Chameleon Photography

My Gear

2009-09-04T00:47:00.026+01:00

Ok, so I've been asked on a number of occasions by people what camera I use. Firstly, I'd like to clear something up; my equipment does not make me a better photographer. I know people who have top of the range cameras and take awful photos with them sometimes, and the opposite is true also, I've seen some stunning photos taken on compacts.

So back on topic then.....

Canon 40D body + grip: nice sturdy body with magnesium alloy/steel frame and rubber coating built to withstand a couple of knocks and has basic dust sealing. The benefit of this body for me is the super fast frame rate of 6.7fps and a massive buffer (explained in earlier post) lets me shoot 12raws or 70jpegs in one go. The only way I'll get a faster frame rate is to spend a few grand more on a Canon 1D (10fps). This high frame rate is great for action shots.

Review

Sigma EX 10-20mm lens: a great extreme wide angle lens for landscapes and abstract photos on a crop body like mine (1.6x crop factor) the actual focal length is 16-32mm. The lens is a corrected lens, which means that there are no significant side effects like barrel or pincushion distortion. However, it's great for landscapes because you're able to fill the frame with more, especially with more foreground interest. With regards to abstracts, if you pull in close to your subject (I mean invasively close) you can get some great shots.

Review

Sigma EX 24-70mm lens: this is a brilliant everyday walkabout lens. It covers a nice medium focal length (38-112mm) for general wide shots as well as portraits and details. There's not much else to say about this focal length apart from that it's quite flexible.

Review - mine doesn't seem to suffer from the CA suggested in the review.

Well folks,Sigma EX 150mm Macro: you'll notice that this isn't a zoom lens, it's a prime (fixed length). This is probably the best value for money macro lens you can get that'll let you take decent photos of insects without scaring them off. Of course there are cheaper macro lens with smaller focal lengths, but you need to get closer to your subject with them (lonfwe min. focussing distance (mfd)). Step upto to the next level and you have 180mm which is a whole new level of money. So this lens equates to 240mm on my 40D, and is great for allsorts of macro work including insects, wildlife, still life etc. It's also makes a great portrait lens, although you need some distance between you and subject if you want anything more than head and shoulders. Prime lenses are special because of the quality of imaging they provide, all the glass elements in the lens are catered specifically for that one focal length and are optimised.

Review

Canon 430 Flashgun: a great mid range flashgun with a tilt and swivel head that allows you to bounce/direct light in a number of angles. This is a great unit and has helped me out quite a bit. The only bad point is that it takes 4 AA batteries and if you're using a lot of flash on a shoot, they won't last long. The main problem is that the as battery power declines it takes longer for your flash to recycle (get ready to fire again). For me personally this can be annoying at times and very inconvenient at others. So I tend to take the batteries out when it takes longer than 10-20 seconds to recycle. The batteries themselves are still seem to have at least half their life left so end up going in the cupboard for an endless supply for remotes and other gadgets around the house. I will mention that it's best to use decent batteries with these such as EveryReady Ultimate or Duracell Ultra, anything else is useless after a few flashes.

Review

Canon ST-E2 wireless flash trigger: this is a great little trigger that sits on the hotshoe to control my flashgun wirelessly. It's really handy for indirect lighting and helps create some good effects and ambient lighting. It can also be useful if you're shooting from a distance and want to have your flash near to your subject for example.

Review

Manfrotto 055 XProB tripod + RC332 head: one thing that is sometimes overlooked by many aspiring photographers is a suitable tripod. If you want to take long exposures, macros and in general crisp and clear photos use a tripod where/whenever possible. I've broken so many cheap tripods that it's been false economy and a hindrance. Get a good solid tripod and you'll be happy. Decent tripods don't come with heads, as there's a number of heads available to suite your needs, pan and tilt and ball and socket. Pan and tilt is probably the most common type and lets you adjust the axis independently for precision. A ball and socket head is quite convenient and lets you adjust in any direction/axis at the same time; you simply unlock it, move and lock. It is a little trickier to use but once you've got the hang of it can be great. My particular tripod is aluminium and weighs a fair bit, but it's sturdy. It also lets you place the centre column horizontally for low angle shots.

Review

Manfrotto 785b tripod: this is a handy little tripod and used to be used on my old small camera. It's got a built in head and is a socket and ball type, thin, light and tall, perfect for my flash gun when used wirelessly.

4 Way macro rail: this is a simple rail that goes between tripod head and camera. When shooting macro you're depth of field (dof) is usually quite shallow and it can be quite difficult to focus. If you want to shoot true 1:1 macro then you'll have to set and leave focus at the MFD (usually) and just move the whole camera back and forth to gain correct focus. Using a camera rail simply lets you adjust the movement of the camera on two axis, back and forth, and side to side on a very small scale. This is done by turning a mechanical screw. It's to so useful when shooting 1:1 insects as they tend to wander off by the time you've set up, so it's best left for still life.

Misc: other bits and bobs I have include wired and wireless camera triggers (great for astrophotography), filters (polarisers, UV, ND, star), CF memory (SanDisk 4GB extreme III and two Kingston Ultra 4GB)

Storage: for storage I use a Lowepro AW100 backpack/rucksack bag which is large enough to fit in all of my kit. It's got plenty of specific pockets for filters etc, and is waterproof by way of sealed/taped zips and a handy storm cover that covers the whole bag and is tucked away discretely in a flap under the bag when not in use. It has space on the outside of the bag for a smallish tripod (my 785b goes here) and a slot for a 15" laptop (I don't use a laptop with the bag). This can all get very, very heavy and I'm glad for the comfortable shoulder straps, it also has a lumbar/waist strap for those long hikes or for extra comfort and a contoured back to aid airflow. This is definitely not an everyday bag (smallest in its range though).

Wish list: an everyday shoulder bag to carry the body and maybe 2 lenses in, something small and light with easy on the go access. Sigma EX 70-200mm lens. This would complete my current requirements, a nice handy mid focal length zoom for action and portraits.

there you have it, my current kit.

And here it all is tidy in my bag.

Woo hoo!

2009-08-09T09:54:00.003+01:00

Ok since drafting that last post I managed to bag a deal! Whilst out and about with baby and wife I passed by Jessops and did a bit of window shopping, I noticed some Canon L series lenses so decided to take a better look. Next the L lenses I saw the Sigma 24-70mm EX DG Macro (not the HSM). This usually retails for around 400 new, and used off eBay for about 300ish.

Jessops had it on offer for just over 200, excellent I thought. So it seems to be quite good for the money. I'm going to try and take some test photos today and post them up.

Lenses

2009-08-04T22:34:00.007+01:00

It's been a while since I updated this blog. I became a dad a couple of months ago so haven't really had the time to work on it.

Anyway, I've been thinking of upgrading my kit lens recently and this got me thinking all sorts of things. Initially I was going replace my 18-55 canon kit lens with another canon kit lens, 17-85 IS USM. However, after looking around at prices for a couple of weeks I've noticed that these are going used for about the same as they new or not far off anyway. If I pay a little more I can get my hands on Canon's L series lenses.

I then wondered how Canon L series lenses compared to third party lenses like the Sigma EX series lenses. The Canon L series are usually double the price of the equivalent Sigma lenses, but are they that much better?

Well after some more research I've come to the conclusion that besides the weather sealing of the Canon lenses there's not much between them, not enough for 'most' people to warrant the extra cost. Of course if you are a 'pixel peeper' you may notice the difference, but in the real world these differences are hardly noticeable. Another reason why you may want to pay more for the L series lenses is if you want to blow up your images to A2 or larger, especially for commercial purposes, advertising media, billboard etc. If the latter being the case then you would more than make up for the cost of the lens with a good commission or two.

Another important factor to bear in mind is that people get caught up with the latest DSLR body and forget about lenses. Essentially if there's anything you should be upgrading in your kit bag is glass. You lenses will stick with you for as long you like, while you camera body will probably be updated several times. So in light of this it's worth spending that little bit extra for good quality glass. This leads on to SLR systems; once you start purchasing quality glass you have bought into a system. For example if you purchase a canon body and lenses you can't fit Nikon lenses into them, and if you do decide to change your SLR body to a different brand then you need to be prepared to change all your lenses too.

So what have I been rattling on about:

I want to upgrade my lenses
I'm questioning my lens choices:
how does Canon L glass to Sigma EX glass?
is the difference worth it for me?

Redditch Palace Theatre & Town Hall

2009-05-20T07:57:00.012+01:00

I thought I'd take my new lens for quick walk last night and see what I could find in Redditch town centre....

"The Palace Theatre first opened its doors in August, 1913, a comparative latecomer in the wave of new theatre building in which public demand for entertainment had been finding expression since the beginning of the century.

Described as a miniature opera house of classic design and seating, at that time, 660 it boasted every modern facility of the day. Mr H K Hayles was the managing director of the company, the Redditch Palace Ltd and it appears that the cost of building the theatre (which was cited as £9,000) may have been raised by private subscription.

The Palace Theatre used to be a Cine-Variety house which meant that it combined films and variety entertainment on the bill. Until 1929, The Palace ran a mixed bill of fare, but in February of that year, it was being advertised as Palace Super Cinema in April 1930 a Western Electric Sound System was installed and ticket prices were raised to 6d (Pit) and 1/-(circle), due to the cost of installing the new Talkie apparatus.

In 1939, at the beginning of the war the Palace closed in common with places of entertainment elsewhere, but by 1940, was fully in operation with the usual entertainments.

In the late 1940's, films took a back seat at the Palace. Jack Leuty took over the management of the building and ran a series of theatrical entertainments; this lasted until 1952, when new management took over under Mr S G Williams.

By 1954 the lack of artists, good touring shows , rising costs, coupled with the start of transmission of BBC television from Sutton Coldfield and the ease of purchase of sets, all conspired against the independent theatre operator, so much so that on the 19th March 1954 the Indicator ran a report 'Can the Palace be kept open?'

In May 1954 came the shock announcement "Palace to Close Down" ran the headline. Councillor J R Wilkinson, the owner stating to the Indicator - "The town has lost interest, I cannot afford to stay open"

The Palace was to re-open on 21st February 1955, as a Roller Skating Rink , the raked floor had gone the stage etc, all altered to suit this new form of public entertainment. By 1959, the Palace Theatre became a Dance Hall, from then it led a life in mixed use, including in the late 1960's being used as a Bingo Hall.

In 1967 the Development Corporation bought the Palace and handed it over to Redditch Urban District Council, it opened on September 11th 1971 with a show called Between the Bars featuring that master musician Donald Swann.

By 1970 the fate of the Palace was more or less settled. Multi-Entertainment Centres were now being thought of in other areas and with Redditch being a developing town it was decided to refit the Palace for theatrical use.

It was opened by Mr Peter Walker MP, the Secretary of State for the Environment, on the 11th September 1970, Still retaining the Palace name it became a multi purpose venue. Seats in the stalls were now stackable, allowing for many uses of the floor area. Other additions included moving the dressing rooms from the front of the building to the side taking over what had been part of Shrimptons Needle Factory and adding the present foyer extensions. Administration offices were created where the dressing rooms had previously been. In 1975 a Buy a Seat Campaign was launched and the stalls were fitted out with new seats.

In 1982 a private theatre group took it over under the title of the Mercian Theatre and Arts Federation but a report in the Indicator and Chronicle in April summed it up after only 60 people turned up to see a concert. Just five of them were from Redditch.
"The fate of the Redditch Palace is in the hands of the audience."

The Redditch Borough Council took over the management and running of the building in 1985 and since then has continued a tradition of providing a wide mix of entertainment to please every palate." [Text taken from Palace Theatre website]

I also took some shots of the Town Hall, it's not quite as historic as the palace theatre, but it looks fairly interesting anyway. I remember when I was a kid I used to think it was some kind of giant transformer and stared at it waiting for it to transform....

Wide Angle Lens

2009-05-18T22:33:00.005+01:00

Being a bit annoyed at times when shooting landscapes of not being able to get the proper composition I wanted I recently invested in a wide angle lens.

Up until a couple of weeks ago I made do with my wide angle kit lens, an 18-55mm to work on landscapes. However, on many occasions I found myself struggling to get a proper composition with enough foreground interest and sky.

I haven't yet made a leap to a full frame camera yet, so the actually readings on the lens, i.e. 18mm would have to be multiplied by the crop factor of my camera (x1.6 for Canon's). So 18mm is actually 28.8mm. Full frame sensor camera's are simply cameras in which the digital sensor that record the image are the same size as frame on a 35mm film camera.

I won't go into a technical review here as you can find plenty of those online. The particular lens I bought is a Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM. I did quite a bit of research before I chose this, and generally it came out top for price V performance, you'd be paying a couple of hundred more for something that's marginally better; for me this was more than fine.

So I've attached two photos below to compare the angle of view with my kit lens. I setup the shot using a tripod and camera set to manual mode, all I did between shots was simply change the lens:

18mm kit lens:

10-20mm Sigma @ 10mm:

My Idea on the BBC news!

2009-05-16T09:47:00.004+01:00

It's Saturday morning and I'm sat here watching the BBC breakfast news show. They've just had some guy on with his daughter about his photography project....

He's been taking photos of his daughter everyday since she was born. She's now 13 and has a record of her physical growth for her entire life.

For those of you who know me, you'll probably know that I've been going on about /planning my new baby project. I'll be a daddy soon and have been thinking about photographing my baby to keep a visual record of his/her development. However, I don't think I'll do it everyday, and I'm unsure what intervals to take the photos, every week, two weeks or every month?

High Dynamic Range (HDR)

2009-05-08T21:28:00.018+01:00

So you've probably heard me mention HDR and seen some rather strange looking photos where the light just doesn't look natural and wondered how it's done?

Well before I explain how, I'll explain why...

When we look at a scene our eyes and brain work together to process all the light, colours, tints, shadows etc. Our brains are like super computers able to adapt to and identify variations in different areas of a scene.

Imagine a room with a window (you're most likely in one now), now look towards the window (if it's day time) you should be able to see what's outside as well as what's inside the room. Now get your camera (phone, compact, SLR) and take a photo looking out towards the window. Unless it's a really dull, dark and gloomy day you're most likely going to either have one of two photos:

The room is exposed properly, but you can't really see what's outside as it's all blown highlights (i.e. all white)
You can see the view from the window, but everything inside the room looks really dark or black.

Your camera can't adapt to differences in one scene, it can only expose correctly for one part of the scene for any one photo. Our eyes are constantly adapting for every part of the scene, faster than it takes to think about.

This not a new technique by any means. In the 1850's Gustave Le Gray, a Frenchman famous for technical innovations in photography, produced some of the first exposure blended photos. He wanted to find a way of correctly exposing for both sky and sea in his seascapes and did so by taking the correctly exposed halves from each negative and combining them to produce one positive photo. The photo below was taken in 1857 and titled 'The Great Wave"

Gustave Le Gray (French, 1820–1884)
The Great Wave, Sète, 1857
Albumen silver print from glass negative; 33.7 x 41.4 cm (13 1/4 x 16 5/16 in.)

A more recent example of HDR can be found in the photo below. Without HDR I would've only be able to expose correctly for either the stain glass window or the details in the hall, not both at the same time.

This HDR effect can be applied to all sorts of similar situations, both indoors and outdoors, such as sunset/sunrise, landscapes where the difference between shadows and light areas is too great for cameras to capture correctly.

Clouds are another good application for HDR; often in photos they can appear slightly flat, and by this I mean that you can always make out the full texture and depth of the cloud from a normal photo. Have a look at my cloud photo one of my earlier posts, you can clearly make out the shadows, highlights which gives a real sense of texture and depth as well as drama. In that particular photo they seem slight more dramatic than usual, and that's because I had one very extreme highlight, the sun, which I had to expose for the best I could.

Now enough of the boring bit, here how you do it....

Essentially you need a camera that you can alter shutter speeds with, so that's either an SLR (digital or film) or a bridge camera. Some compacts may have this feature, but only a few.

for digital SLR only: set the camera in aperture priority mode and from the main menu set auto exposure bracketing to the widest settings available. Compose your photo and press the shutter button. You camera will take automatically 3 exposures, one with blown highlights (revealing detail in the shadows), a second that is underexposed (revealing detail in the highlights) and a third photo that does it's best to correctly expose for light and dark areas (essentially this is used for mid tones).
for digital/film SLR and bridge: as above, put the camera into aperture priority mode and compose your photo. At this point you need to figure out what exposure settings you'll need and if you're using a film SLR then you'll need to work this out from experience. On the other hand with a digital SLR or a bridge you can take some test shots at different shutter speeds to figure out which speeds to use for your three photos. Once you've figured this out take the photos and hey presto, put them onto your computer. For film SLR cameras this obviously means getting the films processed and scanned in to you computer.

A quick note before I finish up....
Sensitivity: You should try not to change the aperture between shots, as doing this will result in the focus being different in all three images (making it a mess). Keep it the same throughout. Another handy tip to bear in mind is to keep the ISO/ASA as low as possible. When exposing for shadows, you're increasing the noise in photo, the lower the ISO/ASA the lower noise levels.

OK so by now you should know a little bit more about what HDR is, but you only know half of the story when it comes to making a HDR photo...

I've talked about how to prepare for a HDR photo by taking multiple exposures, and now comes the slightly more difficult bit. Once you've uploaded your photos to your computer you need to merge them to create you actual HDR image, and for that you need some software. There are a number of tools currently available that help you achieve this:

Photoshop - this is probably the most popular image editing tool on the market, although it is quite overkill for most people and has a steep learning curve. If you're simply editing a few photos then it's not very cost effective (Elements or Lightroom is much better choice).
Photomatrix Pro - like photoshop this is probably the most common tool for HDR processing. Unlike Photoshop however, this tool is specifically built to process HDR photography, and you can't do much else with it.

There are a few other tools out there, but I've mentioned these as you're most likely to be able to find more support and tutorials for these titles online. There's one problem with HDR photography, initially it was designed to help balance and bring out the details in all areas of the image. However, if you Google the word "HDR" and browse the images you'll see some quite extreme examples of HDR. It's quite easy to get carried away with the settings and produce quite garish images. If you have the right photograph though, then a more extreme HDR setting may be quite fitting. It is a personal thing though and there are a lot of purists out there who simply don't like any kind of HDR treatment.

You can download a free trial version of Photoshop from the Adobe website and Photomatrix from this website:

http://www.hdrsoft.com/examples.html - link also shows what you can achieve with the software as well as user examples.

This page provides a list of resources for guides and tutorials:
http://www.hdrsoft.com/resources/index.html

Balls of Steel

2009-05-01T23:04:00.009+01:00

Fisheye!

Yes, that's what they call lenses which have an extremely wide focal length, below 10mm usually. They're as close as you can get to a 360 degree view from a single lens. Basically the front end of the lens is really bulbous (convex) and it shows in the photos you take. They're usually around 4mm and aren't cheap either.

The photos have plenty of distortion because of this extremely wide angle. Most photos taken with these lenses have large black border with a circular image in the middle, simply because the focal length is smaller than the size of the image sensor on the camera.

Anyway, I've found the next best thing. I found these balls I must have bought some years ago, the ones you massage into your palms for stress relief and noticed the extremely wide angle of view they produce and decided to have a play.

Buttercream Lightning

2009-04-29T22:31:00.002+01:00

Right OK, so last night (29 April) there we had a storm, quite a lot of thunder and lightning. However, I was busy putting the finishing touches to a couple of cakes I'd baked. I got quite excited watching lightning forks through the trees at the behind the garden through the kitchen window. By the time I got round to setting up the camera in the loft skylight the storm had passed.

Gutted.

Clouds, glorious clouds!

2009-04-25T17:16:00.009+01:00

I used to love watching clouds go by when I was kid; who didn't?

Just been stuck inside all day and looking out of my skylight only to see the wonderful fluffy cumulus clouds float past the sun, set off by a rich blue sky. I thought I'd keep this moment and shot 3 exposures which I then used for tone mapped HDR, which I keep meaning to explain. I will later, I promise. Anyway, the HDR in this photo really brings out the depth and texture of the clouds, I think without this treatment the photo would look a little flat.

Oh by the way, in case you haven't heard of the "Cloud Appreciation Society" the link is here:
http://cloudappreciationsociety.org/

Falcon in Birmingham

2009-04-25T14:29:00.008+01:00

So all week I've been hearing from people that the Falcon has been pretty active lately and has chicks now.

A couple of Peregrine Falcons have been nesting around Birmingham for a number of years now. A friend, (also an ex bird watcher) mentioned to me a couple of years ago that they nested on the Birmingham BT tower as it was so high. We used to work together on the 8th floor of our building and at time we'd catch them diving at the pigeons.

Anyway, it appears they also have a nest in the University of Birmingham's Chamberlin Clock Tower. Last night I finally had some time to get my camera out and try and get a shot or two. I saw it flying around and setup the camera and tripod. As soon as it was all setup, it was out of sight for the night and back safely in the Clock tower.

Anyway, I'll keep trying, but for now I'll leave you with a HDR (high dynamic range, more of this another day) of Aston Webb sunset (inc poppy) and a different angle of the clock tower:

Lakeside Round 2

2009-04-21T08:29:00.005+01:00

Went over to the lake agian last night, gave H the camera, she did pretty well considering she's never really taken photos before. We got a bit delayed so got there about an hour before sunset and managed to catch it just as it was setting.

I'm sure she was getting bored of it, but I was explaining crop sensors, lenses (wide/telephoto) and a little about composition.

Anyway, take a look at my Flickr gallery for the days shots.

Lakeside photos

2009-04-13T20:13:00.006+01:00

Went out to the lake on Sunday morning for a walk and managed to get a few shots of s0me ducks in flight; more of these in ny Flickr album.

It's so difficult getting the lens to focus on the someinthg moving so quickly. Maybe it would be easier getting some L glass; Canon's top of range L series of lenses with faster focussing and superior image quality. Thing is they're not cheap (at least a couple of grand) so generaly they're reserved for people who are serious about their photography or people who want to make a proper living out of it.

That's not saying that you can't make a living out of photography without an L series lens or lens of equal quality, it's just that they're built with better optics, mechanics and are usually more durable; ready for photographers shooting in extreme and demanding environments.

Why do I always have to pick expensive hobbies???

Compact Flash cards and Camera Buffer Canon 40D

2009-04-09T13:24:00.025+01:00

"Which compact flash card should I buy?"

"Is a faster compact flash card any better?"

These are some of the questions regularly asked on photography forums regarding compact flash (CF) cards and Digital SLR cameras. Although answers are varied, most generally come back with a definitive yes, followed with links to tables and charts.

The lost card
I've been looking at this for a while now, well since I lost one of my CF cards. I bought two 4GB Sandisk Extreme III cards last year at a stupidly low price of about £16 each (RRP ~£30-£40). I can't remember where from now though :o(

The question
My question is basically whether I need to spend more money on a fast CF card or can I make do with slower cheaper ones (still branded though).

Why do you need a fast card?
Thing is that I tend to do some action photography every now and then, wildlife (birds etc) and some sports. I tend to find that my buffer fills up and I have a wait a little while before I can take photos again. Confused?

What am I on about?
Ok let me explain a little. DSLR cameras use memory cards to save photos. However, between the time you press the shutter button and the photo being saved onto the memory card, it is stored (temporarily) on the camera's internal memory (buffer). The only problem is that the buffer on the camera is limited in size. So when this fills up the camera more less stops taking photos and waits for the photos to move from the buffer to the CF card. If you're shooting something that can't wait for this (can be upto a minute) then it can be a problem.

In my case I have a camera that can shoot at upto 6.5fps. If you're trying to take a photo of a bird in flight, a racing car whizzing past, or maybe taking photos at a footy match, you'll find that you might miss the action shot sometimes. Well the more photos you're able to take consecutively within a second the more likely you are to get that brilliant shot.

I've put together a quick diagram to explain it, probably not the best in the world, but hey if it works.

NB Before I go into the specifics of the test, I need to point out something, which most of you are probably aware of anyway but just in case.... Sandisk have among their range of CF cards two models named Extreme III and Extreme IV. At some point in their life cycle Sandisk upgraded the transfer speeds on the cards, so in essence there are two cards currently available in shops. The newer faster cards have 30MB/s and 45MB/s on the label, respectively.

Anyway.... The tests (and in no way was this controlled under lab conditions) which I conducted a couple of days ago.

The equipment:

Canon 40D + battery grip (flashed with the latest firmware as of April 2009).
Sigma 150mm macro lens

Settings

Shutter 1/8000,
Aperture f2.8,
ISO100,
drive in high burst mode.
I shot at a dark wall, the image was fairly black without an detail.
Focus was set to manual.

I timed it from when the 6.5fps burst mode had stopped to when the red light went out. I repeated this 3 times for each card and took an average.

Results:

Dane-Elec 2GB (??MB/s) = 52sec
Sandisk Extreme III 4GB (30MB/s) = 15sec
Lexar Premium 80X 2GB (12MB/s) = 17sec
Sandisk Extreme IV (45MB/s) = 30sec

What this basically shows is that the slower Lexar card transfers data at more less the same speed as my Sandisk. Of course this only applies to my camera, the Canon 40D.

I've just ordered two 4GB Kingston Elite Pro cards 133X (12MB/s) which I purchased for £8 each on clearance price, which I'll be testing when I get my hands on them.

So it seems like I don't really need to spend more on a card that doesn't make a difference.

EDIT
Ok so I've been thinking about why there's a difference in speed between faster cards, even though only slight. The only thing I can think of is the bus on the CF card. [Here's where I try and remember to my system architechture lectures from about 10years ago]. If the card can handle a throughput higher than the camera, then the camera will carry on sending the data while the cards bus keeps taking in and processing it.

For example if you have a thin pipe which then widens for a section before it connects to a tank. Water will carry on streaming into the wider section leaving while at the same time pouring into the tank. I'll investigate this further, but if there's anyone out there that can correct me or add more information then please do.

As you can see in the table above the Sandisk Extreme IV seems to be half the speed as th Extreme III, not really sure what's going on with that.

Flickr Gallery update

2009-04-08T21:58:00.002+01:00

Ok, so I've found a Flickr widget that lets me RSS my gallery for latest photos. Although I want it to randomly show my photos from my photo stream with a black background. Am I asking for too much? There doesn't seem to be any CSS for me to alter and I the html doesn't give me much to do either.

My Flickr Gallery

2009-04-08T20:38:00.002+01:00

Ok so I've been trying to figure out how to show my Flickr gallery on my blog. I tried a couple gadgets from the Blogger list, most of them didn't seem to work or were general links to Flickr, not my gallery.

So I've found this one, as you can see at the bottom of the page. It's not quite what I'm after, as all I want to do is stream my photo's along the bottom of the blog, and not show my whole account. If anyone out there know's how to do it, please let me know.

Here goes...

2009-04-08T20:30:00.002+01:00

Well it's Wednesday night and I've decided to create a blog for all things photography. I'm not exactly sure what I'll be posting here, but most likely photo's I've taken and general rants about my photography experiences.

Here goes....