AWAIR photography provides accredited access to major sporting events. Images on this site may be licensed for News and Sports reporting. Marketing and other Commercial use can be included by arrangement.
Our principle service provides coverage for local and community news.
Who do you trust, on the internet...
I provide advice, in my blog entries, about cameras, lenses and photography. Elsewhere, I provide support for technology users. Why do I do it? What secret commissions do I earn? What do I have to gain, and should you trust me, or my advice?
Politics aside, this is not intended to be a philosophical discussion. When looking to buy a new product we all look for advice. Family, friends, and business contacts all provide an invaluable, and often face-to-face, opportunity to help us make the right decision.
However, if we read it on the internet, it must be true!
A story...
A long time ago, I was seeking to improve performance from a fairly new computer. Solid State Disks were new, rare, and expensive. They appeared to offer the solution I was looking for (slow transfer for large amounts of files).
I covered the entire internet, or so it seemed, looking for something beyond the raw numbers of performance. What were the questions not being asked or answered? Was there something I was missing?
I saw references to a specific brand of US-made SSD. Everything about it seemed to superlative. An "independent" site even provided glowing reviews, backed up with reams of data, complementary articles and other background information.
Because of the nature of this information provided by the independent source, I chose to trust their advice.
I bought the product ($700), and it promptly failed on me. The (first) replacement was well handled by the company, but it too failed within a few months. Eventually, they agreed to a refund - at their current price ($200), with a re-stocking fee on top!!!
Later review of the independence of the trusted source, seemed to reveal a closer business relationship than had been stated.
It appeared that it was nothing more than an expanded advertorial...
The moral - don't trust any single source on the internet. Keep asking "why"?
Why?
Like all of us, I am biased. Biased towards my own historical choices (right or wrong). Biased towards products and systems I used first. And biased in ways that I may not even notice.
I'm not trying to sell you anything, apart from my images. If I have a sponsored link, it will be clearly marked as such.
I do want to 'sell' you my enthusiasm for photography: "sharing the light".
I use Canon equipment: it's easier for me to provide support and examples based on what I use. I buy genuine Canon lenses, not because they are better (the price certainly suggests they should be), but because I've been 'burned' by incompatibility too many times before, both in photography and other areas of technology. Technology that 'just works' really excites me, and I'll continue own that theme, as time permits.
If any of this helps you, that's great. I don't need a tip or feedback, or thanks. Just remember there's always one more review to help you decide!
"It's much better to learn form the mistakes of others..."
Before I start/complete this series of articles, I will try to make sure the structure of the blog is more logical, and contains an option to read by tag or timeline.
Lens that I will discuss include the 135/2.0L, the 85/1.2L, 300/4.0L & 400/2.8L...
I've never really been in tune with the 'touchy, feely' side of expressing myself, or, to my detriment, of listening to the experiences of others. So I caught myself by surprise, when I realised that some of the articles and books I've been reading recently, have inspired me, not from the 'daring tales' of the action of the story, but more about the personal journey that an individual has taken.
I don't claim any special skill or background, or even achievement that merits this blog being a 'must read', but I hope that some will find little nuggets to appreciate on their own journey.
My initial articles concentrate on my discovery of photographic passion. Typically this is through stages of various hardware acquisition. Later I will discuss some of the tips, tricks & techniques that help me, along with a few of the traps where I've messed up.
One area that I have found sadly lacking, is the number of articles to help one move from Intermediate to Mastery of photography. Is this where it all becomes a 'trade secret', are we too ashamed of our 'keeper rate', or just too busy or not aware of the subtle nuances that make a better photographer?
My next series of articles will be about some of the lenses I own, and have owned, and on a purely biased basis, what I recommend, if your budget and shooting interest align with mine.
During my rather miserable experience with the 7D Mk II, I 'accidentally' bought my first 6D. This presented something of a quandary: where do I go from here?
As an upgrade, the 'natural succesor' to these two fine models was the 5D Mk III. Only I didn't see it that way. The 5D was similar in image quality to the 6D, but not really a match for the sport features of the 7D.
So during my travels, and appreciating that a Mark II was just around the corner, I snapped up a new (original Mark I) Canon EOS-1D X for a very reasonable price, bundled with an 'L' lens I had been ogling for many years.
During the (24-hour) decision-making period of, 'should I, shouldn't I', I had the opportunity to test the camera, in store and on the street, and found the results truly spectacular.
Here was a camera where one could appreciate the full-frame pixels, and, in minute detail, determine how to successfully capture the action. The camera essentially has the same auto-focus system as the 7D Mark II - but it works!
Less than a month after purchase, I had captured results at a Biathlon that would not have been achievable (at least by me) with any of my previous equipment.
As an 'epitath', at least to this story, the camera keeps getting better: some time in my first year of owning and using the 1DX, a ’version 2' firmware was released. This had a couple of seemingly insignificant new features, but made the camera even more flexible, with greater potential.
More on using the 1DX in a future article...
Purchasing the Canon EOS-7D Mark II was an absolute disaster. Not only did I lose over a thousand dollars, I wasted numerous unrepeatable opportunities for sports action, of my kids.
There's always another Olympics, a Super Bowl or World Cup. Some sporting icon will do something amazing, and be immortalised by a phenomenal, or lucky, photographer (or maybe it's a phenomenally lucky photog!)
When it comes to your own, there may not be another event, so missing, or messing up is not an option.
I've had great results over the years with my original 7D, and the only things (I found) lacking were the number of focussing points and the continuous shooting speed. High ISO performance was not in my 'field of vision' at this stage, but even so, the Mark II still had it.
The rumours, and the eventual announcement, of the Mark II confirmed that the 7D Mark II was everything I needed in a new camera. Theoretically.
I had tried, considered, and rejected the higher quality of a full-frame DSLR. The 'sportiness' advantage of the 7D outweighed the quality of full-frame.
Except when you can't achieve the focus, reliably...
Surely a pixel is a pixel. It's just one 'blob' of light, isn't it?
Well at least that was how I tried to convince a colleague of mine, many years ago. What I didn't realise was that his pixels were "bigger than mine".
This didn't really seem intuitive. There are, after all, so many of them. Does it really make a difference?
I was certain, in an obstinate, unendearing way, that my 18Mp (crop) camera should be as good as a similar vintage 18Mp full-frame model. Only I was completely wrong.
Over the past few years, I've rented the Canon EOS-5D Mark III, and owned the EOS-6D - twice.
The results have been remarkable. In good light my 7D would supply great images. I never had an inclination to pixel peep, the images always seemed sharp and crisp enough. However, in lower light situations (ISO 1600 or faster), the 7D seemed "barely adequate".
In contrast, the results from the 5DIII & the 6D, where used at the same event, produce results that are a marked improvement using exactly the same ISO, aperture & shutter speed.
Based on this experience, I would have to recommend the Canon EOS-6D as the perfect choice for an entry-level photographer.
My first digital SLR was the Canon EOS-20D and was purchased for speed: speed for camera start-up, speed to acquire focus, and speed for shutter release. I had owned SLRs before, but now the children were getting too inquisitive, and wanted to see the image on the back screen, even before the picture had been taken. The wonders of digital photography!
I kept this model for nearly 5 years before upgrading to the Canon EOS-7D. Again, "purely for the children"...
The 7D is a fantastic sports/action camera that has served me well over the course of at least 5-7 years, until rumours of the Mark II became too hard to resist. By the time that later model was launched I was convinced that this was the camera to meet (and exceed) all my expectations. I became an early launch customer...
... and what a mistake that turned out to be.
My first camera was a 110 cassette-style 'point and shoot': fixed everything, and a sub-standard (offset) viewfinder. It would take a couple of weeks after my last shot (and maybe months from the first) to realise that 'all those great images' I remembered taking, were not so great or I had somehow missed the moment, didn't have the light, or simply mis-framed.
I knew nothing of aperture, shutter speed or depth of field, nor did it really matter. I was lucky with the exposure on a couple of shots, but never really spent the time to investigate why. [See this link from Canon.]
Of course the internet hadn't even been dreamt of, and resources to research anything were scarce.
Around that period, I remember finding, in a trove of keepsakes from an earlier generation, a small micro camera which still had film inside. Once again, after the mystery of processing was complete, the illusion was shattered without a single memorable result.
However, my fascination for the better camera, to faithfully capture what I had seen was quickly becoming a source of enthusiasm.