Blooming heck!

$300 just to get the possibility of a decent night sky photo! That's if I kept on using the existing Canon stuff.

Now the main reason I don't use my Canon kit is due to bulk and weight. It's also not quite as flexible as I'd like. When I do use it, the bulk of carrying two lenses plus a body, all of which needs to be carried in a backpack doesn't lend itself to ease of use.

Since 2005 when I bought my cameras, technology has marched forward. ISO values have risen, image quality has improved and image sizes have exploded. Camera sizes have shrunk and new features have been introduced.

Is it all worth selling my existing sytstem for? Well, I think I'd get probably enough to get a micro four thirds system secondhand and with similar focal length lenses. I'd get a system small enough to carry in vest pockets that wouldn't need a camera bag. That's always worthwhile!

The big bonus is that even if the existing 14-42 lens wasn't quite fast enough, a better lens is not $300 but less than $200! Now that gives rise to an interesting third option. To get a mirrorless camera and an appropriate lens to use to evaluate which way to go. Actually, I tend to prefer the security of that option. For less than the cost of a Canon lens I could get a micro four thirds camera and a lens!

In terms of cost, mirrorless bodies have plummeted in value to such an extent that they're pretty cheap. It really is a very interesting time.

Yesterday I mentioned checking eBay to see about selling my Canon stuff. I looked and they go for way less than even a dealer would pay! My experience of eBay is that it's a place of last resort. If you absolutely cannot sell anywhere else and you can get a free listing on eBay, it might sell. Got to be careful about their deceitful postage though as the post office charges more than eBay claims and eBay won't allow you to charge the correct postage.

Clearly, whichever way I go, I'm going to have to put out extra money. That's not going to happen. It thus looks very much as though nice night sky photos will have to remain a dream. It also looks like I'm stuck with Canon as the cameras are totally unsalable. And, of course, I never use them.

posted from Bloggeroid

Depressing reading

Today I checked to see what my remaining camera gear is worth using the online price estimator from KEH. It made for some very depressing reading. Basically the cameras have plummeted so much in value from new that they're now barely worth the gas to take them to the store to sell. The lenses are worth a tiny fraction of what I paid. All combined, if I sold it all then I wouldn't even be able to afford a new camera.

I can see exactly why camera companies are struggling. They're selling flashy trash that costs thousands of dollars that after a couple of years is utterly valueless. People are sick of the technology scam. Now that many phone companies are unbundling their overpriced smartphones from their phone service, people are upgrading smartphones less often.

All this reminded me of a conversation I had with a friend who's in Canada - apparently now that planning laws have changed, people are applying to build houses with no connection to the electrical grid. It seems we have an appreciable proportion of the population that rejects the overabundance of electrical gizmos.

In terms of where do I go from here, this leaves me with a quandary. Do I abandon my desire to do night sky photos? Do I buy a lens and pray that it works just right. Do I buy a camera with super high iso that'll make my existing lenses work better? Do I sell it all and turn my back on cameras and stick with my phone camera? Do I keep on holding onto the remains of a DSLR setup that's still plummeting in price and holds dubious memories? Do I sell everything and buy the mirrorless system I think might be right for me? Whichever way I go, it just doesn't look that satisfactory. Then there's my desire to do wonderful colorful fall vegetation photos - what about those?

I am reminded of what a nymphomaniac, chain-smoking, hard-drinking lecherous bank manager once told me. She listened to me talk about my photography business and commented that I seemed to have no passion for the business and that I should just get out of it. That made sense and after probably a further 8 months of trying to sell snow to the Eskimos, I closed the business.

People love my photos but they don't love to part with money for them. I'm going to say that is probably partly or mostly due to the collapse of the economy and its effect on luxuries. Despite all the claims to the contrary, the economy is not improving. Indeed only the other day it was revealed 43% of Americans pay no tax. This is because they earn less than the $10,000 needed in order to pay tax. That's not a healthy economy nor a recovering economy!

Thinking more on the camera stuff, perhaps the solution now I know how much it'd get from a dealer would be to try selling via eBay even though I despise their charges. Worst case scenario, it goes for less than it'd sell for to a dealer so I tell them no dice, get a bad rating and sell to a dealer. Might be worth even setting up a new eBay account to sell it all!

posted from Bloggeroid

Vela 1 - ripoff, scam or genuine?

Over the past year or so I've been following with interest the progress of something called the Vela 1. It is apparently a microflash that uses LED lighting to produce a flash way shorter than is possible with air gap flashes. The writeup is impressive. Flash duration of 1/2,000,000th of a second.

I wrote about the possibility of an LED microflash in my books on high speed photography, some years ago. For several years we've had led flashes on cellphones. Indeed, way before that, my 35mm compact had an LED anti redeye feature. My suggestion at the time was very much poo-poohed by people on Flickr groups whose imagination seemed severely limited. Indeed, two or three decided to harass me after that and one at least keeps writing negative reviews on my books out of sheer spite and malice. I gave up on the reviews - they don't hurt sales any because nobody reads reviews.

It certainly looks impressive. Running off 4 AA batteries and using by the look of it, 9 cree LEDs. Apparently the flash has lots of different modes - talk about going overboard on complexity with a debut product! I'll be amazed if half of the features actually work. Personally, I'd have produced a simpler product cheaper and probably produced a DIY kit form also.

Looking at it, what would make sense is for the batteries to charge a mylar capacitor then discharge through the LEDs. Now, there was mention that they'd figured out they could put 20 times the voltage through the capacitor since it was powered solely for 1\2,000,000th of a second each time. That would definitely work. Given a strobe session from the flash, the LEDs would burn out quickly. Given normal usage of one flash every few minutes as in a normal high speed photography session and it should work. The over voltage will burn the LEDs out over time. I don't envisage this unit lasting more than a few hundred flashes.

The sample photo is plausible. It looks to be a grape shot with a BB. Given that the BB was fired under UK law where airguns have a maximum power of 300fps, its not impressive. The BB probably fell to the ground a few inches later. As an example, the pellet in the photo below was fired at 500fps and went through the first crayon but the second stopped it. The third remained unbroken. I just got lucky with the timing on the photo.

The point is that the BB in the grape photo, by the time it was photographed would have been slow enough that a pretty slow flash could have taken it. Indeed for those that understand high speed photography, it's not impressive.

Looking at the specifications, I wasn't far off when I mentioned Cree LEDs. The specifications say Cob LEDs.


Looking at the information given there really hasn't been much development put into this unit. It has the air of something cobbled together after browsing a parts catalogue and put together on a kitchen worktop while somebody else is cooking.

In terms of cost, the 9 Cob LEDs cost about $5 each on eBay. That's $45. Then the rest of the circuitry can't bring the cost to more than $90. The plastic bits probably come from china and cost maybe $1. Assembly is probably also in china. Grand total $100. Yet look at the price they're charging!

That's right - over $800 for a flash unit of extremely limited appeal. There's no R&D cost to recoup as they had that upfront with their crowdfunding. I really cannot believe there's no scam involved here.

Everything looks plausible. It's so similar to the solar roadway project. It all looks sound and plausible and prototypes exist. It's one of those things that you really want to believe in buyt which while half of you screams I believe, the other half is screaming this is bullshit!

What I expect is happening is this... The guy behind it came up with the idea and had a friend who reckoned could sell the idea as crowdfunding. This was probably dreamed up over a pint in the pub. A prototype was cobbled together on the kitchen countertop over a couple of hours. The crowdfunding campaign was started. People bit and threw money in.

Then they had a problem - they had to produce a product. So, they arranged to do a brief production run of 500 units. They already had their pocket money from crowdfunding. Being smart they retail priced the product at a stupid price. Some will pay it.

After the product goes on sale, the design is sold to a Chinese company that makes it at a fraction of the price. As soon as the final production units are sold or people start to return units due to burned out LEDs the company mysteriously goes bust because of Chinese undercutting. The best drinking duo go their way with a couple of million apiece. Not bad for a quick scam and 100% legal though rather immoral.

Now I think this Vela 1 Flash is a bit of a scam. I could be wrong though. Only time will tell. I really want to see a working, budget model. If i could be bothered, I'd look up how to build a single pulse led flash and build one. Truth is, my passion for high speed photography was quenched a while back.

Costing a system

As I've been saying for many moons, I'd love to have a smaller, lighter, more versatile system. Getting there though is somewhat fraught.

Many moons ago, I allowed myself to be swayed in my opinion about the laughable worth of photography as a business. There really was no dissuading the other party and to keep the peace I allowed myself to be swept along. Thus I ended up with way more camera gear than I needed or wanted. Casting my mind back, I had a load of stuff that I've since sold. Let's see. ..
8 umbrellas - four white, four black
4 light stands with attachments for flash and hotlight
4 hotlights with spare bulbs
A big background stand
Two backgrounds
An STE2 flash controller
2 canon 580EX2 flash units
A 420ex flash unit
A 430ex2 flash unit
A Tamron 28-75 lens
A Canon 50mm lens
A Canon 18-55 kit lens
A Kenko macro ring set
A Tamron 17-35
A Tamron 70-300
A battery grip for one camera

It was several thousand dollars worth of kit, brand new that barely had any use. Buying it did buy the peace temporarily until the inevitable reared its ugly head - that photography as a business is a suicidal business to be in.

Having sold all that lot at a massive loss, the relief of having sold it was instantaneous. The relief outweighed the financial loss. I was frustrated having to house stuff I didn't want and didn't need and honestly didn't want in the first place.

I am left with two very elderly camera bodies, two lenses and a very heavy tripod. Although the tripod is heavy, that really is the only way a tripod will be sturdy and vibration free. As far as what I'd get for

So, I know I can sell the last two bodies and lenses but would get hardly anything for the bodies. As that lot still takes darned good pictures I've been hanging onto it. Perhaps though, I should have sold it all at the same time?

I keep going on about smaller, lighter systems and don't really see any need for a backup camera any more. I have a cellphone that takes good photos. Should a camera fail, I have the cellphone as my backup!

Irregardless of how much I'd get for selling the last of my old system, I have been looking at how much a new system would cost. Never again will I buy new. I never bought new before and never will again. That Canon setup was an aberration of my principals.

One problem I can foresee is that a new system might be incompatible with my ailing macbook. I really do need either to replace it or get it fixed as its currently unusable. A new macbook is not truly in the budget however a cheap laptop with Linux installed instead of Windows is a distinct possibility. There are some very nice cheap Windows systems that use solely flash drives. The specification for a sub $200 laptop are really quite impressive!

As far as a camera goes, I think the Olympus/Panasonic micro four thirds mirrorless cameras offer quite a lot. Now I've already sung the praises of the Nikon 1 system but for night exposures, its really not quite there yet.

Thinking about the lens range I use, I use mostly 17 - 85 or in Canon terms, 27 - 136 with the occasional 70 - 300 (112 - 480). In my film days I generally preferred to use 28, 50, 135, 200 prime lenses. My philosophy was that a prime was lighter and of higher image quality. Indeed, having seen the mushy soft corners of my Tamron 17-35 at 17mm, I'm still of that opinion!

Just look at those corners! Enough said about that. That's why that lens was sold.

I have been interested in taking more and better night sky images. To do that I need to get a fast lens. My 17-85 is too slow. Thus I looked into getting a lens. The ideal candidate seems to be a Rokinon 14mm at $324 new or I have seen them for $250 secondhand. 14mm would be about 22mm. That's a fair chunk of change and would lock me further into a system I'd like to change out of.

Using solely one local secondhand dealers website, I see interesting things in the micro four thirds system. A good walk around lens such as the 17 - 85 would be a 14 - 42 at about $90. That would give the equivalent of 28 to 84. It's about the same on the wide end but a little shorter at the long end. A longer zoom from 45 - 200 would be $150. That would give the equivalent of 90 - 400 or a bit shorter than my existing long lens.

Looking at cameras, there are several micro four thirds cameras available at $80. They have faster high ISOs than my existing cameras by two stops, 50% more megapixels and the whole system equivalent to what I have now would be $320. It'd also mean I could sell my Canon camera bag!

In terms of primes, if I were to follow the primes route rather than the zoom route then I'd be looking at duplicating my 35mm system with lenses such as:
14mm $190
30mm $145
45mm $240

Clearly primes are more costly but having used zooms, I'm really not that keen on the mushy corners. Cost wise I couldn't really afford to switch to an all primes system straightaway. If I were to sell then I can say I'd probably get the
14 - 42 at $90
Ep1 at $80 - ISO max 6400

Or an epl3 with a 14-42 for $200 - ISO max 12,000ish
Or even an epl1 with 14-42 for $150

It's almost worth buying to test the waters before selling my Canon kit at that price!

Ages ago, back in the film days I started to build a system based on the Fed 2 camera on the basis the Fed could take Leica screw lenses. I'd become somewhat tired of SLRs and wanted something smaller and lighter. I'm looking at these mirrorless cameras as being pretty much the modern equivalent.

The downside of a mirrorless camera would be the LCD and viewing it in bright sunlight. The ep1 gets around that with an optional viewfinder (which might be hard to obtain). On the other hand, a cap or a hat would help with that. Another downside is the really sucky battery life. On the other hand there are plenty batteries available.

In some ways parting with a familiar camera feels like surrender but on the other hand, its a victory that allows me to move forward. I'm all in favor of smaller things - except paypackets!

The entire catalyst for change is my desire to take better sky photos. If I were to return to high speed photography then the smaller micro four thirds format should increase depth appreciably. I can see a lot of benefits to an upgrade.

In terms of image quality, I have heard that APSC has a slight edge over the Micro Four Thirds format. Does it have any practical or appreciable difference? None that I'm aware of.

Going back some years, I almost bought into the Olympus four thirds system. I'm sorry I didn't, now. The four thirds cameras were smaller and more practical. Indeed, I can see the Olympus e-500 for sale for $76 right now! It is, of course, too late to switch to four thirds when micro four thirds looks to be the future. Indeed, I'm not even sure that Olympus still makes four thirds cameras.

So, it looks like a change in camera systems is in the future. Maybe even a change in computer systems too.

Photography scam\spam\whatever

Today I received an email, purportedly from Google AdWords. That was pretty strange to be honest, given that I had not used AdWords in over 3 years. Look at the graph.

I last used AdWords when I was attempting to make photography into something more than the nickel and dime affair it truly is. Looking at the graph, the last time the account was used was in 2012. Indeed, 2012 was the year I dumped the domain name - when it was due for renewal.

The strange email said,:

     Customer ID: xxx-xxx-xxxx

     Hello,

     This is an important warning to tell you that your AdWords account is
at risk of being suspended due to violations of our advertising policies.
If suspended, your account will no longer run ads.

      Effect on your account

     Your AdWords accounts are at serious risk of suspension if your ads or
sites continue violating our advertising policies. Once your account is
suspended, your ads will no longer run, your related AdWords accounts will
be suspended, and you will not be able to open any new accounts.

     Read more about our suspension policies at
https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/answer/2375414.

     -- What you can do

     Here is what you will need to do to prevent your account from being
suspended:

      1. Make the necessary changes to your ads and sites that currently
violate our policies. We have listed some examples below.

      Please note that the following actions will not resolve the policy
violation: pausing ads, campaigns, or ad groups; deleting ads that promote
disabled sites.

      2. Resubmit your corrected ads and sites for us to review.

      3. Make sure that, going forward, all of your ads and sites comply
with our advertising policies: https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy.

     -- Policy violations to fix

     Here are some ads and/or sites that violate our policies. Please note
that this list is not exhaustive and serves only to illustrate some of the
policies that your ads and sites have violated.

     Sites:

      Date of violation: 2014-10-11
      Site: sagephotoworld.com
      Policy violation: Webmaster Guidelines violations
      Details & instructions:
https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/answer/6020954?hl=en#709


     If you believe there has been an error, we want to help. Find out how
to contact us by visiting: https://support.google.com/adwords/contact (you
will see our available support channels and hours listed there).

     Sincerely,
     The Google AdWords Team

     --------------
     Please do not reply directly to this message, as it was sent from a
notification-only email address that does not accept incoming email.
Instead, please use the contact link included above.

---------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from policy-related emails for the account associated with


Now how can a website cancelled in 2012 be in violation of any terms and conditions? Furthermore why has it taken AdWords from 2014-10-11 which I presume means September 10th, 2014 until today - September 12th 2015 to send an email?

Given that the email had the correct account number I can only assume Google has been hacked.

As far as AdWords is concerned, that was such a dismal failure that I never wanted another nickel on AdWords. As far as I can recall, the hits counted by AdWords for billing were greater than the hits Google's own analytics recorded on the website.

I haven't paid any heed to what domain names I've abandoned have been doing. There's just no point. As far as that AdWords account is concerned and AdWords in general, I couldn't care less if they fell under a fast moving train. Indeed, I might even give them a gentle shove to make sure they ended up under the train!