Category Archives: Reviews

Canon 5D Mark II versus Nikon D7000

Posted on by
2

Nikon D7000 vs Canon 5dmkIIKen Rockwell (whose site I love, by the way), has an interesting comparison up between the Canon 5D Mark II and the Nikon D7000 titled ‘Which makes better images?’. It’s a good read (spoiler: neither!), and as someone who has used the D7000 for the last year, and just moved over to the 5D MK II, I have a little insight in to this comparison.

Ken’s article focuses on which takes better images, and as he states correctly, neither. Or translated: they both take great photos, so long as the photographer knows how to take great photos.

But everyone knows that while photo quality itself is the number one concern of anyone making a decision about a camera, it’s not the only decision. So, here’s a few of my observations about the differences between these two models.

Body

Both cameras have substantial bodies and are sufficiently rugged. The Canon 5D is a little bit larger than the D7000, but not by enough that it would bother you. In terms of build, I give the slight nod to the D7000. One of the things that I noticed immediately after getting my 5D MK II was that the Compact Flash door hinge felt cheap compared to the door of the D7000, which was spring loaded to open automatically once sufficiently pulled back.

Storage

I have to give the nod to the D7000 here as well. Dual SD card slots easily trump the single Compact Flash slot that the 5D MK II features. I personally prefer SD cards to CF cards, but again, this is just a matter of preference. But having the ability to have a backup slot that is used in any number of manners is extremely nice and a big win for the D7000 over the 5D MK II.

Controls

Here I have to give the nod to Canon. Nikon’s button layout isn’t terrible, but there is one button that is severely out of place: the ISO button. All of the buttons/dials that can affect your image are on top of the D7000, except ISO, which is on the back to the left of the screen. Going back and forth adjusting ISO can be a pain on the D7000. By comparison, on the 5D MK II, the ISO button is on the top and and easy to access.

Focus

For focusing, it’s a mixed bag. The D7000 has more focus points (39) versus the 9 that the 5D MK II has. On the flip side, selecting a focus point is much easier on the 5D MK II thanks to the selection wheel, where you can quickly dial in your point (of course it helps that there are less of them). The D7000′s 39 points are extremely versatile, but using the DPad to select them is not as fluid of a motion as using Canon’s selection wheel. I fully acknowledge that this is a personal prurience, but after a year of using the D7000, I found it much easier to set my focus point on the 5D MK II almost instantly.

Shooting

The 5D MK II gets typecast a good bit as ideal for landscape photography. I guess this is a way of saying it’s not quite ideal for fashion or photojournalism, due to the slower than pro 3.9 fps shooting speed (the D7000 has a 6 fps shooting speed). If shooting off 6 frames in succession is important to you, the D7000 gets the nod here.

Lenses

Both Nikon and Canon have a wide array of lenses available to each. And since their mounts are completely incompatible with each other’s cameras, once you choose a side, you are pretty much stuck in that camp unless you want to sell all your lenses and start anew.

Pro lenses for both can get quite expensive. One of the main lenses most people use is a 24-70mm lens. This gives you a good wide angle view at one end, and a good close up portrait view at the other. The Canon 28-70mm f/2.8 lens costs about $1200. The comparable Nikon lens, the 17-55mm f/2.8 (remember, on the crop sensor of the D7000, to multiply by 1.5, which gives you and effective range of 25.5-85.5mm) costs about $1400.

Optics

The D7000 is 16 megapixels. The 5D MK II is 21 megapixels. If you are routinely making large prints from your shots, you will appreciate the extra mega pixels.

The main difference between these two cameras is that the 5D MK II is a full frame camera, and the D7000 is a DX, or crop frame camera. While both take wonderful pics, the full frame camera is going to give you more of the shot and afford you extra stops of useable ISO.

With better camera optics, come a few trade offs. First, there are a number of Canon lenses that will not work with Canon full frame cameras (like the 5D MK II). There are also full frame lenses that won’t work on crop frame cameras, but fewer in number, thanks to the crop frame cameras selling more numbers.

Second, full frame lenses tend to be of higher quality and cost more money.

The optics on the D7000 are extremely good. As are the optics on the 5D MK II. If you really want a full frame camera, go with the 5D MK II. If you could care less about that, go with the Nikon D7000 and save yourself some money.

Conclusion

Rockwell is right that time spent debating this is time taken away from taking photos. I couldn’t agree more. Try both cameras out. Research the specs on both. Weigh your current investment in lenses and other accessories. Make your decision. Either camera will serve you well.

Atlas Shrugged Part 1 Review

Posted on by
Reply

Atlas ShruggedThe wife and I took in Atlas Shrugged Part 1 last night. I’ve been a fan of the book since I first read it in 1997. I picked it up to read on a flight to Hawaii, and found the book so engaging that even after landing in paradise, I had to finish the book then and there. So I found myself sitting on Waikiki Beach reading Atlas Shrugged for about 4 hours.

Atlas Shrugged has a long history in Hollywood. Many have tried to make the 1957 book in to a movie, but the project always stalled and never made it to the screen. At one point, both Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s names were attached to the project, but that never came to fruition.

Before I get to the review, let me temper your expectations. First, the cast is comprised of mostly unknown actors. There are a few veterans in small parts, but overall, I doubt you will recognize many of the actors. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Second, if you’ve ever seen Ayn Rand’s other movie, “The Fountainhead”, you already know that her dialouge, which works well on the page, doesn’t work so well when presented on the screen. Watch the 1949 Gary Cooper/Patricia Neal led movie and you’ll know exactly what I mean. This presents a dilema in making Rand’s novels in to movies. Do you stick to the original dialogue as written, or do you take liberties and rewrite it? It’s a tough choice. Rewriting it for the screen would result in a better movie, for sure, but would also taint the original authors intent, which might alientate her devoted fans.

Finally, people who see this movie will probably fall in to 2 camps. Those who have read the book and love it, and those who haven’t read the book.

If you’ve read the book, you will probably enjoy the movie. If you haven’t read the book, you will probably hate it. Let me go one step further and say if you haven’t read the book, don’t waste your time going to see the movie.

Now, for the review.

The screenplay, written by John Aglialoro and Brian Patrick O’Toole stays very faithful to the book in premise and especially in dialogue. The one liberty they have taken is to set the movie in 2016 instead of the 1950′s. This was probably to save movie costs, but it works well. The movie opens with a montage of news reports to give you an idea of the state of the world, which has gone to hell in hand basket. The movie explains that because gas is now several hundred dollars a gallon, commercial aviation is no longer a viable mode of transportation. Trains have come back in to vogue, and are now used for transcontinental travel

OK, on to the acting and dialogue. The two main stars of this movie are Taylor Schilling (Dagny Taggart) and Grant Bowler (Henry Reardon). Both do a fine job in their roles, and were good choices for their characters. If you’ve read the book, you’ll know that Reardon isn’t a man of many words, and Bowler does well with the limited dialogue he’s given.

The one character that brought the movie down in my opinion is Phillip Taggart, played by Matthew Marsden. He was just awful. His interactions with Dagny Taggart felt very much like CW grade television.

Graham Beckel is excellent as Ellis Wyatt. The other standout character for me was Rebecca Wiscocky as Lillian Rearden. She played the small part of Rearden’s socialite wife perfectly.

The other thing you need to know about Atlas Shrugged Part 1 is that it was made on a shoe string budget by an independent studio (Strike Productions, created primarily to bring this movie to market). The director, Paul Johansson (who also is credited as playing John Galt in the movie), previous experience includes episodes of One Tree Hill and The Incredible Mrs. Ritchie. Enough said.

So it is not surprising that the entire movie has a “made for TV” feel to it. The limited special effects (mostly used in the sequence of the train running through Colorado on the new Rearden metal track) aren’t going to win it any awards.

The movie clocks in at 1:45, which is a relief. The book is an opus, and the producers were wise to break it up in to 3 parts.

As I stated earlier, if you have read the book, you will probably enjoy the movie, even with all it’s flaws. Seeing Rand’s novel come to life is a joy, even if you find some of the dialogue ill fitted for the big screen. The theatre we saw the film in was sold out, and the crowd were clearly fans of the book, as could be seen when the final act of part 1 comes to a close and the credits began to roll, the theater broke in to a thunderous applause.

If you haven’t read the book, or have and aren’t a fan of Rand’s ideology, there’s going to be little here to hold your interest. In many ways, this movie reminded me of Star Wars: Episode 1 – the Phantom Menace. A lof ot dialogue with some sketchy performances that in the end, didn’t matter too much to die hard Star Wars fans. But to non fans, the flaws may be too big to ignore.

One thing is for sure, I’m definitely looking forward to Part 2. Hopefully Part 1 will be successful enough that Part 2 will have a bigger budget, which would come in handy when bringing Galt’s Gulch to life.

Dyson DC25 Animal Review

Posted on by
Reply

DC07 vs. DC25After nearly 7 years of usage, our trusty Dyson DC07 Animal vacuum was in need of replacement. We had broken a piece of plastic months ago that held the telescoping wand in place when vacuuming, and every usage now caused the remaining plastic responsible for securing this item in place to break a little bit more.

Since we were very happy with the DC07 Animal, we replaced it with a DC25 Animal. This updated version of the Animal has a few differences from the DC07 that it replaced.

First, it uses the ball for motion instead of the wheels of the previous DC07. The ball allows the vacuum to be moved easily in just about any direction. Coming from a wheeled vacuum, this takes a little getting used to, but after the transition, makes for a more comfortable vacuuming experience.

The other difference between the DC25 and DC07 (and the DC17, which replaced the DC07) is the size. The DC25 is noticeably smaller. This makes it significantly easier to move around. We have 3 levels in our house, so the lighter the vacuum, the better. Unfortunately, this reduction in size also means a reduction in the size of the canister that collects the debris. In our DC07, we were able to vacuum the entire house a couple of times before we had to empty the canister. With the DC25, we usually have to empty it each time vacuum, and in some cases, multiple times. This doesn’t bother me too much, as I can see the benefits of getting the collected debris out of the cannister quickly.

One negative about the DC25, at least in comparison to the DC07, is the length of the electrical cord. The DC07′s cord was long enough for us to plug in somewhere in the middle of the house, and give us enough length to vacuum that level’s floor without unplugging and replugging. Unfortunately, the DC25′s cord is much shorter, requiring us to unplug/replug as we move from room to room. It’s not a huge issue, but it is less convenient than the previous versions length.

I’m glad to say that the area of weakness in the DC07 – the locking mechanism for the telescoping wand – has been completely redesigned in the DC25. The telescoping wand now locks over the attachment, where previously it was inserted in to the attachment area and was locked with a self locking clamp. The new design seems much more solid and less prone to breaking in the manner that our DC07 did.

Suction

I’m glad to report that suction on the DC25 Animal is exactly in line with the DC07 Animal, which is simply fantastic. This vacuum gets up everything you put in it’s way, including small, fine dog hair. If you have a cat or a dog – this is the vacuum for you.

If you are new to the Dyson, you’ll love the lack of bags or filters to replace. The only necessary maintenance is the cleaning of a filter every couple of months. Simply remove the filter, run it under water in the sink, dry it off and reinsert it and you are good to go.

Tools

The DC25 comes with several attachments to the telescoping wand to handle getting at dirt/debris in different areas. The small brush attachment is great for stairs. A larger brush attachment with rotating bristles is excellent for furniture. And the long narrow attachment is great for small corers and crevices.

Conclusion

If you are unhappy with your current vacuum cleaner and own a pet, take a good look at the DC25. It’s price may put you off, but it’s superior design, 5 year warranty, and amazing suction power more than justifies it’s price.

Rating: 5 out of 5.

Link: Dyson DC25 from Amazon.com