This is going to be really short post. Review of the Thinktank Spectral 10 sling bag.
I wanted something just nice in size, that fits the following needs:
Holds a variety of item
Can fit something as big as a 200mm f2 with hood
As small as it gets to fit my X series camera and 2 small primes with the 200mm
Has zipper pockets to hold other stuff
When I visited TKfoto, even they found this request rather hard. The 200mm f2 fuji has a really huge hood but thankfully it’s not exactly long.
They recommended me the Spectral 10 and after some testing in the shop, it seems to fit my needs. TKfoto offered to exchange within. a few days if it doesn’t.
I got home and immediately put everything in. And lucky me it all fits.
XT 30 with the 23/50/200mm f2. Charger, spare battery and two NP970 for my lights. It also has a zipper infront for my passport and also a small tablet, a zipper cover if you want to ensure nothing falls out, and a magnetic clasp for the top cover that has a nifty pull to unlock mechanism. So no forgetting to lock the bag and spilling your stuff out.
The total weight of my gear and bag weighs below 5 kg. It’s pretty light considering that half the weight is the 200mm!
So it’s all pretty good really. Small bag that fits everything. I recommend if you have a setup like mine: one huge Telephoto and a few other smaller prime.
This is initial review of the RGB88 Light Wand by Nanguang.
It is a Bi-Color + RGB Led want with a few nifty function. It allows power from 0-100, Warm to Cool from 3200-5600 and finally 360 colors which goes from Red-Blue-Purple-Green. Some pictures of it in different colors.
The light has an additional function, going from hard light to soft light. There is an almost 3x more power in the hard light mode but it will cause rough and multi line shadows.
Looking at colour accuracy, this light is rather outstanding. Scoring between 95-97. Very impressive for a light not costing more then 200 USD.
Now we look at using my 1/3 scale doll as a model to see the different effects. First we look at the hard and soft light function. Notice the background and shadow difference.
At the same position, the hard light (second shot) has significantly more shadow and is more focused (notice the background). The hard light is acting like many raw bulb while the soft light is a diffuser over them. Its pretty nifty since you can use it at a touch of a button. Never seen something like this in any lights!
Next we look at mixing light.
Overall its pretty fun to use as you can see above. Being above to turn into most colours and fine tune the power visually for usage. One last function of this light. 2 of them can combine into one!
Look at the awesomely long led. I am sure this is really useful for human size lighting. It is just really costly….
Last notes, the light has 1 small led panels behind, showing power and color/temperature. It comes with an adapter but no battery. Battery has to be purchased separately with the charger. Luckily for those that has been doing video, the battery is the standard Sony NP-F series battery that doesn’t cost too much. If anything, it is common, easy to find and replace. At least the first thing that normally goes (the battery) can be easily sourced and replaced. Whats more it comes in different size, with the biggest one able to power this light wand for more then 2 hrs.
When I have time, I will bring this out and test on human subject for skin tone lighting which is the most essential for such lights. Till then, hope you enjoy this review!
APS-C vs Full Frame. Sensor size and what is promised.
I had been surfing around youtube recently and saw some interesting videos/comments on things like ISO, sensor size, equivalence and so on. Some companies claim APS-C will give a smaller lighter package, others argue that if we look at the the equivalence, there is no advantage and in-fact full frame is better. But is that true? Does a full frame truly have 2x more light? Does a 17-50 f2.8 really equal to just a 24-70 F4? Is it true that APS-C is pointless since it doesn’t save any weight?
As you can see in the above, a APS-C can be larger and heavier then a medium format. So weight saving is a very subjective thing. Below we dive deeper into the sensor, equivalence and weight.
First lets look at the argument
A image taken by a 50mm F2 on an APS-C will look similar to 75mm F2.8 (or F3) on a Full Frame. There is probably not much debate on the looks and output on the photo. Where the argument lies is when companies market a APS-C lens and claims it saves weight when compared to a Full Frame similar lens.
Case in point, Fuji 16-55mm F2.8 vs 24-70mm F2.8. Definitely the Fuji APS-C version is smaller and lighter by about 300+g. The Full Frame camp will argue that it is not equal and that a 24-70mm F4 is more comparable. The APS-C side will then counter that a 16-55mm F2.8 is longer (approx 24-83mm) and you still get F2.8 in terms of light. This is where things turn ugly, people will start arguing that Full Frame takes in twice as much light and thus produce better image quality and bokeh. We will not touch on Bokeh since a Full Frame F2.8 is definitely better in that aspect. For this write up, lets look at exposure, weight and image quality.
In exposure there are 3 parameters, Shutter Speed, ISO, Aperture. Aperture is usually based on the 35mm standard and talks about how much light is let in by the lens. Shutter on the other hand is how much light is let in capped by the set duration.
Returning back to the lens, a F2.8 will always result in a F2.8 shutter. The 16-55mm F2.8 can take an image at 70mm with a shutter of 1/100 while a full frame equivalent in looks, which is about F4, will need 1/50 of a shutter. The fact remains that a F2.8 lens is always faster then a F4, even if they look similar due to difference in sensor size. But where does the extra light and sensor area go to?
What this chart shows is the dynamic range: the amount of information captured and thus usable. This affects us greatly when we do stuff like pull shadows and recover highlights for those crazy demonstration of black image to full colored +5 exposure.
So if we look at the chart above using the same company (cause everyone defines their own ISO) camera, you will notice that the D500 Dynamic Range at ISO100 is the same as D850 at ISO 165. So a full frame with 1 stop of ISO boost is the same as an APS-C at base.
So with this in mind, revisiting the lens, a 16-55mm F2.8 gives you faster shutter speed then a F4 equivalent. All the full frame camera need to do is raise their ISO by 1 stop and it equals out. In-fact it will be close to totally equaling out including image quality and whatever advantage a full frame sensor is suppose to have. So yes mounting a F4 version of the 24-70mm on a full frame essentially makes it the same as an APS-C 16-55mm F2.8.
We have gotten quality out of the way, let us look at the weight. We take the Sony A7m3 with the 24-70mm F4 vs the Fuji XT3 + 16-55mm F2.8. It is not exactly equal since the Fuji version does zoom in almost 15% more (70mm vs 83mm)
Sony: 650g + 426g = 1076g
Fuji: 539g + 655g = 1194g
Now its quite clear the XT-3 combination is heavier. It weighs some 120g more but gives you 15% more zoom. But wait, the A7m3 is the lightest Full Frame around however the XT3 is probably some of the heaviest of its type. Let us use the XT30, which for most works and outputs the same as a XT3 except for a smaller body and less buttons.
Fuji: 380g + 655g = 1035g.
Now we can go even further with some of the other bodies in the X series but you should get my point. APS-C body can get smaller then a Full Frame. At least no maker has made a lighter full frame then a APS-C ever was. So as a set of camera and lens, APS-C will be lighter. Just for a comparison to the lightest setup you can make with a APS-C that has a full frame equivalent.
Fuji A5 with 18mm F2 : 361 + 118 = 479g
This is lighter then any full frame camera and you only give up 1 stop of dynamic range at the lowest ISO.
So the question now should changed: why is a good APS-C lens heavier even though it covers a smaller sensor and image wise just equates to a 1 stop slower Full Frame. We need to look at lens construction and the demands of APS-C.
A lens is built up of many parts. Depending on what you use to build and how rugged you built it, more then just glass, the items around it will carry that extra weight.
If we go back and view the 24-70mm F4 by Sony, it’s made out of plastic vs the 16-55mm which is made out of metal. Considering the extra zoom and just the material difference, it is where the extra weight goes. There are probably many other things inside such as AF motor, the type of element and electronics. Many of such things do not scale in weight from Full Frame to APS-C. There’s just no way to get around physics and if you make something with a heavier material, or what to get more (range in this case) it will cost something. There are probably ways to offset such as using more exotic glass like Leica but that will bring the price to stratospheric levels.
There is also one more parameter that will result in an APS-C lens to be heavier, and that is the quality needed of the lens to perform similarly as a full frame equivalent.
Firstly, I am no lens designer and if there is a mistake I am open to corrections. That said base on my understanding, a lens job is to focus the light. Many things affect this, from the quality of the glass to the lens tolerance and design. However, no lens design is perfect. That is why sharpness varies from lens to lens and even within the same lens there is some variation. Which brings up the simplified diagram above. At the same megapixel, a Full Frame has bigger sensor sites then a APS-C. Therefore, to design a lens that can work as good on a APS-C as it would look on a full frame is actually harder as the tolerance is lower. You may be using less material due to the smaller sensor, but you will need better material and overall better quality to work as well. This usually translates to some extra weight be it more/better lens elements or material with tighter tolerance. Which pretty much explains why good APS-C lens cost quite a sum of money and probably cost more with all the glass needed for correction. A good APS-C lens can easily perform to whatever full-frame has, it just cost the same as a full-frame lens and weighs as much.
So as you can see above, a top notch APS-C lens, the 200mm F2 by Fuji, really performs as good as anything out there and maybe a little more due to the advances in technology. Perfectly sharp, highly corrected, extreme fast AF with Linear Motor. All this can be done, at a cost that is similar to the Full Frame 200mm F2. It does come with a tele-converter and considering all the advances, it definitely is as good of a deal if not better then its equivalents.
So where does this all leave us in the end? Full-Frame and APS-C are really about the same. APS-C can be lighter by basis of smaller cameras and if you use a lens of similar built with specs comparable to its full frame counter part. APS-C performs similar to a Full Frame that has added 1 stop of ISO and using a 1 stop slower aperture lens. A Full Frame given the best condition, will always outperform a APS-C camera when it comes to image quality at the lowest ISO. Sharpness and image quality is more of a metrics of the lens then the sensor itself, unless you need the 1 extra dynamic range at the lowest ISO.
So if you want the lightest possible package, an APS-C is still the way to go. What you lose is 1 stop of dynamic range and probably 1 stop of noise compared to the best of Full Frame. That probably wont affect you as much unless you love to shoot in extremes: Extremely Dark or Extreme Bright. One needing the noise performance while other requiring the best dynamic range. Just remember that APS-C does not equate to a cheaper system or a lighter system if you want full equivalence to the full frame versions.
Of course there are still other things to consider. Very technical stuff such as read out speeds which is bias to smaller sensor size and that not all full frame performs as good as a D850 when it comes to dynamic range. If you were to browse around photons to photo, you will see modern APS-C is quite comparable to some Full Frame Sensors or almost no difference. If we are to look at the a Full Frame with similar frames per second as the XT3, that will be the A9, D5, 1DX. Non of them really performs better then the XT3 sensor in terms of image quality.
So what about Medium Format? Replace APS-C as Full Frame, Full Frame as Medium Format, and you get the same explanation. The biggest reason why Medium Format cost more and produce even higher image quality is because its a niche product, built for people who wants something better and willing to pay for it. If you get the best of everything for Full Frame, you can achieve 95-98% at maybe 80-90% of the cost. In the end, you pay for what you get and no one can beat physics for free
And a picture from the GFX50s, Medium Format Crop Sensor Camera
Sometime, a maker decide to push the limit in both performance and price. A aps-c only super telephoto class prime that cost similar to those white ones you see at sporting event? This has got to be the first. Enter the Fujifilm XF 200mm F2 R LM OIS WR. The first of its class for aps-c or smaller sensor, 200mm F2 with a equivalent look as 305mm F2.8 on Full Frame. 200mm F2 are not new stuff, there’s the Canon and Nikon dating back from 1980s. Fantastic lens built with the best optics then. Both companies refreshed them in the past 10 years and when used on an aps-c, will give similar results to the one by fuji. What makes fuji special is its using the latest in optics design and built only for the smaller sensor, resulting in 10-20% reduction in weight and improved optics. At 2260g, it’s lighter then any 200mm F2 or its full frame focal length equals of 300mm f2.8.
Fuji is not one to shun from putting their latest in their more consumer centric camera. Infact their latest XT30 will out-perform the XT3 in auto focus till the new firmware is up. That may look and sound silly, mounting a small consumer priced camera that’s 1/6 the cost on a white beast of a lens. However what you get is a setup that weighs slightly over 2700g, with an F2 light gathering capability and 300mm view. There is probably no setup that performs similarly at this weight. Balance may be in issue but nothing an additional grip or monopod can’t solve, which is usually staple in such setups.
But there will be nothing great if optics are not there. And this lens delivers in spade! Extremely sharp, it even look as good as my GFX shots which is famous for sharpness. It’s also very well corrected, almost insignificant chromatic aberration (CA) at 100%. You can find some at 400% view but that’s really pushing it. The CA is also of a a light yellow variant, which is much preferred over the magenta ones.
But the biggest best thing is that minimization of longitude CA aka bokeh CA. This is a bigger issue then normal CA as they are hard to correct and tints the background especially things like silver railings above.
Speaking about bokeh, this is a cream machine. Even when compared to full frame equivalents. There’s nothing better then a 300mm f2.8 unless we take out the super teles of 400mm f2.8. And we still have f2 speed which means a faster shutter 😀
Other then optics, the lens is well built and also comes with a tele-converter. Initial test shows little drop in sharpness and with it, you can actually do some simple macro. 0.63X similar to a full frame anyone?
And one last thing, I like the bag it comes with. Slide the lens in with the camera attached. Not bad really for a traveling solution.
So wait for my full review, where I have more close up and testing. Also look forward to more reviews especially the X, GFX and their series of equipment!
Thanks to AV-One for the close door review of the Shangri-La Jr. Priced at approximately $8000 USD, this place it near the top of the pecking order for headphones.
Built with 4 pre-amp tubes, a metal chassis with a nice gloss surface for its energiser, a metal frame with leather ear-cups and headband, it looks luxurious as any other electrostat out there. The headphone is really similar to the Stax-009, infact even the weight is similar. The only difference is the cables, and this I say goes the the Shangri-La JR for its braided cables unlike the easy to twist flat cables of Stax.
But enough with the build and exterior stuff, how does it sound? For the short summary: As flagship goes, it’s great. But if you listen to female vocals, chants and choruses, or love music with tones of treble like bells and cymbals, this is the one.
Setup used that day with a IPad (flight mode) -> Chord Dave -> Shangri-la Jr
As I dont have the luxury, my cross comparison is with the Abyss 1266 and Stax-009 for a few songs. Im not going to go song by song but directly what I think its great and what its competitors is slightly better. Why slightly you may say? Cause all this are flagship, and as flagship goes, its just hard to not sound good.
Straight on listening it, the sound is wide, diffused, airy and just relaxing. Listening to a few tracks from asian female vocals like Suara and Susan Wong, in one word, Sublime. This is coming from someone who listens to Abyss and KSE1500, the sound of the Shangri-la JR for asian female vocals it’s world class, if not chart topping. It has this really wide, laid back feel that makes the vocals surround you, ever so natural with no strain. Till the very last breath of each song, it brings out the type of music you will just want to kick back and relax the time away. Of course there is exceptions, being a more diffused then the rest, it lacks the high energy in the female vocals if the track demands it. In this, the Abyss does it way better, being concentrated and powerful. Male vocals on the other hand, I place it on par with the rest, I couldnt really say this, 009 or abyss is better in the limited time I had or even in the first impression.
Another area that its great is the treble. It’s better then both 009 and abyss, sounding really natural, distinct, and has a decay that just sounds just right. In the track Powder Snow by Suara, there are many japanese bells used in the song, and every time it appears, the Shangri-La Jr handles it like a champ, sounding ever so natural and smooth. From the built up of the bell sound to the really soft end decay, it is there and right. like a real bell getting jingled next to you. This is a truly defining sound feature that puts it over the Abyss.
The last thing that really was better was the darkness and transition within the songs. Its like listening to music in a sound treated room, even if there is a split second of silence, the Shangri-La JR replicates it. This is really important especially in slow songs with occasional instrument and alot of emphasis of the vocals to me. It allows me to concentrate and appreciate all the elements of the moment. When the music does ramp up, transitioning from silence to full blown and back down, it was masterfully handle. Leading Abyss by a small but noticeable margin.
Now for the rest which was what I felt good but not defining features.
Soundstage is wide, not huge like the HD800, but definitely slightly larger and more surround then 009 or Abyss. It does have more headroom or Z-Axis to the sound compared to the Abyss which is just wide sideways. Is it however that significant, probably not to me but your mileage may vary.
The sound on the whole felt more balanced. It is not flat like say KSE1500, but it feels just nice with good emphasis on all spectrum of the sound, no one overpowering the other. However when required to standout by the music, it brings out the dynamics, making it enjoyable. Again this is a taste, and if your like thumping mid bass, Abyss is a much better choice. More emphasis on the mids? The 009 does a better job. If anything, your choice of song and preference is more important then the technicalities.
Now for things that I felt that the competition may do better
The bass of the Shangri-La Jr is good. Deep with good impact when needed. This is especially apparent versus the 009, which if anything is what I feel a little light on it. The Abyss may not go as deep, but if I was to choose a headphone to enjoy tracks with drums, the Abyss is the way. It has more impact, more energy, and just more enjoyable. That said, the Shangri-La Jr is still probably the best electrostat I heard for Bass, that itself is definitely an achievement. Do note, I never got to hear the Shangri-La Original or the Orpheus Series in a quiet room, so if anyone has comments on this do add on.
The other part is the energy of the sound. If the track needs energy and fast paced, the Shangri-La JR can definitely keep up and is a enjoyable experience. That is of course if no cross comparison is done. The Abyss and the 009 just had more energy in the songs I listen. The vocals when they scream or when the instruments rises in tempo, the Shangri-La Jr just felt a touch lower in that excitement and power that the competitors bring out.
The above pretty much are all the key points I picked out during my session. Other then those, the Shangri-La like every electrostat, is airy, transparent, with great details and seperation. If there is a last note I want to add, it is sibilance or the lack of it, essential if you are one to enjoy pop music. If you are the type that listens to whatever you like, and loves modern pop songs, the Shangri-La JR is high up the list.
I hope you enjoy my impression on the Shangri-La Jr. It is a truly enjoyable experience. Once again thanks to AV-One for the close door demo session and Hifiman for the demo set.
Today was a great experience with Mezame Shashin-ka shooting the XF + Trichromatic Digital Back. Being a photographer that loves backlitted shot and ambient lighting, the XF had the great dynamic range and shadow recovery unseen in my other system Leica and Nikon. All shots are done without additional lighting support equipment or reflector.
The best function I love was also a simple one: the multi screen preview, showing the histogram, highlight burnout and image itself. This allow me to work to the cameras dynamic limit, something that doing on other cameras can be a slow process of switching screens. Theres red and pink to denote level of clipping. Really great stuff. The other thing is the AF system. It works on backlit situation. Something that can’t be said for many cameras today. And AF-R works too, though sometime I need to be a little patient and wait for the beep before firing off.
And no XF review is complete without a Detail zoom in. Rather then just doing it on screen, I printed it out on my printer in A2 and took a photo of the eye. Look whoes in there haha.
Thats all for my impression, had a great time with the system and Mez haha.