The Final Blunder of Amateur Film

Now everyone has heard of 35mm film right? How about APS film? It was sold as Advantix by Kodak (I can't recall what the Fuji and Agfa called theirs) and came in a nifty little cartridge that was quite fool-proof to accidentally expose or otherwise screw up. In fact, the film's negatives were stored in the actual roll! While this would be annoying for a pro, it means that people's memories would be safely intact, forever. No longer would they accidentally scratch or crease a negative. Plus, it prevented some dumbass from accidentally cutting into the picture on your negative.

As you can see, the APS cartridge is slightly smaller than 35mm film.

At least someone that's reading this should remember seeing it in stores.

Why did it go away so quickly? Well, for one, it was smaller than 35mm, meaning less resolution. Secondly, it was more expensive. And thirdly, it wasn't intended for the professional market.

Ken Rockwell claims that APS film was a conspiracy to get rid of mom and pop film processors by the big film processors, and that it was also a ploy to sell less film to people for more money. While this may be true, the reality probably falls more into the middle ground. While the processing equipment was quite expensive [$500,000], the film incorporated complex mechanical systems which made it easy to process. All you had to do was set the processor and pop the film in. The rest would be taken care of by the machine.

One of the greatest points of this film is that exposure information was stored on the film in the form of a magnetic strip. Too bad this film was too small for the professional market because this is HUGELY helpful. Think of it like the EXIF data that is tagged onto digital photos.

What really sucked about this film though is that it was more expensive to buy and process. Although Canon and Nikon both made SLRs for APS film, few people bought them because the people that usually buy SLRs versus point and shoots didn't like the small film size and thus poorer quality of APS compared to 35mm film.

Although it had a slick, modern design, the EOS IX never caught on.

How could this have been done to win EVERYONE over? Well, let's start with the film size. It should have been the same as 35mm. Most pros back then only shot 35mm because of its convenience. When you had to do highly detailed shots you used medium format or large format. Going smaller automatically turned off the professional market to APS.

Next, they should've given people the option to get their film back inside the roll or cut and placed into negative sleeves. When I go through my negatives I'm usually looking for one specific photo out of 36. I don't want to be guessing with which roll may or may not have the photo I need.

Lastly, they should've made it as cheap or cheaper than 35mm film to process. And I mean it should've been at MOST $5 a roll. Nothing higher. Development costs is probably what really killed this film.

If the marketers of APS did these things, APS would've been much more fondly remembered by everyone. Sadly though, this was not the case and in the end, it's just a small blip in the history of film and [hopefully] the last film among a long line of small amateur film formats to thrown in the garbage by consumers.

Old Gear is Good Gear

One of the things that I don't really understand is why people get so hung up on having the newest version of everything. Computers I can understand. They age and the programs they run get more bloated requiring more and more processing power. Cameras, especially digital cameras, are different though.

Now, in the dark ages (early 2000s) of digital cameras, photographers needed to be on the bleeding edge of camera tech because every time Canon or Nikon released a new top of the line camera, the miniscule megapixel rating would double. These early digital cameras didn't do much except take -acceptable- pictures and even then, the quality wasn't all that great because blowing up a 2 MP image to 8x10 would produce noticeable pixelation. However, after the megapixel ratings went above 8 MP, things got quite different. For example, I have an EOS 1D Mark II that is rated at 8.2 MP. Now many people would think that this would be borderline unusable for making prints, however, I made a portrait of a friend and blew it up to 16x20 and I couldn't find a single pixel.

8 Megapixels doesn't seem so shabby after all now, does it?

Now you can have a Canon T6s, a consumer DSLR costing under $1000 for the kit, with a 24 MP CMOS sensor. This is freaking massive considering that you're cramming more pixels than the Canon 1D X has in it's full frame sensor into an APS-C sensor that's 1.6 times smaller.

Why do camera makers increase the resolution of the sensor? Marketing. Pure marketing. Pretend you don't know anything about digital cameras at all. You walk into Best Buy, go to the cameras, and take a look. You see 2 DSLRs. One is 24 MP and the other is 20 MP. The 24 MP camera is $200 more. Camera people would probably go with the 20 MP (assuming both cameras have the same features) model but if you don't know any better you might splurge and get a $200 more expensive camera.

In my opinion, camera makers should address the picture quality issues of the APS-C sensors while simultaneously ramping up the pixel count every so often. If you notice, APS-C sensors have a lot of trouble in low light with noise and usually have more drab colors compared to full frames. This is one of the reasons why people don't consider crop frame DSLRs to be "pro" cameras. I'd much rather have a 15 MP crop frame camera that takes gorgeous photos than a 24 MP camera that takes ok photos.

Regardless, one thing that the "megapixel wars" do is drive the costs of older gear down. And the good thing about old gear is that it is as functional and useful as the day it was created.

Living Standards

If any of you have watched The Nanny, you'll know that in one of the episodes, Fran says "I have grown accustomed to a certain standard of living and I am not prepared to go back." This is how I feel about Canon's infinitely useful EF 24-105mm f4 L IS USM lens. This is not your average camera lens. This is what people get when they need gear that can go anywhere and do anything. This is what you use when you need your gear to work for you, not the other way around.

Canon made this lens as an entry-level L series lens. If you've been using lesser quality lenses, this gives you a taste of what you've been missing out on. Being an "L" series lens, it comes with a leather bag, a hood, an o-ring around the camera mount, and fluorite front glass. It is also quite heavy with a metal body and contains ultra high quality glass. It is weather sealed, meaning that you can take it out in the rain and it won't be ruined. It is unique in that it is the only "L" lens to be part of a kit; it comes with the Canon EOS 5D Mk III. In fact, the one I got came in a white box with no markings from a guy who already had one.

The macro function is quite useful and the image stabilization works like a charm in low light settings. If I'm still enough, I can take a crisp photo at 1/10 shutter speed, something I'm rarely able to do with an non-IS lens. The only point off is the ergonomics, but trust me, you will get used to it quickly because it will be the only lens on your camera after you buy it.

After using this lens for a couple of jobs and lots of personal work, I can safely say that this lens is the greatest lens to have ever graced my pictures since my 50mm f1.8 (which I still use). It is dead sharp throughout the zoom range and has beautiful bokeh, even when stopped up.

Zoomed out to 105mm at f4 produces excellent bokeh in macro shots.

The greatest thing about this lens is its range. A 24-105mm zoom is perfect for most gigs, because it provides both a wide enough view for group shots while being able to zoom in on a bride walking up the isle.

I could go on forever about this lens, but you get the gist of what I'm saying. For the price, this lens is an awesome zoom that can be used for virtually any kind of shot.

My Thoughts on the 7D

It's been quite awhile since I've posted but I haven't been sitting idly. Over the past month I've purchased (at a great price), a Canon EOS 7D and a Canon 24-105mm f4L IS USM lens. Both pieces of equipment are excellently made. Today, I'll be reviewing just the 7D. Compared to my old T3i, the 7D feels like an actual tool, and the versatility of the 24-105 is unmatched by any lens in its price range.

So why would I purchase a digital camera when I specialize in film? Versatility. When I shoot a wedding, I take about 300 pictures depending on the length of the event. Due to changing lighting, experimental use of flash, and the need for 3200 ISO, it is impossible to use film. That's where a high quality digital camera comes into play.

My last digital camera, a Canon Rebel T3i, was -adequate- for weddings. The problem with this camera is that while the pictures from it look great at ISOs below 2400, anything above that looks like junk. In fact, a low light picture at 6400 ISO is unusable. If you keep it in shutter priority or aperture priority, the camera's brain can figure out what needs to be done to get a good picture. The program and auto functions are next to useless and can yield terrible results if you aren't paying attention to the settings, which, if you have the camera in program or auto, you probably aren't. Another point off the T3i is the camera's poor low light autofocus. Anything below moderate indoor lighting will stump the camera.

It's not that the camera was poorly designed. It's that it wasn't designed to make money. It's not a tool to base a business off of. It is designed and priced to be used by people that are new to DSLRs. In fact, the camera, by default, will tell you what each mode is and what it's for when you click the wheel to it. For example, if you put it onto Av, it tells you on the display that Av is for aperture priority.

The 7D is quite different. For one, it's bigger and heavier. Its frame is made out of magnesium rather than plastic. It also includes a HUGELY useful feature- the Quick Control dial. This dial serves multiple purposes: in manual mode, it controls the aperture, and in the various program modes, it controls over/under exposure. Another welcome change is that the camera takes CF cards rather than SD cards. This means that read and write times are faster and that in turn helps the camera achieve an impressive 8 FPS burst rate with a decently sized buffer (4 frames at 8 FPS and more than I've tried to take at 5 FPS).

Perhaps the biggest, most important feature that it has is that it has only one full auto setting. Just the green square. No Action, Landscape, or Portrait settings are available. Why? Because this camera is aimed at people who won't ever use those. Instead, Canon gives you three custom modes. The autofocus system is quite intelligent and it has many more autofocus points than the T3i. A feature that it keeps from the Rebel series though, is the on-camera flash. This is sadly absent on the 6D, 5D Mk III, and 1D. It is very convenient and yields great results when used as a fill flash.

I could go on about how wonderful the 7D is, but I'll end it here. To conclude, the 7D, now that it's been replaced by the 7D Mk II, is a perfect value for people that need more than a Rebel camera but less than a 5D.

Coming next, a review of the venerable and infinitely useful 24-105.