« [ WELCOME THE CANON EOS 40D ] | Main | [ REVIEW—MANFROTTO 055XPRO tripod ] »
September 20, 2007
[ 3 GADGETS & A DOODAD ]
RIGHT, YOU'VE BOUGHT THE DIGITAL CAMERA. That’s the good news. Just don’t put your credit card away – that’s the bad news.
After all, what is a camera without gadgets? Particularly a digital single lens reflex. You’ll need a tripod and they don’t come any better than the Manfrotto reviewed today, but for those of us not quite in the Ferrari customer class there are lesser tripods from Asian makers that will do the job. Just remember not to judge a tripod by its mass – open out its legs, crank up the centre column, put a camera on it and if it wobbles move on.
And with the tripod you need a remote release. Some cameras use infrared wireless remotes and some use wired connections and some use both. For Imaging’s Nikon D80 we chose the wired over the infrared because the wireless one has to be used by pointing it at the front of the camera where the receptor is located. The MC-DC1 wired remote costs about $50, depending on where you buy it.
Many digital SLRs are fitted with sensor auto-cleaning functions that reduce the dust problem, but there will be hard-to-shift dirt in the works from time to time. The dust settles on the low pass filter in front of the sensor and it is advisable not to attack it with a brush or wiper that touches the glass. Better to use a blower.
The crazy looking but aptly named Giotto’s Rocket is our blower of choice. The Rocket comes in three sizes and the large size – 190mm tall with a huge bulb -- is perfect for puffing the dust off the sensor filter. We got ours from Digital Camera Warehouse for $20 plus postage.
One of the first gadgets we bought for the Nikon is a circular polarising filter. Circular refers to the orientation of the polarising elements, not to the shape of the filter. It is important when buying a polariser for a digital camera to specify “circular” as the type. Digital sensors and film use different filters.
The polarising filter removes reflected glare. Its effect on the sky, for instance, is to render it a rich blue with clouds that stand out in strong relief. A polarising filter consists of two elements that are rotated in relation to each other, and you watch the effect in the viewfinder. Surface glare from water or shiny surfaces can be reduced, in effect changing the dynamic range of the sensor. The price of a polarising filter depends on the brand and the size.
We have just met the Camera Armour. This is a sort of thick rubber glove for a camera, designed to give it protection from drops and bumps. Camera Armour is made to fit specific models, including almost all Canon and Nikon DSLRs and the Sony Alpha and Fuji S5.
The armour fits snugly over the camera body but leaves all the essential buttons and covers accessible. It looks absurd but it feels surprisingly good in the hand. Anybody using a DSLR on a construction site might find Camera Armour a boon. (RRP $100)
We haven’t bought one yet, but if we are ever facing down charging bull elephants in Africa we will give it a try.
*
Posted by terry at September 20, 2007 08:22 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://bleedingedge.com.au/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1362
Comments
I have never understood why people pay $20 or so for branded products like Rocket Blowers when a simple plastic bottle with a nozzle available from any Supermarket or $2 shop for about $1 will do exactly the same job with the same degree of success.
Posted by: RichardR at September 21, 2007 01:27 PM
In relation to the above comment, the answer is the same as why one might buy a ferrari and not a skoda.
But to quote "in a fit of mad extravegance" I also now own an EOS 40D (I blame you entirely for those great images) and as you rightly point out the credit card has had no rest. First a tripod, now a Nodal Ninja and next, no doubt some of that body armour. If only the EOS 40D could make me a better photographer too :-)
Posted by: Peter at September 25, 2007 02:57 AM
G'Day Terry,
One glaring omission to your list of essential gadgets would have to be a UV or Skylight filter e.g. a Hoya HMC Skylight (1B) for each lens. Having one permanently attached each lens can save the front glass element from physical damage, which is cheap insurance. As well enhance your images by cutting down on excess UV light, which make the images too blue, particularly around coastal or mountain areas, where they can also help cut through haze. Unfortunately most compact digitals I've seen don't have a filter thread on the front of the lens, but all SLR lenses other than older Nikkor 500mm and 1000mm mirror lenses certainly do.
Regards,
Bob
Posted by: Bob at September 28, 2007 02:39 AM
Bob,
The points you raise about UV filters being both protection and enhancement seem to be endlessly debated on camera forums so for balance I will just raise some arguments that are in the negative.
Protection:
I once read that the only time a UV filter will provide protection to a lens is if a seagull flies directly into the lens (an unlikely situation I guess). The negative argument states that if you hit the front of the lens hard enough to break or damage the filter you will also break or damage the lens anyway. As far as scratch protection is concerned you will only scratch a lens element by putting it glass side down on concrete (in which case you deserve what you get) or possibly using the lens as a battering ram to force you way through the jungle. Minor scratches on the front element of lenses are often unnoticeable on printed images anyway.
Enhancement:
The negative argument goes along the lines of why do you think a $40 piece of glass will enhance the optical ability of a $5000 lens under normal circumstances? Other arguments are that a UV filter will only serve to loose one or two stops of light from the lens and that with digital photography most if not all of the benefits of a UV filter can be recreated in post processing.
I must admit to no longer being a person who uses a UV filter as a matter of course although I also do admit to having one fitted to every one of my old film SLR lenses for 20 years or so ago.
Posted by: RichardR at October 4, 2007 01:48 PM