Streamlight Survivor Flashlight

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: Flared base for safety.

The Long Version: I've said this before, but it bears repeating. If you're looking for a 'tactical' flashlight because you think that someday you might be in a position where your best course of action is to hit someone with it, then you've made fundamentally poor life choices. In fact, if you're looking for punching-people things in general, this isn't the sporadically-updated reviews blog for you. Go away.

The Streamlight Survivor is a particular type of flashlight that's designed for firefighters. The right-angle light is designed to be worn, not carried, and throws an uncommonly tight beam that's designed to cut through smoke. Yes, the yellow one looks like a cross between a sex toy and a Minion, but sometimes greatness comes at a cost.

I am not a fire fighter, making this a slightly odd flashlight for me to own. But I like ugly utility lights, and it answers a particular need. I'm a photographer, and have been working with night photography in a remote wilderness location, and the Survivor lets me light up trees that are over a hundred metres away from my camera. It's an excellent tool for light painting, especially with the warming amber 'smoke-cutter' installed. While it shows as a ring in these photos, the little CTO disk does average out into the beam at a fairly short distance, making it a nice temperature for mixing with ambient light.

And yes, Streamlight calls those in-beam light modifiers "plugs". Maybe they do have a sense of humour.

The Survivor has both a heavy-duty plastic clip, which is spring-loaded and rugged, along with a metal loop for hooking. The metal loop is attached to the top of the clip, so when it's upright it gives a little extra leverage for attaching or removing the clip from clothing. The upright clip also makes it harder to turn the light on with a one-handed hold, but that's life.

One design shortfall of the Survivor is that nothing on it glows in the dark. Pelican lights are the masters at this, but even a few other companies have figured this out, so it can't be patented. I've addressed this shortfall by applying some photoluminescent tape to the back of the light, which helps, but a glow bezel would be better.

And there's a funny story about me applying that tape. I wanted to clean the body to ensure that the tape would stick properly, so I wiped it down with a paper towel that had been touched with rubbing alcohol. It worked – the tape sticks nicely – but the alcohol also took off all of the black paint that usually highlights the name on the front of the light. I really expected a tool that's designed to be used in hazardous environments to be a bit more resilient than that, even if it is only cosmetic. My Pelicans are all tougher than this.

There are a couple of powering options for the Survivor. I chose the basic 4xAA setup since I'm putting it through fairly light use, and the bespoke rechargeable options are quite expensive. But regardless of which option you choose the light itself is the same, with the pass-though charging contacts on the base, so if I ever find myself running a fleet of these things I can upgrade it to a rechargeable battery pack instead of needing to buy a new light. On the other hand that does mean that the 4xAA cells are housed in a bulky carrier that needs a little pry to open when it's time to change them.

The Survivor is a bulky light, much larger than the 4xAA battery power would suggest. This isn't strictly a negative, since it's designed to be handled by people wearing gloves, but it's worth keeping in mind for civilian use. While the 4xAA light does lose its safety certifications when running with anything but disposable batteries, it works just fine with my usual choice of low-discharge rechargeable batteries – ready whenever I need it, no matter how long it has been sitting idle.

Just like a sex toy.

last updated 20 october 2017

Panasonic DMC-GX7C, Body Only

Concept: 4 out of 5
Execution: 1 out of 5
Yeah, but: Buyer Beware
The Long Version:

The Purchase From Amazon

Reader beware. I'm coming at this review with a very big chip on my shoulder. Here's why.

I purchased a Panasonic GX7 black body from Amazon because it was marked down over a 1/3 from its original MSRP. Now when I purchase a camera body, I expect a camera body properly marked and boxed. That's not what I got. The seller, Web Offers, sold me a broken up body plus lens kit, where the lens had been removed (I assume to sell independently when the 20mm was selling for $100 and more over its initial MSRP). It was not advertised as such on Amazon.

When the box was opened and the body unwrapped, the body/sensor cavity was open, the body cover in another part of the box. Even the box listed the 20mm as part of the overall kit. Web Offers had to have known what it was doing, or what it had. The original SKU label was papered over with another sticker that said "Body only..."

I never expected to get such from a trusted vendor like Amazon. This is the kind of shady behaviour I expect from eBay. My trust in Amazon has taken a bit of a hit over this, especially over sale items Amazon fullfills but are sold by another seller. Mere fulfillment by Amazon isn't enough of a guarantee of quality it would seem. 

Pros

Image Quality

I ran my tests primarily with the Olympus 1.8/17mm lens, but over the short time I had the GX7 I also tested with the 1.8/45mm, the 12-50mm kit zoom and the Panasonic Leica 1.4/25mm. The GX7 handled all of them smoothly and without any issues. From a practical standpoint, focusing with the GX7 in normal Florida light was as fast as the E-M5, or close enough as to be irrelevant as to which was faster.

The GX7 has a 16MP 4:3rds sensor matched with a contemporary Panasonic Venus Engine. For all intents and purposes, the output of the GX7 is indistinguishable from the E-M5 when used as a standard digital camera, that is, using either the EVF or the rear screen to compose and tripping the shutter with the shutter button. There is, however, more to today's cameras than just image quality.

Cons

Handling

I have read the phrase "falls easily to hand" so many times that I'm sick of reading it. The GX7 does not "fall easily" to my hand. I own a number of µ4:3rds bodies; the Olympus E-P2, the E-PL1, the Panasonic GX1 and the Olympus E-M5. I even have a Sony NEX 5N. I know how these small cameras should handle. All of them, in various degrees, have been easy enough to hold, especially over prolonged periods of time. The best handling camera I own by far is the E-M5, and that's whether I have the HLD-6 horizontal grip bolted on or not (I don't usually shoot with the vertical grip).

When I'm out using a camera I walk around carrying my camera in my right hand so that it's quick to bring up and use. Using the GX7 in this manner is awkward and becomes fatiguing over time compared to my other cameras. I attribute this in part to the GX7's oddly asymmetrical design, the most asymmetrical I've held to date (with the notable exception of the NEX 5N, perhaps).

Unlike all other µ4:3rds camera bodies I own, the lens mount is shoved to the right edge of the body (forward view); the lens release abuts the edge. Even the GX1 lens mount isn't pushed that far. Add in the large soft lump on the left that passes for the grip and it makes for an awkward combination with any lens, the larger the more awkward. The best handling combination was with the 17mm, followed closely by the 45mm. The worst was a tie between the 25mm and the 12-50mm zoom.

The differences between the GX7 and the E-M5 is not just the front grip but also the back thumb grip; to whit, the E-M5 (and E-M1 and E-M10) have a substantial thumb grip, while the GX7 does not. I believe It's that back thumb grip that allows me to hold the E-M5 with a more relaxed grip. With the GX7 I unconsciously believe I'm constantly ready to drop it because I don't have the same assuring tactile feedback.

The buttons turned out to be very sensitive to touch, so much that the would register a double hit, causing me to skip say a menu entry. It got tiresome having to go back very carefully one step. The worse button by far turned out to be the video button. It is flat against the top deck, right up next to the dial surrounding the shutter release. It was very uncomfortable to reach over and release, a far cry from the far easier button on the E-M5

EVF

The EVF does indeed suffer from rainbow shearing. It's particularly egregious around the white text at the bottom of the EVF. It was so bad that in the end I found myself using the rear LCD almost exclusively. I found the EVF tilting feature a bit of a waste of effort. I've got an Olympus EVF that fits my older Pens, and I've never been all that enamored with its tilting capability either.

Rear Screen

What finally drove me batty was trying to work with the touch LCD on the back of the GX7. My E-M5 has a reasonable oleophobic surface on the screen, which tends to keep my oily fingerprints off and helps to me see what the screen. The GX7 screen was constantly picking up finger oil, which was constantly forcing me to wipe it with a micro fiber cloth.

The GX7 touch screen was almost too sensitive at times. I would inadvertently touch a part of the screen, triggering an exposure, and relocating the focus point. In the end I disabled the touch screen and just used the buttons (those wonderfully over sensitive buttons) to move the focus point if I needed it moved.

The E-M5 touch screen, by comparison, is a joy to use. If there's one feature Olympus nailed with the E-M5 it's how the touch-to-trigger-exposure works. It works flawlessly on the E-M5, and as I've recently discovered, on the E-M10 as well.

Summation

If I had to make a choice between the GX1 and the GX7, I'd choose the GX1. Likewise, I'd choose the E-M5 in a cold minute over the GX7. The GX7 isn't worth the money, even if it's on sale. There are better µ4:3rds bodies to be had, even from Panasonic. Consider, for example, the Panasonic G6 for the same amount of money.

The GX7 has been packed up and sent back to Amazon. In it's place I purchased an Olympus E-M10 body, which turned out to be less than the GX7. It's probably what I should have done to start with, but I wanted to give the rangefinder design with the built-in EVF a whirl, thinking this would be a good fit in my camera bag. It was not

I've sworn off the faux rangefinder designs of every camera maker, including Olympus' Pen series. Funny thing is, with the Olympus EVF plugged into the Pen, the EVF sits over the lens, just like an SLR design such as the OM-D. I've learned my lesson. I'm sticking with the mirrorless SLR designs from here on out regardless of brand, and unless they go truly bonkers, I'm sticking with Olympus.

last updated 7 oct 2014

Fujifilm XQ1

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: Small, quick, and good.

The Long Version: The Fujifilm XQ1 is an interesting camera.

Well, actually, that's not entirely true. It's a raw-shooting compact camera that's trying to make its way in a world of ubiquitous smart phones. There are similarly-sized but more expensive cameras that have much bigger sensors, and cheaper cameras that have similar features and more refined designs. My XQ1 was given to me as a gift, and so I've been trying to decide if, knowing what I know now, I would have bought one for myself.

The big deal about the XQ1 – its Unique Selling Feature – is that it's the cheapest and smallest camera with an X-Trans sensor. This is the same 2/3 size as the X20/X30 series, not the bigger 1.5x unit that goes in the X100 and X- cameras, but it's still a bit bigger than the ones that Canon or Panasonic use in their point and shoots. While I'm not convinced that size actually matters at this scale, the XQ1 does produce good images with lots of detail.

The main competition for any compact camera is the smart phone. This is an easy image quality comparison to make: the XQ1 beats my iPhone 5S quite handily. The XQ1 has wifi connectivity, so I've been using it for many of my social media endeavours. There's a distinct quality advantage even after the reduced-size 3MP images have been edited and fed through the spaghetti-shredder of online recompression and transmission. And that's even before things that used to be a photographic staple, like zoom lenses and low-light ability, come into consideration.

I suppose others might choose it for art-making, but I use the XQ1 almost exclusively for impromptu and record-keeping photos. Snapshots, twitter-fodder, chance encounters with mayoral candidates, and so on. It's nice to have a small and good camera for this, especially since it has a decent zoom lens. That lens, and the wifi connection, is why the XQ1 is the camera that I usually carry each day.

A little-known fact is that "WiFi" is actually short for "well, iffy". Linking the camera to a phone or tablet means going into playback mode, turning on wifi on the camera, selecting the camera wifi network on the phone, launching the Fuji app on the phone and hitting 'connect'. With luck the camera hasn't timed out, or had a button hit that would turn off its wifi broadcast and needed the whole routine to restart.

Once the iffy connection is made then the rest goes fairly easily. I prefer to just use the Fujifim "PhotoReceiver" app that has the camera choose which images to send, since the camera's LCD provides a bigger preview of the images to transfer. It means a bit more juggling devices than using the app that allows the phone/tablet to browse the images that are on the camera, but it's easier overall.

But of course using the XQ1 isn't as fast or easy as just using a phone to take a photo – and yes, I'm of an age where that still seems like an odd thing to say. My phone is always closer to hand, and I can have its camera up and running before the XQ1 powers on. So there's always a decision to make, to decide if it's worth using the bigger camera, but that's always the way.

I don't really have much to complain about with the XQ1, which is a little odd for me. I wish that it had a dual-axis level instead of single, and that the mode dial was firmer, since it tends to move all on its own when the camera isn't being observed. But the bigger control issue is the ring around the lens. There's a slight lag and no detents, so it's necessary to pay attention to the little numbers on the screen to use it. This means that the camera always needs to be supervised and can't be used intuitively. Often that's a critical flaw, but for a simple little compact camera maybe it's not that important.

The XQ1 also doesn't have any sort of 'safety' override on its exposure controls, and it's actually fairly easy to run out of shutter speed when leaving the lens wide open in bright light. This is a camera to set in Program mode and forget about any control beyond exposure compensation.

There are some other features that are fun to have. The sweep panorama mode works well, and I like the film-effects bracketing that can mimic different black and white contrast filters. Since I only use the XQ1 in jpeg mode – my generation of Lightroom can't handle its raw files – this has turned out to be quite handy. Once I accepted the XQ1 as a happysnaps point-and-shoot this camera has turned out to be a lot of fun.

The question remains: if I wasn't given this camera, would I buy one? I'm still not sure. The XQ1 takes better photos than the Canon S100 I owned a couple of years ago, even though the Canon had the advantage of being a more mature design. So when the time comes to replace my XQ1, I'll certainly look at what Fujifilm is offering – along with whichever Canon camera happens to be current that month – because the company is certainly showing real promise. And hopefully by then they'll include a bigger battery and a stand-alone charger, because this USB-only thing is the pits.

last updated 7 sept 2014

Generic 52mm Telephoto Screw-In Hood

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: So, about that thing I said earlier…

The Long Version: Sometimes, as I'm writing a review, I'll think of something that completely undermines it. I did it again, this time with my Sigma LH3-01 lens hood.

The problem of almost any hood is that it conflicts with filters that need to rotate, such as a polarizer. So in my Sigma Hood review I idly mused that I could just solve that problem by spending $4 on a screw-in hood via ebay. The idea just kept making sense, so I did. And it does.

For less than one-tenth the price of the original plastic hood the generic metal one only gives up the ability to be reversed for storage. It also weighs a bit more, and has an obnoxious painted-on generic name. I keep that covered with black tape, and have added two more strips of tape so that I can feel how much I've rotated the attached polarizing filter.

I was really impressed with the Sigma LH3-01's ability to accept a 62mm filter on its end. I had never seen a hood do that – but it turns out that the open end of this generic 52mm hood is threaded for 58mm filters. So much for innovation. With metal there's none of the worries of stripping the threads, and with the screw-in I don't worry about over-stressing the bayonet mount. Putting a filter on the end of the hood still pretty much defeats the benefit of having the hood in the first place, but having the option at no extra cost is better than not having it.

This is my second metal screw-in hood from eBay – this one was bought from 'jiakgong' – and I'm completely happy with it with the single exception of its painted-on sizing name. That wasn't shown in the photos. The amazing thing is that this one was bought and shipped half-way around the world for half of what it would cost me to mail it within my own city. Say what you will about generic manufacturing, how does the shipping make any economic sense at all?

Perhaps in the future I may not automatically buy the original hood, and try waiting a month or so for shipping instead. Not that I plan on buying any lenses that don't come with hoods, but still.

last updated 15 aug 2014

Sigma LH3-01 Lens Hood

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: Lens hoods are cool.

The Long Version: The Sigma LH3-01 for the DP3 Merrill might be the most obscure camera accessory I've ever reviewed, given that it's a sold-separately $48 add-on for a cult camera that's at the end of its sales career. Lens hoods are not the most exciting accessory, it's true, but this is one of the more interesting ones that I've seen.

Cosmetically the hood is an appropriate match for the camera; it's smooth plastic instead of metal, but the lines match. It attaches with a bayonet mount, and when reversed extends almost all the way to the camera body. It really couldn't offer any better coverage without being dramatically harder to stow. That's great, but not particularly remarkable.

So here's the clever bit: the front of the lens hood is threaded for filters. The lens is a 52mm thread, and the hood has a 62mm thread on its front. It's a nice touch. The funny thing is, though, that putting a filter on the front of the hood actually negates a lot of the ant-glare benefits of having the hood in the first place. So who not just take the hood off? Why not, indeed.

Any filter that needs to be rotated – polarizer, variable or graduated neutral density – will benefit from the improved access of being on the front of the hood, and that slight increase in shading might still be worth the effort. Might. But any filters that don't need interaction, like the two- or three-stop ND filter that the DP3 should have had built-in, should still go on the lens.

There are some more exotic uses for the lens hood threads. A rubber lens hood pressed up against a window avoids most reflections, and attaching it to the end of the LH3 would be less restrictive than putting a really tiny one on the end of the lens itself. If the Sigma DP3M wasn't terrible in low light that might be useful for the local aquarium.

I suppose there's nothing stopping me from getting a 62-77 step-up ring so that I can use my big filters, and then buying a cheap screw-in hood to protect the filter from glare. That way the hood that's on the filter would still be able to rotate the filter that's on the hood, giving the best of both worlds. Or I could just buy a 52mm screw-on hood for $4.16 with free shipping – that would work, too.

I do appreciate that Sigma thought to add an extra feature to something mundane. But at some point, no matter how clever the idea is, there comes a point where workarounds and contraptionizing become more effort than they're worth. And if that isn't the motto for the entire Sigma DP series, well, maybe it should be.

Updated Forty Days Later: The idea of spending just a small amount of money on a screw-in lens hood that would let me rotate a polarizer just kept making sense, so I did it. It turns out that the metal screw-in hood that I bought from ebay extends farther from the lens and has a narrower opening, both of which give better coverage than the original. The photo above shows it screwed onto my polarizing filter inside of the sigma hood – and yes, I did risk never being able to disassemble that contraption for the sake of this review. Live and learn, right?

last updated 15 august 2014

Kamerar QV-1 LCD Viewfinder

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: I'm not a video person.

The Long Version: I was just starting a project that had me manually-focusing my D800 outdoors when I had the chance to try out the Kamerar QV-1 head-to-head with my classic Hoodman Hoodloupe. I bought the QV-1 on the spot.

The Kamerar QV-1 is a magnifying viewfinder loupe that's designed for recording video with the ergonomic nightmares that are HD-SLRs. As such it's specifically designed for hitting focus with an LCD screen in unfavourable light, which suits me perfectly even though I don't shoot footage. The viewfinder has a 2.5x magnification, which is enough to see pixels, and a big eyecup that's reversible for us left-eyed people.

The viewfinder attaches to a dedicated tripod plate via a magnetic tab, which holds the viewfinder quite securely despite latching at only one point. The viewfinder position is adjusted on the camera with hex bolts – wrench included – which makes it time-consuming to switch between camera models; the whole plate can side front-to-back to snug the finder up to the LCD. The plate is compatible with the Manfrotto 501PL, so it will fit on some of their video heads with no further difficulty. If a different plate is needed then there are screw points for both 1/4" and 3/8" attachments.

The viewfinder attaches securely, but doesn't seal hermetically – there can be a slight gap at the top and sides of the LCD that lets a little stray light in. I don't see any way to do a better seal without sticking a mounting frame onto the camera, though, which is a level of commitment that I'm not willing to make.

The QV-1 has a hinge and a latch that lets it fold upwards without needing to be removed from the camera. This is essential if the camera has a touch-screen, and I'd sometimes use it when I needed to change settings, although it isn't that difficult to find all the buttons while looking through the eyepiece. Yes, after two years with my D800 I still get confused between the + and - viewing buttons, but trial and error is part of the learning process.

Naturally it's not possible to use the cameras' own eye-level viewfinder with the LCD hood attached. That's a good reminder to close the OVF shutter, which is recommended when shooting on a tripod or with live view anyway.

This viewfinder, like most of them, is pretty big. Budget some extra space in the camera bag – it isn't heavy, but it's as bulky as a lens. It includes attachment points for a lanyard, so that it can be worn hoodman-style, but I'd never do it. There is a cautionary note that sunlight can be focused through the viewfinder and burn the camera's LCD, so that is a reason to take it off when it's not actively being used, but that's still no excuse for treating it like a fashion accessory. I put it in my jacket pocket or camera bag instead, and so far the rubber eyecup hasn't shown any tendency to collect lint.

I've never used the viewfinder brand that costs four times as much as the Kamerar and sounds like a hobby knife, but I've been pretty happy with the QV1. It's certainly good enough, it's a nice match for my SLR, and it costs about what I'm willing to spend given my low-key and rather undemanding usage. It's not one of those things that makes my heart sing with joy, but it's good enough that I wouldn't replace it, and it has proven useful enough as a concept that I bought a different LCD viewfinder for another cameras as well. More on that here.

last updated 8 june 2014

Godzilla (2014) ゴジラ

Actor Ken Watanabe as Dr. Ishiro Serizawa
expressing my exact sentiments about this latest film.

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: A US$200 million mindless cinematic weekend juggernaut, to which I contributed $6.
The Long Version:

Everybody in Hollywood who has nothing to do with real cinematic creativity is going absolutely ape-shit over the latest Godzilla iteration because it has generated a monstrous pile of cash for its studio investors. Once again, this movie overwhelmingly proves that in today's Hollywood, cinematic quality and merit are inversely proportional to earning power.

It would seem after the critic's caterwauling over Roland Emmerich's 1998 version, everyone was so desperate to see a "better" Godzilla treatment that they blindly stampeded into every movie house on Earth that showed it. And I mean just about everybody.

In backwater Orlando, Florida, I tried to see the movie Saturday night on International Drive, but it was so crowded I couldn't find a place to park and went home unfulfilled. I got to see it by hitting the earliest Sunday morning matinee I could find. And it cost $6, even with my senior discount.

Rather than hash out all the spoilers, I'd like to just touch on a few points (with spoilers) that stick out like a sore paw.

1. Bryan Cranston as Joe Brody. Mr. Cranston was in nearly all the trailers. In fact, I went into the movie thinking that his character would somehow help find a way to defeat Godzilla, especially after the way he lost his wife. Imagine my surprise to see his character die less than a third of the way into the movie. That left me with mostly Aaron Taylor-Johnson, who played USN LT Ford Brody, who played his son. After fifteen minutes with the son, I almost got up and left and not even bother to ask for a refund. Seriously.
2. Supremely stupid nuclear bomb tricks. Rear Admiral William Stenz (played by David Strathairn( Sneakers, Bourne, Alphas)  hastily devises a really bad plan to use nukes on a cheap tour boat to attract all the monsters out into San Francisco bay and then just blow them up. You'd think time, being of the essence, would call for the use of some of those C-17 Globemaster IIIs (there's a video at that link of a C-17 on a training run air dropping four Humvees and 50 troopers) that we see flying all through the film. You know, the really big strategic airlifters. The C-17 in real life is cavernous on the inside, capable of carrying, well, capable of carrying both the train and the nuke it was transporting. But I guess the Navy doesn't believe in big fancy aircraft. So instead we get a slow diesel locomotive pulling a flatbed with said nuke, rolling cross country and across bridges for the express purpose of being attacked by a M.U.T.O.
3. Film length. The 2014 version is 123 minutes (two hours three minutes). Add in 20-plus minutes of commercials and trailers (insult to injury), and the time in your seat is close to two-and-a-half hours. The original 1954 release was 98 minutes (one hour, 38 minutes). The first time I saw the 1954 version in a theater (1973) they had a pair of Warner Brother cartoons to start off, lasting all of ten more minutes. Stripping back to the core running time, there's no reason why the 2014 movie needs another 25 minutes. The 2014 movie needs/needed a good editing. Unfortunately, when the Director's Cut comes out in about a year, it'll get another 10 to 15 minutes.
4. Aaron Taylor-Johnson. Maybe I'm too old to appreciate such young talent, but I've seen better in that age bracket (Emma Stone (Zombieland, Amazing Spider-Man). For a fresh change of pace it would have been nice to see a woman (again, Emma Stone comes to mind) in that role, someone with sparkle and energy and intelligence, instead of the typical dumb brute force movie male. But lest we forget this is, after all, a movie about Godzilla, the ultimate incarnation of dumb brute force.

I think I'm about movied out for 2014. I saw Captain America, and I've now seen Godzilla. The hype machines for the rest of this year's movies are spinning at near light speed and throwing out tremendously overwhelming waves of, well, hype. But I think I've reached a point in my long life where I've developed considerable immunity. I know this to be when I can keep my money in my back pocket, where it belongs, when I pass one of these current blockbuster epics.

Update 24 May

Matthew Broderick as Dr. Niko Tatopoulos and Maria Pitillo
as journalist Audrey Timmonds in the 1998 Godzilla movie,
can't believe that little changed in 16 years either.

I came across a wonderfully refreshing comparison and review of the 2014 Godzilla, showcasing five substantive advantages the 1998 version had over this latest version. 'Godzilla': 5 Things Roland Emmerich's 1998 Version Did Better touches on what I found annoying in the 2014 version; characterization and development and clearly defined objectives that were key plot points in the 1998 movie but totally lacking in the 2014 version. In the 1998 movie, even the Gogira name drop really was way cooler, far more in keeping with the old 1950 and 1960 monster movies than the 2014 version.

Lest I forget, the 1998 'Godzilla' had an intelligent and powerful female role in Audrey Timmonds, played by Maria Pitillo. Barbs and criticisms notwithstanding, there was a lot more brainy action going on in 1998's 'Godzilla' than in 2014's. Even the 1998 Godzilla was leaner, more agile, and seemingly more intelligent. The 2014 Godzilla could be more aptly called Blubberzilla.

last updated 24 May 2014

Mophie Juicepack Air

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: It's better to marry than date.

The Long Version: When I'm writing these reviews I sometimes ask myself: 'Self, if this (whatever) went away through no fault of its own, would I buy another?' That is, with the benefit of experience, and everything that's changed between my first buying decision and the time when I write about it, would I do it over again?

With the Mophie iPhone battery case this isn't a hypothetical question – I'm on my third one. The first one I bought was for my i4s, but that phone broke less than two weeks later. The second was for my brand-new i5s – in fact I had the case even before I had bought the phone. And that one was my favourite case until it developed the annoying habit of repeatedly connecting and disconnecting while charging the phone. So case #2 went back to the local big-box store, where I had to settle for a credit since they didn't have the red Mophie Juicepack Air in stock to replace it with.

I sat on that credit for quite some time, and even bought the Apple leather case for daily wear, which I really like. So eventually I decided to use that store credit for something else – I wanted to cash it in before they file for bankruptcy, not that I have any inside knowledge – and spent time researching bluetooth speakers and other trinkets that cost about the same amount as the Mophie case before heading back to the store.

Ah, but when I went to the store I took a fateful stroll down the aisle where the battery cases sit. There it was: the Mophie Juicepack Air in its metallic Product Red colour. I couldn't resist and bought it again. It's just so pretty.

The Air isn't small. Putting it on the phone isn't a trivial choice, although its smoothish surface, curved back, and extra weight keeps the phone quite solidly pocketable. There are times when I take it off in favour of keeping the phone small, but I'd say that I use the case five days out of seven in three out of four weeks.

There's a practical difficulty that comes from only using the battery case occasionally: the Mophie charges from an industry-standard Micro USB cable, rather than the Apple-standard cables, so I keep both cables at my household charging station. The restrictions Apple puts on the Lightning port also means that the Micro USB port on the case can't do data pass-through, so the bottom of the case has to be removed when the phone needs to be tethered.

The biggest day-to-day complication with the Mophie case is that the headphone port on the Air is too small to let anything larger than the little white Apple headphones plug in directly. Mophie includes a short adapter cable to allow other headphones to work, but despite fairly light use the connection on mine has failed. I happen to have a spare, since I kept the one from the case that also failed, but this is not a reassuring trend.

The other challenge with the case is that it redirects the speaker port to the front of the phone, so leaving it face-down overnight muffles the alarm quite profoundly. I was nearly late for work as part of figuring that little tidbit out.

I lack both the means and motivation to do a thorough rundown test on the phone and phone+case, but my impression is that I can pull the phone from about 30% to 80% power with a small top-up reserve left over. That's lower than the specs suggest, which is typical, but it makes it easy to get through a day with moderately heavy use. If I'm conservative I can skip an overnight charge, but that's rarely my goal.

The real benefit of the battery case is that I don't need to cushion my power use. When I'm not using the Mophie case I always have an eye on the power level, and typically plug my phone in for an extra fifteen minutes before I leave for work and then top it up after I return home for the evening. That's less trouble than walking a dog, and I'm sure that I'm not the only one with a spare charger plugged in next to the couch, but there's a reason why lower-maintenance cats and fish are also popular pets.

I was hoping that the Mophie case would be ideal for travel, but it's not quite a straightforward choice. It does add to the phone's ability to be away from a power outlet, but it also adds to its size and weight. The case and the phone charge quickly when they're together, and the case can be recharged without the phone when it needs to be plugged in where there's the risk of theft. Airport lounges or shopping mall food courts come to mind. But travelling with other iThings means that the case needs its own cable, which adds complexity in an already too-complex world.

Aside from size, weight, cost, and somewhat modest capacity, there's one other limitation on Mophie's battery case: it can't charge anything else. Not that its little battery would take my tablet or camera very far, but if being able to top up anything else is a requirement, then any dedicated battery case won't help. For that we need a power cell with an assortment of cables, including one to charge the battery itself with, adding a lot more hassle to its benefit of flexibility. I have a couple of those external batteries, and do endorse them, but never carry them without some specific purpose. The Mophie case is easy and convenient by comparison, and something that I know I'll have unless I've specifically chosen to leave it at home.

But now I have to ask myself: 'Self, if the Mophie case were to go away for some reason that wasn't its fault, would I replace it?' Honestly, I probably would buy another. 'But what if it failed again, like the first one did?' In that case, no, not a chance – and I'm saving my receipt just in case.

last updated 23 apr 2014

Canon G1x Mark II Press Release

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: I don't even mention the Advanced Star Mode.

The Long Version: In the same way that movie trailers are an art all to themselves – and are often better than the movies that they foreshadow – I have a fondness for camera press releases. I wanted to share my thoughts on the newly-announced G1X Mark II announcement, but fair warning: this may turn into one of those "I read it so that you don't have to" series.

Being Canadian I'll be quoting the release as it appears on canon.ca; it's also published on the American site and on DPreview. All of the product images are from the Canon press kit as I haven't yet had a chance to photograph the camera myself, although I am genuinely looking forward to the opportunity.

We begin: Building upon the success of the PowerShot G1 X digital camera…

This press release comes out swinging right from the opening sentence. The original G1X was a dud, an uncommonly lousy camera, slow and with none of the G-series charm. It never lived up to its expectations, either photographically or in market appeal. I suppose it's possible to build on the success of a failure, but it's setting the bar fairly low. Still, full points to Canon for their shameless revisionist hype.

Boasting a sensor that is 4.5x larger than a 1/1.7” sensor found in professional level point-and-shoot cameras…

I'm not sure what's more alarming: that Canon still thinks that a 1/1.7” sensor is the benchmark for an advanced compact, which suggests that they've never heard of Sony or Fujifilm, or that they think that there's such a thing as a "professional level point-and-shoot camera". But now we know that the new G1X model is 4.5x better than a pro point-and-shoot, which simply boggles the imagination with all of the possibilities that must entail.

Incidentally, having a paid and accredited Canon Professional Services membership isn't grounds for getting a discount when buying the EOS 5D Mark III, so I can only conclude that Canon doesn't consider anything below the 1D-series to be a professional camera when it's their own money on the line.

This sensor, combined with the DIGIC 6 Image Processor, comprises the Canon HS SYSTEM resulting in faster autofocusing speeds over the PowerShot G1 X camera…

We're still in the second paragraph and we've already reached the inevitable "It doesn't suck as much as the _________" part of the press release; in this case the G1X2 is triumphing over the camera that was called a 'success' just one paragraph ago. For what it's worth, the HS SYSTEM that's presented as the saviour of the G1X2 is a Meaningless Marketing TERM™ that was also included with the now-admittedly-inferior original G1X.

Featuring a newly-developed f/2.0 – f/3.9, 5x optical zoom lens (equivalent 24-120mm zoom range)…

Typically for a compact camera announcement from Canon, at no point in the press release do they say what the actual focal length of the lens is. Thankfully it's printed right on the front of the camera: 12.5-62.5mm. Carefully parsing the numbers shows that the G1XII actually has a slightly smaller effective sensor area than the G1XI, although it turns out that there's a really good reason for this.

For those keeping score, 62.5/3.9 = 16.025 and 62.5/4 = 15.625. I applaud the tireless and diligent efforts of the engineers who fought to attain that extra 0.4mm difference between f/3.9 and f/4 at 62.5mm. Sure, the practical gain is probably less than the light that's lost to the extra glass needed for the in-lens IS system, but it keeps the G1XII from admitting to a sales-killing f/4.0 aperture at the long end.

… advanced wireless capabilities such as NFC and enhanced low-light shooting and autofocusing…

There's that autofocus improvement being touted again. On the other hand, better autofocus and low-light shooting are two of the many improvements that have been claimed for nearly every digital camera released in the past decade. Similarly, wifi is the new mandatory standard feature, so a passing reference here doesn't hurt.

I do have to admire the restraint that stopped the G1X2 press release from claiming that it has the World's Fastest Autofocus, a title that has recently been self-awarded to the Olympus E-M10, Sony A6000, and the Fujifilms XQ1, XE2, X100s, and F1000EXR. Sure, The World's Whateverest™ is a moving target with ample sub-categories, but come on now. Even the people at derpreview are starting to notice.

… the G1 X Mark II is a well-rounded professional-level camera that allows photographers to get creative.

This is my favourite part of every new camera press release: buy it because it contains creativity!

To be fair this press release is considerably more modest than the Built-In Art claims of many point-and-shoots, but remember that this is a professional camera – the press release says so six times – so it needs to have a certain gravitas.

… equipped with a new type of Canon-made, 1.5-inch CMOS sensor to help achieve optimal performance from low to high ISO speeds.

Canon mentions that they made the sensor in the G1XII in two different paragraphs, just in case someone reviewing the press release skips it the first time. A bespoke sensor shows off their impressive manufacturing prowess but says nothing about its quality. The good news is that this new sensor is optimized for the entire amplification range without any weakness anywhere.

It has a default aspect ratio of 3:2 which is the same ratio the advanced user has come to expect…

This would be a dig at Micro Four Thirds, which started the whole 'mirrorless' thing that the original G1X was begrudgingly and belatedly intended to compete against. Canon hates all mirrorless interchangeable-lens format cameras, and does everything it can to avoid making them. The original G1X, incidentally, has a 4:3 aspect ratio.

If the photographer wants to switch to a 4:3 ratio, it can be done without impacting the field of view.

And this is called "burying the lede". Having a multi-aspect sensor is a first for Canon, and might be the most remarkable thing about the camera, but it's hidden in the fifth paragraph in the press release. Nobody voluntarily reads that far in; it's the press kit equivalent of releasing a Parliamentary Committee report at 5:30 on a Friday afternoon. But this multi-aspect feature is the reason why the G1X2's effective sensor size is a bit smaller than the G1X1, and personally I approve. It's too bad that they didn't do the full Panasonic and include a native 16:9 ratio as well, but clearly we can't have everything.

The new PowerShot G1 X Mark II camera uses 31 Auto Focus (AF) points, compared to the PowerShot G1 X camera that uses nine AF points, resulting in improved autofocus capabilities…

Not to sound like a broken record on this one – funny how that expression outlasted skipping CDs – but is anyone getting the impression that autofocus wasn't a strength for the G1X?

It's worth noting that the G1X2's press release makes absolutely no mention of the new camera's close-focusing performance, which was another significant non-strength of the G1X1. The early word is that this has improved significantly, and while it could hardly get any worse than the original, if it really is as good as those reports say then it deserves to be mentioned. Perhaps the memory of the G1X "macro mode" is still too painful for Canon to bear?

Utilizing the bright, capacitive touch, three-inch tilt LCD on the PowerShot G1 X Mark II camera helps provide flexibility in shooting by tilting 180 degrees up and 45 degrees down.

A well-written release will only talk about what has been added, leaving us to decipher what was taken away. The tilting screen is a downgrade from the flip-out screen that the G1X and other G-series cameras have used in the past, although this new style matches the Sony RX100M2 and many others. Not that Canon considers them to be 'competition', of course, but it proves what the market is willing to accept.

The PowerShot G1 X Mark II camera is also compatible with Canon’s new optional electronic viewfinder that mounts to the hot shoe.

The optical viewfinder has always been a staple of the G-series, making the G1XII the first one in over a decade to omit it. That said their OVFs are pretty bad, and always have been – more of an aiming device than a compositional tool. Removing it lets the camera be smaller, and removing most of the top-deck dials and physical controls in favour of the Dual Control Rings pushes it even farther from the G-Family. I'm actually waiting for people to realize that the G1X2 is really a big-sensor S-series rather than a Super-G.

I do like the way the phrasing here makes it sound as if the EVF will work across multiple cameras, rather than being a $300 dedicated accessory; perhaps other cameras will use it in the future, but other brands have shown that these expensive devices can have remarkably short life cycles.

… the camera’s Background Defocus mode softens the background behind a subject to help users create professional-looking portraits.

Yet elsewhere the press release says "With this wide of an aperture, photographers have the ability to isolate their subjects by separating them from a background that is blurred.… The new lens also features a nine-blade aperture to provide beautiful, blurred backgrounds even at full-zoom range." Safety through redundancy, in the belt-and-suspenders style? Regardless, it's nice to know that there's a Professional-Looking Portraits mode built in, which is vitally important in a professional-level point-and-shoot.

And yes, the release mentions other whizbang modes and scene innovations, but even I eventually exceed my tolerance threshold and need to skip to the end.

The PowerShot G1 X Mark II digital camera will be available starting in April for a retail price of $849.99.

That $850 MSRP (dealers may sell for less) happens to be the street price of a Rebel T5i with an 18-135 STM lens. There's a massive premium for petite cameras these days – a 'petimium'? – and the market is far from proven. We're six weeks away from the G1X2's arrival, so there's still time for the camera market to completely change, but as it stands the X2 won't help Canon's reputation for pricing their cameras above their (frequently more capable) competition.

last updated 18 feb 2014

Twelve South SurfacePad for iPhone

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: Short-term testing only so far.

The Long Version: Despite sounding like some horror-movie hybrid of Apple and Microsoft tablets, 'SurfacePad' is actually Twelve South's name for a family of thin leather covers. The iPhone variant wraps around the phone folio-style, using an adhesive to attach to the back of the phone to keep its bulk to an absolute minimum.

Twelve South emphasizes that the SurfacePad isn't an iPhone case, and it's really not: only those looking for sleekness should consider it. The folio cover protects the screen and provides better grip on the phone, while its minimal bulk keeps it very pocketable. This is unquestionably the case that I'd want to have for a first date or while wearing a suit, but it won't compete with an Otterbox in a drop test.

The combination of leather folio and the iPhone's metal edges looks and feels fantastic. The fit of the non-case, when positioned correctly, is perfect. The front is stiff to protect the screen and the side supple enough that the volume buttons can be felt and pressed with the cover closed. Its thinness also means that there's minimal bulk when the folio is doubled back on itself, so it can actually be used when talking on the phone, which is a weakness for their BookBook. And of course its design makes it easy to quickly check the phone and put it away again, which its aesthetic and spiritual competitor, the Sena Ultraslim, isn't particularly good for.

The double-row of stitching on the back adds a tactile cue for orienting the phone, and marks where the back cover hinges outward to let the folio be used as a landscape stand. I do find that its angle of repose is a little too steep, but with more use it may become less severe. It certainly has a more relaxed angle in Twelve South's product photos, which gives me a certain faith. This stand has come in handy for me a couple of times, but I wouldn't really miss this feature if it went away.

The problem is that I prefer to save monogamy for the more important things in life: phone cases don't merit long-term commitments. While I enjoy having the SurfacePad for a night out or a weekend, I have two other cases that I also like to use. While the adhesive on the SurfacePad leaves no residue and has withstood multiple detachments so far, it's still something of a commitment and I have concerns about its long-term viability. A month isn't nearly long enough to actually know anything about this, but the idea of it is enough to inhibit me from switching cases as often as I like.

Twelve South makes interesting products that are well thought through and cleverly designed, and the SurfacePad is no exception. I can recommend it to anyone who wants a slim cover that's easy to carry and pleasant to use, especially if it's going to be a long-term commitment.

last updated 24 jan 2014

First Impressions: Nikon Df

Concept: 4 out of 5
Execution: 1 out of 5
Yeah, but: A v1.0 product with 50 years of history.

Counter Opinion: I hated the Nikon Df from the moment I picked it up. The handgrip is awkward, the front dial is impossible to turn, and the camera feels far less valuable than its price tag should require. I wasn't one of those who was stoked with pre-launch enthusiasm, so the strength of my adverse reaction caught me by surprise.

My reaction would have been much milder if I hadn't spent the weekend with my D800, which is the current pinnacle of design engineering that the Df superficially rejects. And there are some distinct disadvantages that the size and shape of the Df (pronounced "df") has when compared to the FX D-hundreds series. The battery is the smaller EN-EL14, inherited from the entry-level SLRs, and its single lonely SD card also lives inside the battery compartment. The round eyepiece says "pro", but the details disagree.

But as I handled the Df more, my objections diminished. The handgrip can't be held with a fist, the way the D-number series is, but instead is held between thumb and middle finger, like a flat-fronted camera. Or, to cite a more tragic digital precedent, like the Sony A330/380. I do still wish that the fake-leather-texture plastic was a grippy material, like on the D800, instead of hard, like on the Canon Rebel T3. No, not T3i. T3.

The front dial of the Df is something I really had a hard time with. It's incredibly difficult to turn and hard to reach. But a few seconds in the menu is really all that's needed to switch the aperture control from the front to the back dial, which makes the problem go away. Except for changing certain setup parameters, such as from single-point to all-area AF, there's not all that much that needs both dials. Exposure compensation has its own dial, as does shutter speed. What else is there?

Thankfully the Df does retain the extremely useful auto-iso ability despite having a dedicated iso dial. It works exactly the same as on the button-and-dial Nikons, with the auto-iso menu setting defining the upper limit, and a user-selectable minimum iso that can be set through the dial. So in auto-iso mode the fancy physical control only sets the iso floor, which rarely needs to be changed, but it is nice to have it right there on top of the camera where we can keep an eye on it. And I suppose auto-iso could be turned off, should it be necessary.

I'm not buying a Df: it doesn't suit my needs, it doesn't play well with my Nikons F5, D800, or V1, and if I want a pure photography experience I'll run a roll of film through my m-mount Zeiss Ikon. My uniformed opinion is that it's over-priced; some retailers are already quietly discounting it despite it being less than a week old. But after spending more time with it I have no doubt that the Df is going to turn out to be a really great camera that completely suits some people. It's just too bad that Nikon has trained people to wait for the Christmas price-drop, or the inevitable iteration, before committing to it. Nikon simply hasn't sparked the passion that the Fuji X-series inspires.

Counter Opinions are quick "sales counter" product reviews.
As always, viewer discretion is advised.
Last updated 30 nov 2013

Victorinox Trekker

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: The One-Handed models are better.

The Long Version: It's always nice when I read one of those "what knife should I carry" forum threads only to discover that I already own the tool that keeps being recommended over and over again. It's unlikely to happen, but there's no question that the Victorinox Trekker is what I would want to carry if I ever find myself in nature for any length of time. That's enough to make it September's SAK of the Month.

The Victorinox Trekker – aka Trailmaster in places where Cold Steel doesn't have that name locked down – is a very serious SAK. Notable for having a locking blade and nylon handles, there's also a one-handed opening version that's the basis for the contemporary knives for both the German and Swiss armies, and that model is worth a serious investigation for anyone who wants to never lose their tweezers or toothpick.

As a 111mm knife, the Trekker is substantially larger and heavier than the 93mm Alox knives; to be completely honest, I find it far too large to carry for casual or occasional use. But that's not a problem for people who want a medium-to-hard-use tool, which the Trekker undoubtedly is. Both the blade and the cap lifter have liner-locking mechanisms to keep them in place, and both are considerably larger and heavier-duty than their smaller-SAK counterparts. Even the attachment point for the split ring is stronger than the usual, and could probably be a powerful striking tool in its own right.

The Trekker also includes the extremely useful wood saw, which is my weapon of choice whenever I need to deal with wood or plastic, as well as the standard can opener, backside philips and awl, and it has the standard tweezers and toothpick in the handle. I'd combine it with a small pouch for belt carry, and just add a hatchet, tent, camp stove, food, water purifier, sleeping bag, cot, and a personal locator beacon for an excellent outdoors kit.

My Trekker pre-dates the one-handed models, which is what I would buy now if I had to do it all over again. But this is one of those times when there's no bad choice, and these biggest Swiss Army Knives deserve a considerable amount of respect.

last updated 13 sept 2013

Canon Rebel SL1 / EOS 100D

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: 18Mpx, 9-point AF, etc.

Counter Opinion: Someone recently requested that I say something nice about Canon. The diminutive Rebel SL1 / EOS 100D might not seem like a natural choice for that brief, but the fact is that I've had a certain affection for the smallest SLR on the market ever since it came out. No, there's no chance that I'd actually buy one, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate it.

I've never owned a Canon SLR, or any camera with a touch screen, but I had no trouble disabling the SL1's autofocus beep. And despite its diminutive size, the somewhat unconventional grip is surprisingly comfortable and natural for my average-sized hands. This remains an enduring fascination of mine: Canon just knows how to make camera grips, especially recognizing the importance of thumb rests, in a way that Nikon, Fujifilm, Panasonic, and others just don't seem to understand. While I wouldn't endorse the SL1 for everyone, it's certainly not only for the petite among us.

While the Parisian sun certainly hasn't been shining on Canon's sensor scores lately, their lens team have been making up for it. I'd feel compelled to match the SL1 with the new 24/2.8IS and 40/2.8, which mimics my D800 with Sigma 35/1.4A and Nikon 60/2.8G.

Now, the head-to-head DxO perceptual resolution scores for the Nikon-Sigma combination are about double what the Canon kit can manage, but I score that as a win for the smaller camera. Doubling the resolution actually doesn't make as much of a difference as the numbers suggest; it doesn't make a photo twice as compelling, for example, or an artist twice as accomplished. And quite frankly, if camera-geeks are the intended audience for your photos, then you're doing something wrong.

Some might point out the size disparity between my different two-prime camera kits, but here I don't think there's actually much of a difference. Given the massive price difference between the two setups, the extra bulk and weight of carrying around $2800 in small bills should be factored in to keep the comparison fair. By my math that would make for a stack of American dollar bills more than a foot high weighing six pounds, which pales in comparison to the 17 kilograms of dollar coins that I'd have to carry around in Canada. Advantage: Nikon.

Canon is trying to shrink the kind of camera that they want to sell – EF-mount SLRs – until is appeals to people who want a different kind of camera altogether. However, the SL1 is still much bigger than the EOS-M, not to mention other mirrorless cameras, so the size distinction remains a significant differentiator between the styles. Given how much Canon clearly resents mirrorless cameras, I'd say that they haven't achieved their mirrorless-killer goal.

There are absolutely times when I would carry a camera the size of an EOS-M but leave a camera with a prism hump at home. What I can't decide is when in my life I'd be willing to carry a camera the size of an SL1 but not be willing to carry a camera the size of a T5i. The difference between the two tiers of Rebel just doesn't seem to be decisive, but others may disagree.

Moving to the SL1 from the bigger T5i means giving up the flip-out LCD screen and accepting a smaller, and less common, battery. But if those two limitations don't matter, or if its smaller size and different grip style does, then it's worth serious consideration. The SL1 is a decent little machine that deserves to be respected for its own merits, rather than being viewed as a compromised second choice between a 'full sized' Rebel or a smaller mirrorless camera.

Counter Opinions are quick "sales counter" product reviews.
As always, viewer discretion is advised.
Last updated 9 aug 2012

Caran d'Ache 849 Office Pen

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: It's an acquired taste.

The Long Version: It's been four years since I reviewed my Caran d'Ache 849 in its snazzy "Metal X" slick finish. I've rarely carried anything else in the intervening years, and it shows in the finish – but those scrapes and marks are well-earned. I carry my pen clipped in my back pocket, alongside whichever pocket knife I'm carrying that day, so it's constantly up against very hard and typically square-edged tool steel. I actually like the pen more now that it shows some wear and personality – so much so that I've bought another one.

This new 849 in "oh-my-effing-god Orange" called to me from its shelf at Swipe. The colour amuses me. This pen has proven almost impossible to lose, either when it's next to me on my black desk or when I've left it on the far side of a large room. Orange is a tough colour – it's too easy to get it wrong and come away with something unappealing, and even when it works there's a lot of variation. The orange in my large Timbuk2 bag is more of a copper-yellow, my Blaze Orange toque has a lot more red in it. Even my mug in Pantone's 2012 Colour of the Year, 'Tangerine Tango', doesn't manage to out-orange this Caran d'Ache. Awesome.

Hopefully I'll be back in another four years with another update.

last updated 9 feb 2013

Ultra-Pod II Table-Top Tripod

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: I still want a new Gorillapod.

The Long Version: It's easy to take things for granted when they're inexpensive, lightweight, and plastic, and that's what I've done with my 'Ultrapod'. Officially the named the Ultra-Pod II – it's moulded into the product – the name of the actual manufacturer seems to change depending on who you ask.

The Ultrapod is ideally suited to small SLRs or the typical mirrorless camera, which it holds quite well. The rather large footprint does a good job of compensating for its light weight. It's not suitable for larger cameras or longer lenses, though, since there's a bit of spring in it when it's feeling stressed.

I've owned this little tripod for over a decade, and have carried it often enough that the silver paint has worn off. I've also lost the rubber anti-slip foot from the main leg, which has been effectively replaced with hockey tape. But like all of my tripods, I've never really intensively used it – they're for special occasions – but the ultrapod has always been what I've reached for when I want something small and lighter, if weaker, than my Manfrotto tabletop tripod.

The Ultrapod uses a double-jointed attachement for the camera. The top is something of a ball joint, letting the camera pivot and rotate, although it has limited side to side movement, while the lower joint is only a single-axis pivot point. This double joint means that the camera, or whatever, can lie flat on its back along the body of the folded tripod. That's a rare thing to need, but it solves an uncommon problem for me.

I use a shock mount and grip bar to hold my audio recorder, and the Ultrapod screws onto the end of it. It adds almost no weight, holds securely as long as the recorder stays centered, and folds over on itself to fit in the bag. So after all these years of owning it the Ultrapod is finally in regular service, doing a job that no other tripod design could. What can I say? I execute excellent planning, even when it's matched with lousy timing.

last updated 19 jan 2013