Currently in the Canon camp, my only item from their “Lexus” line – of the more high-quality professional L lenses – is the old Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM (pictured). The second picture, the nice crocus close-up, is however not coming from that long tube, but is shot using a smartphone (Huawei Mate 20 Pro). There are professional quality macro lenses that would definitely produce better results on a DSLR camera, but for a hobbyist photographer it is also a question of “good enough”. This is good enough for me.
The current generation of smartphone cameras and optics are definitely strong in the macro, wide angle to normal lens ranges (meaning in traditional terms the 10-70 mm lenses on full frame cameras). Going to telephoto territory (over 70 mm in full frame terms), a good DSLR lens is still the best option – though, the “periscope” lens systems that are currently developed for smartphone cameras suggest that the situation might change in that front also, for hobbyist and everyday photo needs. (See the Chinese Huawei P30 Pro and OPPO’s coming phones’ periscope cameras leading the way here.) The powerful processors and learning, AI algorithms are used in the future camera systems to combine data coming from multiple lenses and sensors for image-stabilized, long-range and macro photography needs – with very handy, seamless zoom experiences.
My old L telephoto lens is non-stabilized f/4 version, so while it is “fast” in terms of focus and zoom, it is not particularly “fast” in terms of aperture (i.e. not being able to shoot in short exposure times with very wide apertures, in low-light conditions). But in daytime, well-lighted conditions, it is a nice companion to the Huawei smartphone camera, even while the aging technology of Canon APS-C system camera is truly from completely different era, as compared to the fine-tuning, editing and wireless capabilities in the smartphone. I will probably next try to set up a wireless SD card & app system for streaming the telephoto images from the old Canon into the Huawei (or e.g. iPad Pro), so that both the wide-angle, macro, normal range and telephoto images could all, in more-or-less handy manner, meet in the same mobile-access photo roll or editing software. Let’s see how this goes!
(Below, also a Great Tit/talitiainen, shot using the Canon 70-200, as a reference. In an APS-C crop body, it gives same field of view as a 112-320 mm in a full frame, if I calculate this correctly.)
I have been recently thinking why I feel that I’ve not really made any real progress in my photography for the last few years. There are a few periods when some kind of leap has seemed to take place; e.g. when I moved into using my first DSRL, and also in the early days of entering the young Internet photography communities, such like Flickr. Reflecting on those, rather than the tools themselves (a better camera, software, or service), the crucial element in those perhaps has been that the “new” element just stimulated exploration, experimentation, and willingness to learn. If one does not take photos, one does not evolve. And I suppose one can get the energy and passion to continue doing things in experimental manner – every day (or: at least in sometimes) – from many things.
Currently I am constantly pushing against certain technical limitations (but cannot really afford to upgrade my camera and lenses), and there’s also lack of time and opportunity that a bit restrict more radical experiments with any exotic locations, but there are other areas where I definitely can learn to do more: e.g. in a) selecting the subject matter, b) in composition, and c) in post-production. Going to places with new eyes, or, finding an alternative perspective in “old” places, or, just learning new ways to handle and process all those photos.
I have never really bothered to study deeper the fine art of digital photo editing, as I have felt that the photos should stand by themselves, and also stay “real”, as documents of moments in life. But there are actually many ways that one can do to overcome technical limitations of cameras and lenses, that can also help in creating sort of “psychological photorealism”: to create the feelings and associations that the original situation, feeling or subject matter evoked, rather than just trying to live with the lines, colours and contrast values that the machinery was capable of registering originally. When the software post-processing is added to the creative toolbox, it can also remove bottlenecks from the creative subject matter selection, and from finding those interesting, alternative perspectives to all those “old” scenes and situations – that one might feel have already been worn out and exhausted.
Thus: I personally recommend going a bit avant-garde, now and then, even in the name of enhanced realism. 🙂
I probably get passionate about somewhat silly things, but (like my family has noticed) I have already amassed rather sizable collection of backbags – most optimised for travelling with a laptop computer, photography setup, or both.
What is pictured here (below) is something a bit different, a compact and lightweight hiking backbag, Osprey Talon 22. It belongs to the “day bag” / “daypack” category, which means that while with its 22 liter dimensions it is probably too small to handle all of your stuff for a longer travel, it is perfect for all those things one is likely to carry around on a short trip.
The reason why I like this model particularly, relates to its carrying system. I have tried all sorts of straps and belts systems, but the one in Talon 22 is really good for the relatively light loads that this bag is designed for. It has an adjustable-length back plate with a foam-honeycomb structure, ergonomic shoulder straps, and the wide hipbelt also has a soft multilayered construction with air-channels. Combine this with a rich selection of various straps that allow adjusting the load into a very close, organic contact with your body, and you have a nice backbag indeed.
There are all kinds of advanced minor details in the Ospray feature list (that you can check from the link below), that might matter to more active hikers, for example, but basic feature set of this comfortable and highly adjustable all-round backbag are already something that many people can probably appreciate.
I have kept a diary, too, but I think that the best record of life and times comes from the photographs taken over the years. Much of the last century (pre-2000s) photos of mine are collected in traditional photo albums: I used to love the craft of making photo collages, cutting and combining pieces of photographs, written text and various found materials, such as travel tickets or brochure pieces into travel photo albums. Some albums were more experimental: in pre-digital times it was difficult to know if a shot was technically successful or not, and as I have always mostly worked in colour rather than black-and-white, I used to order the film rolls developed and every frame printed, without seeing the final outcomes. With some out-of-focus, blurred or plain random, accidental shots included into every film spool, I had plenty of materials to build collages that were focused on play with colour, dynamics of composition or some visual motif. This was fun stuff, and while one certainly can do this (and more) e.g. with Photoshop with the digital photos, there is something in cutting and combining physical photos that is not the same as a digital collage.
The first camera of my own was Chinon CE-4, a budget-class Japanese film camera from the turn of 1970s/1980s. It served me well over many years, and with it’s manual and “semi-automatic” (Aperture Priority) exposure system and support for easy double exposures.
I started transitioning to digital photography first by scanning paper photos and slides into digital versions that could then be used for editing and publishing. Probably among my earliest actual digital cameras was HP PhotoSmart 318, a cheap and almost toy-like device with 2.4-megapixel resolution, 8 MB internal flash memory (plus supported CompactFlash cards), a fixed f/2.8 lens and TTL contrast detection autofocus. I think I was shooting occasionally with this camera already in 2001, at least.
Few years after that I started to use digital photography a bit more in travels at least. I remember getting my first Canon cameras for this purpose. I owned at least a Canon Digital IXUS v3 – this I was using at least already in the first DiGRA conference in Utrecht, in November 2003. Even while still clearly a “point-and-shoot” style (compact) camera, this Canon one was based on metal construction and the photos it produced were a clear step up above the plastic HP device. I started to convert into a believer: the future was in digital photography.
After some saving, I finally invested into my first digital “system camera” (DSLR) in 2005. I remember taking photos in the warm Midsummer night that year with the new Canon EOS 350D, and how magical it felt. The 8.0-megapixel CMOS image sensor and DIGIC II signal processing and control unit (a single-chip system), coupled with some decent Canon lenses meant that it was possible to experiment with multiple shooting modes and get finely-detailed and nuanced night and nature photos with it. This was also time when I both built my own (HTML based) online and offline “digital photo albums”, but also joined the first digital photo community services, such as Flickr.
It was five years later, when I again upgraded my Canon system, this time into EOS 550D (“Rebel T2i” in the US, “Kiss X4” in Japan). This again meant considerable leap both in the image quality and also in features that relate both to the speed, “intelligence” and convenience of shooting photos, as well as to the processing options that are available in-camera. The optical characteristics of cameras as such have not radically changed, and there are people who consider some vintage Zeiss, Nikkor or Leica camera lenses as works of art. The benefits of 550D over 350D for me were mostly related to the higher resolution sensor (18.0-megapixel this time) and the ways in which DIGIC 4 processor reduced noise, provided much higher speeds, and even 1080p video (with live view and external microphone input).
Today, in 2019, I am still taking Canon EOS 550D with me in any event or travel where I want to get the best quality photographs. This is mostly due to the lenses than the actual camera body, though. My two current smartphones – Huawei Mate 20 Pro and iPhone 8 Plus – both have cameras that come with both arguably better sensors and much more capable processors than this aging, entry-level “system camera”. iPhone has dual 12.0-megapixel sensors (f/1.8, 28mm/wide, with optical image stabilization; f/2.8, 57mm/telephoto) that both are accompanied by PDAF (a fast autofocus technology based on Phase Detection). The optics in Huawei are developed in collaboration with Leica and come as a seamless combination of three (!) cameras: the first has a very large 40.0-megapixel sensor (f/1.8, 27mm/wide), the second one has 20.0-megapixels (f/2.2, 16mm/ultrawide), and the third 8.0-megapixels (f/2.4, 80mm/telephoto). It is possible to use both optical and digital zoom capabilities in Huawei, make use of efficient optical image stabilization, plus a hybrid technology involving phase detection as well as laser autofocus (a tiny laser transmitter sends a beam into the subject, and with the received information the processor is capable of calculating and adjusting for the correct focus). Huawei also utilizes advanced AI algorithms and its powerful Kirin 980 processor (with two “Neural Processing Units, NPUs) to optimize the camera settings, and apply quickly some in-camera postprocessing to produce “desirable” outcomes. According to available information, Huawei Mate 20 Pro can process and recognize “4,500 images per minute and is able to differentiate between 5,000 different kinds of objects and 1,500 different photography scenarios across 25 categories” (whatever those are).
But with all that computing power today’s smartphones are not capable (not yet, at least) to outplay the pure optical benefits available to system cameras. This is not so crucial when documenting a birthday party, for example, as the lenses in smartphones are perfectly capable for short distance and wide-angle situations. Proper portraits are somewhat borderline case today: a high-quality system camera lens is capable to “separate” the person from the background and blur the background (create the beautiful “bokeh” effect). But the powerful smartphones like iPhone and Huawei mentioned above come effectively with an AI-assisted Photoshop built into them, and can therefore detect the key object, separate it, and blur the background with algorithms. The results can be rather good (good enough, for many users and use cases), but at the same time it must be said that when a professional photographer aims for something that can be enlarged, printed out full-page in a magazine, or otherwise used in a demanding context, a good lens attached into a system camera will prevail. This relates to basic optical laws: the aperture (hole, where the light comes in) can be much larger in such camera lenses, providing more information for the image sensor, the focal length longer – and the sensor itself can also be much larger, meaning that e.g. fast-moving objects (sports, animal photography) and low-light conditions will benefit. With several small lenses and sensors, the future “smart cameras” can probably provide an ever-improving challenge to more traditional photography equipment, combining, processing data and filling-in such information that is derived from machine learning, but a good lens coupled with a system camera can help creating unique pictures in more traditional manner. Both are needed, and both have a future in photography cultures, I think.
The main everyday benefit of e.g. Huawei Mate 20 Pro vs old-school DSLR such as Canon EOS 550D is the portability. Few people go to school or work with a DSLR hanging in their neck, but a pocket-size camera can always travel with you – and be available when that unique situation, light condition or a rare bird/butterfly presents itself. With the camera technologies improving, the system cameras are also getting smaller and lighter, though. Many professionals still prefer rather large and heavy camera bodies, as the big “grip” and solid buttons/controls provide better ergonomics, and the heavy body is also a proper counterbalance for large and heavy telephoto lenses that many serious nature or sports photographers need for their work, for example. Said that, I am currently thinking that my next system camera will no longer probably be based on the traditional SLR (Single-Lens Reflex) architecture – which, btw, is already over three hundred years old, if the first reflex mirror “camera obscura” systems are taken into an account. The mirrorless interchangeable lens camera systems are maintaining the component-based architecture of body+lenses, but eliminate the moving mirror and reflective prisms of SLR systems, and use electronic viewfinders instead.
I have still my homework to do regarding the differences in how various mirrorless systems are being implemented, but it also looks to my eye that there has been a rather rapid period of technical R&D in this area recently, with Sony in particular leading the way, but the big camera manufacturers like Canon and Nikon now following, releasing their own mirrorless solutions. There is not yet quite as much variety to choose for amateur, small-budget photographers such as myself, with many initial models released into the upper, serious-enthusiast/professionals price range of multiple-thousands. But I’d guess that the sensible budget models will also follow, next, and I am interested to see if it is possible to move into a new decade with a light, yet powerful system that would combine some of the best aspects from the history of photography with the opportunities opened by the new computing technologies.
Short update again on chilies and hydroponics (apologies): my current work on this is focused on three areas. Firstly, I have been trying to figure out what growing method (or sub-method) to use. As I wrote earlier, there are reasons why ‘passive hydroponics’ looks like the best in my case. There are different ways of implementing this, though. Understanding in advance e.g. the risks associated in algae growth, over- (or under-) fertilisation, and pests in passive hydroponics appears to be important. As contrasted with growing in soil, the basic situation with nutrients is very different. In principle the hydroponic growing should be free of many risks coming with soil (less risk of pests and plant diseases, no need for pesticides, etc.) However, a hydroponic farmer needs to be bit of a scientist, in that you need to understand something about physics, chemistry and some (very basic) bioengineering. The choice of growing medium (substrate) is important as in passive hydroponics one should get enough moisture (water) to the plant roots without suffocating them – thus, the material needs to be neutral (no bio-actives or fertilisers by its own), porous and spongy enough to hold suitable amounts of water when irrigated, but also get dry enough so that air can get to the roots in-between drenching.
Secondly, I have been looking into the technical solutions for implementing the hydroponic growing environment. As I wrote, I have considered building my own ‘hempy bucket’ system. However, I kept thinking about root rot, fungus and other risks: in this kind of bucket system, there is always some fertilising liquid just standing in the water reservoir. The standing water provides ideal conditions for algae growth. Stagnate water system can cause lack of oxygen; build-up of salts and decomposing algae can produce toxins. I am not sure how significant those risks are (there are many hempy bucket gardeners who appear perfectly happy with their low-cost systems), but currently I am inclining more towards a commercial passive hydroponics system that also includes some kind of water valve: the idea here is, that the water valve will allow automatic, periodic watering of the growing media (and the root system), but also flush the water away as completely as possible, so that no similar stagnate water reservoir would be in the pots, as in the hempy bucket option. There are at least two models that are widely available and used: AutoPot and PLANT!T GoGro. I am not sure if there is much fundamental different between these two – GoGro appears to be more widely available to where I am living, but some gardeners appear to consider AutoPot (the original, older system) as more robust and a bit more sophisticated.
Thirdly, I need to find a plant light solution that works. Currently, the tiny seedlings can nicely fit below the small LED plant light system that I have been long using. However, doing some hydroponic gardening indoors (before the greenhouse season starts) means that I need to be ready to provide enough, and right kinds of light for growing plants. We had an old fluorescent tube lamp, left from Laura’s old aquarium. That lamp was, however, too large and heavy for my needs, and I was also a bit suspicious how safe (in electronic terms) a 10+ year-old lamp setup would be today. Some chili gardeners appear to be using rather expensive, “hi-fi lamps” where different high-intensity discharge lamps (HIDs) have taken over from older incandescents and fluorescent tube lamp systems. Ceramic metal halide lighting and full-spectrum metal halide lighting are used to create powerful light with large amounts of blue and ultraviolet wavelengths that are good for plant growth. The price of good lamps of this kind can be rather high, however. I decided to go for a lightweight but plant-optimised LED system that was a comparably budget-friendly option. I am now setting up four 23W LED strips that were sold as Nelson Garden LED plant light (No.1 and No.2 systems use the same power transformer). Each LED strip is 85 cm long, is specified for 6400 K light temperature, and should provide 2200 lumen, or, more precisely, PPFD (100 mm) 570 µmol/s/m² of lighting power. Having four of those should be enough for four AutoPot style chili growing stations, at least in the early phases of gardening, I think. I am still thinking about how to suspend and adjust these LED strips to correct height above the plants. I am doing this pre-growing phase in my home office corner, in the basement, and e.g. the ceiling panels do not allow attaching anything into them.
Finally, the choice of growing medium has also an effect on the style of fertilisers to use, and most hydroponic gardeners invest to both EC and pH meters and adjustment solutions, in order to control the salts and acidity levels in the nutrient solution, and to adjust the values in different stages of growth, bloom and fruit production. Some do not take this so seriously, and just try to follow some fertiliser manufacturer’s guidelines and make no measurements at all, just trying to monitor how plants look like. Some study this very scientifically, measuring and adjusting various nutrients, starting from the “key three”: Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P) and Potassium (K), which are commonly referred to as the fertilizing products’ NPK value. All these three are needed: nitrogen boosts growth, phosphorous is needed by plant for photosynthesis, cell communication and reproduction; and potassium is crucial for plant’s water regulation. But there are also “micronutrients” (sometimes called “trace elements”) that are needed in smaller amounts, but which still are important for healthy growth – these include, e.g. magnesium. Popular fertilisers for hydroponic gardening often come in multiple components, where e.g. the mixtures for growth, bloom and then the micronutrients are sold and apportioned separately. It is possible to find quite capable all-in-one fertiliser products, however. I am currently planning of using coco coir (neutral side-product of coconut manufacturing) as the growing medium, so I picked “Canna Coco A+B” by Canna Nutrients as my starting hydroponic fertiliser solution. I also bought a simple pH tester for checking the acidity of fertilising solution, and I probably should also invest in a reliable EC meter, at some point. The starting solution for seedlings should be very mild in any case, to avoid over-fertilising.
I have done my chili gardening so far only with traditional, soil-based methods. The results have been varied, and there seems to be the constant threat of pests, plant diseases, or improper amounts of water and nutrients while working with soil. I am not completely sure how real this observation is, but I think I have noticed that e.g. soil-based chili growing is something that some of the more passionate hobbyists have long left behind. After moving into hydrophonics (where nutrients and oxygen are moved with water flow to plant roots), then to aeroponics (use of moist air to nourish hanging root systems), some even have made use of the NASA experiments in the International Space Station to create “high pressure aeroponics” or ultrasonic “fogponics” systems, where very small, 50 micron droplet size is utilised, to stimulate the growth of fine root hairs (trichoblasts) that maximise the surface area of root system, and produce optimal crop yield with minimal amounts of water and nutrients. The related high-pressure pumps and misting nozzle systems are interesting in engineering sense, I admit.
I was personally merely considering the more prosaic “bucket bubbler” hydroponics setup, but even that proved a bit problematic in my case. (There is no electric line running into our greenhouse, where I was planning these hydroponic bubblers to be situated.) Thus, I have now turned towards “passive hydroponics”, which is probably the oldest way this has been applied: growing plants without soil. The version that I am now aiming at is internationally known as a “hempy bucket” method: a black/dark bucket is filled with a 3 parts perlite and 1 part vermiculite mix, where the chili seedling is planted. There needs to be a drill hole for excess water down in the bucket, at c. 2 inches (or c. 5 cm) from the bottom. One then waters the plant with a nutrient, hydroponic solution every other day, until the roots grow and reach the water reservoir at the bottom part of the bucket. The solution watering is then reduced a bit, to twice a week. The water reservoir, bucket microclimate and perlite-vermiculite substrate keeps the upper roots supported, nourished and moist, while also providing nice amounts of oxygen, while the submerged, lower parts of the roots deliver the plant plenty of water and nutrients. The final outcome should be a better and more controlled growing environment than what can be reached in typical soil-based gardening.
I have been growing my own crops of chili peppers for few years now, and every year it feels like I am a bit late in starting the germination period. This time, it is already late January, and I am still just selecting the seeds and species to grow. These are the varieties I have narrowed down the selection this time – I have also attached links to Fatalii Seeds, who provide a bit more information about each:
Taken together, all these species and varieties capture quite nicely the enormous range of options that chili cultivation provides. In some, my main interest is in the taste and productivity of chilies, in some, the exotic and interesting looks would provide joy to the hobbyist chili farmer. In some, it the main interest would lie in understanding more about some of the more exotic, alternative options that the chili universe provides. But I think that all of these should be relatively easy to grow, so in that sense they all could be realistic options. Let’s see how this goes; it is clear that I cannot grow as many as I am interested in, and also the number of plants need to be kept to the mininum, considering the small greenhouse and our other spaces.