When watching the debate by myself, or at least with the Twitter stream on the laptop, I’m consumed with my own thoughts. With a bunch of other people around, there’s a lively conversation in the room that follows the action on the television. And, of course, we’re all counting the number of times McCain said “my friends” and the like, although I don’t think anybody in our group played the drinking game on that phrase. If they had, we would have to have carried them out.

I have to say, I'm not really impressed with the way these debates have been run. The formats don’t hold the candidates to the topics and the moderators aren’t enforcing well. Of course, the rules are negotiated by the campaigns and are designed to keep the candidates out of trouble, but I’m tired of hearing snippets from the campaign speeches. It may be too much to ask, but I’d like to hear something new in these forums. As it is, I spend most of my time watching how the candidates treat each other.

Ah well. Only one more debate to go. And then it’ll be time for all of us to cast our ballots. You are all set and registered, right? You are going to vote, right? Good.

I photographed the 2008 event and Lee and his team are building on the photos I gave them for the 2009 event’s website, as you can see from the screenshot above. I'm also happy to report that I’ve been asked by Lee to photograph the event again in 2009. If you plan on attending, I look forward to seeing you there.

In the late 1990’s, I bought into Canon with a film SLR with a 50mm prime and have been a Canon shooter ever since. I did so because of their work on Image Stabilized lenses and then their later lead in digital image quality. For the longest time, I was totally happy with that decision. But, times change. It’s now much harder to make blanket statements to the effect that one brand is better than the other at all tasks. In fact, I think it’s impossible.

Not having a single answer isn’t all that surprising. In fact, having an easy answer for a period of time when it comes to digital SLRs may have been a fluke of history. Ten years ago before digital, when you were shooting in low-light environments, you may have reached for the Tri-X. If you were out in the landscape, you might go for Velvia or Provia depending on your taste. Or maybe, you would go for a medium format Hassy or even a large format view camera. I think the truth of the matter is that we’re now in a similar situation when it comes to Digital SLRs. The design decisions made by the camera makers are producing really good results in some areas with compromises in others. This means that sometimes Canon is going to be the right tool, other times Nikon.

The problem I have is that my own photography takes me into situations where I want the best of both worlds. I’d really like Canon to provide solutions that cover the full range of what I do, and many of my posts of late have reflected that point of view. I could wait another year or two, or even three for Canon to produce the camera I’d like them to make, but I have more immediate needs. Instead of waiting around any longer, I’m adding some tools to the tool chest and going dual system. I’m in the process of selling off some of my Canon gear that provides my current level of backup and duplication and using the proceeds to buy up some Nikon gear, starting with a D700 and a couple of lenses, including the amazing 14-24 wide zoom.

To be clear, the current goal isn’t a total switch. Instead, the goal is to end up with the tools from both makers that complement the various kinds of photography I do. Along the way, I’m going to share thoughts from the process, including some initial experiences with the new equipment from the perspective of somebody who has used Canon gear for 10 years. Hopefully, it’ll be interesting. At the very least, it’ll be fun to see for myself what the real differences are between the brands beyond what can be ascertained by comparing sample images and playing with the equipment for just a few minutes at the camera store. And, along the way, I wouldn’t mind popping a few myths if I can find them.

Blatant For-Sale Section: If you’re interested in benefiting from all of this and picking up some used Canon gear, I’ve currently got a few things on my list to sell and would love for them to end up in caring homes, including a 1D Mark III blue-dot, a 16-35 f/28 L II, a 70-200 f/2.8 L (non-IS), and a 430EX Speedlight. You can if you’re interested. Furthermore, if you want to check things out in person (always a smart idea with camera gear), I’ll be in the SF Bay Area later this week and into early next week.

Related Posts:

• D700 First Impressions

I have to admit, this response puzzled me for a while. After all, the first thing I do when I set up a camera is immediate place it into manual focus point selection mode. In fact, I don’t think I’ve let an SLR pick a focus point for me in something like a decade. In a true showing of how one expects the world to match their own viewpoint, I guess I pretty much thought everyone would select their own focal point instead of letting the camera drive this.

As happens all the time, it turns out that I was wrong in my assumption. That’s OK. I seem to learn something new every day from the conversations I have about photography and how other photographers use their cameras. And one thing is for sure, we all do things our own way.

The big problem with letting the camera choose the autofocus point is that most cameras don’t have enough working information to be able to make much more than a semi-educated guess. For example, the phase detection autofocus sensors that are used when you look through the viewfinder pass along just a few bits of information about the portion of the scene they cover. Among these bits are: 1) whether or not there is enough contrast to make a reading; 2) whether or not the area is in focus; 3) how much of a correction is needed to bring the area into focus; and 4) in which direction that correction needs to be applied. From this information, the camera also can sort out how far it is to the objects in the scene at each point.

Obviously, each camera maker uses their own proprietary algorithms to process this data. Some camera makers go beyond just the data from the autofocus sensors and will also pick up clues from matrix or evaluative exposure sensors. The fanciest of these systems can look for flesh tones—even round face looking blobs, depending on the resolution of the exposure sensor—in the exposure data to help pick a point. But, even the most complex of systems are making an educated guess based on relatively little information. Most of the time, the algorithms in the cameras I’ve played with seem to select the point that is closest to the camera and which has high contrast. Yay. That’s not a sure-fire recipe for success.

Your wetware is ever so much more powerful than the electronics in your camera when it comes to deciding what to focus on. When you look through the viewfinder, you know what you want to focus on, so why not just tell the camera yourself? Then, all it has to do is read the data from the focus point you have chosen and drive the lens to where it should be.

That said, some cameras make it easier than others to pick a focus point. Out of the box, the Nikon SLRs I’ve played with let you directly select a focus point using the control pad on the back of the camera when you are in single point and dynamic area AF mode. It’s easy enough that I was able to sort it out in a minute or two without looking at the manual while standing in a camera shop playing with a D700 and a D3. As far as other Nikon models, I’m less knowledgeable. Maybe folks can chime in through the comments to fill in more information.

On Canon SLRs, with which I have a lot more experience, you have to do a two-step dance by default. First you hold down the focus point select button and then you spin the command dials to steer the point into place. It’s easy enough to do quickly with enough practice, but until it’s second nature, it takes way more thought than it should. Luckily, with the 5D as well as later model x0D series cameras (20D, 30D, etc.), you can set a custom function to use the multi-controller joystick on the back of the camera to quickly choose your focus point. On the 5D, look into Custom Function 13. On the 40D, it's Custom Function III-3, I think. On the rest, well, you’ll have to dig into the menus a bit to sort out what’s what. I know that you can also pull this trick with the 1D Mark III using Custom Function III-9. Of course, if you’re camera isn’t listed here and you know the answer, I welcome your input in the comments as well.

The bottom line is that if you’re haven't looked into this already, you should dig into your manual and see how all of this works. Once you find that you can easily set your focus point manually, you may never let your camera do it again for you no matter how smart it thinks it is.

The photo above is of Gary Vaynerchuk speaking at Web 2.0 Expo NY 2008. The focus point on Gary’s face is simulated. No actual @garyvees were harmed in the making of this illustration.

Related Posts:

• Focus and Recompose

Failure? Why should focus and recompose ever fail? After all, if you focus on somebody that is 10' away and then recompose your shot so that their face isn’t in the center of your viewfinder, that person is still 10' away and should still be in focus, right? Well, not so fast. You see, when you focus on a point 10' away, the the area in focus is actually a plane that is parallel to the sensor in your camera. Here’s a very simplistic two dimensional illustration of this:

This illustration shows the field of view of a normal 50mm lens mounted on a full-frame camera, around 45º. It also shows the approximate depth of field in front of and behind the focus plane at around f/2.0. On a full-frame camera, the depth of field is around a foot and a half in depth at 10'. Keep in mind, however, that this depth of field is the calculated range that is considered “acceptable” focus. The calculations behind this involve circles of confusion and the difference between the size of your imaging surface and your final use size. If your final use size is a 5 X 7 print, the calculated figures are appropriate to use. However, if you want to make large prints, say 12 X 18 or larger, you’ll effectively have less depth of field of acceptable focus to work with. The line between acceptable and not acceptable also varies between people. Personally, I go for tack sharp when I can and only settle for “acceptable” when I don’t have a choice in the matter.

In any case, we don’t need to get too pedantic about the math to illustrate the gotcha with the focus and recompose technique. Here’s what happens when you rotate the camera to the right so that your subject appears on the left side of your frame:

The red lines illustrate the recomposed frame of view, focal plane, and depth of field. As you can see, by rotating the camera, the focal plane is being rotated as well. Your subject is still 10' away from you, but the rotation effectively pushes the plane of focus behind where you want it to be. The result is that after recomposition, the area that you focused directly on is now somewhere just on the edge of the depth of field. When you take the photograph, your subject won’t be tack sharp and may not even be acceptably sharp, depending on your criteria for “acceptable”.

Furthermore, this illustration assumes a simple rotation of the camera. When you recompose out in the real world, you’re likely to introduce a bit more error into the process unless you use a tripod. If you lean forward while you recompose, you’ll throw things even further out of focus. On the other hand, if you happen to lean back, maybe you’ll bring your subject right back into the plane of focus if you’re lucky. Relying on luck, however, isn’t usually a good strategy for these kinds of things.

What about changing the distance to your subject? At 5', half the distance and not an uncomfortable working distance with a 50mm lens, the depth of field is less than a half foot deep. On the other hand, at 20', the depth of field is about 6' deep. As a rule of thumb, the further away you are from your subject, the more depth of field you have as well. This gives you more leeway to work. The closer you are to your subject, the less depth of field, and the less leeway. At very close distances, your margin for error gets quite small indeed.

What about if you use a longer lens than 50mm? Well, at 100mm, the depth of field at 10' for a full frame camera is around 5". Using a 100mm lens at 10' isn’t uncommon when making portraits. Having 5" of acceptable focus isn’t a lot. On the other hand, with a longer lens, you are working with a narrower angle of view and aren't shifting the focus plane to as great a degree when you recompose. This helps you out to some degree. Still, shifting things around a bit can still lead to poor results if you’re aiming for tack sharp eyes in that portrait.

This, in a nutshell, is what you have to be careful of when you use the focus and recompose technique. If you do need to focus and recompose, you should try to alleviate any potential issues by stopping down your aperture. For example, the depth of field in our setup above at f/8 would be a bit over 6'. Focus and recompose in this case would most likely produce decent results. The issue can also be alleviated by shooting with a wider lens. For example, using a 35mm lens in the above setup at f/2.0, the resulting depth of field would be around 3 feet. Of course, then you have a relatively wider angle of view and a different photograph entirely.

So, what should you do? Well, if you are using lens and aperture combinations that give you a lot of depth of field to work with, focus and recompose can work out fairly well. On the other hand, if you’re working with wide apertures or long lenses, then you’ll need to be more careful. In fact, you may want to practice focusing manually or at least overriding the focus decisions made by the camera to dial in a bit of compensation. This can be tough, however, as modern autofocus lenses don’t have the most forgiving of focus mechanisms for manual use. The best bet for most people, however is to manually select the focus point that is closest to your subject if you can and avoid recomposing altogether.

Finally, the desire to avoid recomposing is why photographers who own a camera with 45 or 51 focus points really dig their systems. With so many points, it’s more likely that they can manually select just the right one to use to make a photograph composed just the way they want it without recomposing. Then when their subject’s expression changes—say when something emotional happens—they can snap off the next picture immediately using the same focus point placed in the same place.

Related Posts:

• Control Your Autofocus Points

Related Links:

• DOF Master has an online depth of field calculator for you to play around with the numbers.
• I’ve been playing around a lot with PhotoCalc, an iPhone application that lets you work with these numbers out in the field.

To start, isn’t it a bit too early to pass judgement? Especially considering the camera looks to have absolutely stellar image quality, loads of resolution, and the ability to make HD movies that look amazing, such as Vincent Laforet’s Reverie? Isn’t it unfair to level criticism towards the camera at this point in time? Maybe. Probably. After all, the only real way to know what a camera can do is to use it. On the other hand, we do have quite a bit of information already at our disposal from both Canon sources as well as those that have their hands on pre-release cameras.

Here’s what we know for sure. The new 5D Mark II has the same 9-point autofocus layout as the previous generation with the same specifications of sensitivity for the points. Only the center focus point is a high-precision cross-type sensor. Like the first generation camera, the new one has an additional six focus points ganged up around the center focus point to help tracking in servo mode.

What’s less clear is what impact any improvements to the RISC chip that runs the autofocus system might have on performance. It seems that this processor is unchanged, but it might run faster in the new camera. Also unclear is what aid the new DiG!C IV chip might be able to provide. And, we have no information on any possible improvements to those hidden six sensors that aid servo tracking, other than that two of them are cross-type sensors. Because of these points, it is indeed too early to pass judgement on the ultimate autofocus performance of the new camera. Certainly, the speed and precision of the system are unknown at this point. Maybe it’ll be better, at least evolutionary so.

Regardless of any performance improvements that we may see, after shooting in the neighborhood of a hundred thousand frames on my 5D, I can tell you that ultimate speed of the focus system isn’t the big problem. Certainly not for a camera that isn’t targeted for sports shooters. No, the real issues with the autofocus system on the original 5D are found in the layout and sensitivity of the focus points. And, this is something that I think is more than fair to criticize, even before the camera’s release.

The focus point layout is the same exact layout in absolute size as that on the Canon 20D, a 1.6 crop frame camera. This layout has continued through the successors to the 20D, including the 30D, 40D, and 50D. On a crop frame, the layout of the focus points covered a pretty good amount of the viewfinder. On the full frame 5D, the 9 focus points are relatively bunched in towards the center of the frame, leaving most of the frame empty. Here’s an illustration of this comparison (with thanks to Stef for pointing to these viewfinder images in the comments of my previous post about the 5D Mark II).

I’ve scaled the viewfinders to illustrate their approximate relative size. As you can see, the result of this arrangement on the 5D is that you don’t have an autofocus sensor in many places where you might want one. In fact, there’s gobs of empty space in the viewfinder surrounding the small cluster of focus points. If you want to use the rule of thirds, sorry, you’re pretty much out of luck. The diamond pattern of the 20-50D doesn’t help much, but the relatively smaller pattern on the 5D really doesn’t help at all. Your only option is to focus-and-recompose. This works well enough when you are shooting at f/11 or f/16 and if you’re being careful. At the wide apertures of f/1.2 through f/4—ranges where you get the most out of prime and L lenses—the focus-and-recompose technique is a recipe for sad results.

The sensitivity, or lack thereof, of the non-center points only reinforces the problem. Because the outer 8 points don’t work very well in low light conditions, the camera might as well only have a center focus point when you are working in the dimly illuminated conditions where you can really get the most out of the sensor and Canon’s lenses.

Even so, as the first mainstream full-frame digital SLR, the image quality of the original 5D made it easy to overlook, or at least forgive, the faults of its autofocus system layout. Heck, I purchased my 5D when it first came out fully aware of these issues and accepted them for what they were. After all, it was understandable that Canon would leverage as much as it could from the 20D (and 30D which was then in development) to bring the camera to market at its price point. And, there are workarounds, such as using the ST-E2 Speedlight Transmitter to project an AF assist pattern. Besides, they could always fix it in the next model, right?

Right?

Well, three years later, we have the next model and our answer. At least enough of an answer. Many people, including myself, would have loved to have seen a 45-point autofocus system of the same caliber as the EOS 1D series cameras. After all, this would give us a close digital version of the Canon EOS 3, a reasonably sized reasonably rugged camera with a pro-autofocus system that was released in 1998. Ten years ago.

Even if Canon’s current market segmentation strategy precludes putting in a pro-level autofocus system into the new model, it is still perfectly reasonable to expect that at least some improvement to the sensor layout would be made. Maybe even some of those outer focus points could have been high-precision cross-type sensors so that those that wanted to compose using the rule-of-thirds in dark environments could have some help from the camera. Maybe the layout could have been improved with points near the rule of thirds area. Heck, maybe make all of the focus points high-precision cross-type like they did on the 50D.

Instead, the new 5D Mark II has none of that. Any of the improvements that we might see from the autofocus system in the new camera don’t help with the core problem that the layout is too small and only the center focus point is usable in poorly lit environments. It’s really too bad, because the rest of the camera is pretty sweet. Yah, you’ll be lens-limited with most of your lenses and will have to update your computer and storage to handle twice as much data as you’ve shot up to this point. But, really being lens-limited isn’t bad and as long as you don’t shoot thousands of frames at a time, the storage requirements can be overcome. The ultimate image quality you’ll get will make it worth dealing with these other issues.

It’s precisely because of ultimate image quality that this camera will probably be a success for Canon. After all, if you’re looking for resolution, you’ve got it. Lower noise at high ISO levels, check. Movies, oh yah. If you’re invested in Canon and want to shoot great landscapes, studio portraits, or the like, then you’ll probably want to evaluate the camera for your needs. On the other hand, if you shoot events or action, you’ll want to think about this a bit harder. And, if you’re not invested heavily in Canon lenses, well, there are now other full-frame alternatives to consider. Unlike three years ago, you can find other cameras at around the same price point that make a different set of trade-offs that might agree more with you.

Finally, for those of you that will inevitably wonder why on earth you’d want more than a center autofocus point, well... if it works for you and you are producing the images you want to be producing, great! Otherwise, you should consider giving some of those other focus points a try. You might find that you like having them at your disposal.

Related Posts:

• Canon 5D Mark II Initial Thoughts
• Digital SLR Video Convergence
• The D3, D700, and Canon
• Focus and Recompose Exposed

Continuing O’Reilly’s use of photography in their conference promotion materials, the website for the conference features two of my photos. The one on the left is a tight crop—and one of the very few licensed uses—of a photo I took at MacWorld when the iPhone was announced. It’s probably my most misused photograph out of the over 7000 images I’ve posted to Flickr. The photograph on the right is a crop of an audience shot from OSCON 2008.

And, as you might expect, I’m slated to be there on November 18th to shoot the conference. If you happen to be there, be sure to say hi. Maybe we can arrange a meet up in the bar of the hotel the night before or some such.

I considered revising the book several times over the years, but it wasn’t to be. For more than a few years, the Mac development book market wasn’t exactly a star performer for the publisher. Recently, no doubt thanks in large part to interest in iPhone development, that seems to have changed. Earlier this year O’Reilly approached me about revising the book. This time around, I decided to pass—at least for the time being. I’ve got a whole group of fantastic photographic endeavors that is totally filling my mental bandwidth. It wouldn’t be fair to myself, the publisher, and potential readers to attempt to revise the book on a deadline with my current workload. Of course, just because I passed doesn’t mean that the book is dead. O’Reilly may move forward with a revision by somebody else or may undertake other related projects as they see fit. They have my full support in whatever they decide to do.

No matter what happens with Learning Cocoa, the good news is that there’s an incredible amount of activity in the area of providing great starts to Cocoa programmers. By no means is there a vacuum in this space. Aaron Hillegass has revised his book twice and now offers the 3rd edition of Cocoa Programming for Mac OS X. I’ve always recommended Aaron’s book in addition to my own effort and have been happy to see that Aaron has been able to revise his material over time.

Also, and this is very exciting to me, the Pragmatic Programmers are making a big entrance onto the Mac development scene. Daniel Steinberg—who I’ve collaborated on many projects throughout the years—is writing Cocoa Programming, A Quick-Start Guide for Developers. Daniel actually tried to get me to write this book a few times for the Prags, but I’ve stuck to my guns about my photography projects and instead will serve as a reviewer for his work. In addition to the book, Daniel will be joining up with Bill Dudney to offer a three day Cocoa Studio produced by the Pragmatic Studio in late October in Denver, Colorado. I’ve been a long-time fan of the way that Mike and Nicole Clark run the Pragmatic Studio and I’m sure that this will be a great three days for those that go.

I’m super happy to see this activity happening. In a way, I do wish I could be more involved in this space right now. But, knowing that there’s good things happening in this area goes a long way to alleviating any pangs of the heart that I might have. For those people that are picking up Cocoa for the first time, there are great options that exist now and which are coming. I’m looking forward to seeing how Daniel’s book evolves as he finished it up. And, truth be told, I’m more than a little tempted to fly out to Denver myself in late October to check out the new Cocoa Studio. It might sound a bit sentimental, but it kind of feels like a torch has been passed. I can’t wait to see what happens next.

The 5D Mark II isn’t the first available digital SLR to sport HD video. Nikon’s recently released D90 supports the ability to shoot 720p video. I have to admit, based on the samples I saw from the D90, I was a bit ho-hum about having video features added to a still camera. I wasn’t sure I saw what the fuss was about, or at the very least, I wasn’t sure it was something that I personally would be interested in. But then along comes Vincent’s video which—in a pretty compelling and resounding way—shows that there’s something to all of this.

Of course, Vincent’s video also shows what you can do with a solid mastery of light—and let’s make no mistake on this point, Vincent is a master of light and his photographic skills are what makes his video so effective. It also shows what you can do when you combine an excellent photographer with a capable tool, a $5000 budget, actors, production assistants, helicopters over New York, and tens of thousands of dollars of lenses. Let’s be clear, there’s a lot more to the magic of this particular video than just the 5D Mark II. But, with all that said, it does show the capture capabilities of the 5D Mark II and shows it the whole idea of converging still and motion hardware has game.

This isn’t a completely unexpected turn of events. The release of the 5D Mark II and the D90 are the latest and most visible chapters so far in a wave of still/video convergence that is really just starting to show above the waterline. There’s a lot more that’s going to happen in the months and years to come as this wave really shows its shape and strength. It’s not just Canon and Nikon playing here either. Certainly Sony and others are also working on their own hardware efforts. Just imagine a full frame Sony video camera with the ability to use their very nice Zeiss lenses. And I can’t leave out RED who has been spending some time leading the charge on Panavision’s dominance of Hollywood. By the time the tsunami settles in four or five years, the ability to make cinematic masterpieces, documentaries, and high quality video photojournalism will be more approachable and affordable than ever.

In all of the excitement about the convergence of video and still capture devices, however, let’s not forget that these really are two distinct disciplines with two distinct approaches. When shooting stills, a photographer can recompose at will between frames. She can review the last frame and try a new angle immediately. As she works the shot (as we say in the lingo), she slices off small snippets of time here and there.

Shooting video requires a different approach. You can’t work the shot in the same way. If you did, you’d end up with something much worse than the most horrific home video in terms of jerks and swings. When shooting video, you have to think in terms of pans and controlled camera movements. Instead of slicing out small chunks of time, you have to work in longer periods of time of seconds or minutes. Sure, you can jump between angles and fields of view between takes, but within a take, you really need to be deliberate and controlled.

Because of this difference in approach, I fear the time when almost all of the still photographs in our news media will be composed mostly of frames grabbed from video streams. Sure, it’s efficient and cost effective for the media to look at deploying these convergence devices and results in the ability to provide video as well as stills with a single resource and photographer. But, without working the shot with an eye for stills, I fear we’ll end up with an even more restricted visual vocabulary being used in mainstream media photographs.

On the other hand, I really am excited that this convergence will allow photographers with amazing mastery of light and composition to apply their skills to creating motion videos that are amazing. In my opinion, some of the best cinematographers have strong backgrounds in still photography and it shows in their motion work. Being able to have affordable tools for these people to move between still and motion work will certainly allow an entirely new group of photographers to express themselves in motion and I really look forward to what they create.

Another thing I look forward to being able to do is to replace quick bursts of still shots, say at 5 or 10 frames per second, with short bursts of videos that I can then extract the single peak action frame from. I know I just got through po-pooing the small size of video frames from HD video compared to what a still shot can provide, but at the same time, sometimes you just need a small shot. Of course, the current set of controls on convergence cameras might not lend themselves to picking up a quick burst here or there, but I’ll be surprised if that doesn’t change for the better soon.

No matter what, however, convergence of still and motion hardware is upon us in a huge way and it’s going to open up new doors of creativity. Some of these tools are going to be awesome, and some are going to show growing pains that are natural in a developing environment. But all are going to change the landscape of our toolsets completely over the next five years or so. Not all of us are cut out to be motion photographers, but for those that choose to cross the line, we’re in for one heck of a ride.

As for me, I don’t think there’s a 5D Mark II in my future. I’ve already chimed in on my thoughts on the camera for still use, but I know that if I had a need to shoot video right now, it’d be the first camera on my list. Screw other video cameras with their small sensors and lack of interchangeable lenses. Those beasts are dinosaurs and fated for extinction at all but the lowest end of the market.

Related Posts:

• Canon 5D Mark II Initial Thoughts
• Source of the 5D Mark II AF Angst

Lots of things have gone through my mind the last year or so as this all has unfolded. I’ve tried to make sure my financial footing is solid and I’m currently preparing for a slowdown in my business that I hope doesn’t happen, but could come at any time. I’ve counted my blessings thirty different ways that I insisted on a fixed-rate mortgage when I bought my home even though every so-called financial adviser in the process was trying to push adjustable-rate notes. I’m so very glad that I have skills in multiple areas so that I can adjust my career path as needed. And, most of all, I keep reminding myself that chaos and instability often creates opportunity if you look carefully and are prepared.

Last week in New York as the scope of the bailout plan came to light, all those thoughts faded and were replaced by simple anger. I tried for a while to figure out a way of putting the thoughts into a coherent enough order to write about, but I couldn’t. Today I was glad to see John Gruber link to a quote by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont on the matter:

For years now, they’ve told us that we can’t afford—that the government providing healthcare to all people is just unimaginable; it can’t be done. We don’t have the money to rebuild our infrastructure. We don’t have the money to wipe out poverty. We can’t do it. But all of a sudden, yeah, we do have $700 billion for a bailout of Wall Street.

Yeah. That’s exactly what I was thinking. Well, that mixed in with a good dose of Whiskey Tango Foxtrot??? In what reality does all of this make sense? Certainly not my reality.

In the end, as easy as would be to blame the brokers making the deals, they were acting within the scope of what was allowed. I don’t really harbor much ill will in their direction. Instead, most of my ire is solidly focused on the people of both political parties currently running around Washington DC right now trying to work on a solution for a problem that they helped to create in the first place. After all, it’s not like this was unexpected or unprecedented. One of the major causes of the S&L crisis in the late 80’s was insufficient oversight as a direct result of deregulation. Sound familiar?

I don’t know what else to do right now but shake my head. I can tell you one thing for sure, however. I’ll be checking up on the people I vote for in this next election on how they stand on all of this. I will be voting accordingly, regardless of party affiliation or personality. I hope you do as well. After all, politics are all always about the issues at hand. And this is a big one.

As I’ve previously written in The D3, D700 and Canon, I’ve been waiting for this release as I think it serves as a bellwether for where Canon is going for the foreseeable future. With Nikon on the resurgence, Canon has recently lost their clear cut domination of the digital SLR marketplace. There are many paths that Canon can take to address Nikon’s recent achievements, some of more interest to me and my own photographic needs than others. So, what does the new 5D Mark II tell us?

First and foremost, the 5D Mark II tells us that Canon still considers megapixel count increases to be the most important feature to push. In the first part of this decade, this was true to a large degree. The first 3 megapixel digital SLRs were indeed limited. But, now that digital SLRs sport sensors that capture 10+ megapixels, it’s not as clear cut anymore. Just as the megahertz wars brought us mostly meaningless improvements in computer specifications that were more impressive on paper than in reality, the run up in megapixel counts has reached a point of decreasing returns.

One issue with a 21 megapixel sensor is that there are precious few lenses that can resolve enough detail to really take full advantage of the resolution capabilities on hand. And those that can are bloody expensive. With the 10 and 12 megapixel cameras I currently own, I can see the limits of a few of my expensive L-series lenses in the resulting files. That said, this isn’t the worst of fates. All other things being equal, being limited by your lenses is probably preferable to being limited by your sensor.

Even if you have a good enough lens, there’s the small matter of being able to keep your camera still enough to get the most out of it. I can tell you from my own experience that I regularly see minor resolution loss in my hand-held images from my current 10 and 12 megapixel cameras when I closely inspect them. I see this even when using state-of-the-art Image Stabilized lenses. At normal use sizes, these losses aren’t noticeable, but to get the most out of 10 or 12 megapixel cameras requires the use of a tripod or to be shooting in full on daylight. To really take advantage of a 21 megapixel sensor, you’ll want to break out the tripod..

Another issue with higher megapixel counts is that, all other things being equal in the electronics being used, the smaller photo-sites that are a byproduct of higher megapixel counts capture relatively fewer photons and need more amplification resulting in more noise. Canon has long kicked ass on their noise handling and it’s only recently Nikon has joined the party. As they say, however, there is no free lunch. I would really have liked to see what Canon’s engineers could have done with their current technical abilities with a 12 megapixel sensor. Or even a 16 megapixel one. Given that the currently available photos from the 5D Mark II seem to indicate that it has a stop to stop and a half advantage in noise levels over the original 5D, the same processing applied to larger photo-sites could have resulted in some truly spectacular results. Alas.

So, beyond marketing and bragging rights, what does stuffing 21 megapixels into the 5D Mark II get us? If you’re out shooting in the landscape with great lenses and a tripod, you’ll no doubt see some real benefit. In such a situation, every shred of detail that you can capture matters and you’d rather be lens-limited than sensor-limited. If you’re shooting in the studio—again probably with a tripod—you’ll also see a benefit. If, on the other hand, you’re shooting hand-held anywhere but in full on daylight, I doubt you’re going to get much of an improvement over a 12 megapixel camera.

The big downside to the high megapixel count is file size. 21 megapixels results in huge files. Current 10 and 12 megapixel RAW files put quite a load on all but the most powerful of desktop machines. Larger images only increase this load. If you are shooting in a manner to maximize the benefit from these large files—using your tripod and mirror lock up—then this workload increase is a worthy trade off. If, however, you are shooting mostly handheld or shooting a large number of images—say hundreds or thousands at an event—the impact of the huge file size will be a net negative. (Note: Samuel Linde has brought up a good point in the comments that using sRAW could alleviate some of these negatives. I personally don’t have first hand experience with this, so can’t comment for now, but will look into it.)

Beyond continuing to engage in the megapixel war, Canon is telling us something else with the 5D Mark II. And this is something that matters a whole lot more in the end than the pros and cons of having a 21 megapixel sensor. The one area in which I considered the original 5D deficient was its autofocus system. It was a glaring flaw in an otherwise amazing camera three years ago. The only reason to put up with it in 2005 was to get the amazing images that the original 5D can produce. The image quality was worth it, but it was always a puzzling question mark in an otherwise awesome camera.

In 2008, including the same basic autofocus system in the 5D Mark II is ridiculous. I can tell you from experience with my 5D that in light levels requiring the use of ISO 1600 or 3200, the only useable focus point is the center one. From everything I’ve seen, this will remain unchanged for the 5D Mark II. If you’re taking your time composing your shots, you’ll probably be fine with this. Out in the landscape, you almost certainly won’t care too much. On the other hand, if you are shooting on the run in low light where you want to take advantage of ISO 3200 or 6400, you’ll find the autofocus to be a cruel joke and will end up with way too many 21 megapixel out-of-focus rejects.

It’s pretty clear that the only reason to put in a crippled autofocus system into the 5D Mark II is to protect the margin on the 1D series of cameras, especially the $8000 1Ds Mark III. After all, with similar sensor specifications, one might wonder what else justifies the massive price difference. Of course, build quality, size, and shutter-life specifications matter, but evidently autofocus is a key differentiating feature of the 1D series of cameras to Canon which must be protected. This is a different approach than the one taken by Nikon who pushes advanced autofocus technologies further down into their camera line.

The bottom line is that I think the 5D Mark II is going to be a fantastic camera for a good number of photographers. The image quality will be great and there are going to be a lot of great photographs made with this camera in a variety of situations. Furthermore, those that shoot out in the landscape on tripods should be over the moon about this camera. If I were making my living shooting in nature, I’d definitely be interested in this camera. Despite my comments about the downsides of having a 21 megapixel sensor, I’d be happy being lens-limited shooting out in the field.

On the other hand, for the style of shooting that I do for a living—photojournalistic event photography in crappy light conditions—the 5D Mark II doesn’t make the grade. Not even close. It’s too bad. I was really hoping that Canon would produce a 14-16 megapixel camera with a pro-level autofocus and an even lower noise threshold. That would have been about right, at least in my book.

Update (9/25): As some have pointed out in the comments, until we have the camera in hand, it may be too early to pass judgement. On the other hand, I’m seeing more and more evidence that the AF is unchanged from the original 5D, including a post in dpreview.com’s forums pseudo-quoting Chuck Westfall as saying the focus is unchanged. Of course, forum posts are subject to skepticism too. Caveat reader.

Related Posts:

• The D3, D700 and Canon
• Digital SLR Video Convergence
• Source of the 5D Mark II AF Angst