October 14, 2014 | By Nick Carver
Hi, folks! Nick Carver here. I have another guest blog post for you, this time by Charles Bell all about the new iPhone 6 Camera. Enjoy!
At this point, you have surely heard about Apple's latest smartphone, the iPhone 6. After spending some time with the device over the past few weeks, I wanted to share some thoughts on how the phone's camera stacks up and whether or not it's a useful tool for photographers on the go.
Personally, I try to make sure that my camera is with me at all times—you never know when you can get that perfect shot—but it can be cumbersome lugging it around. That's why I sometimes look to my phone to get the photos I may otherwise miss, and that's also why I was curious to see how the new iPhone's camera performed. Sometimes, your smartphone is really all you have.
As for the phone itself, there were three features that instantly impressed me when I began shooting: The clarity, the lens, and the autofocus. Starting with the clarity, I have been able to achieve such pristine images with the phone that sometimes I forget I'm actually taking photos with a phone. It's worth noting, though, that I made the jump from the iPhone 4, so the increase in clarity may not necessarily be there if you own a 5 or 5s. As for the lens, it provides the ability to achieve an almost-wide lens view. It's not going to match the power or capabilities of your SLR, but it does capture a whole lot more than previous iPhones. It's a little jarring that the lens sticks out of the back, but you'll get used to it.
And then there's the autofocus, which is incredibly fast and a huge jump over its predecessors. I've been able to get some great shots that would otherwise be blurry or out-of-focus on my older phone (and I'd love to share them but my screen is being fixed because I dropped it. Sigh.) It makes sense, then, that Verizon Wireless touts the autofocus as the biggest improvement to the camera in their listing of the phone. It's true—what you're mostly here for is the improved autofocus, which often targets your subject so quickly that it's surprising. However, if you want a truly improved experience, apparently you'd be better off going with the iPhone 6 Plus.
Although I only have the 6, which means I can't personally attest to this, reviewer Jim Harmer notes that the Plus has some significantly better features than its not-quite-as-pricy counterpart. He, too, pointed to the improved focus, but he also mentioned the optical image stabilization (the regular 6 only has a digital feature). Additionally, it seems like the Plus does better shooting images at night and in other low-light settings, especially when compared to the previous incarnations of the iPhone.
Another reviewer, Amadou Diallo of Forbes, brings up the fact that Apple may be holding out on an iPhone 6s. And if you own a 5s, he recommends that you sit tight before throwing down some cash for the 6 or 6 Plus. He, too, makes mention of the noteworthy autofocus, though many of the other improvements are found simply by upgrading to iOS 8. You can do that if you own a 4s or better, so, again, he suggests holding out for the 6s. However—and here's where we definitely agree—he recommends that "it’s time to consider moving up to the larger screen, higher resolution low light images, and the convenience of Touch ID" if your phone is a 5 or older.
I also concur with Diallo on this point: "But if you want an Apple device, the iPhone 6 is the best camera the company’s made yet." That's really the most important part here, isn't it? So many folks are loyal to their smartphone brand that they probably already have the latest device or are working toward acquiring it. They're aware that there are differences that can make certain phones better than others, but what it really comes down to is what you like. If you prefer Apple devices and need a damn-good camera attached to it, don't sleep on the iPhone 6 for too long.
Charles Bell is a freelance writer who contributes content to several online publications.
May 16, 2014 | By Nick Carver
View on YouTube for full HD version
In my line of work as a photography instructor, I get a ton of questions from students about full frame DSLR cameras. The number one question is "should I get one?" I've addressed that common question previously in a blog post titled "Photography Tips: Do I Need a Full Frame Camera?" But it occurred to me recently that many of these people asking the question aren't even clear on what exactly a full frame DSLR camera is. And most people don't realize why we have the 2 systems - full frame and crop sensor - in the first place.
So let's put the first matter to rest: no, you shouldn't necessarily get a full frame DSLR camera. It depends on what your needs and wants are, and it depends on what you like shooting and how you like shooting it. Full frame DSLR cameras are not better than crop sensor cameras and your pictures won't necessarily turn out better. I know, I know, the guys on Flickr said you absolutely have to get a full frame DSLR, but trust me, it won't make your pictures better. But for a full rundown of that, please check out the article linked above. It'll really clear things up.
Now let's address the more basic question of "What is a full frame DSLR camera?" And to best make sense of this full frame business, let's take a look back at film.
Okay, so when film was the only option (waaaaay back in the 1990's), a film format called 35mm was the most popular film size available. In fact, when most people imagine film, what they're envisioning is the 35mm film system. But there were bigger film sizes like 6x6, 6x7, 4x5, 8x10 and bigger, and there were also smaller film sizes like the APS film system. 35mm film just so happened to strike that perfect balance between ease of use and affordability with decent resolution and versatility. The bigger film systems like medium format and large format required more skill, more expense, and bigger cameras. Grandma Gertrude shooting little Johnny's birthday party wasn't interested in that. The smaller film formats were easy to use and cheap, but good luck getting a decent 11x14 print out of it. So 35mm was "the goldilocks option," not too big, not too small...juuuust right.
35mm Film Image Area
When digital first hit the scene, there were all these amateur and professional photographers out there who had cameras and lenses and accessories all designed for their 35mm film systems. They were itching for a digital DSLR - a digital version of their trusty 35mm film cameras. They wanted to use their same lenses and accessories, but just on a digital camera body.
"You got it," said the camera makers, "we'll convert some of our film cameras into digital cameras for you by putting a digital sensor in place of the film. But here's the thing...if we make the digital sensor as big as your 35mm film (24mm tall by 36mm wide), the camera is going to cost more than you're willing to pay. So we'll work out a compromise with you - we'll make you a digital SLR camera that uses all your 35mm lenses and accessories, BUT we're going to put a smaller sensor in there, one that measures the same size as APS film - just 16.7mm tall by 25.1mm wide."
APS-C Digital Sensor Image Area
So then, the first affordable "35mm" DSLR cameras didn't actually have a 35mm sensor in them, they had the smaller APS-C sensor. From the outside, you couldn't tell any difference - the cameras looked the same and operated the same. But since the sensor was smaller, the image appeared cropped from what it looked like on film. This made it look like a given lens was more zoomed in on the DSLR than it was on the film SLR. That was good for shooters who liked to photograph far away subjects, like wildlife shooters and sports shooters, but it was a real bummer for shooters who liked wide angle lenses. On the DSLR, their wide angle lenses didn't look wide angle anymore. But luckily, camera makers quickly remedied that. They just invented a new lens for DSLR cameras that could go even wider. So today, full frame or crop sensor, you can go just as wide angle on either.
Of course, technology caught up and eventually it became affordable to make a digital sensor equal to the full size of 35mm film. They called those "full-frame sensors" because they were equal in size to the full frame of 35mm. But the crop sensors were already out on the market and we couldn't un-ring that bell.
Really, we don't need both full-frame and crop sensors today, but each has their benefits, so we might as well keep both around. Plus, it gives camera makers a good excuse to upsell their customers. "Hey your pictures aren't coming out so good on your crop sensor camera? Well try this
snake oil full-frame camera. It'll solve all your photography woes." I'm just pulling your legs, Nikon, Canon, and Sony. You know I love you guys.
Be sure to watch the video at the top of this post for some good visuals on what I've described here. And check out the full-frame offerings from Canon, Nikon, and Sony at the following links:
Thanks for reading.
April 15, 2014 | By Nick Carver
I’m a fan of UV filters for DSLR cameras (here’s why). With a high-quality UV filter, you can get some peace of mind from a small investment without any penalty. High-end UV filters won’t degrade image quality regardless of what the Flickr forums tell you and they will protect the front of your expensive lens from sea spray, dirt, scratches, and even some serious falls.
I’ve also written about what I think is the best UV filter on the market (read that article here). So then what’s left? You know I’m for ‘em and you know what brand I like...
Well there’s one sneaky little option when it comes to purchasing a UV filter that you should know about: the slim UV filter.
The only difference between a slim UV filter and standard UV filter is that the slim version has no front thread on it. See, regular screw-in type photography filters have a male thread on the back that allows you to attach it to your lens (duh) and they usually have a female thread on the front of the filter that allows you to attach another filter on top of it, and another one on top of that, and another and another...
Standard UV Filters have a front filter thread like this
The slim UV filter, on the other hand, typically does not have a front thread. You can’t attach a filter on top of a slim UV filter. They are basically flat on the front - the outer ring is flush with the glass.
The idea is that with ultra wide-angle lenses, there’s a risk of vignetting from a standard UV filter. Vignetting is when the corners of your photo are darkened because the filter sticks out in front of the lens too far. It’s like looking through a tunnel. So someone came up with the bright idea of slicing off that front filter thread to reduce vignetting. It’s a smart idea. And hey, it’s not like anyone was using that front filter thread anyway...
So some say that for wide angle lenses, you need a slim UV filter otherwise you’ll get vignetting. Well, not exactly. A standard UV on even the widest angle lens might create vignetting, it might not. Depends how they engineered the lens. For instance, I have a Canon 16-35mm lens on a full-frame camera, which is the widest angle available second only to fisheye. My standard B&W 77mm UV filter (not slim) creates no vignetting even at 16mm. Take a look:
Even at 16mm, a standard UV gives me no vignetting
But maybe your wide angle lens does get vignetting with a standard UV filter. If that’s the case, you really have just 2 choices: either use a slim UV filter or don’t use one at all. Just remember that this filter is going to be on your lens all the time. So if you use a slim UV filter, your lens will no longer have a front filter thread available. And here’s the thing about having no front filter thread: you can’t use any other filters (goodbye polarizer and split ND filters) and you can no longer use a lens cap.
Sure, you could remove the UV anytime you want to use a polarizer or split ND, but that kind of defeats the whole point of having a UV filter to protect your lens. I’m betting that if there’s any time you’ll drop your camera, it’ll be when you’re trying to unscrew a UV and replace it with a polarizer. And sure, slim UV filters come with a replacement lens cap that slips over the top like a glove, but it’s going to pop off your lens much more often than a standard pinch cap.
So before you buy a slim UV filter, weigh the pros and cons of having no front filter thread in exchange for no vignetting. But most importantly, see if a standard UV filter is even going to create the vignetting you’re worried about.
And by the way, if you’re interested in learning more about filters for digital photography - a subject I’m very passionate about - check out my Filters for Nature Photography online course.