<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Christopher Peterson &#187; Equipment</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.christopherpeterson.com/category/equipment/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.christopherpeterson.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Mar 2011 19:35:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Nikon&#8217;s Flash Photography System Versus Canon&#8217;s Awful Flash System</title>
		<link>http://www.christopherpeterson.com/2009/09/17/nikons-flash-photography-system-versus-canons-awful-flash-system/</link>
		<comments>http://www.christopherpeterson.com/2009/09/17/nikons-flash-photography-system-versus-canons-awful-flash-system/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:59:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Equipment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[flash photography system]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nikon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.christopherpeterson.com/?p=1990</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Shooting celebrities, particularly at night, requires flash photography when a long lens is out of the question. The difference between Canon and Nikon&#8217;s flash photography systems is huge. Canon&#8217;s sucks and Nikon&#8217;s is pretty damn good. Even when you try to outsmart Canon&#8217;s algorithms, Canon one-ups you and screws your shot regardless of your maniacal [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Shooting celebrities, particularly at night, requires flash photography when a long lens is out of the question. The difference between Canon and Nikon&#8217;s flash photography systems is huge. Canon&#8217;s sucks and Nikon&#8217;s is pretty damn good. Even when you try to outsmart Canon&#8217;s algorithms, Canon one-ups you and screws your shot regardless of your maniacal attempts to get a decent exposure. There is nothing more frustrating that composing the perfect shot only to see your subject blown out or underexposed. Canon needs to spend some bucks and reinvent their flash photography system. </p>
<p>What&#8217;s the problem? The camera needs to guess the proper amount of light required to illuminate the subject, taking into account 1) existing light, 2) reflective properties of subjects within and out of the frame, and 3) figuring out how to separate the subject from the background. Granted it&#8217;s a complex assessment, but for christ&#8217;s sake, Canon, you now have the ability to analyze thousands of photographs with a subject dead center under every imaginable lighting condition, so why can&#8217;t you come up with a metering system that can produce a proper exposure? I mean, 99% of the time the camera is taking a picture of a PERSON who is wearing black, white, or some variation in between. </p>
<p>Here&#8217;s a glimpse of how Nikon solves the exposure problem:</p>
<blockquote><p>An automatic flash amount control apparatus of camera, which can avoid over-exposure of a subject to be controlled in flash amount even if the subject to be illuminated occupies only a small portion of photo-taking screen, executes photo-metering of a field to be photographed while dividing the field into a plurality of first metering regions without flashing of a flashing device and meters an optical flux emitted by the flashing device and then reflected by the field to be photographed while dividing the flux into a plurality of second metering regions. The apparatus separates the second metering regions into two groups, one of which is to contribute to and the other of which is not to contribute to flash amount control, with correspondence to respective results of metering of the first metering regions. Upon flashing of the flashing device, an amount of flash of the flashing device is controlled according to results of metering of the second metering regions which have been determined to contribute to the flash amount control.</p></blockquote>
<p>How clever! Nikon first sends out an &#8220;optical flux&#8221; in order to get a read on the reflective properties of what&#8217;s in the picture, prioritizes what&#8217;s out there (person primary, background secondary), and thus determines, based on the reflective qualities and existing light on the subject, how much light to emit from the flash unit.</p>
<p>Either Canon has really poor algorithms for calculating the needed amount of light or they are not spending the money to fine tune their system.  Spend the money Canon. Your reputation is trash amongst professionals.</p>
<p>What makes Canon&#8217;s system even worse is the lousy cable that connects the camera to a bracket. The weight of the flash is just enough that over time it loosens the four tiny screws that hold the flash to the mounting bracket. Canon must know this. The result: contact failure that either causes the flash not to fire or bizarre output levels that destroy images.</p>
<p>Several people I know have had so many images ruined that they have bought Nikon for flash photography.  The only reason they don&#8217;t get rid of all their Canon crap is the loss they would suffer on resale value for long lenses&#8230; because lord knows Canon&#8217;s autofocus system sucks as well.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=AtIfAAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=nikon+flash+photography">Read the Nikon Patent</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.christopherpeterson.com/2009/09/17/nikons-flash-photography-system-versus-canons-awful-flash-system/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canon Panders to Paparazzi of the World</title>
		<link>http://www.christopherpeterson.com/2009/05/26/canon-panders-to-parazzi-of-the-world/</link>
		<comments>http://www.christopherpeterson.com/2009/05/26/canon-panders-to-parazzi-of-the-world/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 12:06:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Equipment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.christopherpeterson.com/?p=1870</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;m about to upgrade cameras. I&#8217;m trying to decide between the Canon 5D II or the Canon 1D Mark III. I hate buying old technology. The Digic IV processor in the 5D seems far superior to the Mark III&#8217;s Digic III. Yet the Mark III shoots 10 fps&#8230;even Canon touts this feature as the ideal [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m about to upgrade cameras. I&#8217;m trying to decide between the Canon 5D II or the Canon 1D Mark III. I hate buying old technology. The Digic IV processor in the 5D seems far superior to the Mark III&#8217;s Digic III. Yet the Mark III shoots 10 fps&#8230;even <a href="http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_EOS-1D_Mark_III_White_Paper.pdf">Canon touts</a> this feature as the ideal paparazzi camera!! Speed over quality. Miss the one frame that matters or go for quality.</p>
<blockquote><p>The dual processors make themselves known, too, in the burst performance of the EOS-1D Mark III. Large size JPEGs at compression level 8 (of 10) can be fired in barrages of 110 frames (at 10 frames per second with 10.1-megapixel files). RAW images can be shot in bursts of 30. Paparazzi of the world, your new camera has arrived.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.christopherpeterson.com/2009/05/26/canon-panders-to-parazzi-of-the-world/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

