That said, I felt like ‘voicing’ my own thoughts and opinions of the 60D.

For one, I just want to establish the fact that this camera is not a 7D replacement. I’ve read tons of complaints on the Internet about how the 7D is a far better camera than the 60D. Well, yes, in general the 7D is the better body. But the 60D isn’t the successor to the 7D. The 60D is the successor to the 50D.

So with the 60D, what does the Canon dSLR field look like now?

We currently have in order from lowest to highest (price/class):

1. XSi
2. T2i
3. 60D
4. 7D
5. 5D Mark II
6. 1D Mark IV
7. 1Ds Mark III

Note that technically the XS, T1i, and 50D are still in production, the XSi, T2i, and 60D are thought of as their successors (with prices very close to their predecessors). So I have excluded them from the above list since the above list are the logical considerations in the Canon family for consumers.

It seems like Canon’s EOS line of dSLR cameras is fairly sound and each step up in class hinges a lot on the compromise/balance between the respective camera’s AF, metering, and video capabilities.

With the new 60D, all of the latest revisions in each class of Canon’s dSLR family has HD video recording capability except the XSi (entry level).

The T2i is very popular among professional film makers because it will shoot 1080p 24/25/30fps just like the 7D. But the price point is a lot lower because it’s still photo capabilities are still in the entry-level Canon ‘Rebel’ class. 9 basic AF points (center cross-point), but with 63 zone metering, and a relatively slow 3.7 fps still frame rate.

The 7D is a very capable APS-C sensor camera for both stills and video, with a 19-point all-cross point AF, 63 zone metering, and 8 fps still frame rate.

So the 60D, the latest iteration of the 10D series, does fill a stop gap between the T2i, which is an excellent HD recording device and an ‘entry level’ still camera, and the 7D which is an all out great still and video APS-C hybrid dSLR.

The 60D uses a similar 9 point AF system and has HD recording capabilities on par with both the T2i and 7D. But adds the 60D adds extra features over the T2i, including faster shutter speed  (1/8000 vs 1/4000), better still frame rates (5 fps vs 3.7 fps), faster sync speed (1/250 vs 1/200), and of course, the flip-out vari-angle LCD screen.

The above obviously shows that the 60D is a worthy choice over the T2i for photographers who need a little more oomph from their camera.

But why the 60D instead of the 7D? Well, for one the 7D has an MSRP $600 more than the 60D. So a prospective buyer may want to save $600 if (s)he doesn’t need the AF and burst rate capabilities of the 7D (19 point all cross-point and 8 fps). Who would this be? Someone who shoots portraiture perhaps. If all you do is shoot a lot of portraits and very little sports, then the 60D is a far better choice than the 7D.

I think the 60D is a worthy iteration of Canon’s 10D-series of dSLR cameras. If anything, I think the articulating is going to be a selling point for those who like to use live view.

I did find it interesting that Canon has changed the media format of the 10D series from CompactFlash to SD/SDHC/SDXC with the 60D (50D and predecessors all used CompactFlash. Those with an earlier 10D-series camera who want to upgrade to the 60D will be forced to get new media.

As far as what a person should buy (particularly a new dSLR purchaser), T2i vs 60D vs 7D, pick based on your needs and budget.

And even if you can afford the 7D (or 5D Mark II), if you don’t need the 7D’s AF capabilities, then why not just go 60D and spend the $600 on glass? A lot of people spend way too much trying to justify which body to get, without considering what lenses they’ll be getting for their camera.

Adorama already has the Canon 60D listed in their catalog and is accepting pre-orders at the $1099 MSRP (body only).

Lastly, for those wondering, no, I’m not going to get a 60D. I already run the 5D Mark II and 7D. My current photography equipment needs are in lights (more strobes via Paul C. Buff) and lenses (looking to get the Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS next).

As an experiment, grab a 5 pound weight with your dominant hand, extend your arm straight out away from your body and hold the weight as steady as you can. How long can you hold it before your arm starts to get tired? How long can you hold it without your arm trembling? 30 seconds? 45 seconds? 60 seconds? After you arm gets tired and you have to drop your arm, how long can you hold the weight with your arm extended a second time?

My point? The above excercise is using only the muscles in your arm and shoulders to support the weight. After several seconds, your muscles begin to get tired and eventually, the fatigue in the muscles in your arm result in your inability to keep the weight stable in your hand. Eventually you get exhausted and have to bring your arm down.

The reason I have attempted to establish this point is so that I can convey the concept of using skeletal (or bone) support, instead of muscles, to hold a rifle for maximum accuracy.

NRA (and CMP) High Power Rifle competitions incorporate the unsupported standing position as one of the stages of fire in a full course match. Unsupported standing means that the competitor must hold and fire the rifle from a standing position with no artificial support like a sling, tripod, or bipod. The standing stage of fire is typically 22 rounds fired in a time limit of 22 minutes. This means the shooter has to shoulder the rifle, hold on a target at 200 yards, and attempt to hit a 7″ 10-ring, 22 individual times. This can wear down a shooter physically (and mentally).

In order to prevent fatigue from being a factor, High Power Rifle competitors are taught to use skeletal support. Skeletal support means you don’t use muscles to force the rifle into position and on target.

This is not to say you can’t use muscles to strengthen the hold. But strengthening the hold is not the same thing as creating the position/hold.

If you analyze the standing position used by experienced shooters (e.g. Master, High Master, Distinguished), they will all typically have the same standing stance. They will essentially be facing 90 degrees from the target, with their ‘weak’ side facing the target (left side if a right handed shooter).

Sherri Gallagher, 2009 Creedmoor Cup West

When the rifle is mounted, the tricep (or back) of the support arm is flush against the side of the torso/abdomen, while the forearm of the shooter is coming virtually straight up to support the forearm of the rifle. This creates a support platform for the rifle which is stable and comfortable.

‘Comfortable’ meaning that the shooter can support the rifle in this position with the least amount of muscle strain. Minimizing muscle strain translates into minimal fatigue and minimal deterioration of the position during the stage of fire. This results in maximized stability of the position.

The concept of using skeletal/bone support instead of muscle support can crossover to the field of photography, which is what inspired me to write this article and film the following video.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=h11HE5Viuuw

There was a thread in the Canon Forums (POTN) where a member was debating on which 70-200 lens to get, the f/4 vs the f/2.8. Weight was brought up as a factor and someone had responded with the comment on hitting the gym so he could hold the f/2.8 version. Then several other people also joined in agreeing with the hitting the gym comment. I had to chime in with the concept of skeletal support (instead of muscle support) because I felt it was a worthy practice to convey.

I think that the concept of skeletal support definitely crosses over from competitive NRA/CMP High Power Rifle shooting into photography quite well. The above video demonstrates the application with regards to ‘handholding’ a dSLR camera and a sizable lens without support (no tripod or monopod) in a standing position. Often I find myself holding a dSLR in sitting and prone positions quite similar to my sitting and prone positions in competitive rifle shooting.

Picture of me photographing Megan Daniels (June 19, 2010). Photo taken by Mark Tienswang of brightcandlephoto.com

While I don’t use the open legged sitting position in High Power Rifle competitions (I use a hybrid cross-legged / cross-ankle position), this is one style of sitting position used by rifle shooters. But the above photo shows how an open legged rifle sitting position adapts easily into photography. Note how I have the back of my upper arm (tricep) against the front and high side of the shin for maximal flat-side contact between the arm and knee for a steady support. The support forearm is held straight up to create a vertical column to support the weight of the dSLR and lens.

Anyway, for those rifle shooters looking to learn more about the basic fundamentals of the standing position (as well as sitting and prone), check out the following books:

• Highpower Rifle (zediker.com) by David Tubb
• The Rifle Shooter (zediker.com by David Tubb

Rifle shooters or photographers with more questions regarding the concept of skeletal support, feel free to contact me directly.

I backordered the Paul C. Buff (PCB) Einstein 640 in April, but the fulfillment of all the pre-orders is still on-going. So odds are, I won’t have my Einstein until August at the earliest. So I decided to go ahead and order an Alien Bees B1600 strobe to tide me over until the Einstein order actually ships. I placed the order a few weeks ago and also ordered a Vagabond II Portable Power System and a large (47″) octabox with the B1600. PCB gives a discount on accessories with the purchase of a strobe (on the same order), so it’s a good idea to get some accessories when you place an order for a strobe with PCB.

After several days in transit from Tennessee (and an extra weekend because of a delay by UPS), I received my order. Opening the toys, it is apparent that PCB does an excellent job boxing the items for shipment.

Alien Bees B1600 in box

B1600 with protective cover over flash tube for during shipment

The B1600 ships with the flash tube installed, but the modeling lamp in a separate box. It’s a standard Edison-base bulb.

B1600 with bulb+lamp and no modifier

The B1600 also ships with a basic 7″ reflector which can be used with an umbrella.

B1600 with reflector and modeling lamp on

The back panel of the Alien Bees units, including the B1600, is analog (buttons, switches, and sliders). It’s fairly intuitive to understand.

B1600 back panel

The PCB Vagabond II Portable Power System is basically a portable sealed lead battery and sine wave inverter system designed to provide portable power to modeling strobes so you aren’t tethered to wired AC power. With the Vagabond II, you can get out of the indoor studio and shoot outdoors on location with studio strobes. PCB ships the Vagabond II system with the battery and inverter in a carry bag, with an AC power cord for charging the actual battery and clamps to charge it off a car battery.

PCB Vagabond II

After the unboxing of the B1600, the Vagabond II, and the large octobox, here’s what it all looks like put together on a Giottos LC-325 lightstand:

B1600 + Vagabond II + Large Octabox

According to manufacturer specifications, the B1600 weights 3.7lbs. The PCB 47″ large octabox weight isn’t listed on the manufacturer website, but I would say it weighs about 5-7lbs. The Giottos lightstand is rated for 10kg (~22lbs for us non-metric system people), so the weight isn’t an issue for the stand. For me, the primary concern with the stand is it tipping over from being top heavy (and with the wind). I thought about sandbags, but while I browsed for products sold as “photography sandbags” I realized the Vagabond II case has two straps with quick-releases on the back which allow it to be clipped to a light stand and function as counterweight.

Vagabond II strapped to stand

In the above photo, you can also see the PocketWizard FlexTT5 transceiver strapped to the lightstand. Instead of taping or using velcro to keep the FlexTT5 attached, I ordered a PW ‘caddy’ from FlashZebra.com, which is also where I purchased the 1/8″ to 1/8″ mono sync cord used to connect the B1600 and the FlexTT5. Note that I opted for the 6 foot cord with a right-angle connector on one end. The right-angle plug lets the cable hang naturally down from the strobe. As far as a 6 foot cord, this gives me the flexibility of taking the transmitter farther away from the strobe, in necessary, due to any sort of RF interference that could occur from the B1600. While unlikely, the long cord gives me peace of mind that I can distance the FlexTT5 if needed.

The B1600 comes with a 15 foot long power cord. This is way too long for using with the Vagabond II since I have the power pack directly below the strobe. So I found some unused Apple Xserve power cables I had in the office (hence the white power cord in the previous photo) which measured 6 feet. I actually think 4 feet would be ideal, so I’m probably going to dig one of those up whenever I get the chance.

Here’s a short video of me showing off the B1600 with the octabox:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj2_ZFcx3zA

I was able to take the new rig to a group shoot at a private estate/residence in Monrovia last Saturday (June 19) and break-in the new strobe, power system, and octabox. I really liked the setup outdoors. I did find a couple of notable issues.

One is that the whole setup weighs quite a bit. The Vagabond II weighs about 20lbs. Combined with the B1600, octabox, and lightstand, it’s about ~33lbs. It’s manageable to move around, but with the group shoot outdoors and constantly moving from location to location, spot to spot, it wears you down. If anything, it’s important to have a good method to carry your camera while you’re moving your lights. I actually forgot my Black Rapid RS-4 that day, and ended up just using my Cotton Carrier holster on the Think Tank Photo belt which worked out perfectly fine.

The other issue is that while the stand is weighted down well, the wind can turn the octobox on the stand, even when you tighten down all the knobs on the center column of the stand and the actual B1600 knob. I may design my own adapter (for the strobe to lightstand connection) to minimize the rotation of the B1600 when the wind blows the large modifier that may be attached to it.

That said, the setup functioned great. No issues with the PocketWizard communications nor the B1600 firing (except when I accidentally switched my MiniTT1 transmitter off). The recycle times were more than fast enough and I operated on 1/2 to 3/4 power most of the time. Not to mention the battery lasted the entire shoot. I fired the B1600 over 625 times on Saturday and the Vagabond II had plenty of power left (plugged it in the following day at home and fired the B1600 a several times to test).

I had intended to get a photo of myself in action with the new lights at the aforementioned group shoot, but was immersed in the actual act of working with the models so I neglected to do so. But another photographer (Mark Tienswang) happened to snap a candid photo of me:

ocabj in action

I did end up using a 580 EX II off-camera via the PocketWizard FlexTT5 for some fill on occasion. A one light setup should be enough for most basic situations (just need to be creative with shadows). I do have the slight desire to get an Alien Bees B800 for a second light. But I still have the Einstein 640 on backorder. I may just hold off until that comes in. Then again, it’s always nice to buy more toys/tools.

If you wish to buy any of the equipment mentioned in this thread, they can be purchased from:

• Paul C. Buff / Alien Bees
• Adorama
• Flash Zebra

The following photos were taken on 06/19/2010 at a group shoot that took place on a private estate/residence in Monrovia. All photos used the B1600 with the octabox as the main light.

Note: The respective models in the photos are Megan Daniels and April Cheryse. You may see more of my photographs of these two incredible models at jocabphoto.com/glamour.

Attention: This was originally written/published on 2008-03-25 for another blog which I retired and am in the process of restructuring/redesigning. I wanted to post this review here for archival purposes. Additional notes/edits made to review where required (i.e. price and contact information).

A spotting scope is an important piece of equipment for the avid shooter, whether recreational or competitive. Like all other optics, you often get what you pay for as far as quality is concerned.

High Power Rifle competition shooters have specific needs when it comes to spotting scopes. The primary characteristics of a good spotting scope for the High Power shooter is something with good clarity to read mirage and something that can be used while in position (standing, kneeling, sitting, or prone). While not critical, long eye relief and good field of view can be other desired criteria in picking out a spotting scope for High Power Rifle competitions, whether it is Across the Course or long-range (Palma, F-Class, etc).

Go to any CMP or NRA High Power Rifle match and you will see a good variation of spotting scopes on the firing line. But the most common scope on the line will be a Kowa (TSN, 661, or 821 series). You will also see a few Bushnells and maybe the occasional Leica or Swarovski.

But in the past several months, the Konuspot 80 has started to make more frequent appearances at matches. There has been a buzz in the High Power community about the Konuspot 80 and the surprisingly clarity in the scopes. Many respected and experienced shooters have stated how the Konus spotting scope is actually very adequate for High Power competition. When it comes to recommending equipment, if experienced and respected shooters give a good recommendation on a specific product, it goes a long way.

Jim Owens was probably the first well known High Power shooter to recommend the Konuspot 80.

While good worth of mouth goes a long way, that doesn’t mean immediate success. That’s when price comes in. The 2007 price for the Konuspot 80 topped out at around $175 on the Internet. The current price is $225. $225 is very inexpensive when it comes to spotting scopes.

Note: At the time of this review repost (2010-06-10), B&H Photo and Video has the Konuspot 80 for $169. Go to the B&H Photo product catalog and add the item to the cart to see the reduced pricing.

Thus, when word spread of a $200 spotting scope suitable for High Power, many budget minded and novice High Power shooters shelled out the money for the Konuspot 80.

I have always been intrigued by the Konuspot 80. I currently use a Kowa 821M with a 27x long eye relief eyepiece. That combo alone retails for about $900 from a reputable dealer. While it can be debated whether or not it’s the best scope for High Power, there is no doubt that it’s probably the most commonly used spotting scope in High Power. It offers good optical performance, long eye relief, an angled body with a rotating locking collar mount, and is extremely durable.

As most experienced shooters understand, you can’t expect too much from cheap optics and $225 for a spotting scope is cheap. I have looked through some of the $200 and under spotting scopes from the Bushnell Sentry to the Leupold Wind River and they all have exhibited lackluster and often horrid optical quality.

That said, how can one expect the $225 Konuspot 80 to be any different?

This has always been part of the intrigue, so I went about acquiring a Konuspot 80 to do an independent study. I eventually acquired a brand new Konuspot 80 spotting scope.

The Konuspot 80 is made by Konus Optical & Sport Systems. Konus is an Italian company headquartered in Verona (Italy) with a Stateside headquarters in Miami (Florida). Their product line includes a wide range of optics including rifle scopes, binoculars, and spotting scopes as well as astronomy telescopes. For the most part, Konus hasn’t been a very well known company in the shooting community. Even the California based Alpen Optics is more widely known.

I spoke to a Konus representative at the 2008 SHOT Show and was told that the Konuspot 80 is manufactured in China. This does explain the low cost of the Konuspot 80 scope.

The current retail box contains the Konuspot 80 (model 7120) spotting scope body which has an 80mm objective lens, a rotating locking collar mount, and angled body. The eyepiece is detachable and has a 20-60x zoom. The scope comes with a small table tripod with a quick release mount and a soft carrying case which will hold both the spotting scope and the tripod. Finally, the scope also includes a camera adapter designed for attaching a still camera for digiscoping.

On paper, that’s not bad for $225. But the real question is how good is the image?

I took it to my club’s shooting facility and tested it out on official NRA SR targets at 200 meters and was amazed at the clarity and field of view. The image was very crisp and spotting 22 caliber bullet holes was just as easy as with the Kowa 821. The field of view of the Konuspot 80 is very wide at 20x. Adjusting the zoom, I found the field of view at 40x to be equivalent to the field of view of the Kowa 821 with 27x fixed. But the clarity of the image from 20x to around 40x of the scope is surprisingly excellent. Very crisp.

I did notice that the image did have a yellowish tint to it. You could tell that the color of objects were slightly off-white so to speak. Discussing this issue with my friend Todd Spotti who reviews a lot of sporting optics revealed that this is caused by impurities in the glass. Although, this issue did not affect image clarity in my testing at 200 meters.

Photo of official NRA SR target at 200 meters, taken through scope with eyepiece set to 60x and using a Canon PowerShot G2 on widest focal length. Photo is cropped.

The next step to testing this scope is trying it out at 600 yards to read mirage. Mirage is the primary indicator for wind speed changes for a High Power Rifle competitor. In order to see and read the mirage, you need a good scope.

I was able to take the Konuspot 80 with me to an Across the Course match at Camp Pendleton MCB. While I scored for a shooter on the 600 yard line, I took the opportunity to use both my Kowa 821M and the Konuspot 80. The weather was nearly ideal having rained the night before and clearing up, leaving a very cool, bright (no clouds) day with very crisp air. I was very surprised to be able to read the text printed on the target board at 600 yards (“MR-1 600 yard target”) with the Konuspot 80 at around 45x zoom. As far as picking up mirage, since the weather was very cool, there was little mirage to be seen. The Kowa 821M was able to display the mirage, while the Konuspot 80 had quite a bit of difficultly showing any of the mirage waves coming off the ground at the various distances.

Author's Kowa 821M with 27x LER and Konuspot 80 side by side while scoring for another relay at Camp Pendleton Wilcox Range 103 on the 600 yard firing line.

In a local Across the Course match at a nearby club, I was able to test out the scope yet again while I was running the line as the RSO. At 300 yards, it was possible to distinguish bullet holes, but it took quite a few seconds to be able to pick out the actual holes visually, and that was on a clean target. On the 600 yard line, the performance was more than decent, and mirage was easily visible considering the weather was quite warm that day.

So optically, this spotting scope does quite well considering the price.

The next issue is durability. The Konuspot 80 is very lightweight. While a lightweight scope is a positive quality, the weight of the Konuspot actually reveals the lesser quality build of the scope. In terms of weight, the Konuspot 80 with eyepiece weighs 2.85 lbs and the Kowa 821M with 27x eyepiece weighs 3.80 lbs. Both scopes are nearly the same in length. This goes to show that there is less bulk in the body construction that will help the scope survive the wear and tear of regular use. I have personally dropped my Kowa 821 onto concrete from short heights a few times with no ill effect. While I have not conducted a drop test with the Konuspot 80, I do not have much faith that the scope will be able to handle such a shock.

The only other issue I have with the scope is the eye relief. The scope is usable while wearing glasses at the 20x power on the eyepiece, but with the magnification cranked up, the operator needs to remove any glasses or eye protection to get close to the eyepiece.

As far as the included tabletop tripod, it’s barely usable for general range use. Any wind will keep the scope rocking.

After all is said and done, I have no problem recommending this scope to anyone who cannot afford to spend more than $300 on a spotting scope for position shooting. The Konuspot 80 is a great bang for the buck spotting scope for very budget minded shooters.

So I finally went full frame. But sooner than expected.

I really should have purchased a 24-70 f/2.8L lens. I already had the Canon 7D and 40D (for backup) and am down to two lenses, the 35mm f/1.4L and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. So I did have fairly glaring hole in focal length between 35mm and 70mm.

Making the situation worse is that the 7D and 40D are both APS-C (1.6x crop factor), so the 35 and 70-200 actually gave me effective focal lengths of 56mm and 112-320mm. Effectively, I didn’t have a wide-angle nor a mid-range telephoto focal length. The 24-70mm (or 17-55mm f/2.8 IS) would have helped cover the gap.

But as I was pondering the idea of having a full frame dSLR body, I realized the feasibility of getting a 5D Mark II and retaining the 7D, instead of getting a 24-70mm.

With a full frame and an APS-C sensor, my 35mm and 70-200mm lenses would actually give me more effective focal lengths due to the 1x and 1.6x factors. Thus, having a 5D Mark II and retaining the 7D would mean my 35mm and 70-200mm lenses would give me the following effective ranges:

• 35mm and 70-200mm (on the 5D Mark II)
• 56mm and 112-320mm (on the 7D)

So in practice, I would have 35mm, 56mm, and 70-320mm covered. This basically translates into a ‘semi’ wide-angle, normal perspective, and mid-range telephoto to super telephoto lens.

With this in mind combined with my new found interest in portrait photography, a $100 price drop of the 5D Mark II, and a 10% bing.com/cashback deal with Adorama, I gave into impulse and bought it.

Should I have purchased the 24-70 instead of going full frame?

As much as I still need to get the 24-70, going with the 5DMKII was a great move. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is an incredible lens and I have already gotten great results with it on my 7D (insanely fast autofocus performance) for wildlife.

But the 70-200 is also a great portrait lens, particularly when used on full frame. On a crop sensor, 70-200 is effectively 112-320, which is basically too long for indoor use. By getting the 5DMKII, I am able to maximize the potential of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II since I can now use it for portraits indoors and outdoors, and still have the extra reach with APS-C (on the 7D) for wildlife (i.e. birds).

The day after it arrived via UPS, I put my new 5DMKII to use at a group model shoot. During the shoot, I kept the 70-200 on the 5DMKII, and the 35mm on the 7D for whenever I was in a tight space and needed a full body shot.

I am very happy with my decision to get the 5DMKII and it is awesome being able to use the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II indoors. Here are a few samples shot with the 5DMKII and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II combination:

The two models above are Joselyn (brunette) and Lisa (blonde). I have more photos of these two models at http://www.jocabphoto.com/joselyn_cano and http://www.jocabphoto.com/blondie_lisa, respectively. Both of these beautiful young ladies are on Model Mayhem, and links to their MM profile pages can be found in the aforementioned gallery links on jocabphoto.com.

]]> http://www.ocabj.net/?feed=rss2&p=913 0 http://www.ocabj.net/?p=879&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-beauty-dish-helping-enhance-beauty http://www.ocabj.net/?p=879#comments Thu, 20 May 2010 17:39:26 +0000 ocabj http://www.ocabj.net/?p=879 As I began my adventure in the world of portrait photography, I have been acquainted with various strobes and modifiers. But the one that has fascinated me most is the beauty dish (or beauty reflector).

Basically, a beauty dish is a round reflector shaped like a bowl. There is a reflector disc in the center of the dish. The strobe throws light against the disc which in turn bounces into the bowl and then forward. This creates a very round light which is softer than direct bare bulb flash, but harder than a traditional softbox.

The light created from a beauty dish, when used properly, does an excellent job eliminating wrinkles and helps to bring out a person’s skin in a flattering manner.

Currently, I don’t have any studio strobes and have been relying on a pair of Canon 580 EX II Speedlites for my external flash (remotely triggered via PocketWizards). While there’s nothing wrong with Speedlites (they are quite effective as seen in the recent ‘Strobist’ movement), finding quality modifiers for Speedlites is very difficult. Studio strobes like the popular Elinchrom and Alien Bee units have numerous softbox and reflector options.

I was about to order an Alien Bee strobe (and still might), but decided to get the new Paul C. Buff Einstein (currently on backorder) which is manufactured by the makers of Alien Bees. So while the Einstein could take 2-3 months to ship, I really wanted to get a beauty dish.

Coincidentally at the time I was looking at modifier options, Syl Arena appeared on the This Week In Photography podcast (Episode 146: Livin’ Large with Small Strobes) and spoke about his new Canon-centric Speedlite website, speedliting.com. As a Canon shooter, I naturally visited the website and discovered the section on Speedlite modifiers. Low and behold, there was a section on umbrellas, softboxes, and beauty dishes designed for Canon Speedlites.

The speedliting.com page mentioned the Kacey Enterprises Beauty Reflector product and after some perusing of the Kacey website and various independent reviews and write-ups regarding the Kacey dish+adapter, I shelled out the money for one.

• $143 – Reflector / Dish
• $171 – Double Speed(lite/light) Configuration Bracket
• $16 – White diffusion sock

The above three items comes out to $330 plus shipping.

The dish itself is made out of rugged plastic, which is a contrast to other beauty dishes out there, that are made out of some sort of metal (stainless steel, aluminum). The plastic doesn’t lose out to metal, and is actually an improvement in terms of portability. The dish is lighter which helps in transportation to and from location, and aids significantly while maneuvering the dish while on location.

It’s important to know that the Kacey dish is designed to be used with the Kacey bracket/adapter. While there are stories on the net about people manufacturing their own flash brackets, everyone pretty much says the Kacey bracket is far and away a more stable and rugged option to most ‘cheap’ DIY solutions.

Kacey manufactured the dish and adapter to work with either a single Speedlite or two Speedlites for increased power output if needed. While I didn’t anticipate using the dish with dual flash units, having that versatility for an extra $40 seemed like a good deal.

As you can see, the adapter is just tall enough to handle two 580 EX II Speedlites, each with PocketWizard FlexTT5 transceivers.

The bracket itself is fairly rugged, except the swivel that controls the angle of the adapter could be a little better. It does sag a bit once you tighten down the lever. So you sort of have to ‘guesstimate’ the amount of sag that will occur when you set the angle and tighten it down. Also, the cold shoes included with the adapter/bracket actually cock the Speedlites a couple degrees to one side. I ended up using a couple of spare Stroboframe Universal Shoe Mount (adapters) that I had laying around and these are much better (flashes sitting square to the bracket).

All this said, how does the Kacey dish perform? Well, considering I’m still a rookie when it comes to portrait photography, you’ll have to take my opinion with a grain of salt. But I’ve found that the dish works great. Beauty dishes do have a certain sweet spot for the light (2 to 3 feet from the subject) so placement is critical. But when correctly placed with regards to the subject, the results are amazing.

The light cast by the Kacey dish does an excellent job minimizing lines in the skin. The flattering light also has a quick fall off so it doesn’t cause too much shadow behind the subject (as a result of the beauty dish light hitting the subject, and the subject casting a possible shadow).

So given the Kacey beauty dish makes great light, should you buy one? That is actually quite a dilemma. Currently, the Kacey dish is $143 and the bracket is $136/$171 (single/double, respectively). That’s basically $300 for the dish. That is a lot of money considering the Paul C Buff beauty dish is only $80 (which fits Alien Bee strobes).

To make the cost difference appear more significant, the cost of a 580 EX II is about $450. So for a single 580 EX II and the Kacey system, you’re looking at $750. On the other end, you can get an Alien Bee 1600 and beauty dish for $440. If you needed a less powerful strobe, then an AB 800 with beauty dish is only $360.

That said, why buy the Kacey when for $60 more, you can a strobe and beauty dish (AB800)?

Well, for one, if you already have an investment in Speedlites, then getting the Kacey setup supplements existing gear. Yes, you could sell a single 580 EX II and go the Alien Bee route. I actually thought about doing this. But what’s holding me back is another reason why the Kacey system is beneficial: High Speed Sync.

I use the PocketWizard MiniTT1/FlexTT5 which allow wireless radio triggering of flash units, but also has E-TTL and High Speed Sync capabilities. That means while studio strobe users are stuck with using their strobes at camera sync speed (typically 1/200 or 1/250sec), I can use my PW and 580 EX II units a high shutter speeds well beyond 1/1000sec.

So I can actually use the Kacey beauty dish with my Speedlite+PW system outdoors in sunlight, and still shoot large apertures (f/2.8).

Also, the Kacey beauty dish can be used on Alien Bee strobes using an inexpensive ($21) speed ring adapter made by Kacey. So even if I did get Alien Bees, then I can use my Kacey beauty dish on the AB strobes.

So the versatility of the Kacey Enterprises Beauty Reflector is definitely there. Whether or not the versatility is worth the cost is up to each individual photographer.

While the Kacey Enterprises solution is a bit pricey compared to an Alien Bee solution, I am still very satisfied with the early results. As I continue shooting more portraits in the near future, the quality of the light provided by the Kacey will become more apparent.

Portrait photography is actually fairly broad, but the basics are pretty much the same whether it’s simple portraits, studio, glamour, or nude/boudoir. There’s composition, posing of the subject, and controlling lighting.

In order to start experimenting with portrait photography, you need subjects. I find it very hard to find friends/colleagues who would be willing to be the subject of portraits.

Then there is also the issue of lighting. For strobes, I’ve been using a Canon 580 EX II Speedlite and a couple months ago decided to get the PocketWizard MiniTT1/FlexTT5 and another 580 EX II. These are actually good flash units and can be very effective with proper use. But studio strobes are more versatile in terms of available modifies (i.e. softboxes, strip banks, beauty dishes, reflectors, etc).

I inadvertently addressed my lack of subjects and more professional lights when I discovered Model Mayhem. For those unfamiliar with Model Mayhem, it’s basically a social networking site specifically for models, makeup artists, photographers and other people involved in professional modeling. Model Mayhem actually has a forum with event lists and found that there are ‘group shoot’ events held quite frequently in Southern California.

Group shoots are basically organized events held at a given location with various sets, where there are several models attending. Photographers pay a small fee to attend and then have the ability to work with the models in attendance. More often than not, there are studio strobes provided for attending photographers to use.

So last month, I attended a group shoot event at a small studio in Corona followed by another group shoot at a home in Carlsbad. Then this past weekend, I went to a group shoot event at a home/studio in Riverside (10 minutes away).

Attending these events has been an eye opening experience on several levels.

For one, the amount of new knowledge and experience is great. I’ve learned quite a bit about lighting intricacies; strobes, modifiers, and application/usage. At the group shoots, I have been able to test/try out various studio strobes and modifiers. Some provided by the host/venue and others provided by other photographers. This is something you often aren’t able to do without buying the equipment (or renting).

Then there is networking. While Model Mayhem allows you to contact models directly (cold call), I feel that meeting the models in person at a group shoot allows photographers and models get together in a safe controlled environment. The group shoot environment also gives the photographer the ability to work with several models and find one (or many) that the photographer can work well with. I have met several models and have already established working relationships with a couple.

I have also met many photographers, a few of whom have been very helpful in providing information and equipment assistance.

I also have come to appreciate the complexities of modeling and working with models. Not all models have the same personalities. Some are a little timid and need lots of direction, while others are very open and active and just know how to work with the camera.

Not all models are perfect. Far from it. Even with great makeup artists, today’s digital cameras with such high resolutions allow us to capture every single pore on a person’s skin. This also means we capture every single minute blemish. It’s important to know how to use light modifiers (i.e. beauty dishes) to provide more flattering light for a model’s skin and how to use software (i.e. Lightroom or Photoshop) to eliminate blemishes in post-production / post-processing.

So in the past several weeks, I’ve actually advanced quite a bit in my foray into portrait photography and I anticipate continuing to work the glamour/modeling circuit.

I have acquired a few new pieces of equipment, most notably a Canon 5D Mark II, a Kacey Enterprises Beauty Reflector (aka beauty dish) with Speedlite adapter, and a Sekonic L-358 light meter.

I also have a studio strobe still on backorder (Paul C. Buff ‘Einstein’) and plan on getting one of the PCB Vagabond II power packs (battery) to power the Einstein (and future PCB strobes) without wired power.

I have taken to the glamour model photography field and am eager to start shooting more in this area. Hopefully this will expand to some paid professional gigs in the future, but more importantly, I hope to gain more experience and knowledge that will improve my ability to make great portraits.

To see some of the recent work I have produced in the glamour modeling world, check out http://www.jocabphoto.com/glamour.

With all those images being recorded onto those memory cards and being transferred to computers, the issue of archiving and long-term storage begins to come into the fray.

Many people have different ways of managing their digital photo archives. Some use RAID 1 on their desktop computers. Some buy external USB drives to backup to. Others invest in a consumer grade NAS (network attached storage) device.

I view my method of saving my digital camera files as being pretty low tech. But I feel it does a good job in countering possible hardware failure.

First off, the immediate storage is the memory card itself. For me, that means several compact flash cards. I currently carry a bunch of CF cards in a Think Tank Photo Pixel Pocket Rocket. It’s basically a multifold wallet designed to hold ten (10) CF cards. Nothing fancy. But it works very well.

Once I get to a computer (typically my 13″ MacBook Pro), I’ll transfer the files from the CF card(s) to the computer using a basic Sandisk card reader. The one I have is USB 2.0 and can read CF and SD(HC). It’s a bit slow. I question whether or not I should get a card reader that uses firewire instead.

Anyway, at this point, I have the set of photos taken that day (or session) copied over from the compact flash card(s) to the laptop. So I currently have photos in two places (CF and laptop hard drive). Usually I will not reformat/wipe my CF cards at this point. Assuming I’m on a trip (not at home or the office), I want to get the photos on two different devices. If I reformat my CF cards at this point, that means I only have a single copy of the given photo set (on my Macbook Pro).

Taking a step back, it’s important to describe how I actually sort my RAWs on the filesystem. Again, my method is pretty archaic. I basically have a directory which contains directories named for my cameras (i.e. ’7D’ and ’40D). Within each camera directory is a directory for year (i.e. ’2009′ and ’2010′). Within each year, I have a directory containing directories of YYYY-MM-DD which hold any photos taken on a specific date. When I import the files into Lightroom, I leave the files ‘in place’ (don’t move or copy). Then within Lightroom, I can create the galleries with more descriptive names and information to identify photo sets.

That said, what I do next is copy the photos from the laptop to a portable external hard drive (i.e. Seagate 2.5″ USB 2.0 drive). Once this is done, I have the files in three (3) places now: CF, laptop hard drive, external USB drive. Now I can safely reformat the used CF cards and still have redundancy in the event something happens to one of the devices (i.e. laptop hard drive crashes, laptop stolen, etc). Of course, it’s a good idea to keep the external drive and the laptop separate from each other to maximize data safety.

The next thing I do when I get home or to the office is copy the recent photos to a working drive. I currently have an external Seagate drive with a Firewire 800 interface. This drive is considerably faster than my USB drives, so I like to store the most recent photos on this drive along with my Lightroom libraries. This speeds up my actual workflow as far as basic editing in Lightroom.

At this point, I now have three copies of the given photo set: one on the laptop hard drive, one on the portable external USB drive, and one on the ‘working’ drive (external FW 800).

The next step I take is to actually copy the photos to what I consider my archive drive(s). At home, I have an external USB hard drive which is only used for storing backups and is never used for anything else. It sits in a cabinet and remains powered off except for when I copy new photos to it.

After all this, I now have the photos in four (4) places: laptop hard drive, portable external USB drive, external FW drive (working drive), and an external USB drive (long-term backup/archive only).

Today’s digital cameras, point and shoots and dSLR alike, are packing tons of pixels into the sensors. 10 Megapixel cameras are the norm and new dSLR usually have at least 12MP on the sensor. Step up to the so-called pro-sumer and professional dSLR and you’re packing anywhere from 15 to 25MP and beyond. What does this mean?

If you shoot RAW with a 10mp dSLR, you’re looking at 10-12 megabyte RAW files on average. The Canon 7D and it’s 18MP sensor pumps out 25 megabyte RAW files on average. That means 50 photos taken with the 7D uses over 1GB of storage space.

The issue of space for long-term storage is what I am running into right now.

At home, I have a 500GB external USB drive for my archive/backup drive. At the office, I decided to keep another archive/backup drive with the same files as my archive/backup drive at home. But my 500GB at home is nearing capacity (over 80% usage); I shoot RAW and I don’t delete anything.

A 1TB internal 3.5″ SATA drive runs for about $80. The same 1TB in an external enclosure runs for about $110.

Buying external hard drives can get costly in the long run, especially when I need more space (and need duplicate drives to maintain offsite mirrored archives).

Since I want to have drives for the purposes of copying backups to and then leaving powered off for the majority of the time (and never accessing files on those drives until an emergency), it would be less expensive and take up less physical space, to use internal hard drives with a USB/FW/eSATA adapter.

Thus, I am using what is known as an external hard drive docking station. At work, I have a Thermaltake USB 2.0 docking station which can accept 2.5″ or 3.5″ SATA drives. When you put one in the dock, the computer sees it as another USB drive.

So for the time being, I plan on keeping archives/backups off my RAW files on large capacity 3.5″ internal SATA drives by using a SATA to USB/FW docking station, and then keeping duplicate drives at home and at the office (and possibly in a safe deposit box).

Like I said, this is pretty low tech. I don’t have fancy NAS or RAID setups. I’d like to get a Drobo, but I think the method I use now actually works well enough to counter any sort of drive failure.

I already owned the 70-200 f/4L (non-IS) which I had purchased in February 2008, but I hardly ever used it because the f/4 without IS was too slow in a lot of the situations I was shooting in and I was constantly using my 200 f/2.8L II prime lens for the zoo.

The one thing that caused me to wince was the MSRP of $2499 USD. The going rate for the MK I at this time is $1799; a $700 difference.

I sold my 70-200 f/4L a couple months after the f/2.8 MK II was announced, and I knew I wanted a new 70-200 f/2.8L IS with the intention of selling my 200 f/2.8L II prime. So I was going to get a 70-200 f/2.8L IS either way (MK I or MK II).

But after much internal debate, I decided to just shell out the extra money for the MK II. Sight unseen and without any real authoritative lens tests available on the Internet, I figured the MK II would not be worse than the MK I, and should be better in design and image quality, however minute.

A couple weeks ago, I saw a few scattered reports on the Canon Forums that some people who had pre-ordered the MK II had received notice their lens was shipping to them. So I submitted a pre-order to Adorama last week and it shipped the next day and I received it last Tuesday (March 16).

It was a signature required delivery, and coincidentally, I had taken a vacation day and was able to be at home to sign for the package. Minutes after the UPS delivery guy dropped the lens off, I recorded an unboxing ritual:

The first thing I noticed when I opened up the package is the size of the lens box; it’s beefy. A beefy box means a beefy lens, and this is no exception. The lens is definitely larger and heavier than my 200 prime.

I was also impressed by the ET-87 hood design included with the MK II. At the time I unboxed, I had never handled another 70-200 f/2.8L (IS or non-IS) so I wasn’t familiar with the hoods on those lenses (ET-86 and ET-83 II, respectively), so I thought those were the same as the ET-87 (but they’re not). The ET-87 is smooth when threading and locking into place. But to unthread/remove the hood, there’s a button release which I found to be a nice touch. This helps to prevent accidental unthreading of the hood, which can be an issue since the hood is a petal design and if the operator doesn’t notice the hood rotates out of position, it could result in a vignetted photo.

70-200 f/2.8L IS II on the Canon 7D with BG-E7

Ok, so I unboxed the lens. How does it perform compared to the 70-200 f/2.8L IS MKI and a 200 f/2.8L II prime?

Fortunately, my colleague Chris Webber (not the basketball player) owns a 70-200 f/2.8L IS and brought it to the office for me to do a lens test experiment. I commandeered a meeting room at work and tacked a UCR Highlander newspaper on the bulletin board. Then I setup a tripod and photographed the paper at the 200mm focal length @ f/2.8 with all three lenses (200mm f/2.8L II, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II).

IMPORTANT: I shot in RAW and turned off sharpening in Lightroom and disabled sharpening on export to JPEG, so the photos are untouched with regards to sharpening and chromatic aberration.

The experiment photos can be viewed here at 1:1 with no dynamic resizing: http://www.ocabj.net/gallery2/f/f2.8_200m_3lens_test

70-200 f/2.8L IS aka MK I

70-200 f/2.8L IS II aka MK II

200 f/2.8L II

To summarize the experiment, I found that the 70-200 MK I is soft wide-open. I had heard on the Canon Forums that the softness and the CA on the 70-200 f/2.8L IS when shooting at f/2.8 can be soft and that’s why many people opt for the 70-200 f/4L IS instead (unless they absolutely need f/2.8 and IS, i.e. wedding photographers). Having only used the 200 f/2.8L prime which is quite sharp at f/2.8, I would have been disappointed if the 70-200 MK II was soft a f/2.8. Thankfully, it’s not soft and the MK II is actually comparable to the 200 prime.

I also took a couple shots outdoors with just the 70-200 MK I and MK II lenses:

70-200 f/2.8L IS aka MK I

70-200 f/2.8L IS II aka MK II

It is definitely evident from the above samples that the MK I is considerably softer than the 200 prime, and the MK II keeps up with the 200 prime, at f/2.8.

This was a pretty limited lens test, though. I didn’t have much time test all three lens side by side in various situations. But it appears that my findings reiterate what is starting to pop up on the Canon Forums; that the MK II is a definite improvement over the MK I. But is it $700 worth of improvements?

It’s hard to stomach, but I would say ‘yes’. If you need f/2.8 on a 70-200 zoom lens with L-quality glass and image stabilization, yet retain inherent sharpness with a wide-open aperture, then $700 is a small price to pay for the improvement in sharpness and chromatic aberration over the MK I.

Assuming the 70-200 f/4L IS is as sharp at f/2.8 as the 200mm prime, I would recommend saving over $1000 USD and getting the f/4L IS if you don’t need f/2.8.

Sexy

The 70-200 focal length zoom lens is a workhorse. It is used for a wide range of applications including sports, weddings, wildlife/birding, and portrait photography. Canon’s refresh to their 70-200 L-series lens lineup is a worthwhile addition, and if demand is any indication, Canon’s announcement of a shortage of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II seems to indicate that Canon shooters think so, too.

There are reviews of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II (with lens comparisons) slowly trickling out on the web now. Here are a few I found:

• JG Photography
• Pro Photo Show
• The Digital Picture (Added 2010-03-29)

For those wondering if my Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II is still available for sale, sorry, it’s already sold. I posted it on the Canon Forums and less than two hours later it sold. The 200 f/2.8L is a great lens. I had no concerns about finding a buyer. If anything, I kind of wanted to keep it. But after seeing how sharp the 70-200 MK II is wide-open, I no longer have as much attachment to the 200 prime. Nonetheless, if you need a 200mm focal length with f/2.8 with great IQ at a low cost, get the 200 prime.

I will close out this blog entry / review with some photos I recently took with this lens while at the San Diego Wild Animal Park:

PocketWizard MiniTT1 and FlexTT5

The PocketWizard units aren’t cheap at ~$200 a piece for the MiniTT1 and FlexTT5 (or ~$160 for the manual-only Plus II), but they’re arguably the best wireless flash triggers out there. There are far cheaper alternatives such as the Cactus (gadgetinfinity.com) and Yongnuo triggers which sell for ~$50 (for a transmitter and receiver pair). But the cost reflects quality and reliability. Such low cost triggers are often made in China, have poor construction quality, and can be unreliable (do not always trigger, limited range, etc).

So while a pair of PocketWizard units run for 8-10 times as much as the cheap eBay radio triggers, the PW units have far better quality, have warranty support, and the new models (MiniTT1 and FlexTT5) are ‘future-proof’; they have upgradeable firmware via USB which allows bug fixes and equipment compatibility/support updates.

That said, I was able to get a TT1+TT5 pair from Amazon for $400, but saved $100 because I got a free gift card from work for filling out a health survey. After I unboxed them, I did a quick informal test and setup my 580 EX II on my Bogen Manfrotto tripod outside, and walked down the street to see how far I could go before it stopped triggering. I was able to trigger it from ~175 yards before it stopped firing.

Unboxing the PocketWizard MiniTT1

Note that there wasn’t line of sight after 100 yard due to bushes and the measurement isn’t very accurate since I did the measurement using Google Earth (ruler tool on satellite imagery).

After I bought the PW units, I figured I should probably order a lightstand and umbrella so I can play around with off-camera strobes more effectively. I did a lot of browsing on B&H, reading on the Canon Forums, and research on the web and podcasts (i.e. Photofocus) and ended up getting the Giottos #210 light stand, Manfrotto 026 umbrella adapter, Westcott 60″ convertible umbrella, and a Stroboframe flash mount adapter.

Note (added 2010-03-30): The Stroboframe flash mount adapter is unnecessary. I didn’t realize the PocketWizard FlexTT5 has a 1/4-20 threaded hole which is a standard thread for attaching devices to light stands. Thus, the FlexTT5 will connect directly to the Manfrotto umbrella adapter/bracket without the need for a flash mount adapter.

As the title of this post indicates, I have no experience whatsoever with off-camera strobes so this is all new to me.

Everyone recommended to get as large an umbrella as possible, so I opted for a 60″. In my research, I discovered that shoot-through is often more useful than reflecting with the umbrella, so I wanted to get an umbrella that could function in both situations. As far as brand, Westcott appeared to be a pretty decent quality manufacturer.

The Westcott umbrella is actually pretty nice. Removing/installing the black cover to convert it to/from a shoot-through is quick and easy. My one qualm is that 60″ is actually pretty big. It’s not a true 60″ (5ft) diameter since umbrella specs are based on the length of the ribs when straight. So when they’re arced, the umbrella is less than 60″ in diameter. Even then, using it indoors can be an issue in tight quarters. I may order a smaller umbrella (~40″) for tight situations.

I had a hard time picking a stand. I was going to get an Impact stand (Impact is a brand sold exclusively by B&H), but read very mixed reviews about the sturdiness. So I looked at the Manfrotto stands and the least expensive Manfrotto was twice as much as the Impact stands ($70 vs $35). While browsing the Canon Forums, I saw the Giottos stand mentioned, so I checked out the B&H page and the price was decent ($40) and it got good reviews on boards. After receiving, I can say the Giottos #210 is actually a nice stand. It is air cushioned, so if you don’t tighten down any of the segments and it decides to fall (compress), it won’t drop straight down, but will instead slowly drop due to the air pressure in the columns. The knobs all feel pretty rugged considering it was only $40. I may opt for another Giottos #210 when I get another flash unit and PW FlexTT5.

Note (added 2010-03-30): I recorded a short video demonstrating the Giottos air-cushioned light stands and posted it on Youtube.

As far as the umbrella+flash adapter, I was also going to get the Impact adapter (~$15), but they discontinued it and so I ended up getting a Manfrotto due to all the poor reviews of the other low cost (under $20) adapters out there. The Manfrotto is built well. Not much to say about it.

I put it all together the other night just to see how it all fit and it seemed to work ok. I extended the stand to full height and it was able to support the 60″ umbrella with flash. Although, the base of the stand doesn’t span a wide area, so I can’t imagine using this outdoors if there is any sort of gusty wind.

Giottos #210 at full height with Westcott 60" umbrella

The above photo shows the stand at full height with the Westcott 60″ umbrella (setup for reflected light) and the Canon 580 EX II with PocketWizard FlexTT5.

I did a quick shoot-through test, too.

Shoot-through umbrella

Close-up of 580 EX II on stand

Cooperative test subject

I was going to do some more testing of the PocketWizard units as far as range. I’m going to see if I can get my hands on a laser rangefinder (yes, amazing that I don’t own one) and maybe do a test on campus (several open line of sight areas that exceed 200 yards).

I really want to get another 580 EX II and FlexTT5 so I can work with a two small-flash setup. Maybe after I get the 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 lenses that I need (after selling my 17-40 f/4L and 70-200 f/4L; and will sell the 200mm f/2.8L II when I order the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II).