Today I went to an RC jet airshow in Mesa with my friend Chris. I don’t have time to write much about it, but it was really cool. Most of the aircraft there are powered by an actual turbine. All the planes were multi-thousand dollar affairs. Below are some photos that I took in no particular order.

(Click to Enlarge)

(Click to Enlarge)

(Click to Enlarge)

(Click to Enlarge)

(Click to Enlarge)

(Click to Enlarge)

(Click to Enlarge)

(Click to Enlarge)

(Click to Enlarge)

(Click to Enlarge)

(Click to Enlarge)

(Click to Enlarge)

(Click to Enlarge)

(Click to Enlarge)

I’ve been working in Photoshop for most of the day making “glass” graphics like the one below…

I’m getting good, too. It only took me five minutes to make the heart below (and it’s not even Valentines Day).

Update: I probably should have saved the heart as a JPEG as I see some banding in it. Oh well.

The New York Times – David Pogue
The Wall Street Journal – Walt Mossberg
Newsweek – Steven Levy

Combining the reviews, battery life is very good, the software works as advertised, the keyboard is decent to good, the screen smudges but doesn’t scratch, and the consensus is that AT&T’s network sucks. You should read the reviews for the full skinny.

UPDATE: I’ve added a video from Walt Mossberg

UPDATE 6-27: Added a link to Steven Levy’s review in Newsweek.

In the comments section of my latest post, David Pogue asked if I had any specific critiques of his review or if I was just being “cranky”. Since he asked, I feel I owe him the courtesy of taking the time to write a short piece about the problems I had with his review.

The title “Digital S.L.R.’s That Let You Shoot Like a Pro” is misleading, but plays into how the demographic of low-cost Digital SLR cameras wants to see themselves. A more accurate title with less fluff would read, “Digital S.L.R.’s That Let You Look Like a Pro While Taking Photos”

Most owners of prosumer SLR’s that I’m familiar with are generally photography poseurs who like the attention and the “look” they project while using these cameras. It seems that most people buy these cameras for the attention so they can receive comments like, “Wow, what kind of camera is that?” or “You must be a really good photographer!” In fact, most people who buy these cameras don’t ever take them off “Program” mode and have no real understanding of photography.

If I’d written a review of low-cost SLR’s, I would first admonish people against buying one if they’re not serious about the science of photographs. My recommendation to most people (even your average amateur “photography nut”) who ask me about cameras is that they buy something other than an SLR; my recommendation at this point in time would be a nice Canon Powershot S5. It’s physically smaller than an SLR, has a nice general use zoom lens (36 – 432 mm equivalent), and will probably take better photos than an SLR set to “Program” mode.

To see if you’re ready to upgrade to an SLR, there are some basic questions to which you should know the answers. If you don’t know the answers and are not curious enough or inclined to know them before buying a new camera, then buy the S5.

1. What is Depth of Field?
2. What is Bokeh?
3. What is Film Speed (this is sort of a misnomer now since it now just means sensor sensitivity level)?
4. What are “F Stops” and what does that scale mean anyhow?
5. What is the correlation between shutter speed, aperture, focal length, and film speed?
6. What is Chromatic Aberration (better known as “why is there a purple outline around that”)?

When researching to buy a digital SLR (4 years ago), I didn’t know the answers to most of these. I bought a book on basic photography and read it. It was immensely helpful in my search for the right camera.

My biggest problem with David’s review is that like many consumers, he seems too focused (no pun intended) on features when more emphasis should be placed on objective quality, value, and versatility.

A feature on some cameras that he writes about in his review are the various sensor anti-dust mechanisms. It’s been shown that while they sound great in theory, they don’t work very well in practice. There is no replacement for being extremely careful when changing lenses. A speck of dust isn’t the end of the world anyway; you can just Photoshop it out with a single mouse-click (Spot Healing Brush, if you’re interested).

Image Stabilization in general is a great feature, but I don’t have any experience with in-camera systems (only in-lens with my 70-200 F2.8L IS). If Canon and Nikon are indeed correct that in-lens stabilization allows me to shoot 2-stops wider than in-camera systems, then that’s a huge difference. Two stops can mean the difference between getting the shot, and not getting the shot. But as David says, nobody has reached a consensus on that yet.

Features on the Sony like Eye Start AF and the meter in the viewfinder that tells you how likely you are to get a blurred photo are non-issues to serious amateur photographers. The Eye Start AF seems like a gimmick, and the information the meter supplies you with should be second nature if you’re experienced enough to be shooting in one of the manual modes. If you’re shooting in “Program” mode, I’m not sure how that information would matter since you wouldn’t know what to adjust to make the shot less blurry anyhow.

David writes that the resolution measurement of megapixels is unimportant (”It’s a shame the camera companies continue to flog this measurement as though it’s important…”). He reasons that higher megapixel sensors may add additional noise while only adding negligible sharpness to your photos. This is true if the camera you choose does have a higher noise level than a lower resolution competitor and you don’t intend to create large prints (over 8×10). If I’m making a 20×30 poster, which granted is next to nobody, I’m going to be happy I had those extra four megapixels. If you never intend on ever making a poster-sized print, then he’s right, it doesn’t matter. I would like to have the flexibility to make a poster though just in case I accidentally capture Sasquatch in the background while on vacation and want to crop into the photo and blow it up to 20×30. Memory cards are so cheap now; the file size issue is what’s unimportant.

Since there’s no mention of post-production on the topic of picture quality, I’m assuming that quality comparisons were done right out of the camera. Descriptions such as “washed out,” “muted,” “soft,” “glorious,” and “vivid” are all subjective words that mean many different things to different people. What one person may consider “washed out and muted”, another would consider “accurate.” Although it’s been proven that most people do not prefer “accurate” colors to punchy or “vivid” ones, I’d like my camera to capture “accurate” colors and allow me to punch them up if I choose. Bright and oversaturated are preferred by most people (which is the reason why TV’s in most stores are running at max contrast with increased color saturation). If you’re trying to take what people consider to be awesome pictures with your SLR, you’re going to need to do at least some post-production on them; which leads me to my next point:

One of the greatest advantages to using a digital SLR is the ability to shoot in RAW. When shooting in RAW format, the camera records the raw sensor information without applying any in-camera sharpening, exposure, or color balance. It makes note of what it thought those settings should be in the file. This allows you to make corrections (or adjustments for artistic purposes) after you’ve taken the photo. If you shoot in JPEG or TIFF mode, all of these “corrections” are already “applied” to the picture with no way to undo them. If the exposure or color was incorrectly sensed, it’s very difficult if not impossible to fix. It seems that David understands the benefits of RAW but discounts it as “potentially complicated” for amateurs. I like to refer to it as “potentially complicated for people who shouldn’t buy an SLR.”

We now arrive at the biggest problem of all with allowing or especially recommending that someone buy a camera brand other than Canon or Nikon. Lenses. The “kit” lenses on almost all of the reviewed cameras are generally considered to be “junk.” They’re just something to use when you first take the camera out of the box. If you’re serious about photography, you’re eventually going to need (and want) more lenses. Your lens money is most safely invested in Nikon or Canon brand lenses. If you buy good “glass”, your money will be safe for 5-10 years. My own aversion to buying Sony lenses lies in my distrust that they will support the format long-term. Historically, Sony has had no problem with abandoning formats. I just don’t trust that they’re not going to abruptly change their lens mount, or abandon development of a digital SLR altogether. I can always count on Nikon or Canon to have at least one good camera in production at any given time. Sony, Olympus, and Pentax may not even make a good camera in 3 years time. This would severely limit your camera choice when it comes time to upgrade bodies (unless you want to scrap your lens collection). Nobody else has the same record of consistently making great cameras and lenses that Canon and Nikon have. I have $5,000 in Canon lenses that I bought 4 years ago and they’re all still considered the best lenses for Canon bodies.

So there you have it. My advice is: if you don’t want to learn a lot about the details of photography, don’t want to buy the lenses you’ll need to take great pictures, and don’t want to learn the basics of Photoshop; don’t buy any of the cameras in David’s review. Buy the Canon Powershot S5.

In Greek mythology, Pandora was name of the first mortal woman. Entrusted with a mysterious box, she was commanded not to open it. Unbeknownst to her, it contained all of the ills that could plague mankind. Being a mortal, her curiosity got the best of her and she opened the box, inadvertently releasing all the evils contained inside.

I’m going to assume that Pandora named their company after the literal meaning of the Greek word, which is “All gifts”. That makes at least some sense to me. The mythology thing? Not so much.

For the life of me, I’m unable to come up with a definitive origin for the word SONOS. What’s probably a completely inaccurate origin is an obscure Frank Zappa reference that I found relating to Sardinian music. What’s more likely is that it’s an informal reference to, or a take-off of the word sonogram. That’s at least a reference to sound waves of some sort. Even without a well-known meaning, it’s still a cool name. As I mentioned before, it’s not only a palindrome, but it reads the same upside-down as rightside-up.

The reason I’m writing about this is because the two companies with the above mentioned names have produced something cool and new. I was able to review this with an preview of their new software update. Soon SONOS will roll out the updated software (V2.2 for those to whom it matters) to everyone. The update includes native support for music from Pandora.

To be honest, I’ve ignored the hype about Pandora up until now. That’s not to say that it’s been ignored by everyone; to date they have 6.5 million registered users. They must be be onto something.

Upon receiving the new software update to my SONOS system, I noticed a new option under Music Services for Pandora. Pandora when used through SONOS is not a free service but they offer a free 30-day trial. Should you wish to continue using Pandora past the end of the trial period, it costs a very reasonable $36/year.

What is Pandora exactly? It’s a music service that’s based on their own research known as The Music Genome Project. Follow the link for a more detailed description, but to sum up their research: they analyzed music and defined what qualities about songs people liked and then classified all music by these classifications. So in theory, if you said that you liked the song Straight Up by Paula Abdul, they should be able to suggest other songs with similar qualities that in theory you would also like.

To use Pandora, you create a channel (you can have up to 100) by entering the name of a favorite song or artist. Based on that information they will create a custom playlist and play a continuing stream of music that you should like based on the song or artist you entered for that channel.

In practice, it seems to work about 70% of the time (meaning that 30% a song is played that I don’t like). Up until now, you’ve only been able to use Pandora via their website; meaning that you have to be within earshot of your computer. Their web-based interface is like a simplified version of TiVo’s thumbs-up and thumbs-down system. For each song that is played, you have the option of rating it with a thumbs-up, thumbs-down, or not rating it at all. I haven’t been able to find technical details of their technology, but I assume that somewhere there is a heuristics engine that uses your rating information in conjunction with other users’ information to determine patterns in peoples musical likes and dislikes. This is the information used to generate your stream of music.

When using Pandora through SONOS, channels are created via an onscreen keyboard (as well as displaying the channels you’ve created via the web). The onscreen keyboard is utilized by highlighting to desired letter with the scroll wheel. It’s not an optimal input system, but it works. The easiest solution is the create channels via Pandora.com or through the SONOS controller software. After a channel has been created, you’re ready to listen to music using it. Instead of the thumbs-up and thumbs-down rating metaphors that are used on Pandora.com, from the SONOS controller you use the options I like this song and I don’t like this song.

The sound quality is not great, but more than adequate for whole-house audio. To my ears, it’s on par with an MP3 encoded at 96 or 128 Kbps.

To sum up, this added capability is a cool addition to the SONOS system. One of the things that’s great about SONOS is their continued support of the platform through software updates. It certainly makes the system even more usable than before.