SD Card Speed Test

Selecting a memory card to use with your camera is an important decision that should take the following things into account: Cost, speed, and reliability. Reliability is hard for an individual to measure outside of anecdotes (I’ve never had a card fail), but cost and speed are easy to observe.

B&H had a sale on Kingston Canvas React Plus SD cards during their recent Mega Deal Zone event. I decided to check them out. The specs were good and the prices were good. But was it truly a good deal? I ran tests on every model of SD card I own to see where they all stand, and I’m sharing the results with you.

First, some background about the cards in the test. I’m a thrifty person. I don’t buy the fastest and most-expensive cards, but I don’t buy the cheapest cards either. I buy the card that is good enough to do the job and presents the best value. I also see no reason to buy cards faster than what your camera can make use of. For example, I didn’t buy UHS-II SD cards until I actually owned a camera with a UHS-II slot. You won’t necessarily see the market’s fastest cards in this review. You will see cards that are or were commonly for sale at popular electronics retailers.

The SD cards tested

In total, I tested 18 cards from SanDisk, Sony, Kingston, Lexar, and ProGrade. Since ProGrade products launched in 2018, their cards have been my preference. But that doesn’t mean I’m not on the lookout for cards that may present a better value in terms of speed and cost.

Methodology

I own multiple copies of most of the 18 cards tested. I randomly selected the individual cards to be tested from my stash of cards.

They were tested on a home-built desktop computer with an Intel Z370 chipset and Windows 10 Pro 22H2. The memory card reader was a SanDisk ImageMate PRO SDDR-A631 connected via USB3 to a port on the motherboard.

Each card was formatted on the computer before each speed test. The exFAT file system and Quick Format option were used.

CrystalDiskMark 8.0.4 x64 was used to measure the read and write speeds. I used the Default test mode in CrystalDiskMark and selected a 32MB test size because that is close to size of the RAW files produced by the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV and Canon EOS R. However, the newer Canon mirrorless bodies are able to take advantage of the C-RAW format, which produces files of only around 11MB with the EOS R6. My goal was to see how these cards handle individual photos, not 1GB files (the default test size). This help page for a cloud computing company says to set the test size to one that mimics a “realistic working set size” that “simulates the real life behaviour.” It looks like I’m justified in using a 32MB test size. I should note I am primarily a stills photographer, so video performance (larger files) is not a primary concern for me. I left the test count setting at 5, as that seemed sufficient. The test data was set to be random.

I ran each test 3 times per card. So I would format a card, run the speed test, format the card again, speed test again, format again, and run a third speed test. If you recall, I had CrystalDiskMark set to do 5 tests per run, so there were technically 15 tests done per card.

CrystalDiskMark testing screen

The test returned a lot of info. Sequential read of 1MB of data, 8 queues, 1 thread. Sequential writes of the same. Sequential read of 1MB of data, 1 queue, 1 thread, and the same for sequential writes. And figures for randomly-accessed data. I’m not an expert on data throughput, so let me know if I make incorrect assumptions here. I decided to focus on the “SEQ1M Q1 T1” results. From what I understand, the higher queue count mimics a drive being hit with multiple requests at once. I don’t think cameras work like this. A photo is taken, it goes to a buffer on the camera, and then goes to the memory card. I don’t think the camera is writing 8 photos to a card at once. I think they’re being released one at a time from the buffer to the card, as fast as the card can write them. A slow card means photos won’t go from the buffer to the card fast enough, meaning the buffer will fill and the camera will stop shooting frames. As I said, let me know if I’m wrong. Regardless, I think all the numbers I was able to pull from CrystalDiskMark allow for a fair comparison between cards because I performed all the tests the same way. If I was wrong with my testing and interpretation, at least I was consistently wrong.

I should note a few cards had test runs that returned noticeably faster or slower speeds. In those cases, I ran an additional test and set aside the outlying result.

The data from the 3 test runs per card were entered into a spreadsheet. I averaged the read and write speeds of these 3 tests to come up with the values I would analyze and report here.

The Results

For me, the write speed of a memory card is more important than the read speed. Read speeds are usually higher than write speeds, so that’s the big sexy number the card manufacturers like to promote. 300MB/s! 1667x! High read speeds are nice – that means you’ll be able to copy the photos to your computer faster. But when you’re at your home/office/studio, you’re probably not pressed for time. You can get a beverage or hit the bathroom while the photos copy to your computer. But when you’re capturing images, time is of the essence. You need to capture emotion, an athletic achievement, a life event. There are no second chances. You’re mashing the shutter button hoping to catch that millisecond when a runner crosses a finish line, when a bird grasps a fish with its talons, or a fleeting facial expression. A card that writes quickly gives you a better chance of catching these moments because you’re able to capture more frames and you can select the frame that best conveys the moment.

I’ll list the Top-5 results, then make some conclusions.

Card Model	Write Speed
Kingston 64GB Canvas React Plus 300MB/s	219.93MB/s
ProGrade 64GB 250MB/s	143.01MB/s
ProGrade 128GB 250MB/s	140.52MB/s
Sony 64GB SF-M Tough 277MB/s	116.38MB/s
Sony 64GB SF-M 277MB/s	106.58MB/s

Top 5 Write Speeds

Card Model	Read Speed
Sony 64GB SF-M Tough 277MB/s	258.31MB/s
Sony 64GB SF-M 277MB/s	250.12MB/s
ProGrade 64GB 250MB/s	247.79MB/s
ProGrade 128GB 250MB/s	245.45MB/s
Lexar Professional 64GB 1667x	243.59MB/s

Top 5 Read Speeds

As stated earlier, it is my opinion that write speed is more important than read speed when it comes to camera memory cards. Unsurprisingly, all but one UHS-II card (the Kingston 32GB Canvas React Plus 300 MB/s) wrote faster than the UHS-I cards in my test. Only two cards failed to meet their specified minimum write speed, the Kingston 32GB Canvas React Plus 300MB/s and the Lexar Professional 64GB 633x. I was able to find the maximum write speed for only 12 of the 18 cards in the test, which is to be expected since some of the cards are pretty old. There were four cards that exceeded their advertised maximum write speed: the ProGrade 64GB 250MB/s, ProGrade 128GB 250MB/s, SanDisk Extreme Pro 64GB 170MB/s, and SanDisk Extreme Pro 128GB 170MB/s.

Now for the read speeds. These are the sky-high numbers the manufacturers like to advertise and emblazon on their cards. Remember they are maximum read speeds. This is the fastest you can read from the card, and it’s almost certain your reads will be slower. Only four cards were faster than their advertised maximum read speed. They were the SanDisk Extreme Plus 32GB 80MB/s, SanDisk Extreme 32GB 60MB/s, SanDisk Extreme 32GB 45MB/s, and the SanDisk Ultra 32GB 30MB/s. These are older cards and perhaps their performance was underestimated by SanDisk. I should mention the SanDisk cards I tested that did not exceed their advertised maximum read speed fell short by less than 1.3MB/s, so the read speeds they advertise are pretty much what you will get.

It was impressive how close the SanDisk cards were to their maximum read speeds. However, there is one caveat. The SanDisk Extreme Pro UHS-I cards that claim read speeds higher than the UHS-I maximum of 104MB/s use a technology that only works with certain card readers to reach those higher speeds. I did test the SanDisk Extreme Pro 128GB 170MB/s with a Lexar LRW300U (Rev E) card reader and it only achieved a 93.53MB/s read speed. Therefore, it should be assumed these SanDisk Extreme Pro UHS-I cards will exhibit more-modest read speeds in your camera. But read speeds in a camera really only matter when you’re playing back photos or videos, which isn’t very throughput-intensive.

Upon examining the test results, the Kingston Canvas React Plus cards confused me. The 64GB card’s write speeds were 1.5x faster than the next fastest card. As explained in my methodology, these results come after 15 tests (three sets of five tests). I actually ran an extra set of test runs on that card because of the read speed in one set looking abnormal. It posted a 200MB/s+ write speed in all four test sets. So those speedy writes mean the Kingston Canvas React Plus 64GB is the best card, right? Not exactly. That card’s read speeds were middling, ranking 9th and last among the UHS-II cards at 162.74MB/s and nowhere close to the advertised 300MB/s max. This discrepancy keeps me from wholeheartedly recommending it.

You may have noticed I said Kingston Canvas React Plus cards in the previous paragraph. The 32GB card was even more enigmatic than its big brother. Its 217.19MB/s read speed ranked 6th overall, but its write speed was a poor 47.17MB/s, ranking 14th. Why is the 32GB card so much slower to write than the 64GB card? The Kingston 32GB UHS-II card actually wrote slower than all the SanDisk Extreme Pro UHS-I cards. I did change the test parameters, going back to a 1GB test size, and the card performed closer to its advertised speeds. However, what camera produces images 1GB in size? Also, none of the other cards, including the Kingston 64GB, were as far off their advertised write speeds when I used the 32MB test size. For this reason, I stand by the 32MB test size results.

Kingston 32GB Canvas React Plus tests with different parameters

I should also note that the Kingston cards were unused prior to testing. The only reads and writes to these cards have been done at the factory and during my tests in CrystalDiskMark. All the other cards in the test have been used multiple times in my cameras and may be several years old.

Recommendation

In order to come up with recommendations based on my test results, I ranked the cards by read and write speed and calculated their average. This would balance out the fast and slow speeds of the Kingston cards and hopefully show us which cards are the best all-around performers. As shown earlier, the ProGrade and Sony cards took the top four spots among the average read and write rankings. There were ties for the 1st and runner-up positions. I settled the ties by going with the card that wrote fastest.

Card Model	Average Rank
ProGrade 64GB 250MB/s	2.5
Sony 64GB SF-M Tough 277MB/s	2.5
ProGrade 128GB 250MB/s	3.5
Sony 64GB SF-M 277MB/s	3.5
Kingston 64GB Canvas React Plus 300MB/s	5

Overall Performance Ranking

I recommend purchasing ProGrade 250MB/s SD cards. While the ProGrade cards were beat by the Kingston 64GB card for write speed, I feel the ProGrade cards write fast enough and they are 30MB/s faster than the Sony cards. When it comes to read speed, they’re negligibly slower than the Sony cards and come closer to their advertised read speeds than the Sony cards. The ProGrade cards also have much faster read speeds in my test than the Kingston 64GB card. I have many ProGrade cards, some dating back to 2018, and I have experienced no problems with them.

The two Sony cards were the subject of a recall. The recall process was more difficult than I felt was necessary. You had to call Sony, which had limited availability of representatives due to the pandemic. They wouldn’t help me through online chat. This recall really should’ve been done through website forms or email. I ended up not bothering with the process. I haven’t bought anymore Sony memory cards because none of the other cards I have owned during the past 19 years have been subject to a recall. I feel I can’t trust Sony cards, and if there is a problem, the customer service may be lacking. While I can’t guarantee ProGrade or SanDisk will be any better, I’ve never needed their customer service.

ProGrade does offer faster 300MB/s read 250MB/s write cards. The ones I tested claimed 250MB/s read and 130MB/s writes. I feel these “slower” cards are still plenty fast for my needs. I photograph motorsports and cross country running, as well as doing some planespotting, and I haven’t had an issue with my cards being too slow to handle laying on the shutter button for a few seconds. However, I do shoot with 20-30MP bodies, so you may want to step up to the faster card if you have a higher-megapixel body.

Another reason I lean toward ProGrade cards is cost. Notice there were no SanDisk UHS-II cards in my test. For some reason, SanDisk’s UHS-II cards are expensive. Looking at B&H, a SanDisk Extreme Pro 32GB 300MB/s card goes for $59.99 while a ProGrade 128GB 250MB/s card goes for $54.99. While the SanDisk boasts faster maximum read and write speeds, you’re getting only a quarter of the storage space for your money. The prices do become closer when you compare equivalent cards. The ProGrade 64GB 300MB/s goes for $79.99 and the SanDisk Extreme Pro 64GB 300MB/s goes for $109.99, but they can be priced identically during sales.

B&H price comparison as of January 9, 2023

There is a similar situation with the Kingston 64GB 300MB/s card and ProGrade 128GB 250MB/s card. The Kingston card costs a few dollars less than the ProGrade card and may give you much faster writes (220MB/s vs 141MB/s), but it has half the capacity and much slower reads (163MB/s vs 245MB/s). You’ll have to look at how you shoot and weigh these pros and cons. Which card has the right mix of speed, capacity, and cost for you?

B&H price comparison as of January 16, 2023

Here’s another way to look at it: Two fast cards or one really fast card?

B&H price comparison as of January 16, 2023

I’d like to test a SanDisk UHS-II card someday, but the cost will have to come down. It would be nice if SanDisk came out with a slightly slower and commensurately cheaper UHS-II card. For me, the ProGrade 250MB/s cards are fast enough and the faster SanDisk and ProGrade cards aren’t worth the extra cost. For example, the 128GB ProGrade 250MB/s card sells for $54.99 while their 300MB/s card sells for $144.99. It’s hard for me to justify an extra $90 for 300MB/s read and 250MB/s write versus 250MB/s read and 130MB/s write. Your needs may differ from mine, and the faster cards may be right for you if you shoot with a high-megapixel body or shoot 4K video.

I am reasonably certain a SanDisk UHS-II card will perform as advertised. This was observed in my testing of their UHS-I cards and I would expect their UHS-II cards to perform close to their advertised maximum read/write speeds. I don’t think you will go wrong if you decide to purchase a SanDisk Extreme Pro UHS-II card instead of a ProGrade card.

Newer Lexar cards were omitted because of the change in ownership of the brand. Longsys purchased Lexar from Micron in 2017. Micron is a top-notch memory company. Micron stuff is trustworthy and I used Lexar CF cards for a long time. When Lexar got a new owner, I no longer had confidence the Lexar brand would be going on quality products.

One more thing. Avoid SD Express cards. They may tout really high speeds, but nothing can take advantage of them. No cameras use SD Express. Save your money, and read this article.

If you want to see more reviews and tests of SD cards and card readers, visit the Camera Memory Speed website. They are more experienced and thorough than I am with memory card testing, though I did test some cards they have not.

Individual Test Results

Here are the results for all 18 cards in my test. Some cards are pretty old, dating back to the mid-2000s. I included them to show how far SD card technology has come. Commentary and photos of each card follow the table below.

Card	UHS	Read	Read Rank	Write	Write Rank	Avg Rank
ProGrade 64GB 250MB/s	UHS-II	247.79	3	143.01	2	2.5
Sony 64GB SF-M Tough 277MB/s	UHS-II	258.31	1	116.38	4	2.5
ProGrade 128GB 250MB/s	UHS-II	245.45	4	140.52	3	3.5
Sony 64GB SF-M 277MB/s	UHS-II	250.12	2	106.58	5	3.5
Kingston 64GB Canvas React Plus 300MB/s	UHS-II	162.74	9	219.93	1	5
Lexar Professional 1667x 64GB	UHS-II	243.59	5	104.42	6	5.5
SanDisk Extreme Pro 64GB 170MB/s	UHS-I	169.07	7	97.08	7	7
SanDisk Extreme Pro 128GB 170MB/s	UHS-I	168.65	8	96.59	8	8
SanDisk Extreme Pro 128GB 95MB/s	UHS-I	94.40	11	84.77	9	10
Kingston 32GB Canvas React Plus 300MB/s	UHS-II	217.19	6	47.17	14	10
SanDisk Extreme Plus 32GB 80MB/s	UHS-I	94.61	10	64.95	12	11
SanDisk Extreme Pro 64GB 95MB/s	UHS-I	94.00	13	84.54	10	11.5
SanDisk Extreme Pro 32GB 95MB/s	UHS-I	94.02	12	84.21	11	11.5
SanDisk Extreme 32GB 60MB/s	UHS-I	71.26	15	52.48	13	14
Lexar Professional 633x 64GB	UHS-I	87.82	14	23.31	16	15
SanDisk Extreme 32GB 45MB/s	UHS-I	46.45	16	42.72	15	15.5
SanDisk Ultra 32GB 30MB/s	UHS-I	45.18	17	16.48	17	17
SanDisk 512MB		8.60	18	5.87	18	18

Test results for all cards

• ProGrade 64GB 250MB/s
• Write: 143.01MB/s
• Read: 247.79MB/s
• Place of Manufacture: Taiwan
• Discontinued. ProGrade still makes a 64GB card, but it is of the 300MB/s read class. The smallest 250MB/s ProGrade card is now 128GB.

• Sony 64GB SF-M Tough 277MB/s
• Write: 116.38MB/s
• Read: 258.31MB/s
• Place of Manufacture: Taiwan
• Fastest-reading card in the test. My copy of this card was recalled by Sony. A difficult recall process resulted in me not getting the card replaced.

• ProGrade 128GB 250MB/s
• Write: 140.52MB/s
• Read: 245.45MB/s
• Place of Manufacture: Taiwan
• Now the smallest size of 250MB/s card sold by ProGrade.

• Sony 64GB SF-M 277MB/s
• Write: 106.58MB/s
• Read: 250.12MB/s
• Place of Manufacture: Taiwan
• My copy of this card was recalled by Sony. A difficult recall process resulted in me not getting the card replaced.

• Kingston 64GB Canvas React Plus 300MB/s
• Write: 219.93MB/s
• Read: 162.74MB/s
• Place of Manufacture: Taiwan
• The fastest-writing card in the test, but its read speed is nowhere near the advertised 300MB/s maximum, ranking 9th out of 18 cards tested.

• Lexar Professional 1667x 64GB (250MB/s)
• Write: 104.42MB/s
• Read: 243.59MB/s
• Place of Manufacture: Korea
• Its read speed is pretty good, but the write speed is not that impressive. This card is probably the bare minimum I would accept if your camera is UHS-II capable.

• SanDisk Extreme Pro 64GB 170MB/s
• Write: 97.08MB/s
• Read: 169.07MB/s
• Place of Manufacture: Malaysia
• If your camera is not UHS-II capable, I would go with SanDisk’s Extreme Pro UHS-I line. The current 64GB model claims 200MB/s read speed and 90MB/s write. At the time of writing, the 64GB card sells for only $19.

• SanDisk Extreme Pro 128GB 170MB/s
• Write: 96.59MB/s
• Read: 168.65MB/s
• Place of Manufacture: Malaysia
• If your camera is not UHS-II capable, I would go with SanDisk’s Extreme Pro UHS-I line. The current 128GB model claims 200MB/s read speed and 90MB/s write. At the time of writing, the 128GB card sells for only $33.

• SanDisk Extreme Pro 128GB 95MB/s
• Write: 84.77MB/s
• Read: 94.40MB/s
• Place of Manufacture: China
• If your camera is not UHS-II capable, I would go with SanDisk’s Extreme Pro UHS-I line. The current 128GB model claims 200MB/s read speed and 90MB/s write. At the time of writing, the 128GB card sells for only $33.

• Kingston 32GB Canvas React Plus 300MB/s
• Write: 47.17MB/s
• Read: 217.19MB/s
• Place of Manufacture: Taiwan
• This card is so confusing. The read speed is pretty good, but the write speed is poor, ranking 14th out of 18. Slower than several old UHS-I cards. It’s a V90 card (90MB/s minimum) with a claimed max write of 260MB/s. It performs better if I change the test parameters, but I didn’t have to do this for other cards. I do not recommend this card.

• SanDisk Extreme Plus 32GB 80MB/s
• Write: 64.95MB/s
• Read: 94.61MB/s
• Place of Manufacture: China
• At the time of its release, the Extreme Plus line slotted between Extreme and Extreme Pro in terms of performance and price. The Plus line appears to be no-longer sold.

• SanDisk Extreme Pro 64GB 95MB/s
• Write: 84.54MB/s
• Read: 94.00MB/s
• Place of Manufacture: China
• If your camera is not UHS-II capable, I would go with SanDisk’s Extreme Pro UHS-I line. The current 64GB model claims 200MB/s read speed and 90MB/s write. At the time of writing, the 64GB card sells for only $19.

• SanDisk Extreme Pro 32GB 95MB/s
• Write: 84.21MB/s
• Read: 94.02MB/s
• Place of Manufacture: China
• If your camera is not UHS-II capable, I would go with SanDisk’s Extreme Pro UHS-I line. The current 32GB model claims 100MB/s read speed and 90MB/s write. At the time of writing, the 32GB card sells for only $14.

• SanDisk Extreme 32GB 60MB/s
• Write: 52.48MB/s
• Read: 71.26MB/s
• Place of Manufacture: China
• If your camera is not UHS-II capable, I would go with SanDisk’s Extreme Pro UHS-I line. The current 32GB Extreme model claims 100MB/s read speed and 60MB/s write. At the time of writing, the 32GB Extreme card sells for $11. I’d say a bigger and faster Extreme Pro would be a better value if you’re looking at inexpensive UHS-I cards.

• Lexar Professional 633x 64GB (95MB/s)
• Write: 23.31MB/s
• Read: 87.82MB/s
• Place of Manufacture: Korea
• The write speed for this card is insufficient for recording HD video, which needs 30MB/s write speed. The U3 rating means it should hit 30MB/s, but it didn’t in 3 out of 4 test runs (I ran an extra). If your camera is not UHS-II capable, I would go with SanDisk’s Extreme Pro UHS-I line. The current 64GB model claims 200MB/s read speed and 90MB/s write. At the time of writing, the 64GB card sells for only $19.

• SanDisk Extreme 32GB 45MB/s
• Write: 42.72MB/s
• Read: 46.45MB/s
• Place of Manufacture: China
• If your camera is not UHS-II capable, I would go with SanDisk’s Extreme Pro UHS-I line. The current 32GB Extreme model claims 100MB/s read speed and 60MB/s write. At the time of writing, the 32GB Extreme card sells for $11. I’d say a bigger and faster Extreme Pro would be a better value if you’re looking at inexpensive UHS-I cards.

• SanDisk Ultra 32GB 30MB/s
• Write: 16.48MB/s
• Read: 45.18MB/s
• Place of Manufacture: China
• If your camera is not UHS-II capable, I would go with SanDisk’s Extreme Pro UHS-I line. The current 32GB Ultra model claims 120MB/s read speed and 10MB/s write. At the time of writing, the 32GB Ultra card sells for $10. I’d say a bigger and faster Extreme Pro would be a better value if you’re looking at inexpensive UHS-I cards.

• SanDisk 512MB
• Write: 5.87MB/s
• Read: 8.60MB/s
• Place of Manufacture: China
• That’s 512 megabytes, not gigabytes. This is possibly the oldest SD card in my possession. SD cards have come a long way in terms of capacity and speed!

Making a background holder out of PVC pipe

When I do product photography, I usually have some kind of fabric backdrop.  I’ll either try to drape the cloth over some adjacent furniture, or use a pair of light stands with a collapsible Manfrotto 272B background holder.

The Manfrotto bar can be adjusted between 3.7ft and 9ft wide.  The light stands have legs that flare out.  This setup ends up being maybe 6ft wide, which feels like overkill if I’m shooting an object on a milk crate that is only 14″ wide.  I don’t have a lot of space, which makes this setup with the light stands even more bothersome.

I wanted a background holder about 3ft wide with a small footprint. Something big enough to do the job, but small enough to stay out of my way.  I don’t know why it took so many years for me to realize I could make a background holder out of PVC pipe.  I sketched out a little design to figure out which parts I would need, as well as to come up with some measurements.

It’s pretty simple.  A 36″ section at the top, with 90-degree elbow ends to sit atop two vertical sections.  Then two “feet” at the bottom connected to the 36″ vertical sections via two tees.  While browsing the parts online, I learned the T-shaped pieces are called “tees” and not just the letter T.  I also specified caps on the ends of the feet to clean up the look.

I decided to search the internet to see how other people built their PVC pipe background holders.  There were a few articles and many photos on Pinterest.  I noticed a lot of the designs had two horizontal sections.  I don’t know if it was to offer two heights for hanging a backdrop, or if the lower horizontal section was for making the structure more rigid.  After some thought, I realized my design may flex a lot without the second horizontal section, so I added it to my design.  I was also unsure about the size/length of the feet, originally positing 9″.  I decided to wait until I completed some of the assembly to make the feet, figuring that would give me a better idea of how large the feet needed to be.

Here is my parts list:

• 3/4″ x 10′ PVC pipe (Qty 2 at $2.28 each)
• 3/4″ PVC tee (Qty 4 at $0.58 each)
• 3/4″ PVC 90-degree elbow (Qty 2 at $0.51 each)
• 3/4″ PVC slip-on cap (Qty 4 at $0.61 each)

The total price was $11.12 with tax.  Compare this with $62 for a 9′ Manfrotto 272B bar and $40 for a pair of small entry-level Impact light stands.  This combo of light stands and a backdrop holder is solid and professional-looking, but it may be a bit much for some photographers and some situations.

I also used a hacksaw and a measuring tape for this project.  Upon doing research for this blog post, I read that Home Depot will cut PVC pipe to help you fit it in your car, but you are at the mercy of an employee’s generosity if you ask to have the pipe cut to your specs.  It also sounds like they would just use a hacksaw, so there’s no guarantee their cuts will be cleaner than cuts you would do on your own.  During my research, I learned that there are PVC pipe cutters.  They ratchet tight and cut the plastic pipe.  I would recommend checking these out.  Cutting the pipe with my saw was time-consuming and a pain.  I didn’t have a way to clamp the pipe in place to keep it still, so it was a constant struggle to keep the pipe from moving with each saw stroke.  I just had the pipe laying on top of my opened trash cart as I cut.

I measured, marked, and made each cut, one by one, until I had all the necessary pieces ready to assemble.  Except the feet, as I mentioned earlier.

Notice the two short 12″ segments at the top of the above photo.  Not shown in my little schematic are the final measurements for the vertical legs of the stand.  I specified 36″, which I divided into a 12″ segment and a 24″ segment so I can add that horizontal crossbar for support.

I’m not going to show the individual steps for putting this together.  Putting together PVC pipe is dead simple.  You have straight pieces, you have T-shaped tee pieces, you have L-shaped elbow pieces, you have Y-shaped wye pieces (if you want), and the caps.  Put them together like Lego pieces.  I have a relative who is not very handy who thought this stand was genius, so maybe I shouldn’t assume everyone has the skill to visualize and assemble it.  However, it really is that simple.

One potential pitfall is not buying pieces of equal diameter.  I decided on 3/4″ pipe, so I made sure all the pieces were 3/4″.  The Home Depot store I visited had the different diameter pieces in color-coded boxes, which helped.  Being inexperienced with PVC pipe, I did put an elbow, a tee, and a cap on the pipe to make sure it all fit together.

I mentioned that I held off on cutting the feet for the stand until I had everything else assembled.  I stood up the stand and used the measuring tape to help visualize how big the feet would be.  I initially specified feet extending out 9″ each way from the stand.  I felt this to be possibly inadequate and decided on 12″.

I found the final product to be fairly stable.  I don’t plan on putting anything on that is heavier than normal fabric.  I can also place sandbags over the feet for additional stability.

I also want to say I forgot to account for the size of the elbows and tees in my measurements. I wanted the total height to be 36″, but when you factor in the feet and the joints, it’s about 39″ tall.

I did not glue any of the pieces together.  The tension seems sufficient to hold everything together, for now.  I also like that I am not committed to this design.  By keeping the pieces unglued, I can easily add pipe to make the stand wider or taller.

Lastly, I purchased a bag for light stands that will hold all these pieces and then some.  Easy to store and easy to carry around.

If you have a need for something to hold backdrops (or maybe small lights or speedlights), try putting together some PVC pipe.  It’s inexpensive, versatile, and easy to assemble.

My adventure in framing

One of my hobbies is planespotting.  Basically, I go somewhere near the perimeter of an airport and photograph airplanes taking off and landing.  Sometimes I am lucky enough to get real close to the airfield and watch the planes taxi.

I visited Milwaukee’s General Mitchell International Airport in March to see the new Airbus A330neo.  The A330neo was in Milwaukee for flight testing.  After waiting several hours for the plane to complete its test flight, I was able to watch it land.  I joined some fellow spotters in hurrying to the part of the airport where the plane was parking.  Shooting through the chain-link fence, I was able to get some nice photos of the A330 taxiing.  In fact, one of the photos was shot head-on as the plane was turning.

I was pretty pleased with this photo.  It is rare that I get to photograph planes that are on the ground, and getting the head-on shot was a great bonus.  The only thing I wish I had done differently was use a slower shutter speed to capture the motion of the fan blades.  As I was full of adrenaline after rushing to the ramp from the runway threshold, I forgot to change my camera settings.

The planespotting group I am a member of on Facebook has photography themes for each day of the week.  A new theme was “Monochrome Monday.”  I looked at the above photo and thought a grayscale version may look cool.  I was right.  In fact, I thought it looked better than the color version.

I liked the black-and-white version enough that I wanted to get it printed and framed.  Given the resolution, the largest size I could get was 24″ wide to still have a maximum-quality 300dpi print.  My photo lab of choice is Nations Photo Lab.  I have been pleased by the quality of their prints and how well the color of their prints match the colors on my computer screen.  My goal for a print was something as wide as possible, but not very tall.  I didn’t want a lot of dead space above and below the plane.  I ended up selecting a 12″ x 24″ print using metallic paper.  The metallic paper is nice for prints that have vibrant colors, but it is also great for monochrome prints.  I really like the silvery appearance in good light.  The print cost was $7.66 during a sale.

With the print figured out, it was time to get a frame.  I have heard professional custom framing is very expensive, like $200.  This was a print that would go on the wall in my bedroom or computer room.  Not something I wanted to drop $200 on.  It is something decorative and not a family heirloom.

There are various framing shops and some craft stores offer framing services.  However, pricing is hard to come by online.  I did find one website that listed a price of $169 to frame a 12″ x 24″ print.  Out of my price range.  Nations Photo Lab listed a price of $113.95 for a 16″ x 20″ print with a white mat in a “classic black” frame.  Better, but it’s still expensive enough to give you pause.

I searched for frames at IKEA, craft stores, and on Amazon.  The 12″ x 24″ print size is a bit odd, so it was hard to find a frame.  Specifically, I wanted a simple black frame with a white mat.

I found this ArtToFrames mat for $9.69 on Amazon. It is 16″ x 28″, but is made for 12″ x 24″ prints.  The actual opening is 11.75″ x 23.75″.  I discuss this size difference later.

With the mat selected, I could choose a frame.  I chose a Craig Frames 16″ x 28″ frame with a black satin smooth wrap finish for $55.99.  This was a little more than I had planned on spending.  I’m thrifty, and I was hoping to spend more like $30 on a frame.  However, I liked the look of this frame, with its smooth finish and 2″ molding.  Also, it is made in Michigan.

If I had to do things over, I would consider alternatives to this frame.  I really like this frame’s looks, but the quality of the finish was lower than I expected.  I didn’t understand what the manufacturer meant by “wrap finish.”  Basically, the finish is a sticker with a black satin finish adhered to the frame.  Again, it looks good.  No wrinkles, lumps, or air bubbles underneath.  My problem is with the edges of the wrap finish and the risk of scratching it.  Here are some photos where the wrap had come up a bit from the wooden frame.  Glue could fix the second blemish, but I left it alone.

This next blemish is less forgivable.  There was some damage to the wrap finish that was noticeable.  The damage caused a gray spot that stood out from the rest of the black finish.  I ended up using a black Sharpie to fix it.  You can’t see it if you are more than four feet away.

I didn’t seek an exchange or refund.  The frame was packed well and securely.  I think these damages are simply a characteristic of the frame’s materials – the adhesive wrap finish.  Like I said earlier, I did not comprehend “wrap finish.”  I incorrectly assumed the frame was painted with a black satin finish.  My fault.

Here you can see the composite wood material used for the frame, along with the metal tabs that keep the acrylic facing, mat, photo, and cardboard backing in place.  I’m not a woodworker, but the craftsmanship looked and felt good to me.  The frame didn’t feel flimsy or like it would flex.

Here is the 12″ x 24″ print as it was shipped by Nations Photo Lab.  I have ordered large prints from them in the past that were shipped flat and well-protected.  I was surprised to see this print was rolled and in a tube.  It was definitely well-packaged and protected, but I was slightly disappointed that it was rolled because that meant the print would curl.

Remember, I am not a professional photo framer.  This is one of several things in this post that will probably make a professional pull their hair out.  I was in a hurry and did not bother to flatten the print.  I figured the acrylic facing, mat, cardboard backing, and the metal tabs would keep things compressed enough to flatten the print.

The first thing to go into the frame was the mat.  It fit nicely inside the frame.  I should also mention the acrylic facing had a plastic protective film on it that had to be removed.  I do not remember if it had been removed already in this photo.

Recall that I said the mat is made for 12″ x 24″ prints, but the actual opening is 11.75″ x 23.75″.  In the photo below, you can see the the print does not overlap the mat by very much.  We’re talking 0.125″ on each side.  It’s nice that the mat does not obscure a lot of the print, but at the same time, you have to make sure the print is positioned very precisely behind the mat.

Here is another moment a professional framer may find cringeworthy.  Because I was lazy/rushed, I decided to tape the print to the mat.  Maybe this is what pros do.  Maybe not.  I have no idea.  I only knew I had to figure out a way to ensure the print stayed in place and was properly aligned behind the mat.  I used gaffer’s tape because I knew it was sticky enough to hold, but being gaffer’s tape, I might be able to remove it without damaging the print or the mat.  I did have to adjust the tape a bit to get the print as stretched out and flat as I could.  The photo below shows how the lower-left corner wasn’t quite as flat as it could have been, so I had to fix it.  Good thing the tape wasn’t super sticky.  I know this doesn’t look the greatest, but who’s gonna see it?

I have no photos of this, but I had to do a lot of cleaning of the acrylic facing.  I used lens cleaner and Kimwipes, plus a Giottos rocket blower to give me the best chance of a streak-free and lint-free acrylic facing.  Despite thoroughly cleaning and inspecting the facing, I would find specks of dust or lint.

The specks were very visible and looked bad against the pristine white mat.  I had to clean the facing several times before getting it dust-free.  I hope a professional framer has a method or a super clean workspace because dealing with this dust was a pain.  With the mat and print inside, it was time to put the cardboard backing in place and secure it all by folding the metal tabs on the frame.

While shopping for frames, I noticed a lot of them didn’t come with the hanging wire and hardware attached.  I guess it makes sense that the wire isn’t installed, because it would make mounting the photo and mat more difficult.  I’m not handy at all, so even the simple process of screwing in the D-rings concerned me.  I also stink at tying things.  I was concerned about the wire coming loose and this big picture frame falling on someone or something.

To help with tying the wire, I found a couple of easy-to-follow YouTube videos.  After watching these videos, you will be able to tie the wire, even if you are as horrible at tying things as I am.  I watched each one a few times so I would know what I was doing.

Here is the D-ring installed along with the tied wire.  The rings, wire, and screws came with the frame.  The ring rotated some after I held the frame only by the wire.  I do not own power tools and screwed the D-rings in by hand, so I don’t know if they would still rotate if they were screwed in with the force of an electric screwdriver drill thing (I’m such a handyman).

Here is the frame hanging on my wall.  My vision and design for this framed photo became reality and it looks exactly how I wanted.

The white mat helps the photo stand out.  If the black frame met the print, it would be an intersection of black and gray.  The print would just meld with the frame.  The metallic paper looks magical when it is well-lit.

Earlier, I discussed how I didn’t flatten the print before putting it in the frame.  That did come back to bite me.  The print had some noticeable waves from being rolled up.  You can see the waviness below.

However, after being in the frame for two months, the waves are less visible.  They were only visible from a close distance or at certain angles before, but I’m glad the print is smoother now.  Maybe I can get it totally smooth if I open up the frame and adjust that gaffer’s tape…

The previous frame I had on this wall was made of plastic and cost me less than $25 at Walmart.  It wasn’t a bad frame, but it definitely looked like a plastic Walmart picture frame.  I was trying to create something artsy and kind of fancy-looking with the airplane print, so I don’t think the plastic Walmart frame would have done it justice.  It definitely is an option for less special prints I may want to frame in the future.  Inexpensive, available locally, and I don’t have to mess with the D-rings or wire.  I bet I could even class up that plastic frame by putting a mat in it from Amazon.

Now for my summary of this experience.  An online framing place wanted $169.  I’m sure the hobby stores and framing stores would charge the same or a bit more.  My cost was $65.68 for the mat and frame, plus my time.  I have little doubt I would get a better product from a professional framer, and dropping off my print and handing over cash would be much easier than framing it myself.  However, is it worth the extra $100?  I’m not entirely sure.  I’m pretty happy with the job I did.  My only issues are the slight waviness of the print, which wouldn’t exist if I had flattened the print before framing, and the “wrap” finish of the frame, whose imperfections aren’t noticeable from normal viewing distances.  With one framing experience under my belt, I think I will do even better next time.  I’ll also make sure not to rush the job.

The reflector you always have with you

While photographing the bud of a star magnolia, I noticed it just didn’t look right.  I didn’t like how the details were not visible on the underside of the bud.  I was trying to show off the fine hairy texture of the bud, but it wasn’t happening with the natural lighting.

It was shortly after 2PM in late April, so the sun was still fairly high in the sky.  There wasn’t much light hitting the underside of the bud.  I was taking a walk during my lunch break, so it was only me and my camera.  No flash, no reflectors, no way to light the bottom of the bud.  Or was there?

Enter the tool I always have with me: My hand.

Shooting with a 100mm macro lens, I was able to hold my hand below the bud to reflect sunlight onto the bud while keeping my hand out of the frame.

In the photo above, you can see how my hand helped reflect light onto the underside of the bud as well as the branches.  The extra light helps you see the details and texture of the bud and branches.

However, this method is not without its faults.  Due to my skin tone, the reflected light took on a warm tone.  This warm lighting did help bring out the colors of the bud and branches, but warm light may not always be right for the situation.  Everyone’s skin tone is different, so the light quality may differ.  If you have very dark skin, your hand won’t be very useful as a small reflector.  This trick may work if you use the palm side of your hand.  In fact, it may be advisable.  My palms are more pinkish or whitish than the (naturally) tan back of my hand.

I suppose you could use small collapsible reflectors (shown below), a napkin, or a piece of paper.

 

 

 

 

However, the convenience and ever-presence of your hand is difficult to beat.

Memory card reader misbehaving

I recently built a new PC to help me move forward with the development of my photography business.  I wanted a machine that could easily run Adobe Creative Cloud programs for years to come.

Despite being a fan of the functionality and stability of Windows 7, I chose to install Windows 10 on this new computer.  I stuck with my previous computer for seven years, and I intend to use the new computer for 5-7 years as well.  Not wanting to update the operating system from Windows 7 to Windows 10 (or whatever exists) a few years from now, I went with the most-current version of Windows.

While setting up the new computer, I noticed Windows 10 would periodically play notification sounds.  I did not see anything on-screen that indicated something had happened.  I chalked it up to my unfamiliarity with Windows 10.  Typically, I have my speakers turned off, so I don’t hear anything.  Everything seemed to be working fine and I forgot about the random notification sounds.

About 2-3 weeks into my use of the new computer, I was watching a YouTube video and noticed those stupid notification sounds kept playing every few minutes.  I did a Google search of the symptoms and one forum post mentioned going through the Windows sounds list to determine which event corresponded with the sound.  It turned out to be the Device Connect and Device Disconnect sounds that I kept hearing.

I found several other users who kept hearing USB connect and disconnect sounds.  One suggestion was to adjust power settings concerning USB ports.  My computer already had the recommended settings.

One member of a forum suggested downloading a tool called USBDeview.  It shows what is connected to your USB ports as well as what has been connected in the past.  It also shows when a device was connected or plugged/unplugged.

I left USBDeview open as I used the computer.  When I heard the connect/disconnect notification sound, I went back into USBDeview to see which USB device had most-recently undergone a change.  I saw it was my Lexar card reader.  I continued working on stuff and checked USBDeview each time I heard the notification sounds.  Sometimes the card reader would disconnect and reconnect once every minute.  The notification sounds got annoying.  While no harm was being caused (as far as I know), this kind of thing shouldn’t be happening.

I should note no memory cards were in the reader during these disconnects, and the card reader never disconnected during file transfers.

My SD/CF card reader of choice has been the Lexar Professional USB 3.0 Dual Slot reader.  Specifically, the older version (LRW300U) that does not support UHS II.  I have been using these card readers for several years and they have performed well.

I did some troubleshooting.  First I tried using different USB 3.0 ports on the motherboard and case.  The disconnect/reconnects kept happening.  I then tried a different USB cable.  The connection problems still occurred, but they were less frequent.  I suspected an issue with the card reader.

I actually keep an identical Lexar card reader at another office.  I decided to compare it to the troublesome card reader.  After several hours without notification sounds or connection changes with this second Lexar card reader, I concluded there must be a problem with the first reader.  They have the same model number and same revision ID, but there are two differences.  The first difference is the serial number – the second card reader’s number is about 34,000 higher.  Despite having the same revision label, you cannot discount the chance of a slight design change during production.  The second difference is the amount of use.  The problematic card reader is older and has seen far more use than the second card reader.

Maybe there is a physical problem with the USB connection in the card reader.  However, if that were the case, I should have experienced problems reading memory cards.  Regardless of the problem’s cause, I think I will get rid of the wonky card reader.  Since it doesn’t work 100% correctly, I don’t want to risk any data corruption.  It’s not a good idea to keep faulty gear around because you may forget it’s faulty or it may end up causing more-serious problems over time.

My Lexar card readers replaced a pair of Kingston FCR-HS3 card readers that wouldn’t always recognize when a card was inserted.  I later found the Lexars transferred data faster, in addition to being more reliable.  I don’t know if I will buy another Lexar card reader, because they have exited the memory card market and there really wasn’t anything on their website in terms of support.  In the course of troubleshooting, I went looking for a driver or firmware update for the card reader and came up empty.  The specs for their card readers still being sold do not mention Windows 10, so we can only assume the products are compatible.  No guarantee.

In summary, if your Windows 10 computer keeps making random notification sounds, see if you can trace them to programs or devices being used.  Consider getting a USB port monitoring program to see if any devices are connecting or disconnecting.  Try different USB ports, different cables, and make sure drivers are up-to-date.  Be methodical about isolating the problem and trying solutions.

Early thoughts on the solar eclipse

I’ll be honest, I have never photographed a solar eclipse before.  The only solar eclipse I can remember experiencing was during middle school in the early 1990s.  According to Wikipedia, there was a partial solar eclipse in my area in May 1994, so that must be the one I’m thinking of.  The school didn’t want us going outside to see the eclipse because they were afraid of us blinding ourselves.  Talk about a learning opportunity wasted.  Anyway, my shop teacher let us outside during the eclipse, but he was very serious and warned us about looking at the sun.  I appreciate him breaking the rules and letting us experience the eclipse.  I remember going outside and noticing it was dark for that time of day.  The light just plain looked weird.  However, that was 23 years ago and I can’t remember many more details.

Fast forward to 2017.  All of the lower-48 states in the US can see the eclipse.  Where I am, the eclipse will “only” reach 88% coverage.  The totality zone and the location of maximum total eclipse duration are about a six hour drive away, but I want to avoid the crowds.  Plus 88% is good enough for me.

I think the slogan of my blog may end up being “I make mistakes so you don’t have to.”  Photography is a discipline where you learn by doing, and you learn so much by making mistakes.  You learn what not to do, and how to fix things that go wrong.  I want my blog to be educational, and I want people to learn from my experiences, and yes, mistakes.

The “mistake” here is my lack of familiarity with solar eclipse photography.  Even though we are only a week away from the solar eclipse, perhaps you will pick up a few things that will help set your expectations and provide a bit of knowledge.

A few months ago I noticed the camera stores promoting eclipse-related gear.  The eclipse viewing glasses, solar filters, neutral density filters, and the like.  Being a total n00b to eclipse photography, I believed some of the marketing hype and thought ND filters were the way to go.  I mean, they cost many times more than the cardboard slip-on solar filters with cheap-looking plastic on them.  Also, as expensive as they were, the ND filters were still cheaper than the screw-on solar filters.  The ND filters were super dark, rated ND100000 or 16.5-stop. Sounded good to me.

Marumi ND100000 16.5-stop ND filter

I picked up a Marumi ND100000 filter for a little over $100 and thought I was set.  It’s the most-expensive filter I own.  It said it’s “specifically designed for taking picture [sic] of solar eclipses etc.”  I was hesitant to buy this filter because of the cost, but I justified it by saying I could use it to shoot ridiculously long exposures in addition to eclipses.

As we got closer to the eclipse date, I started reading tutorials about photographing the eclipse.  All of these blog posts and articles were saying not to use ND filters, and solar filters were a must.  The ND filters don’t filter out UV or infrared light, which could damage the camera’s sensor.  Additionally, the ND filters won’t protect your eye when looking through the viewfinder.  I should note that using the LCD to shoot an eclipse is the safest thing to do, is what is recommended, and that’s what I was planning on doing.  In fact, I will say using the LCD is required.  Don’t even bother using the viewfinder unless you want to risk destroying your eyesight.  Anyway, the fact the ND filters didn’t provide the most protection and the fact the experts advised against using ND filters got to me.

I ended up ordering a sheet of Thousand Oaks Optical filter material.  Thousand Oaks Optical products were frequently cited as being good stuff.  Quality, safe, reliable materials for viewing the eclipse.  I was lucky and able to get a 6×6″ sheet of Thousand Oaks solar filter material for $25 on Amazon from a seller specializing in astronomy products, less than two weeks before the eclipse.

What sold me on the solar filter sheet was the expert consensus that you should use a solar filter instead of ND filters, as well as one more-important factor.  I liked how the sun looked in photos taken with solar filters.  The sun had a vibrant orange color.  That’s what I wanted for my eclipse photos.

A week before the eclipse I put together a homemade filter holder for my thin sheet of solar filter material.  I plan on using lenses with a 77mm filter size for the eclipse, so the 6×6″ sheet was plenty big to cover the front element.  I read I could just use a rubber band to hold the filter sheet over the lens, but I didn’t like the idea of crinkling a small $25 sheet of thin plastic.   I wanted something more protective and substantial.  Here is what I made out of black card stock, packing tape, and lots of black gaffer tape.

Filter holder

The filter holder is just two sheets of card stock taped together.  The top is where I drop in the solar filter sheet.  I traced the end of a lens onto the card stock, resulting in an approximately 77mm opening.  I cut the card stock out with an Xacto knife.  This looks like an old 5.25″ floppy disk, doesn’t it?

Completed filter mount

The round tubular part in the above photo is just two sheets of card stock rolled into a tube to fit around the end of the lens.  I used scissors to cut into the end of the tube in multiple places, then folded out each slice, flaring them out.  It kind of looked like a peeled banana.  I aligned the tube over the circular opening in the filter holder, then taped down those flared-out pieces.  I then taped over any gaps to ensure no light leaks, and put on a lot of gaffer tape to produce a nice uniform matte finish on the outside.  As you can see in the photo above, I am using paper clips to hold the top of the filter holder shut.  My solar filter rig is cheesy, but it seemed to work pretty well in testing.

I was lucky enough to test my contraption a week before the eclipse.  I really should have had done this weeks ago, but I was lazy and didn’t bother learning more about the eclipse until it was almost too late.  I know we are less than a week away from the eclipse, but I strongly urge you to take your gear out and try shooting the sun now, weather permitting.  Even if it is slightly cloudy, get out there and shoot.  I was still able to see the sun through thin clouds that passed by.  You really need to get those angles and settings figured out so you aren’t messing around during the eclipse.  Get some experience under your belt now.

Solar filter in use

Here is a pic I stole from my Instagram account.  My contraption just slips over the barrel of the lens.  It actually goes farther down the barrel than shown.  I must have accidentally slid it upward before taking this photo.  I will use a velcro strap or something to help secure my filter rig on the big day.  You can see the shiny solar filter material in the filter holder.  Shiny side points toward the sun, per the instructions.  Supposedly waves in the material won’t affect image quality.

The angle of the camera on my tripod looks pretty ridiculous in that photo, doesn’t it?  Where I am, the sun will have an altitude of 50-60 degrees during the eclipse.  I’ll really need to have the camera pointing up in the air.  I think I may switch to a pan/tilt head instead of the ball head, as that head may prove better for locking in an angle.  Taping down the zoom ring with gaffer tape may also be necessary, though I had no trouble with zoom creep during this test.  The photo above was taken about an hour after the peak of the eclipse is supposed to happen, so the azimuth and altitude are pretty close to what I will need to use during the actual eclipse.

I should also note that my practice shots helped me see how quickly the sun moved across the sky.  The moon moves very quickly across the sky and requires frequent adjustment to track it.  The sun is similar.  You’ll need to pay attention and track the sun.

Earlier I mentioned preferring how the solar filter photos looked.  I experimented with both the solar filter and the Marumi 16.5-stop ND filter.  Let’s cut to the chase.

Canon EOS 80D, 400mm, f/8, 1/60s, ISO 100, 3600K white balance, slightly cropped

The above photo was taken with the Thousand Oaks Optical solar filter sheet mounted in my homemade contraption.  To my untrained eye, this is aesthetically pleasing. The sun’s disk is a nice color and I like the glow around it.  The glow may be the result of shooting through some thin passing clouds, but I don’t know.

Now let’s look at a photo taken with the Marumi ND100000 filter.

Canon EOS 80D, 400mm, f/8, 1/250s, ISO 100, 6150K white balance, slightly cropped

Let’s be frank.  This is really blah.  I don’t know if the solar filter photo has that brilliant color because of the way it’s engineered to filter the light or what.  The Marumi ND filter is just that, an ND filter.  It is like sunglasses for your camera.  It just reduces the strength of the light reaching your sensor.  It doesn’t do anything with UV light, infrared, or any of that other stuff.  When we look at the sun with the naked eye during midday, it’s a big white-ish blob of light in the sky.  Well, all the ND filter is going to do is reduce the intensity of that light to the point that we can see the edge of the light source.  It becomes that off-white disk you see above.  I mean, this looks OK and I’m sure you can make a decent photo of the eclipse with it.  You’ll see the sun become obscured.  You’re just not going to have that awesome orange color you get from the solar filter.

I want to point out the exposure settings I used with the Marumi ND filter.  Look at the metadata I put in the captions of the photos above.  With the solar filter, I used a shutter speed of 1/60s.  With the Marumi ND filter, and all other settings being equal, I had to use a shutter speed of 1/250s.  This shows the ND filter is not filtering out as much light as the solar filter.  Be careful if you will be shooting the eclipse with an ND filter.

The morning of my trial run with my eclipse gear, I decided to order another solar filter.  I plan on shooting the sun with one body and a telephoto lens, then using another body with a wide-angle lens to do a time-lapse of the eclipse moving across the sky.  I thought about using the Marumi ND for the time-lapse, but I decided I want to have that nice orange sun in all my photos.  The Amazon seller I used had sold out of the Thousand Oaks Optical 6″ solar filter sheets.  The remaining Thousand Oaks Optical sheets were very expensive.  Prices are going up everywhere for solar filters and ND filters.  I ended up ordering two  slip-on optical filters from B&H.  One is the foldable paper kind I pooh-poohed before knowing better, and the other also slips on but is held in place with screws.  I’ll give them a whirl once I get them, and hope they perform as well as the Thousand Oaks Optical solar filters.

I really should’ve bought two of those solar filter sheets.  I guess I was thinking that $100 Marumi ND filter was going to be good.  I mean, $100 filter vs $25 sheet of plastic.  The expensive filter’s gonna be better, right?  Wrong.  I didn’t know what I was doing at the time.  So I hope you all learn from my experiences.

In the meantime, get yourself a solar filter.  Check the online camera retailers, but don’t expect much luck.  Stuff is showing up as discontinued, not even out-of-stock.  Check your local camera shop.  I saw my local camera shop promoting solar eclipse gear.  If those solar filters I bought from B&H stink, I may have to run over to the local camera shop.

Here are a couple of sites that had decent info about photographing the solar eclipse:

• A Total Guide to Totality: Solar Eclipse Photography (Canon)
• How to Photograph a Solar Eclipse (B&H)

One more thing.  The guides I have read talk about removing your solar filter when the eclipse reaches totality.  Don’t do this unless you are in that 70-mile zone where the sun will be 100% covered.  If you are outside of the zone of totality, keep your filters on the whole time.

Good luck photographing the solar eclipse.  Do lots of research, and play it safe.

Depth of field comparisons

Recently I was playing with a couple of lenses that have a wide maximum aperture, Canon’s EF 135mm f/2L USM and Sigma’s 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art.  It’s fun to shoot these lenses wide-open because you get that nice creamy background.  However, you’re also left with a very shallow depth of field where only a thin plane is in focus.

I took photos of objects at a variety of apertures so I could see how things looked at the different aperture settings.  It occurred to me that beginning photographers could find these comparisons useful as well as demonstrate the kind of cool stuff you can do at wide apertures.  This post is written for people with little photography experience, so it may be too simple for advanced photographers.

Below are five different scenes shot at different aperture settings.  The photos can be compared and I wrote an explanation or discussion about each scene.  The fifth scene had the biggest difference in aperture between the two sample photos.

Example One

Canon EOS 7D Mark II, Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM, f/2, 1/3200s, ISO 100

Canon EOS 7D Mark II, Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM, f/4, 1/800s, ISO 100

The top photo has a very blurred background.  You can barely tell there is something in the background.  At f/2, only the bottom part of the shiniest leaf in the center is in focus.  At f/4, with the additional depth of field, the top of that shiny leaf is also in focus.  So while you gain sharpness of the leaves, you lose some of the background blur because whatever that whitish-gray thing is in the background becomes ever so slightly more in-focus.

This example also demonstrates the principle of the exposure pyramid.  The first photo was shot at f/2, 1/3200s, ISO 100.  The second photo was shot at f/4, 1/800s, ISO 100.  The ISO stayed the same, but the aperture became smaller.  In order to maintain a proper exposure, the shutter speed had to decrease.  At f/4, only a quarter as much light is making it to the sensor.  f/2.8 is half as much light as f/2, and f/4 is half that of f/2.8.  Notice the shutter speed at f/4 is one-quarter the shutter speed used at f/2, 1/800s versus 1/3200s.  I believe I was shooting in Av (aperture priority) mode, so the camera made the shutter speed adjustments.

Example Two

Canon EOS 5D Mark III, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art, f/1.4, 1/4000s, ISO 100

Canon EOS 5D Mark III, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art, f/3.5, 1/640s, ISO 100

Just a straight-up increase in depth of field.  The stonework behind the sculpture became more clearly defined at f/3.5.

Example Three

Canon EOS 5D Mark III, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art, f/1.4, 1/1000s, ISO 100

Canon EOS 5D Mark III, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art, f/3.5, 1/125s, ISO 100

This example shows how a wide aperture setting can help a photo.  While the f/3.5 photo shows more detail in the mane thanks to the greater depth of field, the branches above the horse’s head are quite conspicuous.  At f/1.4, the horse’s eye is still sharp, but the branches are rendered into a less-distracting blur.  Generally I like to stop down the aperture when photographing sculptures so I can capture more of the textures and details, but I think the wide-open shot is the way to go in this example.  Those branches are too distracting at f/3.5.

Example Four

Canon EOS 5D Mark III, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art, f/1.4, 1/5000s, ISO 200

Canon EOS 5D Mark III, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art, f/4, 1/800s, ISO 200

The differences in detail due to the greater depth of field are easily visible. At f/4 the bell of the horn is sharper and the streetscape in the background is more discernible.  The black light pole is actually kind of distracting.

I should note that I mistakenly shot these at ISO 200.  Because of that, I had to use a shutter speed of 1/5000s.  I mention this because the more consumer-oriented camera bodies have a maximum shutter speed of 1/4000s.  In cases of bright sunlight, these consumer bodies may not be able to achieve a fast enough shutter speed to shoot at f/1.4 without overexposing, even with ISO 100.  Some bodies allow you to expand the ISO range and shoot at ISO 50.  You can also use a polarizer or very light ND filter to help reduce the amount of light hitting the sensor so you can shoot at f/1.4 using a slower shutter speed.

Example Five

Canon EOS 5D Mark III, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art, f/1.4, 1/6400s, ISO 200

Canon EOS 5D Mark III, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art, f/5.6, 1/400s, ISO 200

This is the most-dramatic example I am providing here.  There are four f-stops of difference between these two images.  The first was shot at f/1.4, the second shot at f/5.6.  Again, because I accidentally shot at ISO 200, a really fast shutter speed was necessary to use an aperture of f/1.4.

At f/5.6, you can tell there is a car in the background and you can even make out some of the bark on the tree.  The texture of the bushes behind the sculpture can be made out.

Go wide

A lot of zoom lenses, especially of the consumer variety, have a maximum aperture of f/5.6 at the long end.  At f/5.6, depending on the separation of the background from the subject, it can be hard to throw that background out of focus.  This example shows why a serious amateur should invest in a fast prime lens; something with an f/2.8 aperture or wider.  Even a casual amateur can pick up Canon’s EF 50mm f/1.8 STM for about $100.  It is a decently sharp lens, and shooting it at f/1.8 or f/2 will help produce a nicely-blurred background that can’t be achieved at f/5.6 with an entry-level zoom lens.

Depth of field preview

The depth of field preview button is a tool that can be used to help get an idea of how your photo will look at a variety of aperture settings.  It is a button that closes the aperture blades as you hold it down. On Canon bodies it is located on the front of the camera near the lens mount.

Depth of field preview button on a Canon EOS 5D Mark III

Depth of field preview button on a Canon EOS 80D

It may be hard to see the change in depth of field in the viewfinder, but if the lens is stopped down enough, you should be able to see a difference.  Remember, when you are looking through the viewfinder without pressing the DOF preview button, the lens is wide open at its maximum aperture.  When you press the DOF preview button, the aperture is closed and the scene in the viewfinder will represent how the photo will look with the lens stopped down.

Some people pooh-pooh the DOF preview button, saying it is unnecessary.  “Just take a picture and look at it.”  Personally, I think that is a foolish attitude.  It is far easier to hold down the DOF preview button and look through the viewfinder than it is to take the picture, look at the image on the LCD screen, zoom in on the image, then press the delete button.

Thanks to experience, I have a general idea of how a photo will look at various aperture settings, but I won’t hesitate to press the DOF preview button if I’m unsure about my settings or want a preview.

Conclusion

Hopefully this selection of photos will help beginning photographers see what is possible with wide-aperture lenses, and help them understand the role of aperture in photography.  The examples here showed both the impact on appearance and the impact on exposure.

Mirror lens? Don’t bother.

Long ago I heard about mirror lenses.  They are lenses with long focal lengths, like 500mm to 1000mm.  However, they are relatively short for their focal length, about the size of a small coffee can.  They are light; an 800mm mirror lens weighs about two pounds.  They are also inexpensive.  A 500mm mirror lens can be had for $130.  So what’s not to like?  A lot.

First, mirror lenses (also called reflex lenses or catadioptric lenses) have a fixed aperture.  They are typically small apertures such as f/6.3 or f/8, depending on focal length.  Second, with only one exception I am aware of, mirror lenses are manual focus.  Third, they may be short and light, but their diameter is huge.  An 800mm mirror lens has a front filter size of 105mm.  Fourth, there is no image stabilization, unless you are using a camera with in-body IS.  Fifth, the image quality is relatively poor.  Sixth, mirror lenses have funky bokeh.

My mirror lens experience is with the Rokinon 800mm f/8 adapted and mounted on a Sony a6000, a Canon EOS 5D3, and a Canon EOS 80D.

A mirror lens on a mirrorless body!

I’m not one to shy away from photographic challenges.  I will intentionally use inferior lenses to make sure I’m using good technique and not relying too much on technology and the gear.  If I can make a good photo with a supposedly lousy lens, that means I must be doing something right.  I also get a sense of accomplishment from having to work harder than usual for a photo.  Despite all the purported weaknesses of a mirror lens, I bought one anyway because I wanted a challenge.  Could I overcome the weaknesses of the lens with my skill?  I found a used Rokinon 800mm in like-new condition for $150.  I’m glad I indulged my curiosity and gained the experience of using a mirror lens, which most photographers will never see, let alone use.  However, mirror lenses are pretty much a waste of time and money.  I’m guessing the previous owner of my lens used it a couple of times before realizing it’s a pain to use and the chance of getting good photos is slim.

Let’s explore the weaknesses of mirror lenses.  Each weakness is significant, but several of them combine to conspire against a photographer.

Fixed Aperture

My lens has an aperture of f/8.  The fixed aperture is due to the construction of the lens.  The mirror in the center does not allow for an adjustable aperture.  This means you cannot stop down for additional depth of field.  This is a major issue at long focal lengths.  At 800mm f/8, and a subject distance of 100ft, your depth of field is 2.23ft.  That sounds like plenty, and it can be if your subject is still.  If your subject is moving at all, forget about nailing focus.  At a subject distance of 50ft, you’re looking at a six-inch depth of field.  Good luck with that.

Another issue with the fixed f/8 aperture is some darkening in the viewfinder.  Your typical lenses have an aperture of f/1.4-f/5.6.  The f/8 aperture means less light will make it to your viewfinder.  With the electronic viewfinder of a mirrorless camera, this is not a concern.

The fixed aperture also cripples your exposure triangle.  With the aperture being fixed, that means you can only adjust your exposure by means of shutter speed and ISO.  To be technically correct, I will say you could use an ND filter, but I doubt you will ever be in a situation with a mirror lens where there is too much light.

I wouldn’t bother with using a mirror lens on a cloudy day.  At f/8 and a shutter speed greater than 1/800s to compensate for camera shake, you need all the sunlight you can get.

Manual Focus

Today’s DSLRs aren’t designed for manual focusing.  You don’t have any focusing aids except the somewhat-accurate focus confirm light, and that’s only available if your lens communicates with the body.  Mirror lenses don’t communicate with the camera.  With a DSLR, you’re stuck either eyeballing the focus through the viewfinder or using Live View on the LCD.  I haven’t tried Magic Lantern yet, which offers focus peaking to help with manual focus on Canons.

One reason I mounted the mirror lens on a Sony a6000 is because I’ve had decent luck using Sony’s focus peaking to manually focus.  Sony’s focus peaking display is easier to see than Canon’s focus peaking on the EOS M3.  I found the focus peaking to be of no help with the mirror lens on the Sony.  I was really disappointed.  I thought most of my shots would be in focus because I had a lot of the little focus-indicating white dots on my subjects.  I shot over 100 photos with the Sony and the Rokinon 800mm, and not one photo had acceptable focus.

Here’s a 100% crop taken with a Canon EOS 80D.  I focused by looking through the viewfinder.  The robin’s eye was not sharp, and this was the sharpest photo I have taken recently with the mirror lens.  Any of my autofocus lenses would’ve nailed focus on the eye.  I don’t think focus peaking would’ve helped here, since it didn’t do a thing for me on the Sony.  Also note the noisy image.  I used a shutter speed of 1/1000s because of the long focal length and camera shake.  Because of the high shutter speed, ISO had to go to 640, hence the image noise.

As if the shallow depth of field didn’t make focusing hard enough, the focus ring of my mirror lens has a short throw.  It’s about 90 degrees from the minimum focusing distance of 11ft to 100ft/infinity.  Just a tiny turn of the focusing ring results in a huge change in focus.  I have used a Zeiss 50mm Makro-Planar, and that thing has 305 degrees of rotation for the focus ring.  Super easy to make very fine adjustments to focus with that lens.  All manual focus lenses should have a long throw.  Maybe Rokinon/Samyang’s engineers thought a 800mm mirror lens would be used for sports or wildlife, so a short throw would be beneficial to changing focus quickly.  However, the tiny depth of field means you will constantly miss focus with an imprecise short-throw focus ring.

Lens Size

I’ve seen mirror lenses referred to as coffee cans.  That’s a suitable description.  Not very long, but they are thick.  The Rokinon 800mm f/8 has a front filter size of 105mm.  Most lenses are in the 52-77mm range.  Look at the picture of this lens mounted on a Sony a6000 at the beginning of this post.  The a6000 could fit inside the lens.  It could be challenging to find a lens case or camera bag that accommodates a mirror lens well.

While the lens is fairly light, it doesn’t balance well with camera bodies.  Even on the 5D3, it felt weird to have such a short and thick lens on the end.  Mounted on the a6000, I used care holding the camera and lens.  Sony’s mounts have a reputation for being weak and I didn’t want to stress it.  That said, the a6000/Rokinon 800mm combination felt pretty stable on a monopod.

Image Stabilization

At 800mm, even the tiniest bit of shaking looks like a huge earthquake in your viewfinder.  I recommend using a tripod or monopod to stabilize the camera when shooting with a mirror lens.  You can shoot handheld, and I have done it plenty, but you really need to have a steady stance and proper camera-holding technique.

Some mirrorless cameras have in-body image stabilization.  That may ameliorate some of the difficulties of composing a shot with a mirror lens.  As I have not used one of those IBIS bodies yet, I cannot provide an informed opinion.

On a related note, I have a heck of a time finding my subject in the viewfinder or on the LCD sometimes.  I spot my subject with the naked eye, then I end up panning all over to get the lens pointed at the subject.  This lens has a 3-degree angle of view.  That is quite narrow and why you may have a hard time finding your subject.  You’re looking at a tiny sliver of the scene, and there is a huge earthquake going on.  Good luck trying to focus on something as the scene bounces around in your viewfinder.

Image Quality

Just take my word for it.  Mirror lens image quality is poor. If you don’t believe me, look at this post from a topic on DP Review.

I have a handful of decently sharp photos.  However, most of my photos taken with mirror lenses look like Impressionist paintings.  Sometimes color rendition is poor.  Sometimes there is a haze to the image.  Sometimes the image looks like a crappy film photo from the 1970s.  The upside is there isn’t much in the way of chromatic aberration.

Here’s the best I was able to do with a mirror lens.  An American goldfinch during golden hour.  It lacks pop.

It looks decent here because you are not viewing it at full resolution.  You could probably get away with posting your mirror lens photos on Instagram.  The resolution there is low enough you can hide the poor focus and lack of sharpness.

Using a mirror lens is like gambling.  Winning is more dependent on luck than skill.  If you get a good photo out of a mirror lens, consider yourself lucky.  Being a good photographer will help, but I think even the greatest photographers in the world will have a hard time getting consistently good results from a mirror lens.

Odd Bokeh

Mirror lenses are known for ring-shaped bokeh.  Any points of light in the background of your photo will look like little rings.  I don’t think it looks terrible, but it does look weird.

Look at the top half of the photo above.  See all those little circles dispersed through the background?  That is due to the aperture of the mirror lens being donut-shaped.  The shape of a lens’ aperture dictates the shape of the highlights.  Here’s a post I wrote about how to make heart-shaped bokeh.

Conclusion

You’re welcome to buy a mirror lens.  It’s your decision.  Only you know if a mirror lens is right for you.  My suggestion is to save your $100-200 and spend it on pretty much anything else.  Mirror lenses are relatively inexpensive, but they aren’t worth your time or money.

Poor contrast

They’re not even worth owning just to be able to say you have a 500mm or 800mm lens.  Yeah, you’ll have an 800mm lens, but is it worth owning if the photos it produces are crappy?  At least tilt-shift, macro, and fisheye lenses are generally pretty good in terms of image quality.  They may not be the most-frequently-used lenses in your arsenal, but you know you will get a good photo out of them every time.  A mirror lens only gives you frustration and soft images every time.

Meh. Not going to win any awards, and weird color rendition.

I bought a mirror lens to challenge myself.  Even if you’re trying to challenge yourself, you deserve to have some success.  Even if you nail the focus, the photo from your mirror lens probably won’t be that amazing.  It may be ruined by that funky ring-shaped bokeh or a lack of contrast.

If you want a lens with a long focal length, stick with good telephoto zoom lenses and primes.  Canon’s 1.4x Extender III doesn’t hurt image quality too much.  Yes, those lenses cost a lot more than a mirror lens, but you can count on them for great images.  They are worth the price.  You won’t get frustrated using them, and they are real lenses with autofocus, image stabilization, and adjustable aperture.

The untapped potential of food snapshots

I’m not one to photograph my food very often. I tend to do it only during holiday meals or when I plan on writing a Yelp review. I don’t eat at trendy restaurants and my food at home is merely OK-looking, so I don’t have many reasons to photograph my food.

However, I do come across a lot of food photos in social media.  I am torn about writing this post, because I don’t want to be too critical of people.  There are some lousy food photos out there.  Bad lighting, blurry, unappealing.  There are also some photos that have great potential.  That is the angle I want to take with this post.  I want to show how a mundane photo can be easily edited to make food look even more appetizing.

First, let’s go over a photo I saw on Twitter.

Skillfully grilled meat can look fantastic.  This photo looked slightly overexposed and was lacking in color.  I’m pretty sure this meat looked much better in-person.  As someone once said, “Eye appeal is buy appeal.”  I think photos of food should look so good you want to lick the screen.  That didn’t happen with this photo, but I knew it was close to having that look.

Since I was messing around on my phone at the time, I decided to edit the photo in Aviary.  Aviary is my favorite mobile app for editing photos.  I remembered there was a preset for food photos.  Here is what it did.

It was better, but still not quite what I thought the photo could be.  The saturation was improved and the photo was darkened some.

Aviary has tools for the individual exposure and color elements of a photo.

I thought the photo still needed some more contrast, more saturation, and less exposure.  I also gave it a little sharpening.  Here is what I came up with on my phone.  It’s better than the original, but it still has a bit of a green tint and slightly cool white balance.

Lastly, I did some edits in Lightroom.  White balance, -exposure, +contrast, -highlights, +vibrance, +saturation, +sharpness, -black.  I wasn’t there, so I don’t know if I have accurately recreated the actual colors of the meat.  This is only what I would expect it to look like.  I may have made things a little too red.  My edits in Aviary seemed to do a better job getting the blacks to look black.

In summary, here is a comparison of the different edits that were made.

Now for another example.  The next example was actually completed before the one above.  It is a photo a friend took.  I wanted to post my edited version of the photo, but I was afraid of offending him.  After coming across the photo I used in the example above, I decided I ought to go ahead with showing people how some editing can make food look as appetizing in a photo as it does in-person.

My friend posted a photo of a dish he prepared using the sous-vide method.  He is a fantastic and knowledgeable cook.  When he posted this photo of the dish, I’m pretty sure he only wanted to post a quick snapshot showing what he accomplished.  I don’t think he was trying to post a “perfect” photo.

I thought this was a good start, but the white balance was off and the image just didn’t pop.  It certainly looked tasty, but I bet it looked better in-person.  I made some changes in Lightroom like I did in the previous example.  Cellphone photos typically have issues with white balance, a lack of detail in shadows, not enough contrast, a lack of color, and insufficient lighting.

I was going to leave the juices of the meat on the plate, but I decided to clean up the plate to make this dish look how it would at a restaurant.  I sharpened the image to help the grill marks and herbs stand out.  Brightening the image also helped show the green color of the herbs.  I also brightened the shadows so we could see the meat’s texture along the slice better.  There was some vignetting in the original.  I didn’t think it contributed to the photo, so I got rid of it.  I did make a minor edit to the sharpening at the edge of the meat.  I actually softened the edges because the initial sharpening created those halos you get from oversharpening.  I figured any halos elsewhere would be hidden by the texture of the meat.

Here is a before-and-after view of the sous-vide photo.

Hopefully my friend won’t mind that I edited the photo of his food.  It was a photogenic subject that was able to reach a higher level with some simple edits.

I realize not everyone is a photographer.  Not everyone wants their meal to look like something out of a magazine.  However, give some of the filters or presets a try in the app of your choice.  With just a few taps, you can make your friends and followers even more envious of your meal.

Camera bags on the cheap

I recently purchased a used Ricoh GR II point-and-shoot camera.  I actually rented it, then liked it enough to buy it off the rental company.  The image quality is excellent.  The built-in 28mm (35mm equivalent) GR Lens is very sharp.  The camera is small and light, and the build quality is decent.  The second I got it, I could see why it was a popular choice for street photography.  It’s proof you don’t need a clunky dSLR or mirrorless to get good image quality.  Unfortunately, the lens is a fixed focal length, limiting flexibility.

Anyway, this isn’t a review of the GR II.  This is a post about camera cases, sale prices, and confusion about how a particular retailer is able to make money.  I got to keep the nice Lowepro shoulder bag the GR II was shipped in as part of the rental.  It holds the charger and extra batteries I bought.  It’s nice for walking around town, but what if I want to bring the GR somewhere and I don’t want to carry the bag?  Maybe slip it in a coat pocket.  The GR has a well-known reputation for getting dust on its sensor.  In fact, my copy has some sensor dust.  For this reason, I’m not willing to put the naked camera in a pocket full of lint, dust, and dirt.  It needs a case.

So I went to B&H and Best Buy’s websites looking for a small camera case or pouch for the GR that was big enough to hold the camera and a spare battery, but still small enough to fit in a coat pocket. I was also looking at small pouches/bags with a shoulder strap.

While at Best Buy’s website, I noticed they had an amazing sale on small Lowepro cases.  I saw a $10 case for $5, a $17 case for $2.50, and a $30 case for $4.25.  Lowepro is good stuff, and these were cases that actually appealed to me.  I shared this deal on my Twitter page.

I ended up buying four different cases from Best Buy.  I mean, the most-expensive case I bought was the Lowepro Newport 30 for $5.50.  When cases are that cheap, you just buy everything that interests you, try them all, and use the case that works best.  Give away, sell, or repurpose the rest of the cases.

Lowepro Newport 30

I also bought a Lowepro Tahoe 30 for $5.  I actually have three of these already and use them for holding camera remotes and a small PowerShot.

Lowepro Tahoe 30

Then I went a little nuts.  I bought three of the Lowepro Portland 30 for $2.50 each.  How could I not, at that price?  Its normal price is $17.

Lowepro Portland 30

There was one more case I bought three of – the Lowepro Apex 60 AW.  That was the $4.25 case that normally goes for $30.  It’s the largest case I bought and supposedly it can hold mirrorless cameras with small or pancake lenses.  I just checked Amazon, and they’re still selling that case for $29.

Lowepro Apex 60 AW

My order arrived in multiple shipments.  The first was the Tahoe 30 pouch.  From what I can tell, it actually shipped from the Best Buy store in the next town over from me.  I could tell from the package tracking and the origin ZIP code on the padded envelope.  Also, there was a “Ship to Home” sticker on the case.  Mind you, I only paid $5 for this case.  Oh, and I forgot to mention there was free shipping.  I don’t see how the $5 can cover the cost of an employee at Best Buy picking this case from the shelf, putting it in a padded envelope, the cost of the merchandise itself, and then the postage.  I thought all my bags would ship from a central warehouse, so I was surprised to see my purchase broken into three shipments.

The next shipment was the Newport 30.  That actually came from a Best Buy distribution center outside Louisville.  This case cost $5.50.  It’s another one I already own and find useful.  Again, there is no way $5.50 can cover the cost of the bag, the employees who picked and packed it, and the shipping.

The final shipment consisted of three Portland 30s ($2.50 each) and three Apex 60 AWs ($4.25 each).  Total cost: $20.25 of merchandise that previously sold for $141.

It’s not that I care about Best Buy’s bottom line, it just boggles my mind that such a huge company would price items so low and allow free shipping on these items.  They must have really bad overstock or want to get rid of these cases.  Maybe Lowepro has new models coming out next year.  It’s also possible that camera cases have a huge markup and actually cost retailers very little.  Maybe Best Buy is selling these cases at-cost.  The economics doesn’t make sense to me.   Regardless, I am happy to get a good deal on some cases.

Yeah, I probably experienced some deal fever and went overboard buying these cases.  At least they seem like decent cases.  I definitely got my money’s worth.  Now what am I going to do with all these?