) then it’s easy to transfer it to your desktop. The issue then becomes how to get the file into the iPad, and I’ll have more on that when I have one in my hot little hands – if I can wrest it from our 8 year old son, that is!

March 12, 2010

iPad connectivity

Filed under: Computing — Thomas Pindelski @ 10:03 am

Making it work with your DSLR.

One of the nicer features of my hacked netbook is its ability to read the SDHC card from my Panasonic G1 using its built in card reader slot as well as its ability to run Lightroom and Photoshop, if at a rather poky speed, meaning what I was used to on the old G4 iMac.

Apple will make card reader and camera connectors available with the launch of the iPad on April 3:

The left one connects to your camera, a connection which I have found to be molasses slow in the past. The other allows you to simply insert the SDHC card into the connector for download.

While Apple should be chastised for not integrating a card reader into the body of the iPad, at least this means you can get your snaps from the camera for preview on a decent sized screen, the small LCD screen in the camera being pretty much useless for those of us with 50+ years old eyes.

What is unclear is whether Panasonic G1 RAW will be supported by the iPad’s native photo processing application, iPhoto. And as you can be sure that it will take the slowpokes at Adobe half a generation to port Lightroom to the iPad, iPhoto is what you will likely have to use. Still, that’s not all bad. iPhoto is fine for preview and light processing and you can still take your snaps for subsequent upload to the home machine with Lightroom at a later date. I’m not sure how one goes about using the iPad as a RAW file storage device but am confident this will be possible, in much the same way the device stores JPGs and MP3 tunes. Maybe one can use MobileMe as conduit storage when on the road, though uploading 10mB RAW files using wireless is not my idea of fun.

As regards Panny RAW support, this page confirms that Aperture v3 supports G1/GH1/GF1 RAW (that only took Apple 18 months from the introduction of the camera) but I cannot find out whether iPhoto in the iPad will. I’m using iPhoto ‘09 (v 8.1.1) on my desktop and it does not import G1 RAW files showing only a JPG preview then refusing to import anything. One workaround would be to shoot JPG+RAW, I suppose, which will at least allow preview of your images, but until a proper RAW reader application is available that strikes me as a weak option.

I suspect that the demand from photographers and videographers for a broad range of import and preview formats will see the iPad gestate into a very useful traveling device for preview and illustrative use.

There’s also a handy iPad to VGA adapter, in addition to Component and Composite (ugh!) variants:

This will make it easy to plug in your iPad to the big screen TV for picture and movie viewing. Pictures can then be moved to the desktop machine by performing a sync, much as with the iPhone.

To cut a long story short, I have reserved a 32gB (non-3G) iPad and will check it out on April 3. I am avoiding the 3G model as AT&T’s already overloaded network will only get worse when the iPad ramps up bandwidth demand and with free wi-fi broadly available there is little need for yet another usage fee.

I opted for the middle of the road 32gB version, figuring it as follows:

OS etc. uses 2gB
Our eight year old’s iPhone games, to be ported to the iPad, consume another 4gB. The boy has his needs, after all.
Tunes will be another 2gB or so.
Leaving 24gB which is equal to 3 8gB SDHC cards’ worth or 1,800 RAW originals. That’s a lot, especially after the cull.
Which means that my travel outfit is the diminutive G1 with two lenses (kit and 45-200mm zooms) and a 1.5lb iPad + a few ounces for its charger.

That little lot represents firepower and competence we could only have dreamt of a mere 5 years ago. The main lie in the iPad’s specs will, I’m sure, prove to be the battery life. Jobs’s “up to 10 hours” spin will probably translate into something closer to 5-6 hours, but that is still more than adequate for moderately heavy use.

One more unusual use for me will be as a device to display cooking recipes. I enjoy cooking and the keyboard-free surface should resist splatters well. We will see. Somehow I don’t see greedy little piggie Mr. Jobs giving me a free replacement should I drop the original in the frying pan ….

Let’s hope this device proves as reliable as the iPhone, not like the other awfully unreliable Apple hardware I have had to contend with over the ages. Apple is smart to use a reservation system as it will allow them to allocate the skimpy first batch of 200,000 iPads to stores with the highest demand. For example, there’s unlikely to be any such demand in the deep South. The iPad may be a touchscreen device usable even by those with hamburger fingers, but a modicum of reading skills is a prerequisite to use. That means higher allocations for those of us living in civilization.

Of course, if I don’t like the gadget when I test it in the Apple Store, I’ll buy it anyway and flip it for a quick 20% gain on the way out the door, as only pre-ordered unit quantities are being shipped to stores. So if you think you can get one on a walk-in basis, you are going to have to deal with the arbitrageur types like me!

iPhoto update: Reader Craig Johnson (see Comments, below) has pointed out that there was an update to iPhoto for compatibility with the G1. I downloaded it just now – it still shows iPhoto as v 8.1.1 but a new ‘RAW compatibility update’ was applied – and I can confirm that RAW files from my Panasonic G1 now load in iPhoto and can be processed. As Craig points out it’s unclear whether the iPad version of iPhoto will support G1 RAW out of the box, but I am confident that Apple will get there eventually owing to the popularity of that camera. Thank you, Craig!

March 11, 2010

The Leica for the rest of us

Filed under: G1/G2 — Thomas Pindelski @ 11:31 am

That’s more like it, Panny!

After the tired product ‘refresh’ that is the Panasonic G2 (see below) this patent filing from Panny (from 43rumors) shows a Leica rangefinder format micro four-thirds body with an EVF where a viewfinder should be and finally appears to take advantage of the compactness available to micro four-thirds designers. Miraculously they have managed to retain an electronic flash in a neat flip-up design in the center of the top plate.

Panasonic GF2 patent

I started thinking about writing something like “This is the final nail in the coffin of the antiquated Leica M rangefinder, a design now some 55 years old” but thought better of it. There will always be a market spot for the ultra-wealthy who think nothing of blowing $10k on a limited function display piece, and good luck to them. The GF2 is simply the Leica for the rest of us. Kudos to Panny for finally recognizing that a lot of serious photographers want a small rangefinder-format DSLR with auto everything.

Let’s hope we see it later this year, at well under $1,000 for the body and with the same EVF definition as that found in the G1/G2/GH1 bodies, meaning excellent.

March 7, 2010

Panny underwhelms

Filed under: G1/G2 — Thomas Pindelski @ 8:54 am

The G1 and G10 tinker at the margins.

As I am so delighted with the Panasonic G1 I tend to keep a weather eye out for new gear in this line of micro four thirds cameras. My wish list is short and, I suspect, shared by many serious users of the G1:

  • Drop the prism hump
  • Delete the built-in flash
  • Upgrade the EVF to avoid ‘burn out’ in bright light
  • Move the eyepiece to the rear left
  • Reduce noise at higher ISOs
  • Improve iA to make it use faster shutter speeds
  • Add a 10mm ultra-wide pancake lens

Well, the recent new product announcements from Panny address only one of these – possibly improved noise at high ISOs from an updated processing ‘engine’ – marketing gobledegook for software.

The G2. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

The new G2 adds 720p movie mode, SDXC card capability and moves around a button or two. I’m a street snapper – you can keep the movie mode. And one 8gB SDHC card holds 600 RAW images so the far greater storage promises of SDXC are not something I lust for. The EVF is unchanged. The G10 fills what must be a niche between P&S compacts and the G range, offering simplified controls in a G1 format body. And, curiously, the 14-45mm kit lens is now 14-42mm, deletes the OIS switch which is now a software function (no big deal for me as I always leave it ‘on’) and – this is the strange part – the lens actually gets slightly larger, if lighter. That makes no sense other than to accountants who are squeezing profit margin out of the product. Panny makes no claims for improved optical performance, so it’s hard to draw any other conclusion. Truth be told, the optics of my 14-45mm are so superb, even if the mechanicals are so-so, meaning a rough zoom ring, that I would hate to see things going backwards.

Sure, the G2 adds a touch screen for menu selections but for those like me who hardly ever use the LCD screen, this is a solution looking for a problem.

So it’s hard to see these new models as anything more than minor refreshes while we all wait for a GH2 with a proper viewfinder and some new compact lenses at the very wide end.

March 2, 2010

Alternative keyboards

Filed under: Computing — Thomas Pindelski @ 7:43 am

Hasta la vista Apple.

In my ongoing quest to banish every last piece of Apple’s awful hardware from the home, I have now purchased two non-Apple keyboards in the last six months, both my Apple wireless ones having failed in that period, refusing to pair with their respective computers. One was the white model the other the aluminum slim version. Looks great – but strictly for display only.

One replacement is wired and is the Kensington Slim Type for Mac. It comes with downloadable software for use with Macs and features proper scissor key mechanical switches for that traditional ‘long throw’ feel which those of us over 7 years of age grew up with.

The Kensington Slim Type for Mac keyboard

At $27 it has been working nicely for six months now and I even found a nice keyboard skin to keep it clean for some $10 more.

The other is the HP Wireless Elite. I have lost all trust in Apple’s Bluetooth as a wireless keyboard technology. The aluminum one which just failed was used with my home theater Mac Mini and would constantly lose pairing with the Mini, displaying an obnoxious message in the center of the screen in the middle of watching a movie. When I am luxuriating in the beauty of a Penelope Cruz or Kate Beckinsale on the screen, the last thing I need to be reminded of is Apple’s crappy products.

Having had good experience with the RF wireless technology used in the Microsoft Wireless Mouse I wrote of earlier I decided to stick with that technology and purchased an HP Elite RF Wireless Keyboard, my wild spending ($33) getting me a slim black keyboard with numeric keypad, an RF USB dongle and an ominous looking CD full of software for Windows users. I discarded the latter, plugged in the RF receiver to the back of the Mini, pressed a couple of keys as instructed and, hey presto!, a perfectly working keyboard which pairs instantly and avoids the need for that ridiculous “enter a number” pairing process dictated by Apple for its wireless garbage. The USB receiver is a little larger than the one for the Microsoft mouse and flashes a veritable klieglight blue diode every time a key is depressed, so either install it out of sight or apply a couple of turns of black electrician’s tape. A real genius designed that part. For reference, the keyboard is some 11 feet from the dongle.

The HP Elite RF Wireless keyboard.

No need to do anything software wise and the OS X System Preferences->Keyboard->Modifier Keys screen even allowed me to disable the Caps Lock button which I like to do as a matter of course. The volume and mute keys work perfectly and are well isolated top right for ease of use in the dark. Interestingly, the elegant gloss chrome side panels match the appearance of the Microsoft RF Wireless Mouse and the whole thing simply works out of the box and has yet to unpair itself. Quality of construction, fit and finish are beyond criticism and the keys adopt that short throw feel used in Apple’s current range. The keyboard comes with two AAA batteries installed and you can blow through two of these before you have equalled the cost of one piece of Apple’s jewelry. Recommended.

February 21, 2010

Any day now ….

Filed under: Cameras — Thomas Pindelski @ 4:00 am

…. someone will get it right.

Another interesting product announcement from Samsung, the TL500, following on from their new APS-C DSLR:

The lens is fast at f/1.8, it does RAW and the zoom range is an incredibly useful 24-72mm. Just about perfect for street photography.

But, but, but …. there’s still no eye level viewfinder. I doubt it’s lost on the likes of Samsung and Panasonic, etc. that there’s a profitable and prestigious market segment waiting for a small, fast camera like this with a proper finder, not some dumb ass LCD screen, at $8,000 less than the crazy-priced Leica M9.

I doubt the day when we will see something like this is far away. F/1.8, 24-70mm or so with a manual zoom ring, a bigger sensor than the 0.6″ one in the TL500, low shutter lag and no earthly need for interchangeable lenses. All that’s needed in addition is an eye level EVF. Panny has most of this in the G1/GH1 and just needs to redesign the container, but if someone else beats them to it, so much the better. And forget the poncy built-in flash, for heaven’s sake. The technology is out there, it’s robust and my money is waiting. I would even settle for a smaller sensor than the one in the G1 – who is going to make huge prints from street snaps anyway?

February 20, 2010

Apple’s awful hardware

Filed under: Computing — Thomas Pindelski @ 10:34 am

To be avoided.

As I value reliability over looks, stability over price, I have been an Apple OS X devotee for a decade now. Windows drove me to OS X. But it would be hard to be unhappier with the reliability record of Apple’s hardware which I have experienced. Here, more or less in chronological order, is the list of that company’s hardware I have used over the past decade and what happened to each.

  • iMac 17″ PPC, 1.25gHz – still working great if a bit slow by modern standards. 10 years old. Good for web surfing.
  • Airport Extreme ‘UFO’ style’ router. Nothing but stability problems. Given to a friend.
  • Airport Express ‘G’ model. Impossible to program and totally unstable. Returned for refund.
  • iBook #1 – DVD drive failed after 30 months. Replaced (awful job) and sold.
  • iBook #2 – DVD drive failed after 27 months. Replaced and given to a friend.
  • iBook #3 – HDD failed. Battery failed after 27 months. In surgery now.
  • iMac G5 20″ PPC, 1.8gHz – started to overheat after 2 years’ use. Sold before it could blow.
  • Airport Express ‘N’ model. Refused to extend network despite much telephone time with Apple. Returned for refund.
  • iMac 20″ Intel C2D, white model (wife’s). Graphics processor failed after 2 years. Not economical to repair. Recycled.
  • iMac 24″ Intel C2D, white model. Graphics processor started to fail after 2 years. GPU board replaced and additional cooling (fans and holes) added. Still limping along. Not sure what to do with it as it is full of ventilation holes so not easily sold.
  • Airport Extreme router ‘N’ model. Unstable out of the box. Replaced under warranty. Replacement continues to work fine.
  • MacBook #1 12″, Intel C2D. Repaired twice under warranty for a wireless problem – Apple replaced the wifi card twice. No use. Complete computer replaced under warranty after 9 months of use. This one broke me, I confess and started my Hackintosh quest.
  • MacBook #2 12″ Intel C2D. Warranty replacement for the above. Sold as quickly as possible before new problems could arise. Replaced with a $300 hacked netbook which is perfect after 15 months’ heavy use, not to mention that it runs 40F cooler.
  • Mighty Mouse – three models – all died from faulty scroll wheels just outside the warranty period. Replaced with a Microsoft RF wireless mouse.
  • White wireless keyboard. Has started to refuse to pair with the iMac 24″.
  • Aluminum wireless keyboard. Has refused to pair with anything over the past week. Must be a solidarity thing with the white variant, above.
  • Mac Mini – too new to fail (wife’s). May reluctantly buy AppleCare at the two year warranty point to get at least one more year out of it.

My current ‘work’ computer where I do all my Lightroom and Photoshop work is the best of both worlds, based on the above experiences. Assembled from off-the-shelf inexpensive PC parts it has mechanical reliability and low repair costs if anything fails. By far the costliest component, the Intel C2Q CPU, ran $230. The twin 22″ Dell IPS monitors I use have nice matte screens, the pair costing in aggregate about half of the amount Apple is asking for their cheapest external monitor with its awful glossy screen. Everything is easily upgraded if the need arises, right down to the CPU.

As Windows is to operating systems what Apple is to hardware (meaning I refuse to use either) the PC is hacked to run OS Snow Leopard, is equal in performance to Apple’s costliest hardware and has been rock stable in the six months since construction. And it runs 40-50F cooler than any Apple Mac I have used.

Doubtless someone will write pointing out that Apple’s EULA claims to prohibit installation of OS X on non-Apple hardware in the US (it’s not legal in Europe so have at it, those of you across the pond) but frankly, given my experiences with Apple’s hardware, what choice do I have? And I paid for the software. It is the height of arrogance to tell me I cannot use it on a machine of my choice.

So our household is down to an absolute minimum of Apple hardware – one 10 year old iMac, one Mac Mini, no mice, no keyboards, one Apple Airport Extreme router and one iPhone. The latter has been a model of reliability, just like the Hackintosh I assembled in desperation.

Amazing – or admirable, depending on your point of view – how almost all the Apple hardware failures I have experienced have occurred just after expiration of the warranty period.

So if I pause and wait when the iPad debuts, you will understand why. For the most part I propose to avoid Apple’s awful hardware as much as I try to avoid politicians. Both are equally trustworthy.

iMac G4. The only reliable Mac we have ever owned.

February 4, 2010

The Olympus E-PL1 and new lenses

Filed under: Cameras — Thomas Pindelski @ 9:25 am

A strange idea.

Let me preface my comments by saying that I have yet to handle the newly announced micro four-thirds Olympus E-PL1. Only journalists who will say nice things about it get advance copies and I am neither journalist nor toady.

The Olympus E-PL1

The camera will likely retail for $500 compared to the $660 asked for the E-P1 and the outrageous $1,100 for the E-P2, even if the latter comes with a clunky clip on EVF. Cost savings are accomplished by dropping the turn wheel and replacing it with slower buttons, more use of plastics and mounting the kit lens in a plastic rather than a metal body. Conferring value added, the E-PL1 has a built in electronic flash, like the E-P2, whereas the E-P1 has none.

So for $160 less than the E-P1 you get more plastic in the body and lens and a flash gun. Not bad. As none of these cameras is intended for use in war zones, I see no problem with the use of plastics and for many the flash is worth having. Stated differently, Olympus has just cannibalized the E-P1 into obsolescence, especially when you realize that the E-PL1 accepts the clip-on EVF denied to E-P1 users. The lack of the thumb wheel for street snappers is no big deal – there’s no time to adjust anything in the urban jungle so it would not be missed by this user. And with any other subject you have all the time on earth to mess with the buttons.

The lens remains interchangeable and there’s still no built-in viewfinder. The clip-on EVF destroys the compactness concept of the design by adding bulk and weight. So, in summary, I see the E-PL1 as a replacement for the E-P1 at lower cost but still a very expensive point-and-shoot restricted by its adherence to an LCD screen for composition, with all the attendant problems those bring. I would guess that E-P1 users are none too happy about Oly’s confused marketing move here.

Olympus 9-18mm wide zoom

At the same time Olympus announced two micro four-thirds lenses of interest. One is a $600 9-18mm wide zoom (18-36mm full frame equivalent) which depends on the camera’s in body image stabilizer, meaning that Panasonic G1/GH1/GF1 users have no IS as those bodies depend on in-lens IS. No big deal with such a short and useful focal length range, and the price is more appealing than the $1,100 asked by Panny for its wider 7-14mm super-wide zoom. But where the Olympus design completely blows it is in the use of an extensible lens barrel, requiring the user to extend the lens before use – just like with certain Leica and Zeiss designs from the film days. While this idea makes for a more compact unit when collapsed, having to remember to extend the lens is simply a no-no for street snappers. Further, the higher wear rates of such designs which become wobbly with use and scratched up by dirt and grit on the trombone part, argues against longevity. I know. I used a collapsible 50mm Leitz Elmar for years and it was well and truly shot when I finally sold it. So nothing here for the Panasonic micro four-thirds user.

Olympus 14-150

The other newly announced Olympus zoom is the 14-150mm (28-300 FFE). At $525 it offers an appealing value but, once again, comes with a big negative. Without in-lens IS, use at the long end with the Panasonic bodies will require firm support to avoid shake. Olympus body owners benefit from in-body IS but have you ever tried to use an LCD for composition with long lenses, holding the camera two feet from your eyes like a real dork? Another dud, I’m afraid, especially for Panny micro four-thirds aficionados.

From a personal perspective with over 5,000 exposures on my G1, I remain delighted with the crackerjack 14-45mm kit lens (rough zoom ring apart) and find that I pocket the 45-200 IS for those few occasions where I need the reach. And what a reach it is at the long end! All I need to round things out is a pancake 10mm f/2.8 or so for really wide views and I will be a happy man. No sign of such a lens in Panny’s currently announced lens plans. There’s a 14mm f/2.8 coming but the very small kit zoom starts at 14mm and f/3.5 so I simply don’t understand Panny’s thinking here which seems about as clear as Oly’s mistake with the E-P1. The current 20mm Panny adds a fast aperture, true, but it duplicates what I have with the kit zoom and I do not need fast lenses for my kind of work.

January 27, 2010

iPad – first reactions

Filed under: Computing — Thomas Pindelski @ 3:43 pm

Blah.

I put my predictions on the line yesterday and blew it in two major respects – the price (I reckoned on $1,000) and the lack of Blutetooth (iPad has it).

Having watched today’s presentation and read the tech specs of Apple’s new touch screen tablet computer, here are my first reactions:

    The Good:

  • Great entry price at $499+tax
  • 802.11n high speed wifi
  • I make the full diagonal to be 12.13″ so the 9.7″ claimed for the display area is likely true – that’s a good size
  • IPS screen technology will be great for accurate color photograph display if it can be profiled properly
  • 1.5lb light weight – but no mention of how much the charger weighs – I assume it takes forever to charge through a low current USB cable connection
  • Claimed 10 hour battery life – though I have difficulty believing that
  • Integrated with iTunes store for books, magazines, movies, music
  • If you have an iPhone/Touch you already know how to use it
  • Lots of apps already available though most will have to be rewritten to take advantage of the full definition
  • Bluetooth – let’s hope it works with existing wireless keyboards
  • No need to pay twice for tunes and apps if I read that right – the iPhone version can also be loaded on the iPad at no extra cost
  • Nice looking iBook application
  • iWork and iLife upgraded for touchscreen use
  • Components of iWork may be separately purchased
  • iPhone OS – lean, mean and hopefully fast
  • Claimed ‘instant on’
  • Monthly 3G telco plan available – no long term contract

    The Bad:

  • Glossy screen
  • No iChat camera
  • Poor storage capacity (16gB in base model – that’s only 1,600 RAW files – not much for an extended trip) but maybe the USB port is not crippled and will allow use of external HDDs
  • Uses AT&T not Verizon in the 3G (add $130) versions
  • No indication whether you can upload Lightroom or similar apps and whether the custom CPU can handle it
  • If it doesn’t run Excel and Word say goodbye to any corporate sales. Like it or not, these are the standard
  • No touch screen feedback when keys are activated
  • No indication whether the telco chip will support Verizon technology
  • No SDHC/SDXC card slot – bad oversight – more things to forget for your next trip
  • 4:3 screen not 16:9 – who makes movies on 4:3 any more?

    The Ugly:

  • Dumb as a brick name – “Honey, where’s the iPod?” said with an American accent reminds me of this
  • Ugly broad black bezel
  • Will cannibalize MacBook and Touch sales and hurt AAPL stock – hard to see how this generates net incremental sales
  • Lower margin in an attempt to grab netbook market share – bad for the stock
  • Probably fragile – a big expanse of bendable glass and lots of fingerprints to contend with on that glossy screen, not to mention your own reflection when in use
  • No support for Adobe Flash – whether you like it or not, that’s the default application for much video on the web

I would like to have seen more emphasis in today’s weak, self congratulatory presentation on other uses, like universal remote functionality, ability to host a business projection, photography, etc.

However, at that price, if the virtual keyboard works reasonably well and if the dockable external keyboard is well priced, this will be a significant challenger to low margin netbooks made by the competition unless the system is so locked that you cannot use applications of choice. Who in their right mind, for example, prefers iWork Numbers to Microsoft Excel for serious number crunching or Pages to Word for heavy duty word processing? My sense is that the old “never buy v1.0 of anything” rule applies strongly here and that my $400 netbook with its 500gB HDD, 802.11n and an SDHC reader, not to mention a real keyboard, just got a new lease on life. Even if it weighs one pound more – worth it for the matte screen alone.

Disclosure: No AAPL positions.

January 26, 2010

iSlate predictions

Filed under: Computing — Thomas Pindelski @ 8:58 am

Hype day is tomorrow.

Because I am both a user and an investor, Apple products interest me. Tomorrow, Steve Jobs will ladle additional hype on what is already the most over-hyped product since the iPhone.

I believe that the iSlate tablet will be a technological tour de force …. and a near-term commercial failure.

iSlate – artist’s impression

But first, let me pitch in my 3 cents’ worth (50% more valuable than the average out there, but still largely worthless) and guess at the tech specs. Much of this is pretty obvious based on leaks from suppliers. Either way, you can check me against tomorrow’s hyperama:

    Hardware: 

  • 10.1″ glossy, diagonal touchscreen
  • ARM 1gHz low power consumption CPU
  • 6 hr (10 hr in JobsSpeak) flat, non-user changeable battery
  • 2.5mm standard headphone jack
  • Crappy built-in speakers (”Greatest sound since Carnegie Hall” – JS)
  • Virtual keyboard with vibration touch feedback
  • 64gB SSD (”Huge” – JS)
  • SDXC slot card reader
  • iPhone socket, no USB sockets, to preserve connectivity premium
  • Aluminum rear case
  • Appearance like a large iPhone (”A design revolution” – JS)
  • Fragile glass screen which will break as soon as you look at it (”Titanium tough” – JS)
  • Broadcomm multi-carrier processor (VZ/TMO/T) for 3G
  • 802/11n (let’s hope) wifi
  • No Bluetooth
  • Universal remote capability
  • Under 2 lbs with charger (”Weightless” – JS)

    Software:

  • iPhone OS, not OS X
  • iWork and iLife adapted to touch technology
  • iTunes integrated to include books, magazines, enhanced games and newspapers
  • Lightroom Touch (just kidding – it will take sleepy Adobe 2 years)

After the hype dies down, however, I believe the device will be a near-term commercial failure. There are a couple of reasons. First, I believe Apple will not include Bluetooth, making it impossible to use an external keyboard. To do otherwise would be to cannibalize their laptop offerings. So long term typing will be impossible on a flat, virtual keyboard, just like on the iPhone.

But the biggest cause of failure will be the price. Apple enjoys fabulously high profit margins on its costly hardware and cannot afford to sacrifice those or the stock, already priced for perfection, falls out of bed. So add up the component prices and you get $999 at a 35-40% margin. Absent the rabid fans, who in his right mind, in an economy headed for the toilet (or going deeper into the toilet, if you prefer) is going to blow a big one on a device like this when he already has an iPhone/Touch and a MacBook? Sure, give me Bluetooth and this is the perfect replacement for my netbook. But I simply don’t Bluetooth happening for reasons explained above.

Fine, so there will be two versions, like with the iPhone/Touch. The $999 wifi only one and a $599 one with 3G and a carrier subsidy. Now that carrier will charge the user $50-60 monthly for the 3G connection, so now your $600 toy has suddenly cost you over $2000. And you want yet another monthly bill in our post-Armageddon economy?

So my guess is that the technology in the device will be wonderful and, as the introduction will include promises that books etc. will be available through iTunes (content is King), near term hype will push Apple’s stock along and the fans will line up come the July availability date. But I fail to see how Apple will sell many of these in this economy at $999.

In a year or two the price will drop significantly, content will have grown, the fragile screen and bad code and overheating issues and carrier bottlenecks will have been addressed and Bluetooth will be added. Then it will start making serious money and the laptop computer as we know it will become a tablet device.

Disclosure: Long AAPL call options.

January 25, 2010

Audrey and Leica

Filed under: Photography — Thomas Pindelski @ 8:30 pm

Just watch.

And, yes, North by Northwest is a favorite for the train scene, amongst many other good things.

January 22, 2010

A Mighty Mouse replacement

Filed under: Hardware — Thomas Pindelski @ 4:42 pm

Microsoft? Are you crazy?

I’m on my third Apple Mighty Mouse – the one with the neat little scroll wheel. The first was wired and the last two have been wireless. Each failed for the same reason. The small scroll wheel gets clogged with grease and debris and eventually ceases to function properly. Apple’s recommended cleaning method is to place the mouse upside down on a clean sheet of paper, bear down hard and move it around. Certainly that works a few times and dirt comes out but after a while the fix fails, even if you soak the paper with isopropyl alcohol.

I tried the new Magic Mouse and was unimpressed. Transverse finger swipes are anything but natural for horizontal scrolling and the lack of the Mighty Mouse’s side buttons takes away the biggest feature of the Mighty Mouse for me – the ability to jump to the desktop, which is immensely useful for drag and drop of pictures into emails and the like.

After a bit of research I narrowed my choice down to a couple of competing products which were reputed to work well with OS X on the Mac. I finally decided on the …. wait for it …. Microsoft 6000. Yes, a product from the Beast of Redmond, at half the price of the one from Cupertino.

The 6000 comes with a DVD disc of software and, unsurprisingly, installation failed on my Mac Pro. Nothing changes.

However, I went to System Preferences->Mouse and found the Apple utility works fine (OS 10.6.2 – Snow Leopard) and that the buttons were set identically to those for my Mighty Mouse. I turned down the pointer speed which was crazy fast and everything was sweetness and light.

The (not so) Mighty Mouse and the Microsoft 6000 for comparison.

A couple of observations. The 6000 uses 2.4gHz Radio Frequency to transmit the signal, not Bluetooth, requiring the (included) receiver (the size of a dime) be plugged in to a USB port on your computer. So if you need to use it on another computer, you will need to transplant the receiver first. Scrolling is not quite as smooth as on the Mighty Mouse but close enough. Pointer movement is fine – I do not use pointer acceleration and cannot comment on it, preferring a ‘hard coupled’ feel. Fit and finish is excellent and Microsoft claims a 10 month life for the (included – alkaline, not lithium) single AA battery. We will see. While there’s an on-off switch, I’m leaving mine ‘on’ permanently and will see how long the battery lasts. Finally, if you do switch the 6000 off, the cursor appears immediately when the mouse is switched back on, unlike the multi-second delay with Bluetooth.

The ergonomics are fine. This is not a big mouse. I have an average sized palm and long fingers and the mouse fits well. Users with really large hands may find it too small. Those with smaller hands will probably feel right at home. The feel is slightly superior to that of the Mighty Mouse, the position of the side click buttons slightly worse – they are too high. The scroll wheel is smooth, unlike on Microsoft’s cheaper mice and also tilts from side to side for (dead slow) sideways scrolling. Finally, a first for Microsoft – their product does what they advertise. The 6000 scrolls smoothly on every surface I tried – glass, vinyl, rough carpet. Why, it even works on a mouse pad. The physical shape is symmetrical so ‘lefties’ should have no issues.

Some reviews have stated that the receiver overheats and blows but, so far, mine is running at room temperature.

Given my simply awful experience over many years with Apple’s unreliable hardware, I can’t help thinking the computing world would be a better place if Apple stuck to making software and Microsoft only made hardware.

That’s an awful lot of words about something as simple as a mouse but when they are focused on one of the primary interfaces with your photographs in Lightroom or Photoshop, it may make sense to get into so much detail, detail in which the devil resides. In the spirit of fairness let me conclude with words I thought I would only use when that same devil’s residence froze over: “Well done, Microsoft”.

January 20, 2010

Brands and investments

Filed under: G1/G2, Hardware — Thomas Pindelski @ 9:43 am

I don’t get it.

Every time some new hardware format appears you hear the usual carping along the lines of “Why do we need another lens mount”, “Why do we need another manufacturer”, “Why do we need another storage format” and so on. This is invariably followed up with “I have too big an investment in Brand X” and “Brand Y does not know how to make cameras”.

This thinking has me puzzled. My daily snapper currently comes from a company better known for washing machines and toasters, Panasonic. It has a unique lens mount and a unique format in the G1. Yes, I can adapt just about every lens known to man to fit but it makes no sense to do so as the camera then loses many of the automated features which make it so appealing.

When I bought it I didn’t think making toasters and washing machines was a problem. In fact, given the maker’s reputation, I saw it as a positive. And as for that ‘investment’ thinking, please. A camera is a consumer (not very) durable and depreciates daily. There is no investment aspect to it unless you are a collector of antiques, which are useless for photography. It’s simply a tool which loses value over time.

Given that I will likely dump the G1 for something better soon, I couldn’t be better pleased with my return on ‘investment’ which will look something like this:

Pictures taken: 10,000
Pictures retained: 2,000
Loss on resale of body: $250

Thus, my ‘cost per keeper’ is some 12 cents or so.

If you ask me, at the price of a couple of really nice dinners that’s the bargain of the decade, but it sure as heck is not an investment.

Dummy. (Depreciated) G1, kit lens in Little Italy, San Francisco.

January 18, 2010

Autoviewer

Filed under: Software — Thomas Pindelski @ 1:14 pm

A fast web display application.

I chanced upon the free application Autoviewer the other day which, once downloaded, can be used as a web display generator using iPhoto or Lightroom and comes in Windows and OS X versions.

I tried it with Lightroom 2 using the ‘Web’ module (first time I have ever gone there, believe it or not) into which Autoviewer integrates elegantly and within 30 minutes had uploaded a 42 slide presentation of recent street snaps which you can see by clicking the picture below.

San Francisco street snaps July, 2009 – January, 2010

Autoviewer uses Adobe Flash technology so it may be a bit poky on older machines. However, I used my netbook with its slow Atom CPU and it does fine. There are also SimpleViewer (tabular presentation) and PostcardViewer (what is says) options available through Lightroom 2, though the full screen approach seems to work best for formal presentation of photographs.

I know I have to edit this selection down, but thought a quick first look would be of interest, as I’m beginning to think that a slide show presentation is superior to the clickable thumbnails I have traditionally used on my web site.

January 17, 2010

HDR for street snappers

Filed under: Technique — Thomas Pindelski @ 3:00 am

If it moves, forget it.

I gushed on about High Dynamic Range photography ages ago here, meaning that the curative aspects of time have done their thing and forced me to reconsider.

You see, unless you have one of those blitzoid megabuck Nikons which take a bazillion snaps in the blink of an eye, HDR is useless if your subject moves. And this is not just the case with the street snapper’s target. A wavering leaf or a flying bird – if the images differ in subject matter, forget HDR. They cannot be merged without ghastly ghosting effects.

And as I’m a street snapper at heart, traditional HDR techniques do not work. Heck, it’s tough enough getting one good snap, let alone the three or more dictated by HDR. So, somewhat unconsciously, I have found that I am using the localized adjustment tools in Lightroom 2 a lot more. When I have a subject with challenging dynamic range, I will underexpose by a stop or two to tame the highlights and then bring back the shadows with a spot of localized exposure adjustment.

Here’s an example of what I am talking about. The underexposed original saw me bringing back the detail in the vendor’s face while leaving the reflective sculpture alone:

Chrome vendor, Maiden Lane, San Francisco. G1, kit lens.

So yes, this is still HDR, albeit with a street snapper’s twist.

January 16, 2010

Epson’s EVF

Filed under: Cameras — Thomas Pindelski @ 7:41 am

Now in quantity production.

A reader sent me a link to Epson’s press release with details of their new Electronic View Finder. What’s significant about this is that smaller camera makers like Ricoh and Pentax who lack the capital to develop something similar will be able to buy the part at reasonable cost.

Click the picture for more.

January 15, 2010

G1 discontinued?

Filed under: G1/G2 — Thomas Pindelski @ 9:45 am

Let’s hope for a GF2.

The 43Rumors site speculates that the Panasonic G1 has been discontinued.

That wouldn’t surprise me. The camera lacks the GH1’s movie mode (not a factor for me but doubtless bad in those tabular comparisons beloved of gearhead sites) and two years in a field with rapidly changing technology is probably as long a life as anyone can expect.

What would make me trade? Well, I’m hoping for a GF2 – meaning a body shaped like the GF1 with the deletion of the pop-up flash, this being replaced by the G1’s excellent electronic viewfinder – much in the same location as on the rangefinder Leica M models. The EVF can only get better and marvelous as the G1’s finder is, Panny can improve on its tendency to blow out bright lights as well as reduce the noise in lower lighting. The noise thing is, however, way exaggerated by the mass media. Which would you prefer? A near invisible traditional DSLR view or a noisy but bright one from an EVF?

Come to think of it, why not a slimmed down version of Panny’s own failed L1 which was overpriced and offered mediocre sensor quality and a lousy EVF in an oversized package? I would think that by now Panny has realized that the original marketing focus on point-and-shoot upgraders is too narrow and that the whole micro-four thirds thing is now becoming a very serious threat to all those gargantuan DSLRs out there.

The GH2/G2 – take an L1 and remove 30% of the bulk and weight.

And while you are at it Panny, please add a real click stopped ISO dial on the top plate and make that darned wheel less easy to depress so that I cease constantly going into exposure correction mode when all I want to do is change the aperture or shutter speed.

If, on the other hand, the G2 is just a warmed over thing with more buttons, I can see adding another G1 as a back-up when the body only price drops to $300.

January 12, 2010

Cull ratios

Filed under: Photography — Thomas Pindelski @ 3:00 am

Digital doesn’t translate into lower retention rates.

I’m mostly a street snapper so when I return to my computer and insert the memory card from the camera, I have learned not to be too quick to hit the Delete button.

Coming off the high of another street session, it’s easy to let poor judgement rule so I have found it’s best to wait a day or two befrore culling pictures.

Now culling, for the most part is, I believe, a good thing. Storage is no longer a valid reason to cull losers as disk space is impossibly inexpensive, but the time spent on not having to keyword all those images and the greater ease in cataloging and retrieval make keeping only the winners the rational thing to do. A great image which cannot be found for all the noise created by hundreds of losers has less chance of ever seeing the light of day, after all.

So I tend to cull aggressively and that practice got me thinking about what I call the Cull Ratio – the ratio of deletions to exposures.

In the days of film there really was little need to cull anything. For a start you kept your film strips as taken and tended to scan the best pictures to disc in any case, keeping the original film as a back-up. Further, volumes tended to be far lower in film days. Bytes are almost free, film and processing anything but.

The other day I happened to notice that I had just taken my 5,000th snap using the Panasonic G1 and that statistic got me thinking about how many of those I have kept, never having taken so many pictures in so short a time with any camera before. I had bought the Panny in early-July, 2009 so clearly I have been merrily banging away since then to hit 5k in a mere 6 months. In turn I wondered what my retention rate has been for earlier days and other gear.

Determining the Cull Ratio for my film days is easy. I simply add up the number of images I have scanned to disc and compare that to the number of rolls of processed film in storage.

For the digital era it’s even easier. As I have my digital cameras set to perpetually record exposures using incremental numbering, I only have to take a look at the number of the last frame taken to get the denominator, and take a quick peek in Lightroom – where all my images, film scans and digital – make their home. That gives me the numerator to determine Cull Ratio which is computed as (1-(Retentions/Exposures))*100%.

So here are my Cull Ratios:

Film – 8/1971-6/2007: 89%
Canon 5D – 2/2006 – 1/2010: 78%
Panasonic G1 – 7/2009-1/2010 : 80%

I confess to some surprise at the Cull Ratio results. Off the top of my head I would have guessed that my Cull Ratio would be far higher with digital than with film when, in fact, the exact opposite is true. I am retaining on average 21% of my digital images whereas with film the retention rate was closer to 11%. That’s almost twice as high a retention rate.

In the film days I know I was far more studied in my approach to pressing the button. Partly because I had little money for the back-end costs and partly because I never liked processing and the attendant unproductive time investment.

In digital days you might argue that I have become less selective, keeping almost twice as many images, but I do not think that is the case. Yes, cost is no longer a consideration but it is not a significant variable either for, were film to be the only choice today, cost would no longer trouble me, and I would simply delegate the processing to save time.

No, I really think that digital has made me a better photographer, based on my Cull Ratio, for the three reasons:

  • Heretofore hopeless images – poorly exposed or lit – can often be saved with digital manipulation, made especially easy by Lightroom.
  • I am more inclined to experiment and take snaps which would never have had a chance of coming out in film days yet which now I take with impugnity, frequently finding I have managed to ‘get away with it’.
  • I think that my eye is better today than 30 years ago.

I’m not advocating any particular cull practice based on the above. Having thought I would write ‘you can never cull enough’ when first ruminating about Cull Ratios, objective data must rule supposition. So I have had to eat my words. And speaking of eating, here’s a recent digital image which would never have made the cut in film days – poorly exposed, poorly composed and awfully lit, it was saved by digital processing.

American grotesque. On upper Fillmore Street in San Francisco. G1, kit lens.

January 11, 2010

Panasonic G1 software updates

Filed under: G1/G2 — Thomas Pindelski @ 10:51 am

An interesting quirk.

As I mentioned in my first article on the Panasonic 45-200mm lens for the G1/GH1/GF1, the first thing I did was to update the software for that lens and the 14-45mm kit lens and, in the process, also separately updated the software for the G1 body when I saw that was also out of date.

I thought no more of those updates until, out of curiosity, I looked in Lightroom to see how many snaps I had retained (post cull) with the 45-200 since getting it. Well, it turns out that, based on the dates of pictures, Lightroom was pretty clueless about which lens had been used on the G1 until those updates were made! Now the lens used is correctly recorded when the picture is taken but until then it’s all ‘Unknown Lens’ – 99% of which will have been with the kit lens in my case. So either the lens or the camera software updates – I don’t know which – did the trick and now I have the comfort of knowing which lens was used.

G1 lens metadata from Lightroom.

Quite what use that information is in practice I’m not quite sure, but at least it is there. So if that sort of thing matters to you, it pays to make the software updates in a timely manner.

As of now I’m only aware of one reason not to make the G1 body software updates. Versions after 1.2 (I’m not dead sure which version but I seem to recall it was 1.3) will not work with non-Panasonic branded aftermarket batteries**. Given that the saving on grey market batteries is trivial, I hardly regard this as an issue but, then again, both my batteries are Panny branded so it’s easy for me to say that.

** If you are bound and determined to save $30 and prepared to accept the risk that the ‘fix’ may be broken with later software updates, you can buy an aftermarket battery for $22 here.

January 10, 2010

The year of the tablet

Filed under: Computing — Thomas Pindelski @ 9:17 am

Everyone is getting on the bandwagon.

Notice anything here, from my news reader?

Yup, it’s the year of the tablet computer. Quite why all these manufacturers are rushing to market when they have no delivery system for content – books, games and movies – I don’t know, but the one that does, Apple, will announce its version on January 27 and I suspect it will be worth waiting for. Sales are rumored to start in April, 2010. A direct, wireless link to iTunes is a given.

I’m hoping for not just a playback device but also a half-decent computer which will allow processing of pictures in Lightroom or the like. Here’s hoping.

Artist’s rendering.

Disclosure: Long AAPL call options at the time of writing.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress