G Dan Mitchell | Photography

Ferry Building. San Francisco, California. August 25, 2006. © Copyright G Dan Mitchell.

Believe it or not, but this photo was made during lunch hour on a weekday - a very busy time in San Francisco. I managed to catch an unusual lull in the pedestrian traffic; my other photos of this general scene include many people.
—–

G Dan Mitchell :: Aug.31.2006 :: Photographs: San Francisco :: Comments Off

Peninsula, Big Pine Creek Lake Four. Sierra Nevada Range. August 9, 2006. © Copyright G Dan Mitchell.

—–

G Dan Mitchell :: Aug.30.2006 :: Photographs: Sierra Nevada :: Comments Off

Wildflowers, Lake Six, Big Pine Creek. Sierra Nevada. August 11, 2006. © Copyright G Dan Mitchell.

—–

G Dan Mitchell :: Aug.29.2006 :: Photographs: Sierra Nevada :: Comments Off

Metal Doors, The Embarcadero. San Francisco, California. August 25, 2006. © Copyright G Dan Mitchell.

—–

G Dan Mitchell :: Aug.28.2006 :: Photographs: San Francisco :: Comments Off

Green Doors, Embarcadero Alley. San Francisco, California. August 25, 2006. © Copyright G Dan Mitchell.

—–

G Dan Mitchell :: Aug.27.2006 :: Photographs: San Francisco :: Comments Off

There is considerable gnashing of teeth in a Fred Miranda discussion thread about the new IS version of the excellent Canon 70-200mm f/4 lens. A number of writers think that the IS feature should be added on the cheap, and are outraged at the $1250 list price of the lens. Some are suggesting a (rather hopeless) boycott of the lens to force Canon to lower the price, and some feel that “L” lenses are no better than the $200 alternatives and that only fools would purchase L lenses.

I don’t think the pricing of the new lens should be much of a surprise. The more expensive f/2.8 version of this lens comes in IS and non-IS versions. At B&H you pay a $560 premium for the IS version.

B&H sells the old non-IS version of the f/4 lens for $585. Add the $560 premium for IS (based on the additional cost of that feature on the f/2.8 version) and you might predict a realistic cost for the new lens of about $1150.

It seems a bit overpriced at list, but if it drops $100 it should be right about where you would predict - and the price will drop after the lens is out for awhile. There is no reason to think that the price for adding IS to the 70-200 f/4 L would be much different than that for adding it to the f/2.8 lens.

While I can’t say that every L is better than every non-L (there are some excellent non-L lenses), there really is a difference in optical quality and build quality - and some of us find these differences to be significant.

I predict the following will happen once the whining dies down:

• Some people - impatient, or really needing it right now - will buy this lens at full list price as soon as it comes out.
• A bit later the price will drift downwards - as the price of new gear always does - and others will purchase it.
• Despite the proposal to boycott the lens (yeah, right… ;-) Canon will sell plenty of them over the next decade or so.
• The lens will end up with a reputation as one of Canon’s best, especially for those who value lighter weight, want to save a few hundred dollars over the f/2.8 IS, and/or don’t need f/2.8. *
• Some people will buy the less expensive non-L lenses and be quite happy with them.
• Others will buy a less expensive non-L lens, be happy with it for awhile, gradually discover the difference, and upgrade to a better lens.

* The non-IS version of this lens has a stellar reputation. It is said to be as sharp as (or sharper than) the excellent f/2.8 version of the lens - I know that mine is a great performer. In addition, it is smaller and lighter and considerably less expensive than the f/2.8.

Once the price softens I’m pretty certain that I’ll sell my non-IS 70-200 f/4 L and upgrade to the IS version.
—–

G Dan Mitchell :: Aug.26.2006 :: Commentary :: Comments Off

Oceanside Plants. August 24, 2006. © Copyright G Dan Mitchell.

—–

G Dan Mitchell :: Aug.26.2006 :: Photographs: Nature :: Comments Off

Pacific Ocean, Gulls. August 24, 2006. © Copyright G Dan Mitchell.

I photographed this minimalist seascape along the Pacific Ocean coastline south of San Francisco, California during the summer of 2006. One goal was to convey a sense of the space and distance in this scene, and the inclusion of the very small images of the gulls in the foreground was part of this. (You can find related images in my Gallery, particularly in the California Coast and Natural World sections.)

Many related photographs may be found in the landscape (see the California Coast section) and wildlife sections of my photography gallery.

G Dan Mitchell :: Aug.25.2006 :: Photographs: Nature, Photographs: Ocean :: Comments Off

Barbed Wire Fence, Clouds. Calero Hills, California. August 23, 2006. © Copyright G Dan Mitchell.

—–

G Dan Mitchell :: Aug.24.2006 :: Photographs: Central California :: Comments Off

(With Photokina coming up and the new product rumor mill kicking into high gear, I posted something similar to the following in an online forum yesterday.)

Today I was pondering Canon cameras and how the different models fit into Canon’s overall line-up. I wonder if Canon might be heading towards something like the following:

• A 400D (or 370XTi, or whatever it might be called) is introduced. More buyers consider it instead of the 30D since image quality is arguably as good or better, it increases the MP count to 10+, it has some cool new features such as dust removal, larger LCD, etc. Maybe the 30D gets lost in the shuffle.
• But that’s OK. At some point Canon lowers the price of their low-end 12 MP full-frame camera (the 5D or something similar that follows) to a point only a few hundred dollars above the price of the 30D (perhaps $1500-$1800)… and the 30D then goes away. In other words, Canon moves the portion of the market that was interested in the crop sensor 30D “up” to a FF sensor camera at a price point not too far above that of the 30D. (How many 20D/30D owners would consider an upgrade to a 12 MP FF camera under these circumstances? Quite a few, I think. And those who wouldn’t? They would continue to be happy with their 20D/30D, or maybe even think about the 400D.)
• A new FF camera is eventually introduced at a price point midway between the re-priced 5D and the 1-series cameras - in a sense it takes the place of the current 5D. Perhaps it has a 16 MP sensor and a few other desirable features not in the 5D, such as a high frame rate for action/sport photography, etc.
• At some point the 1-series cameras merge into a single new body with the same pixel density as the 8.2 MP cameras, but on a full frame sensor - thus providing something like a 22 MP sensor.

Another thought… people have pointed out that the pixel density on a 22 MP full-frame sensor is about the same as that on an 8.2 MP 1.6x crop sensor. However, if Canon and others can now put 10+ MP on the 1.6x crop sensor, shouldn’t it be possible to create a full-frame sensor with the same pixel density that provides about 26-27 MP?

And one more… perhaps the current 350D sticks around as the new low-end DSLR, at a reduced price?

Just today I saw that Dell is selling the 5D for less than $2500. Hmmm…

Just for fun, here is a totally speculative before and after view of the market segments.

All of this - in the nutty spirit of the “rumor thread” where I posted it - is totally wild conjecture and has no basis in actual fact whatsoever. But what the heck, its fun to speculate, too… ;-)
—–

G Dan Mitchell :: Aug.23.2006 :: Commentary :: Comments Off