Dennis Wood's page

Oh, for the memory

I started out with Compact Flash cards. I remember thinking how dramatic they were: all that storage in such a little card. Then I bought a camera which used Sony Memory Stick technology. That seemed smaller, even more amazing.

If there is a pre-eminent memory card technology out there these days, I'd have to say it's the new "SD" (Secure Digital) card. If you stroll around WalMart's photography section, 9/10th's of the memory sold there is of the SD variety. Postage stamp sized, you can buy up to 2 gigs of memory (maybe even more). My new camera uses this.

Then I had a voice recorder: it used "xd" memory---smaller yet.

But, just recently I succumbed to a pent up desire to own an MP-3 player. I "thought" it took SD memory, and could some of the same cards my camera uses. Wrong. Or right. Or, both.

It uses "micro SD" memory, another beast. Let the following pictures show the story:

That memory stick was an amazing thing: 8 times more capacious than the first compact flash memory card I had. Here's a dime for comparison.

And here's the new "SD card" for comparison to it; this one holds 1 GB of memory or roughly 30 times more bytes.






But, well, it gets more amazing: This particular SD card isn't really a memory card. It's an
"adapter"










Yep, that tiny baby is the new "micro SD" card, and it holds 2 gigs of memory. So, it can also be used in my camera, by placing it INSIDE the adapter (big old archaic thing), and then used in the camera. It's roughly 1/2 the thickness of the dime itself. Now if I can just not LOSE it.

Labels: for the memory, Oh

Followup "Field Report" on Lumix LX-2

This will be my first experience with what I might call a "high resolution" camera (above 5 megapixels). The rule of thumb is that you must have 4 times more pixels to create a noticeably sharper image. So, by rights, I should not notice much difference from the old 5 MP camera. In computer screen viewing, this is "almost" true. There is a sense of increased sharpness, but it's not much.

Truth comes in printing out images. Here, the differences are more obvious. For the first time, there is a "clarity," which I've not seen often in pictures taken other than from high-end SLR's with good lenses (and not even back in my film days with the only lenses I could afford!) So, A+ for image quality, at least when the camera is restricted to ISO 100. (so far no experiments with higher settings).

But, that aside, there is one thing which I would not have expected: the most important "unique" feature of this camera is the new "format," i.e. the 16:9 ratio. I thought it would be useful for landscapes; what I didn't expect is that virtually every picture I take is now with this ratio and with the lens set at maximal wide angle (28 mm equivalent). While most pictures are horizontal, a few are verticals (usually of trees) and the extra height makes a dramatic difference in the ability to capture almost all of a tree.

Experts will note that this ratio is NOT reflected in current photo printer paper sizing. I.e. some cropping will always occur (think of 4x6" photopaper, or even 8.5x11" paper) The 16:9 ratio is the "breadbox" or what I'd call "wide screen" look (think new HDTV's). I find that it prints out on one-half sheet of 8.5x11" paper without cropping: i.e. almost a perfect fit. (It makes me tempted to save my money for one of those widescreen LCD monitors: in another lifetime, perhaps, I could buy one of those gorgeous Apple cinema displays!) The stills also lend themselves particularly well to inclusion in video programs.

In other matters, the lack of an optical viewfinder is a real deficit. While you can "see to aim" in bright sunlight, you can't "compose" a scene. I'll investigate some eyepieces or shrouds, but I'm not optimistic. One fellow suggested the old black cloth slung over your head like you used to see Ansel Adams use! Other than looking like some kind of idiot or nerd using a head cloth for such a small camera, it doesn't sound like such a bad idea...

Ergonomics otherwise: the selectors to select among three formats are easy to use---I just don't end up using them very much. (I'm stuck on the 16:9 as above). The focus selector (on the left side of the lens) is "okay," but not great: you can select from auto focus, auto macro focus, or "manual" focus---and there is an on-screen indicator to tell you which. The manual focus is a great feature, though: it really does work, with a central screen magnification that is meaningful. Taking macro pictures works well: i.e. the results are good, but it's not easy. No camera with a fixed LCD viewer (no twist-body or flip out screen) camera makes it easy for you to focus on a flower 6" off the forest floor. You have to get onto your stomach, or "just aim in the general direction and hope for the best."

So far, I find exposure adjustments to be a bit tricky; you have to be sure you're in the right mode for the toggle to do what you wish it to do. This is not as difficult as going into a menu, but it's one step removed. Once/if you get into the right mode, the on-screen display is helpful. On the other hand, the newer cameras just do a better and better job on their auto-exposure mode.

Battery life appears to be quite good: no difficulty taking 100 pictures, with that bright screen blazing away, plus some time spent viewing those pictures. The battery indicator never budged from "full." I have an extra battery: don't know if I'll ever need it.

Start-up time is slower than I'd like, but in effect not a great hindrance. The screen turns on very quickly, and by the time you get your scene composed, the camera is ready for you. Those big 10 MP pictures take a couple of seconds to write to the card, though.

Optical Image Stabilization: never had this on a still camera before. Does it work? It's not obvious, one way or the other. I took one picture (wide angle) in dark forest conditions, and it wasn't sharp. (Camera shake at a too-slow shutter speed). Everything else has come out sharp. More later. I don't believe this is going to be a panacea for hand-holding long telephoto shots, though.

LUMIX LX-2 Camera:

I've now owned 6 digital cameras, starting with the amazing Nikon Coolpix 800 (then a whopping ONE megapixel)---it took some durned fine pictures, if you were willing to wait the 8 seconds it took to warm up. Then a Sony DSC-707, at 5 megapixels, a wake up call. Still, my favorite "big camera" (I've never owned a DSLR, so can't comment upon them). The Sony has a couple of very strong advantages: it has an internal LCD viewfinder (think of a camcorder instead of a still camera). With that you can preview your picture in the brightest sunlight, with ease, and "compose" your picture as per composition, exposure, etc. Try THAT with a DSLR! (You can't adjust exposure creatively before taking a picture with any DSLR; the LCD is not activated until after you've taken the picture, so you can't see your results BEFORE the shot). But, like all full-function cameras, the Sony is big. Which ends up meaning you don't take it with you every time you should.... (Who packs up their whole menagerie of equipment for every outing?) I'm a hiker. I left it behind. And missed some great shots.

So, while I love the big Sony, I wasn't carrying it with me enough.

Hence, the search for a good small camera. I've owned a Canon Powershot SD-200 (not a good camera), Canon A520 (Consumer Union rated it best among medium priced compact cameras), and a Sony W1---it's a great little camera: fast to start up, take a picture, and very compact with a big viewing screen on the back. Nothing wrong with either of these two cameras, except....

....hardly any creative control with any of them. As point-and-shoot cameras go, it'd be hard to fault either of the latter. I found I could "compose" a picture on the big Sony, but forget it with the average small digital camera. What I wanted was the equivalent of the old Leica rangefinder (okay, somewhat less expensive though...)---capable of first-rate shots, but not nearly as big as a digital SLR.

After many hours reviewing all the compact cameras out there, only one stood out as a camera with full control. That was the Panasonic Lumix LX2 (also available as a Leica Lux 2 for a few hundred dollars more).

I'm still learning the ropes with this camera which affords control of everything; most importantly, easy choices between spot, center-weighted, or zone/smart exposure, grid or spot focusing, manual focusing, plus offers optical image stabilization, and infinite exposure correction, plus a unique 16:9 format which provides a 28 mm (in 35mm equivalent terms) wide angle. In a 10-megapixel camera, you can even use the digital zoom with good results (don't try this with less than 5 megapixels!)--up to 16x.

Is it the perfect camera? Far from it. It lacks an optical viewfinder (now why did Panasonic do that?!) It's a bit slower starting up than the Sony (either of them). And it has a removable lens cap (instead of the little automatic doors some cameras provide) But those big wide pictures border on panoramic, and that manual focusing is a delight. Read the other reviews, though.... http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasoniclx2/It has a reputation for having a lot of noise unless you use their over-zealous noise reduction, then you lose detail. But I've used their ISO 1600 in night shots and it actually looks pretty good.

I'll have to post a follow-up after more experience with this camera. The size is a bit smaller than I'd hoped (tiny is GREAT for carrying, but a chore to handhold still). The weight is about right. 10 megapixel pictures are HUGE. You can tell they're big by the extra time it takes to load each one on your computer. The quality of construction seems quite good, if perhaps not quite as bulletproof as the Sony W1.

Stay tuned.

Here's one of the great photos from flickr... Follow the links below.

Another great photography site:

Flickr.com is another one of those sites that inspires you to take out your camera and start taking pictures again. It's run by Yahoo, and as far as I can see at first blush, it's totally free.

Of course, it makes you want to buy a new camera.... That wouldn't be free.

But, if it gets the camera off the shelf, then it's a good thing, right?

Follow the link above and enjoy some gorgeous pictures.

DVD MAKER:

I've tried about three different ways to make DVD's from my favorite programs recorded on my TiVo box. Two involved hooking up the Tivo to my computer using an analog-to-digital converter (reviewed previously). This works. But let me review the process:

1) hook up the devices
2) turn on the computer
3) get into Adobe Premier
4) turn on the input recorder
5) record the program as an .avi file
6) edit the program (which IS nice; you can completely remove the commercials, etc)
7) conver the program, as edited, into an .mpg file
8) exit Adobe Premier; enter Adobe Encore
9) assemble the movie, titles, menus, etc
10) record the DVD

If all has gone well, you have the program on a DVD.

OR, hook up your new Philips HDD-DVD recorder.

The FIRST time I look at the program on Tivo, I have the Philips recorder running. Any time I come to a commercial, I zap through it rapidly, and continue watching. At the end, I make an executive decision: a) save this program, or b) discard it.

If I elect to save it, it's saved on the Philips' hard drive.

Insert a DVD into the Philips machine.

Push a button to record the program onto DVD.

Done.

It takes about 10 minutes......as compared to 6-8 hours the old way. Albeit, I have little bits of rapid-forwarded-through commercials, and no fancy title or menu system---but it plays on any DVD and the quality is great.

Now, YOU choose!

Satellite Internet re-visited:

I'm off of Verizon Broadband, sadly, because it's so EASY! Setting up the satellite dish was just as hard this time as it was the first time---I'm thinking that there are better tripods around than mine. Find a way to level mine up is frustrating. Then getting a good signal and getting the dreaded skew correct takes up even more time. Not everybody has it this hard. I don't know "why me?!"

Another difficulty is high winds. While my arrangement, anchored with two screw-into-the-ground tethers, plus a pile of heavy rocks, is about as steady as I can imagine, the wind still shakes the dish fairly mercilessly. A big dish, in a 30 mph wind, and something will shake.

I'm ordering a device which "may" make dish aiming easier. A follow-up will be provided for anybody interested.

DirecWay Satellite Internet:

On one hand I can hold Verizon's Broadband Access card---it's the size of a cigarette pack or smaller---which does everything that two-way satellite internet can do.... Except you have to be in the "right spot," which loosely defined means in a good Verizon digital service area. For "high speed" you really have to be in one of the 50-100 broadband access cities. If you are, you're in gravy.

Or, for the same money per month, you can go with DirecWay. But, you have to shell out some extra monies to get up and running. For a mobile installation, think about $800. I wish I could say the initial installation was easy, but it wasn't. However, I'm assured that with each subsequent installation, the process gets more polished, and hence quicker.

Comparing the two, I'd say that the satellite "two second delay" is quite obvious, but otherwise the speed seems similar. Anybody who's interested in two-way satellite, I'll be glad to provide whatever hands-on information I can... Email me.